Loading...
PC 2014 04 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 15, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, Lisa Hokkanen, and Steve Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Dave Schulman 8011 Dakota Circle Ben Merriman Center Companies Lois Fiskness 8033 Cheyenne Avenue Lynne & Ron Pilgrim 8026 Dakota Avenue Kathy Dorfner 8026 Cheyenne Avenue Pat Jensen 8009 Dakota Circle Mike Quist 7331 Dogwood Kay Knight 8007 Dakota Circle Denise & Joe McAlpin 8001 Hidden Court Carol & Bud Walker 8018 Dakota Avenue Joyce White 8028 Dakota Avenue Mike Kovic 8024 Dakota Avenue Todd M. Simning 2145 Wynsong Lane Sharon McKinney 8046 Cheyenne Avenue Michelle Laurent 8115 Erie Circle Tania Teng Dakota ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if we could do the new business first. We left this off in your absence at the last meeting. The election of Chair. This is part of our annual meeting. We usually do this at our first one in April but in your absence so if someone wanted to make a recommendation and a motion for Chair and Vice Chair, that would be great. Undestad: I’ll make a recommendation and a motion that Andrew for Chair. Tennyson: I’ll second it. Aller: Any other nominations or motions? Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded to nominate Andrew Aller as Chair of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: And then we’ll ask for a motion for Vice Chair. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Undestad: I’ll make a motion for the Vice Chair too. Kim. Weick: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, do we have any other nominations? Undestad moved, Weick seconded to nominate Kim Tennyson as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: DAKOTA RETAIL: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO COMBINE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE LOT AND ONE OUTLOT ON APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT (BH) LOCATED AT 7910 DAKOTA AVENUE AND THE ADJACENT PARCEL TO THE WEST; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING. APPLICANT: MOHAGEN HANSEN ARCHITECTURAL GROUP. OWNER: CENTER COMPANIES, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2014-11. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The site is located at 7910 Dakota Avenue, as well as the adjacent parcel to the west and southwest. It is located south of Highway 5, west of Dakota Avenue and north and south of Lake Drive East. The site contains a 1,460 square foot retail store with 8 gas pumps. There is no existing access onto Highway 5. There are two access points off of Dakota Avenue and one off of Lake Drive East. The land use for the site is designated as commercial and the zoning of the site is Highway Business District. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing structures and replace them with a retail office building which is a permitted use in this district. The site plan request is for the construction of an 8,000 square foot multi-tenant single level building. There is, this is a permitted use as mentioned earlier in the Highway Business District. The maximum permitted coverage in this district is 65 percent. The proposed development has a total hard coverage of 63.92. There are sidewalks that are being extended along the southerly portion of the site, as well as the area surrounding the building. This will separate pedestrian movement from vehicular movement. The building is proposed to be constructed of high quality materials which include stone, stucco and metal panels. These are samples of the materials that are being proposed to be used on the building. All elevations viewed by the public have received equal attention. The building has pronounced entrances. Utilizes durable exterior materials and exhibits articulation. The trash enclosure is proposed to be located west of the building. In the parking lot and is proposed to be constructed of materials similar to those used on the building. Although it is screened it will be the first thing that will be seen as you enter the site. The applicant was also proposing to add a patio immediately to the north of the trash enclosure. We are working with the applicant right now and they do intend to move the trash enclosure further into the site and away from the building. Parking is proposed throughout the site. One of the issues that staff discussed with the applicant at length was the location of the proposed building and the drive thru. The drive thru is located along the east portion of the building and we were trying to encourage the applicant to move the building closer to Highway 5. It is our opinion that the building should be closer because it will allow the proposed building to be aligned with other buildings along Highway 5 such as McDonald’s immediately to the east, and basically a number of other buildings. It will better screen the parking lot but we also need to point out that as proposed this layout meets ordinance requirements. It’s just that we do believe that there is a better layout for this. One of the other things that we need to point out regarding the parking. Under City Code and in this district you need to maintain a 25 foot setback for the parking. This layout provides anywhere between 15 and 19 1/2 feet of setbacks. The City Code also allows a reduction in that setback if you can provide adequate screening and we believe that the proposed screening combination of berms and landscaping will meet the intent of the ordinance. At this point I will turn it over to Alyson to address a few engineering issues. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. This slide shows the proposed access for the redevelopment of this site. If you recall on the earlier slide there are two existing access points on Dakota Avenue and one existing access on Lake Drive East which is a little bit further east of the proposed access that they’re showing. When the applicant came forward to staff during early discussions on the redevelopment of this site, the access points on Dakota Avenue, staff indicated that those do not meet our access spacing guidelines due to their proximity to Highway 5 and Lake Drive East. As such, what you see before you is the proposed one access point onto Lake Drive East which is about 220 feet to the west of Dakota Avenue which is in compliance with the access spacing guidelines that the City has set out. The reason we have the spacing guidelines is to allow, is when you consider the estimated volumes of traffic on this type of road. To allow drivers enough decision time to make the decision to make a turn after going through an intersection so that’s how those guidelines are set up. The proposal that’s here tonight does meet that spacing guideline and as I mentioned Dakota Avenue access is not included in this plan. Nor is access to Highway 5. Being a state highway and having access from another local street, MnDOT would not support an access to Highway 5. One of the other items that staff wanted to take a look at is based on the existing use of the site. The 8 fueling stations with a convenience store as well as the proposed use of the site. We wanted to take a look at what the trip generation, the estimates are for the existing and the proposed use. We looked at the total weekday trips as well as the morning and evening peak, just to provide a comparison of what exists today and what is proposed. The existing condition again is an estimate. It’s not an actual count that was taken on the site so there may be some variation in those numbers but the proposed total is within a range that we would expect to see in this sort of district with these roads and one of the things that we wanted to take a look at with this, with this redevelopment of this site aside is to take a look at the intersection of Dakota and Lake Drive East just within the system of the city of Chanhassen. The reason being the current condition is a stop condition for eastbound and westbound traffic on Lake Drive East and we wanted to take a look and see if the traffic counts in that area would warrant a different condition so today the traffic count equipment should have been in place to get that information and then we will have a traffic engineer provide us with a recommendation on that intersection. Again that’s something that the City has generated. This is, this isn’t something that’s due directly to the development. It’s just now is the time to take a look at it so we are getting an evaluation done on that intersection to see what the best traffic, if the stop conditions as they are set right now are warranted and if there’s any changes that the traffic engineer would recommend at that intersection. We currently do not have any trip generation, the estimated daily trips on Dakota Avenue because it currently is not officially on our state aid system route. As we discussed at our previous Planning Commission meeting only state aid routes have traffic counts done on them so we will be starting to get that information available and certainly we’ll have some information available from this traffic analysis that’s being done at this time. Al-Jaff: The site consists of 3 parcels. The parcel that is currently occupied by the Sinclair gas station and then there is a vacant parcel along the westerly portion of it. The proposal calls for combining the portions along the north side of Lake Drive East into one parcel. That will be Lot 1, Block 1 and then the portion that lies south of Lake Drive and adjacent to the residential area will be replatted into an outlot and there is no development proposed on the outlot. Minimum lot area in the Highway Business District is 20,000 square feet. This parcel has an area that exceeds 65,000 square feet. It has frontage. Meets all ordinance requirements. It’s a straight forward action and staff is recommending approval of the subdivision as well as the site plan. Would be happy to answer any questions. Aller: I guess I have a quick question for Alyson. When is the study anticipated to be completed? Will it be done before this goes to council? Fauske: The data collection will be done this week and we would expect a report back within a week and th a half or so and I believe the, with this being an April 28 we might not have it for the City Council. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Aller: And without tying people to recommendations it seems like if it comes out like the study shows that there would be adverse traffic consequences, the recommendation then would be stop signs as far as controlling the intersections? Fauske: The analysis of the intersection is independent of this proposal here this evening. It’s, the intent is to take a look at what the traffic volumes are currently on the road. I did provide the estimated trip generation to the traffic engineer to use in his analysis but he’s currently analyzing the intersection as it exists today. Aller: And the trip generation that we’ve got in our report that’s based on a restaurant, dental office and coffee shop. Do we know whether or not, are those leases in stone yet or do we know who the tenants will be? Major tenants. Ground tenants. Al-Jaff: I recommend you ask the developer please. Aanenson: I would just add one comment on that. Based on the parking, that’s kind of the mix that can go in there. You couldn’t have all restaurants because there’s not enough parking so that’s going to determine some of it. Could there be a change in some of those? Yes but there’s a cap. Aller: So it’d be unlikely that we’d have a greater trip generation based on what could go in there? Audience: Can you speak up? We can barely hear you. It sounds like you’re mumbling out here. Aller: Sure. I’m sorry. Audience: So did that one lady that was…I’m just saying please. Aller: No, and thank you. Is that better? Audience: Much better. Audience: Thank you. Aller: And thank you for coming and participating so I do want to make sure that everyone hears. Audience: Thank you for speaking up. Aller: So my question is, with what can be put in there we would not expect the trip generation to be much higher than what is in the report? Aanenson: Well yeah. I mean the parking is 1 per 200 for a restaurant but I mean again you have to look at that mix and how that would all work. How it would function. What would the other tenants expect for that… Audience: I have a question. Aller: Ma’am, we’re going to have a public hearing portion and then we’ll have everybody have an opportunity to ask questions at that time. Thank you. Any other questions from the commissioners to staff? 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Weick: I do. Yes I have a couple questions and I think they’re appropriate for staff but if not let me know and I’ll ask the applicant. One is, I’m looking for a little clarification on the parking spacing. It sort of went by a little bit fast for me but there’s a 25 foot setback and are we saying that there’s a, we’re going to vary that to allow for 19 to 21 feet or something like that? Al-Jaff: The City Code allows that variation. Weick: It does? Al-Jaff: If you can screen the parking. Weick: Okay. Al-Jaff: And when we looked at what the applicant is proposing we believe that they do meet the intent of the ordinance. Weick: Okay. That’s my first question. Aller: So this is the screening. Weick: Right. Last, could you go to the slide that said existing condition? It’s towards the end. This one’s good too. Yeah. There’s a parking behind Outlot 1 and what, I’m just not familiar with the area. What is that? Aanenson: It’s a church. Al-Jaff: Church. Weick: Okay. Okay. And then the existing structure that’s there is a fuel station. There’s no issues that the City sees in clean up or cleanliness of that to put in a retail? Aanenson: Yes, there may be but that would be something they’d have to do with their soil investigation and in order to get a building permit they’ll have to make sure that it’s acceptable if there’s any clean up that has to be done. Weick: Perfect. I just wanted clarification on those. Thank you. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Okay, if the applicant would like to come forward and make a presentation, this is an opportunity to do so at this time. If you could please state your name for the record that’d be great. Ben Merriman: Good evening. My name is Ben Merriman. I’m the owner of Center Companies. The applicant of the project. Aller: Welcome. Ben Merriman: I guess I’ll take you through a couple things in the project. This is an extremely challenging site. The layout is somewhat dictated because there are high power lines that are paralleling Highway 5 and there’s an easement for those power lines and that easement dictates that you are not allowed to put any type of a structure underneath them. You are allowed to change the topography to some degree. You’re allowed to plant shrubs. You can put parking. You can put curb but you cannot put 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 a structure so if you draw a line of where that easement starts it’s about on the edge or slightly south of the parking stalls that are along Highway 5 so that was our first challenge was trying to dictate how we can lay out the property and still make things flow with these power lines. There is clean up on the site. There is pollution. We have Braun Intertec, which is a company here that’s well noted and they’re going to perform, they have performed all the analysis and they will be on site and working with all the clean up so we’ll clean up all the petrol on there. There’s a holding pond in the southeast corner and that holds the entire rain water that comes off of the building and the parking lot. Currently there isn’t any so it just washes out. That will be a lined pond. The tenants that are in the property right now, we are finalizing the leases with them. It is a coffee shop. It is a dental and then the third is either a restaurant or a combination of restaurant yogurts, those type of things. Sandwich shop, that type of thing and so we’re finalizing that but the dental office works extremely well in this project simply because it’s a low employee and visitor count as compared to a coffee shop or a restaurant and so when staff alluded to we’re trying to balance the site for the parking, that’s what we’ve done. I’d be happy to answer any other questions. Aller: On the trash receptacle with the conversation, is there an idea where you might move that to or place it? Ben Merriman: Yes. What we’re contemplating is to move it directly west into the parking stalls. A little bit to the right. To the right. Oh you got it. Right there. We’re going to exchange some parking stalls so there’s 3 stalls that will be taken out right there and replaced where the trash enclosure is currently and we can, the topography of that whole area goes up so we can create berms around the trash enclosure and plant trees so I think we can screen it better in that location as opposed to against the building. As staff pointed out, it is kind of the first thing you see as you drive in so we think moving it made sense. Aller: Sounds like it will look a little bit more inviting and probably make the patio a little more enjoyable. Ben Merriman: That would be the other thing, yes. In the summertime that might not go over real well so we made that adjustment. The traffic flow in the property works pretty well. I think it keeps the lights, the headlights if they were in the morning and late evenings in the winter, away from the residential and into highways and roads. Aller: Questions? Questions of the applicant? Okay, we have no further questions. Weick: I do. I do. I’m sorry, I do have one. Aller: Mr. Weick. Weick: The staff mentioned a desire to move the building closer to Highway 5. Is the power line easement with the stalls what keeps you from moving that building or? Can you just elaborate on that a little bit? Ben Merriman: Well we tried. I don’t even know how many configurations of trying to get this thing to work. Smaller buildings. Skinnier buildings. Push it all to one side and we’ve tried so many different variance and one of the ones was if you pushed the building all the way to Highway 5 and then put the drive thru kind of on the Highway 5 side. Well that made some sense but then the parking all goes on the south side and whether that makes sense or not I guess is varying opinions but if we do that now we’re, we can’t get the building too close because with that power line easement so we struggled with that and kind of lost some area. Some ground by doing that. There wasn’t, we didn’t feel that there was quite 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 enough to make it work and we felt that this gives the exposure for the tenants that they really want to Highway 5 and to the traffic. Weick: Thank you. Ben Merriman: So this is what we ended up with. Aller: Anything else at this point? Okay, thank you sir. I’m going to open the public hearing and now’s the time for anyone that wishes to to come forward. State your name and address for the record and you can speak either for or against an item. Lynne Pilgrim: Hi, I’m Lynne Pilgrim. 8026 Dakota Avenue. Aller: Welcome. Lynne Pilgrim: I have lived in Chanhassen since 1977 and I’ve watched this intersection go from a very peaceful little intersection to one that is suicide junction. I’ve had an accident there. Many of my neighbors have had accidents there and they haven’t been our fault. I truthfully believe that the big problem is not the development. I don’t have a problem with the development. I have a problem with the intersection and I think this is a right time for us to look at the intersection of Dakota and Lake Drive. We’re going to have more people turning and going on Lake Drive. They’re going to be coming down a curve and getting into that entrance into this development. They’re not going to slow down. They don’t slow down now. They’re going to get their morning coffee and they’re going to zip through. We’re watching them do it out of McDonald’s. One hand has the cup of coffee. The other hand’s got the cell phone and we’re steering the car with our elbows. The child’s in the back seat yelling so we leave Chan Estates with one foot on the brake and one hand on the horn because our lives are in danger. When we have visitors that come, my husband pointed this out, we’re used to it so we kind of know what to do but when we have visitors come they don’t know and they say things to us like, do you know I almost got hit and we’ll go yeah. That happens so I’m very, very worried about that. I walk to town a lot and if we call, those of us who are on the south side of the highway grew up thinking we were the first development on the south side so that was out of town and this was town so we walked across the highway and we walked to town. I walk to town. It’s not a pleasant walk down there. We don’t have crosswalks. People don’t look at the stop signs so it’s dangerous and I don’t know what more we can say but as the developer looks at this situation I wish that he’d also think about a blinking octagon stop sign. Maybe a 3 way stop. Maybe something that would be more arresting to people that their eyes would say oh. Right now we get a little sign that says, you know that it’s only a two way stop and that’s it. Yeah, traffic does not stop. Thank you. But nobody pays attention to it so I don’t know what else we can do. My other concern is currently McDonalds has a drive thru and their lights come straight into one of our neighbor’s bedroom windows. Okay? That was addressed by putting, the neighbor himself put in very high trees to block it so it doesn’t come in his bedroom windows anymore. However they also reduced the time that that establishment was open. We don’t have a patio on McDonalds. We don’t have outside seating. We don’t have people that are making noises. My concern then becomes for Brookhill, what happens to them? If you’ve got a patio over there is, when, what are the hours going to be? What kind of lighting are you going to have on these buildings? We can currently see the American Inn sign that’s bright red up there at night but we don’t need much more. Can we have some sort of timeframe that hours that this would be open? Time, what kind of hours are you talking about? Are we going to have the patio open at 6:00 in the morning until midnight or is this patio you’re talking about going to be open from you know 10:00 in the morning til 4:00? Things like that so if you could think about that a little bit we’d appreciate it. I don’t know, somebody else may have some other input. Aller: Thank you Ms. Pilgrim. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Lynne Pilgrim: Mr. Schulman: Dave Schulman: I’m Dave Schulman, 8011 Dakota Circle. Can everybody here that’s from Chan Estates that’s concerned about safety stand up? Lynne Pilgrim: And I think you’ve got some Brookhill people here too. Dave Schulman: Yep, okay. So that’s some votes. Thank you. Aller: Is it fair to say approximately 25 people? Dave Schulman: Yeah. And if you would come to the National Night Out you’d probably have 90 people doing the same thing. Sharon McKinney: And I don’t think you know we’re represented… Aller: Ma’am, if you’re going to speak for the clarity of the record, come up and state your name. Dave Schulman: She’s the co-chair of the National Night Out. Sharon McKinney: There may only be 25 of us here but we’re probably each representing. Aller: Ma’am, just for the record could you state your name? Sharon McKinney: Sharon McKinney, 8046 Cheyenne Avenue. Aller: Welcome, go ahead. Sharon McKinney: Thank you. I think even if you’re saying you know 25 people, we are representing probably 20 to 25 households here tonight so, and a lot of us have children in the neighborhood that bike. You know one of the reasons we live in Chanhassen is because it’s a, it’s a pedestrian/bike friendly community and so we do really have some concerns with our particular intersection. Even you know we’re not on the highway yet so we’re just trying to insure that some of the safety is acknowledged in our community because a lot of, we like to bike. We like to come downtown on the walking bridge and so we have to bypass this intersection every time we try to do that. Aller: Great. Sharon McKinney: Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Jay Poucher: Hello, my name is Jay Poucher, 8039 Cheyenne. I’m the exact opposite of Ms. Pilgrim. I’ve only been in this house for about a year and a half but I’ve almost gotten smashed about 3 or 4 or 5 good times in this same intersection and I worry about that and I think that’s probably one of the biggest concerns here and I’m new. I mean people just pop out right in front of you and you’re like, the problem for me is access out of McDonalds, it’s going to now double because we’re going to access out of this other side too and there’s just, it’s like no man’s land right there. And then we’re so close to Highway 5 traffic light that there either may be some sort of time sequence light that we could install in this corner or, think about the configuration of this intersection in some other form. I have two questions that you 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 might be able to answer. First, is this drawing represent where this power pole is? There’s a giant power pole on the lot. But does that translate onto this other diagram? Is that the parking spot that’s not, that’s X’d out? Ben Merriman: Yes. Go to the site plan. Jay Poucher: Yeah, could we go to the site plan? Right there. Ben Merriman: See where the two large trees are that are out in the parking lot? Jay Poucher: Yes sir. Ben Merriman: Directly up from the dumpster? Jay Poucher: Okay, good. Ben Merriman: There you go. Jay Poucher: Now second question, is the drainage of this holding pond, where’s that going? Do we know? Aller: Ms. Fauske if you could. Fauske: I believe that drains, that connects to the storm sewer in Dakota and goes to the existing system. Jay Poucher: That ties it back out to the? Fauske: Correct. And through their development proposal they are required to rate reductions. Jay Poucher: Okay. And does it, their proposal is there something that says we have enough existing pipe to move water through? Fauske: Yes. Jay Poucher: To Hennepin County side. Fauske: Yes. Jay Poucher: Okay. That intersection is interesting. That little holding pond is interesting for me because that might be a solution as a roundabout right there and I don’t know if we’ve thought about that or not but a roundabout might be able to solve some of our problems here in that we are now routing people from one place to the other but we’re not allowing them to just drive into an intersection. And I would like to at least, the last point I’d like to make, there was only about a week of time in which we’re studying traffic? Fauske: The analysis is for a 72 hour count during the middle of the week to eliminate any anomalies, if I may address that. Aller: Sure. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Fauske: To eliminate any anomalies associated with weekend traffic that would carry over to a Monday or Friday. Jay Poucher: So it’s through a weekend like from a Thursday to a Monday? Fauske: No, it’s Tuesday through Thursday. For traffic analysis that’s the standard practice. That’s the time to take a look at peak. Jay Poucher: For me that’s another place I have issues. I don’t think we really see the residential traffic that’s in and out of Dakota during the week like we would during the weekend because I’m in and out of that place on the weekend. I would like to see a 10 day window in which we look at traffic flow down Dakota in particular because I think that traffic flow in Dakota is the key to our safety and our property values in that area. Aller: And just to be clear so that I understand, it sounds like the residents are upset with the present situation. Jay Poucher: Yes. Aller: So on a weekend now based on the church overflow and the traffic flow and the trip generation from just the residents that it’s a fairly hazardous situation. Jay Poucher: I think the traffic numbers look a little off to me but we would like to see that on a longer window so I could feel a little more confident about what is there now and what is there now, and I’ve only been there 18 months-24 months. That’s a scary little intersection and that’s why I think we’re all addressing it this moment. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Alyson, who has control of that? For purposes intersection, would that be State coming in to do a? Fauske: As far as doing the analysis at Lake Drive and Dakota, that would be the City. So that’s, we’re taking the steps with the traffic engineer to get him to take an analysis of the intersection and provide us with some guidance on what would be the best options to explore. Aller: Thank you. Suzanne Shepherd: I’m Suzanne Shepherd and 8010 Dakota Avenue. I have 4 kids that are ages 9 through 16 and I’ve been living in, on Dakota Avenue about 5 or 6 houses up from where Ivan’s is right now. I’ve been living there since 1999. What has been said about the traffic issue is a real concern. My biggest concern is obviously I’m the mom taxi and there’s a lot of kids in the neighborhoods. Since I moved in there in 1999 there’s a lot more. I was trying to count just on my block up to where it intersects with Cheyenne and on my side of the street there might be 15 or 20. My kids go to McDonalds too. We use the Redbox all the time so we’ve got the walking issue. There’s no safe place to walk. Also there are trees that are on the residential side where there’s rental properties, which I think would be on the south side of Lake Drive. There’s trees in that ghost empty building that has been sitting there forever. I am concerned with the new development. We’re talking about trees and berms and hiding things and if the traffic that’s coming in and out cannot see the bikes and the children and the strollers, that’s a huge problem so I’m talking about walking traffic. Biking traffic and then also as a driver coming through that intersection, like Lynne was saying, the amount of people that are coming through. They want their coffee. They want their this. They want their that. When we’re looking at the trip, I was not familiar with that as a measurement of traffic but when we’re looking at the trip issues, counts we, I believe we 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 also need to look at what is coming from the McDonalds side. You guys had mentioned that you don’t count what comes from our neighborhood, from Dakota out. You don’t count that but what comes from the McDonalds side is just as important as what is coming from the other side and I agree also with Jay about you’ve got to look at what’s going on on the weekends. With American Legion. With the Methodist Church there. And my final issue is trash. That between the McDonalds trash, the American Legion trash, the glass bottles. I’ve called the City about this before. That we don’t have a safe, we don’t have a safe area on the north side of Lake Drive for our kids to get up to the bridge to cross over so I, you know all power to the new coffee place because I hate McDonalds coffee but let’s make sure Mr. Developer Dude, I guess he’s not here anywhere. Audience: He’s here. Suzanne Shepherd: Where’d you go? Oh there you are. Don’t build tall trees that are going to block this, our ability to see. Don’t build tall trees. Don’t build anything that’s going to block our cars. I drive a minivan. I can see better but if you drive a car that’s lower than that then you’re screwed. You’re screwed anyways no matter when you go through the intersection. My kids are learning new words every time I’m honking my horn and saying, so that’s all I got. Thank you. Dave Schulman: Dave Schulman again. If you look at a map of Chan Estates this is virtually the only way to get in there. And if you look at the map over there, the only other way is to go up by the Total Mart, whatever it is and then down way back about 2 miles out of our way so please consider that also because if there’s an incident at that intersection, we can’t get home. Audience: Fire engines can’t get in. Dave Schulman: Fire engine can’t get through. A lot of us were there when McDonalds went in 34 years ago and we fought that and the big objection then was the access through that intersection if there was an accident and that was pretty much ignored 34 years ago too so. Aller: Thank you sir. Dave Schulman: So that’s it for me. Lynne Pilgrim: I’ll just give you just one last little bit of comment about it. Chan Estates is, as I said is a very unique neighborhood. We’re one of the more moderately priced neighborhoods so we’re trying to keep it a safe neighborhood for families. Young families that want to move in and take over the homes that some of us are outgrowing as we get older but way back when I moved in in ’77, Highway 5 was 2 lanes. We did not have a semaphore there and the City put that in and it was somewhere around 1980-82 it was put in by the State and Chan Estates was assessed, every house to pay for that light for the City’s portion. So all of us feel that we have a very, very vested interest in what’s going on there. We feel like we bought that light and look what’s happened. We kind of because we paid for the light, everything else came and we bought the light so we could get out because up to that point the only way to cross Highway 5 at 3:00 on was to go east up to the nearest farm, turn around and come back and then you could go pick up your kids at school because we couldn’t get across the highway. So just a little background that I thought some of you who aren’t aware what the neighborhood’s like and that you should have. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional last comments? Yes sir. No. No pushing and shoving. Ron Pilgrim: Ron Pilgrim, 8026 Dakota Avenue. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Aller: Welcome. Ron Pilgrim: More of a question than a comment, and maybe it was stated. I may have missed it. I’m wondering how many parking spots? I was trying to count them. It’s a little hard but is there a requirement for a retail operation such as this? How many parking spots are required? And I suspect whoever is putting this retail in expects it to be very successful. What happens, especially if it becomes a restaurant and some restaurants some evenings get a lot of flow there. I see the ones up here in town, some nights it’s hard to find a spot. What happens if there’s overflow parking here? Or where is overflow parking here? Can’t park along Dakota or Lake Drive East. Where does it go? Aller: Sharmeen, would you like to. Ron Pilgrim: So number one, how many parking spots is there? Aller: Okay. Aanenson: Before we go to that. I’d just like to remind everybody that all of our staff reports are available on line and they’re very detailed. We just gave you a summary of that but all the lighting, the architecture is all broken down by detail so, yeah. Pardon me? Aller: The lighting is by code so everything that I’m seeing in the report is the lighting and the parking and the setback, other than the ability to reduce the setback to allow for parking is what they’re looking for a variance on so. Aanenson: I just want to make the point that the staff report is available online and this is a summary of the presentation so. Aller: And it is for anyone in the audience or at home, all the Minutes. All the. Aanenson: Any documentation related to this. Aller: Documents that we receive are online. Aanenson: Yes. I’ll let Sharmeen talk about the analysis of the parking. Ron Pilgrim: So as I understand there’s enough parking spots there. Aanenson: We’ll give you the details. Ron Pilgrim: By code. Aanenson: Yes. Ron Pilgrim: My question then is, if there isn’t enough. Sometimes code doesn’t always work out. So there’s 10 extra cars one evening down there, where do they park? Al-Jaff: The City Code requires 1 parking space for 200 square feet. That amounts to 40 parking spaces. The applicant is providing 53 parking spaces so that’s 13 spaces more than what is required by ordinance. Ron Pilgrim: But how do you determine that if you haven’t determined if there’s going to be a restaurant there and possibly a sit down type restaurant? 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Al-Jaff: When you have a building that has a mix such as what the applicant is proposing, it’s always 1 per 200 and the mix does work. Ron Pilgrim: Okay. One other, just one other comment. As I said you know, I would suspect that whoever is developing this expects a very successful operation and when I looked at the number of trips per week, it’s almost the same as going in and out of Ivan’s. Well now my math, if you look at buying a cup of coffee, and there will be competition for a cup of coffee. You can go across, just across the street there to McDonalds and get a dollar cup of coffee. I’m not sure what type of coffee shop this is going to be. Or you can go just up the street to Starbucks but if you look at selling cups of coffee at a buck and a half, two bucks apiece, or a latte for maybe three, three and a half versus selling a tank of gas at $3.50 a gallon, I don’t know. Maybe there’s a lot more margin in coffee than there is in gasoline but I guess I kind of question where these trips come in. 1,300 versus 1,200 or whatever the numbers were. I don’t exactly remember them but that’s somewhere they were in that 1,200-1,300 trips per week. Doesn’t seem like enough trips for this type of a retail outlet. I think you’re a little low. Aller: Okay, thank you. Ron Pilgrim: So that’s my comments. Only comments. Take it for what it’s worth. Aller: Ma’am. Kay Knight: Good evening. I’m Kay Knight from 8007 Dakota Circle and I have also been here for 30 some years and I have two things. I have a question and a comment. The question is I’m really concerned with the new development that there is no sidewalk on that corner. It starts at the exit and entrance of that driveway and right now we do have a sidewalk. I have walked it. Many of us in the neighborhood have walked it and even the kids have walked this sidewalk from the entrance to the corner there is sidewalk there and we have kids that go to the library. We are more in tune to our environment in using our bikes and so is the kids so I have a huge concern that there is no sidewalk so, and usually our neighborhood is going to be the one using that area. It’s our neighborhood that’s the closest there so that is a huge concern. No one did bring that up but there’s no sidewalk. And I know for a fact. Aanenson: Mr. Chair can we get clarification on where she’s speaking at. Kay Knight: I’ll show you. Aanenson: You can just tell me the street name would be fine. Kay Knight: No I will show you. Aller: Is it Dakota? Kay Knight: From here to here. Right now it’s. Aller: So it’s Lake Drive East. Kay Knight: Sidewalk all the way up. I don’t see a sidewalk. Do you see a sidewalk? Aanenson: There is a sidewalk there. That’s what the dark gray represents. Kay Knight: Well then what’s this then? 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Aanenson: That’s the sidewalk. We highlighted… Kay Knight: Alright, well see this is all green so if you look at it from here, I don’t see any white in here. When you were doing your diagram you would think that you would have the sidewalk going through here. Audience: It does appear that there is not a sidewalk on the south… Kay Knight: But it doesn’t appear. Audience: It does not appear that way. Kay Knight: That’s what I’m stating but don’t be rude. Aanenson: I’m just trying to clarify the question. Kay Knight: Well I’m just saying that there’s no sidewalk. Aller: Okay, I’m looking at the plan and I believe that this gray area here is a sidewalk and it’s bridged by concrete. Kay Knight: What gray area? I don’t see a gray area. I see green. Aller: Can you see it there? Aanenson: Mr. Chair again. Kay Knight: To me it looks like an edge so I’m just stating I was concerned. Aller: Okay, and I understand your concern and thank you for pointing it out but what I’m saying is. Kay Knight: I’m just saying. Aller: Unless I’m hearing differently that’s a sidewalk. Kay Knight: Well when they were explaining they were mumbling because you could barely hear them. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could just clarify again. These are colored drawings that we did internally. All the copies of the plat and the site plans are in black and white and they’re labeled and so when you look at those copies as opposed to what we tried to illustratively show and clearly that wasn’t communicated well. They are shown in the drawings that are included in your site plan that show the sidewalk in a better way so apologize if that isn’t clear on the drawing. Kay Knight: And then my comment is, we have a huge undeveloped area across from St. Hubert’s that’s been sitting there for quite a few years where Houlihan’s is and where the American Inn is. I don’t know, I understand this building. I understand what you’re saying where you want to go there but was that ever taken in consideration that that might be a good site considering there’s a lot of parking already there and there’s large spaces to make it a small town community so that the senior citizens that do live in that senior area could walk to and maybe utilize the stores or the services that you’re trying to utilize here next to McDonalds. Was that ever considerated in looking at the sites in Chanhassen? Plus we also have the 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 other strip mall at the other end that is, I don’t know 300 square feet of empty leasing right next to that other gas station. I don’t know. I mean I’m just saying that why redevelop something when we have undeveloped, ready to go land that is 2 blocks away, across from Lakewinds if you know where Chanhassen is. Aller: And I appreciate your comment but I can’t force a developer. Kay Knight: I know but I don’t know if you looked at that. Aller: To develop in any particular. Kay Knight: Prices but. Aller: So anyone out there that wants to take that to heart. Kay Knight: I mean lots of people. Aller: Come make an offer on the property and develop it. Kay Knight: Alright. Aller: Okay. Any other? Jay Poucher: I have a technical question… As I’m, if I’m not mistaken, Highway 5 has a series of GPS timed sequence traffic lights that help flow traffic out and into the city. Is the traffic light that’s across 101. 101 and the City. The one that’s just north of here, is that light sequenced with this light? th Fauske: You’re asking for the light signal at 101 and West 78 Street? Jay Poucher: Yeah it would be the light that’s north of this same location. Just on the other side of the railroad tracks. Fauske: I don’t know that that’s on the same sequencing. MnDOT does, they have a traffic operations department that takes a look at their corridors and they change, they can change, have the ability to change sequencing. Jay Poucher: Right. Fauske: The rest of the light signals, the traffic signals that are in a municipal system are typically on a looped detection based system and a timed system but usually there’s a loop detector in the roadway and I don’t know the exact timing or the sequencing. Jay Poucher: Right. And these two systems don’t ever cross. It’s not possible to have the, here’s where I’m going. If we wind up with a light in this intersection, can it time or will it have to be timed to the Highway 5 light? That’s where I’m going because I think it’s going to wind up being a Chanhassen light if we wind up doing something like that, and my question is, can they sequence these together? Aller: I think we’re putting the cart before the horse there because you’re going to have MnDOT come in and take a look at. Jay Poucher: Yes. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Aller: And do the sequencing after there’s a traffic pattern. Jay Poucher: I see. I see. You’re right. Thank you. Aller: Yes sir. Bob Seward: I have a quick question. Bob Seward, 8031 Cheyenne Avenue. A 20 year resident. Andrew you asked a little earlier what restaurant was going in that facility. Did we ever get an answer? Aanenson: No. They’ve represented that it could be a pizza but we don’t know. Bob Seward: Could it be a fast food restaurant? Aller: So it’s not in stone so, is it zoned for it? Yes. It could be anything and I can’t dictate whether it’s a Chinese restaurant, an Italian restaurant, a pizza place. Bob Seward: Well I just wanted to comment that, I mean I think McDonalds right now has 1,300 trip generations a day compared to Ivan’s and all that up on the hill there on Lake Drive and if it’s a fast food restaurant then I think all the numbers are way under estimated. Kind of echoes what Ron had said earlier so I, that is kind of a critical point what type of restaurant goes in that facility. Aanenson: It’s a multi use building. Right now the traffic modeling we’re doing for the drive thru is for coffee. Bob Seward: The drive thru is coffee and not the restaurant? Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s what we’re modeling on right now. Bob Seward: Okay. Aller: And my understanding is, and if somebody wants to correct me if I’m wrong but for edification purposes, these studies are accumulated over time and that’s where we get our numbers from so from real life situations they go. They take a look at these drive thru’s and based on the square footage there, they give us a number and we take a look at that and we try to ballpark it as good as we can. There’s never a guarantee but we use all that anecdotal evidence so that we can make a good guess. Bob Seward: Yeah I was just concerned that the ballpark for like a Burger King versus a sit down restaurant is going to be light years away and it’s going to be more similar to McDonalds across the street which would be a huge number of trip generation. Aller: And for purposes of development unfortunately it’s, you build it and they will come. It’s zoned for a restaurant and now we’ll see who wants to come and be a restaurant in that location. Bob Seward: Well just for the record. I mean that’s going to change everything. Aller: I understand the concern. I understand the concern. Bob Seward: If it’s a high volume that’s going to change everything. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Aller: And that was my question and I think the answer that we got was based upon the mix of use there, that we’re comfortable with the number that’s being used for the trip generation the way it is and we’ll see how it plays out. Bob Seward: Okay. Dave Schulman: Dave Schulman again. Down the street on Lake there was the Super Valu building. Is there any success in that area? Aller: Okay we have to stick to what’s before us tonight so we’re getting really far off… Dave Schulman: No, no, the traffic on Lake goes right past the old Super Valu building. Is anything happening with that because if anything positive with that, that would jump up your trips, right? I would guess. And another, the last thing that I think we might be done, do we get to see the beautiful front façade or the ugly back façade on Lake? Aller: Can we see what’s there? That gives you the elevations. And my understanding is the signage will comply with code which means that it won’t. Dave Schulman: That’s the front there on top? Aller: So the south face, the top one would be the one that faces Lake. Dave Schulman: That faces Lake. Aller: Correct. Dave Schulman: Okay. Got it. Thank you. Lynne Pilgrim: I just want to say thank you very much for giving us your time and we appreciate your listening to us and we do hope that the developer does look at the safety of the intersection so thank you all of you. We appreciate it. Aller: Okay, with that I’m going to, unless I see someone else come up, we’re going to close the public hearing at this time. Open it up for commissioner comments and discussion. Undestad: I’ll jump in. Aller: Okay, Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: You know it kind of hits like what we had here not too long ago where there’s an ongoing problem. There’s been a problem and it hasn’t been addressed because nothing’s gone on over there. But I think like that other project somebody bringing something forward actually raises awareness and now Alyson has a job to do to try to fix a problem out there. You know I think it’s the traffic, the study she’s done. What the numbers are and what they’re going to be, you know I think possibly some of that traffic might not even go through the intersection if they can get their coffee on the other side of the street. Not going through there. But I think as the traffic is the major concern for everybody. It’s all safety and we know that that’s, I mean I go through there a lot too. We all know that’s a, it’s a nasty intersection but I think part of this project by eliminating those access points out the front of Ivan’s now onto Dakota, I mean that will eliminate some of that. Hopefully the studies that come up here, you know if it’s stop signs. Stop lights or roundabouts or whatever might come in there but yeah I think, I mean the project 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 itself in itself is a good project and the traffic, I think the traffic’s going to get some work done on it now because of the project so. Aller: And I’ll just remind the commissioners that our approval is based on a limited discretion because it’s a situation where if they fit the zoning requirements then we don’t have any discretion to turn it down. Undestad: That’s all I got. Aller: Any other comments? Weick: I would just speak. I’m very happy that everyone is here representing your neighborhood. It’s a very important part of the process. Know that everything that you said and all the suggestions that you made, as well as the suggestions that the commission makes are on the record and that record is presented to the City Council and is part of this project moving forward so you are certainly heard and part of the record as we move this through the process. As my fellow commissioners know I’m very, I’m sensitive to traffic issues, especially when it’s in a neighborhood with families but I think for purposes of this because of the existing use of the property, and it’s similarity to the future use of the property, I’m confident that the traffic study that the City will conduct will produce the proper conclusions and will help the neighborhood with the issues that they have today and so I’m excited about the opportunity to redevelop this area. Thank you. Aller: Anyone else? Hokkanen: Well I’d like to say thank you to all the neighbors for coming out as well and I’ve been through that intersection many times and I do agree, it needs some attention and I think this project, like Mark said, will bring it to the forefront of the city. We had a similar project that brought up the same issue and I think that the project as it is, is a good project. It’ll be nice for the community. I do think once the traffic study is done we’ll be able to have some more answers and a positive conclusion that will help the safety of the neighborhood with the safety of the patrons of the new businesses. So thank you. Aller: Great. With that I’ll entertain any motions or action. Tennyson: I’ll make a motion to approve. Aller: Commissioner Tennyson. Tennyson: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve a preliminary plat to replat 1.7 acres into one lot and one outlot and a site plan for the construction of an 8,000 square foot single level retail center on 1.51 acres of property zoned Highway and Business Services District and located at 7910 Dakota Avenue and the adjacent parcel to the west and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion before me. Do we have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Tennyson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council the preliminary plat to replat 1.7 acres into one lot and one outlot, Planning Case approve 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 2014-11 as shown in plans dated received March 14, 2014, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Engineering Conditions 1.Before the final plat is recorded the Surface Water Management fees, Park Dedication fees, and GIS fees must be paid as well as any recording fees not collected with the final plat application. Park And Trail Conditions 1.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Dakota Retail. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based on the current proposed lot size of 1.51 acres and the city’s 2014 commercial/industrial park fee of $12,500 per unit, the total park fees for Dakota Retail would be $18,875. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Tennyson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council the site plan consisting of a 8,000 square-foot multi-tenant building, Planning Case approve 2014-11 as shown in plans dated received March 14, 2014, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resource Conditions 1.The applicant shall provide a total of 25 understory trees along the north property line. 2.All trees that fall within the utility easement along the north property line shall be ornamental trees. 3.The final landscape shall be submitted to the city and include a plant schedule with listed quantities. Building Official Conditions 1.The proposed structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system (MN Rule 1306). 2.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A geotechnical (soil evaluation) report required. 3.Detailed building code-related requirements have not been reviewed; this will take place when complete structural/architectural plans are submitted. 4.Demolition permit required (contact MPCA regarding underground, fuel storage tanks removal requirements). 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 5.Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height require professional design, permits and approvals. 6.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Fire Marshal Conditions 1.An additional fire hydrant will be required on the south side of the property. This location has been discussed with the Engineering Department. 2.“ No Parking Fire Lane” signs may be required. The developer must contact the Fire Marshal for exact locations. Engineering Conditions 1.The final plan must include proposed signage and/or pavement markings on the north side of the building that will alert drivers to and prohibit drivers from entering the one-way traffic associated with the drive-thru. 2.The parking stalls on the east side of the site, adjacent to the drive-thru must meet the city’s minimum stall width, or marked as compact parking if proposed as such. 3.The “bump out” on the west side of the site must be minimum 26 feet face-of-curb to face- of-curb. 4.Installation of the new water and sewer services must be coordinated with city staff, including advanced notification of the partial street closure, the timing of the work to minimize traffic disruption, and on-site inspection of the utility connection. 5.A cash escrow for the street restoration must be submitted prior to recording the final plat. The escrow can be released after a minimum of one freeze-thaw cycle and once staff inspects the street restoration and deems the work is satisfactory. 6.A private hydrant must be installed on the south side of the site at a location approved by the Fire Marshal. 7.Indicate if existing private lights along the perimeter of the site are to remain or be removed. 8.The developer must provide staff with the proposed haul route for removal of the excess material from the site before grading operations begin. The haul route is subject to staff review and approval. 9.All improvements in the Xcel easement, including but not limited to grading, site utility installation and landscaping must be approved by Xcel. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 10.The final plans must include a note stating that the auxiliary utility pole south of the transmission tower on the north side of the site will be relocated, or else it must be incorporated into the plan. Any cost associated with relocating this pole shall be the developer’s responsibility. 11.The developer must coordinate the proposed grading in the northeast corner of the site with the affected small utilities, as the plans show altering the grade in the vicinity of two small utility pads. 12.The grading plan must be revised so that the proposed contours tie into the existing contours. 13.The storm pond must be lined to prevent potential in-situ soil contamination. 14.The developer must submit calculations verifying that the proposed storm pond meets the city’s minimum requirements. 15.Drain tile must be installed on the south side of the site. Planning Conditions 1.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 2.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. Wall signs shall be limited to the north, east and south elevations. Wall and monument signage shall comply with the sign ordinance. All signs require a sign permit. 3.The exterior material for the trash enclosure must be of the same exterior material as the building. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. 4.Light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. All fixtures must be shielded. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: With that the only recommendation I would make is, and it’s just that. A recommendation that perhaps staff can encourage a weekend review when it’s feasible to do so to be included in that survey. Aanenson: If I may just to remind anybody that’s tracking this item, it would be appearing th before the City Council then on April 28. So if you’re following this item. And I just want to offer up too that we, see if somebody wants a couple of staff reports that we have here printed. Anybody that may not have one. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING: ARBOR COVE: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT OF 3.26 ACRES FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REZONING OF 3.26 ACRES FROM OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (OI) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF); AND PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW OF 54.67 ACRES INTO 5 LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3121 WESTWOOD DRIVE. APPLICANT: DOGWOOD ROAD, LLC. OWNER: WESTWOOD CHURCH, PLANNING CASE 2014-06. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. This planning case is Arbor Cove. Again this is th the public hearing is tonight and this will go to City Council on April 28. This property is located west th of Highway 41 between West 78 Street and Tanadoona. On the west end it touches Dogwood and that’s actually where their residential subdivision will be taking place. I should point out that in the future you th will see there’s a small corner of the property right off of West 78 Street that has a single family home on it. We will be bringing that in for rezoning. Currently it’s Rural Residential and it’s going to be zoned as part of the Westwood site for office institutional uses. The request before us tonight actually has 3 components. There’s a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of the residential portion of the development. The 3.26 acres off of Dogwood from Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low Density. For some background, prior to this church going in there, in this site this whole area was guided for residential low density so that would be consistent with what’s there before there. Additionally they’re requesting a rezoning of the residential portion of the project from Office Institutional back to Single Family Residential. And finally they’re looking at preliminary plat approval for the 56.67 acres which is the entire property into 5 lots. 4 of the lots would be for single family homes and the fifth lot would remain with the church. Okay, a quick land use amendment. This area, again this area was previously guided for residential low density. To do the single family home development we need to change the land use back to low density and then the rezoning that would be, go with that. This land use is consistent with all the residential development surrounding it and we believe that it’s an appropriate use for this, on this part of the site and we will be recommending approval. The second part is the rezoning of the 4 single family lots on the west end from Office/Institutional to Single Family Residential. As part of our analysis under low density, residential low density there are several zoning categories that could be used. However the RSF is consistent with all the surrounding zoning and it permits this type of development so we think it’s the most appropriate rezoning for this and are recommending approval of that. Again the subdivision creates 4 single family lots that would access off of Dogwood and then the church lot to the east of it. The total site is 56.67 acres. All the lots exceed the minimum requirements in our code so they’re bigger than normal. As part of this development we’re looking at, the site is almost, it’s 98% canopy cover right now and so we’re trying to preserve as much of that as part of this development as possible. Oh I should go back for our land use map amendment. We did have a 60 day jurisdictional review that was required. That ended a week ago yesterday. There were no negative comments or objections to the proposed amendment so…go forward and we have had preliminary discussions with the Met Council and we will submit this through City Council as a minor amendment so they can have a shorter review time is required for that. Again the subdivision, all the lots on Dogwood would exceed the minimum requirements for single family home sites. Their preliminary grading plan showed they’re creating this swale area in the northwest corner of the site. It picks up water that’s currently coming off of these wetlands and from the development to the south and they’re putting in for the development an infiltration pond. However one of the concerns we had is they were concentrating the water in this swale system and so we are looking at creating a little bit more dispersion as it comes closer to the roadway and so it will slow down the water moving down there and the applicant is agreeable to that and these are actually plans that they have provided to us. Again they need to provide an erosion and sediment control plan as part of the subdivision. They have a preliminary plan in here. One of the conditions that they create a SWPPP or a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the entire project because they have over an acre of grading 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 that they’re doing and so those have best management practices and ways of preserving that. As part of their original proposal they were looking at providing a tree conservation easement along the eastern part of the properties. This point is 65 feet. Our City Forester, she thought that we should try to get closer to the grading limits that they’re showing as part of this. The developer has some concerns that at least this first lot is, becomes too constrained for development and they won’t have adequate use of their back yard. We are looking at between now and City Council that we can come up with a final solution for the depth of that easement area that would be acceptable to both the City and the developer. I should point out as part of this project, because of the tree preservation they are getting credits for their surface water management fees and so we think this would be a good tradeoff. The most northerly, or Lot 1 the easement would follow what they’re proposing in it and would follow the contours of the grading limits and then these would be again, what we proposed was 85 feet deep. In the southern end that would add 20 feet to that easement area and on this north end it would add 30 feet on Lot 2 so it sort of slants across that. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed development subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Any commissioners have questions at this time? Based upon the report I don’t have any. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Welcome. Todd Simning: Welcome, thank you. Todd Simning with Dogwood Development. I think the only open item really is just the tree preservation and I think we can come to a conclusion with that. As I spoke with Kate and Bob earlier tonight, we did another development, Wynsong just off of Galpin Boulevard and have had tree preservations before and they’re very constraining. Can’t put swing sets in there. Can’t put you know really you can’t do anything with them and so the one lot for sure was just a little tight where I was just saying, we’re really not encumbering any trees there and just want to make certain that we can maximize any back yard for somebody but obviously we wanted to preserve trees too because we think that brings value to the land and as it goes to the north and around we just want to make certain we can, can use as much as we can so I have a lot of confidence in working with the City and really don’t have any issues with trying to figure something out there so, with that I really don’t have anything other than that and we’ll come to a conclusion so. Aller: Great, I appreciate that. Todd Simning: And if guys have any questions for me. Aller: I appreciate you working on that because those overstory trees make such an impact in your biofiltration system and the buffer between the properties so it sounds like you’re on your way to creating a good plan. Todd Simning: Yes. Aller: Anyone else? Todd Simning: Thank you. Aller: Thank you. At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the item before us can do so at this time. Sir, if you could state your name and address for the record, that’d be great. John Getsch: John Getsch, 7530 Dogwood Road. I don’t know the actual of the property. It’s, we subdivided it off and they gave it some weird thing but anyway it’s directly diagonal off the southwest 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 corner of the property on Dogwood Road. My concern is, I support the development. I think it’s but I do have some concerns. Originally when the road was set up there it narrowed right at that point, the south because there was not a plan for future development of that property. So the road is narrower there. It’s also on a curve. The bend in the road is on a curve with very steep gradient in there. And the driveways are coming down, it appears they come down quite steeply to the road. I think there may be an issue with them bottoming out on the road when they come out. One of the things I looked at was, where they come down. Having to make a, I think it says in there that the Planning Commission was concerned about the steepness of the grade on the front of the lots. Was that, did I read that correctly in there? Aanenson: Are you talking about the staff? In the staff report. The driveway. John Getsch: Yeah. Because it is quite steep if you come up that, you know with Lot 4 is quite steep where they’re trying to preserve that tree. I think that’s almost 8, 8-9 feet above the road in about 15 feet. And you come down and it’s also on the curve of the road and the next lot the, 1 and 2 I don’t see a problem with but I do see a problem with 3 and 4 for that, and actually my recommendation would be, contrary to what the past discussion was, would be to move the houses further back. Those two houses further back on the lot. Let them come along and then keep some of the native vegetation up there on the front side of the lot. Aanenson: Maybe Alyson, do you want to address it but you’re fighting grades trying to move the houses back. And the steepness of the driveway. Aller: And if I can ask Alyson to kind of piggyback on that. My understanding is the grading will be done at once and that part of the conditions here, the grading that is done is to meet the remaining grade so that there’s a nexus, a smooth transition. Fauske: Certainly I can address those questions. Aller: Thank you. John Getsch: Okay. Fauske: Good evening. John Getsch: Yeah. Good to see you again. Fauske: It’s good to see you as well. I had the pleasure of working with this neighborhood back when the street and utility project went in so speaking to some of John’s points and as some of the residents will recall, when the street and utility project was done in 2006-2007, just to give a little bit of background to the commission and those in the audience here that weren’t present at that time. Staff was working very closely with the neighborhood with regards to the street widths and so as John mentioned there is, the street does narrow at this location. Because there was some existing homes in that area that we wanted to be respectful of and tried to do some tree preservation in the area because the original road was I believe 12 or 14 feet wide. It was very narrow. So we did have some tree clearing associated with that and that’s why we didn’t build it to the standard 31 feet because of, to try to be considerate of the existing residents. It did widen to a 31 foot wide street where it transitioned into the new development. John Getsch: Well it’s actually right on the corner. On the south corner it does transition to a standard city width. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Fauske: Yeah. So that was kind of a balancing act back when this project went through. With regards to the grades, both the vertical curves and the horizontal curves, again we were working within the constraints of the existing right-of-way. There was some acquisition done with this project but when you have the existing homes on the lake side of the road, there is, we were constrained as far as what we could do with doing some of the grades so there is a balancing act here with the grades both back when the street project went in and with the development as proposed. Speaking to the development proposal for their grading plan, when staff took a look at this and looked at the extent of the grading I think that there was a conversation with the developer that this lends itself to go in and get the grades to the point, as indicated on the grading plan, just for a balance perspective because if you have, depending on how the lots sell, to go in and grade one lot and then leave the next lot vacant and then try to tie the grades into another lot over, when you’re doing that leapfrog it doesn’t lend itself to a good grading plan in staff’s opinion so we did have that discussion with the applicant. John Getsch: I appreciate you. Fauske: And I think the developer might have something to add to that as well if the Planning Commission’s okay with him. Aller: Come forward so we can have a discussion. Todd Simning: John if I can, one of the items that we worked with the road down so high. You know that bank. John Getsch: Yeah. Todd Simning: It originally comes up like that. John Getsch: It’s quite steep, yeah. Todd Simning: Unfortunately we have to relocate all of the gas and all the electric because all of that is actually being shaved down right there. So that bank that comes up like this, we have to actually take out all the existing gas line and the existing power line. John Getsch: Because they’re not in the road. They’re up. Todd Simning: They’re up in that, in that kind of that, as the road goes up and that’s all going to be lowered down to give a lot better sight line across the roadway so if you guys drove down there you’d see that it really goes up and then even the electrical boxes are sitting up god, probably about 4 or 5 feet higher than the road and all of that is going to be lowered down and we actually have to pay CenterPoint Energy and Minnesota Valley Electric to come and bore new lines and so that we can grade all that down so sight lines from the road will be a lot better than what they actually appear to be right now so. John Getsch: Okay. So, but you are grading the one tree there is going to still be up fairly high. Todd Simning: Yes. Yeah because that one is, that one’s kind of off of a gosh, what do you call it? Off of the road and what we worked with the City on is said we’re going to try to preserve that one so we don’t really know if that one, we’re not really getting credit for it. Okay as canopy and tree cover but we’re going to try to save it because we think we can because, I mean I like trees and I think it’s a great benefit to the. John Getsch: Yeah, that’s why when I looked at that. 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Todd Simning: But I’m not certain if it will actually be there. John Getsch: Both Lots 3 and 4. Todd Simning: To the south. John Getsch: The two south lots have those located further back but you could preserve quite a few trees and then leave the front more of a wild front and then come in. But like you said, you have to grade for the, you have to change for the utilities anyway. Todd Simning: Yes, and then the negative about bringing the trees back as we’re working with the tree preservation is there’s really, really nice trees in the back yard that the City wants to preserve so that was kind of the give and take on trying to figure out exactly. John Getsch: Well the houses end up actually where they came through and cleared off for all the utility lines back 15 years ago. They clear cut a path right straight up through there. Todd Simning: Yes. Yep. So thank you. John Getsch: That’s all that I wanted to mention on that. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Todd Dillon: Todd Dillon, 7481 Dogwood Road. Aller: Welcome Mr. Dillon. Todd Dillon: My house is the last house that Pulte put in, The Arbors. Todd Simning: Yep. Todd Dillon: Does this development start right next to mine? Todd Simning: Yes. Todd Dillon: Okay, because there’s already a real estate sign there. Kro. Todd Simning: Kroiss. Todd Dillon: Yeah. So they’re. Todd Simning: Dogwood Development is actually my partner Steve and I. We own Kroiss Development and we’re builders also. Todd Dillon: Okay. Todd Simning: But as developer we’re developing another Dogwood Development. Todd Dillon: Okay, because I see there’s a lot. There’s two, I saw them come in and do the surveying and there’s two of those signs but then there’s a big Chanhassen development sign so how come. 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Todd Simning: We just didn’t put enough signs out there. Todd Dillon: Okay. So that, the church, Westwood owned all of that property and you all have purchased that and that’s where it starts? Todd Simning: Yes. Todd Dillon: Okay. I just wanted to get that clear because I didn’t know where Dogwood Development came in there so, okay. Aller: Great. Alright we’re going to close the public hearing. Commissioner comments or questions. I think it looks like a good development and I think a good use of the existing tree cover, which is important. Looks like the drainage and bio scenario is going to be good as far as the runoff on the water that we were working with the swale and slowing that down which is I think important at making sure there’s infiltration so that looks really good to me. Anyone else? I’ll entertain a motion at this time. Hokkanen: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 3.26 acres from Public/Semi- Public to Residential Low Density, Rezoning of 3.26 acres from Office Institutional District to Single Family Residential District and Preliminary Plat review of 54.67 acres into 5 lots subject to the conditions and approval and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendations. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 3.26 acres from Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low Density; Rezoning of 3.26 acres from Office Institutional District to Single Family Residential District; and Preliminary Plat review of 54.67 acres into 5 lots subject to the conditions and approval and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendations: Parks & Recreation 1.In lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction, full park dedication fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. At today’s rate, these fees would total $23,200 (4 lots x $5,800 per lot). Building 1.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 2.Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 3.Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. 4.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. Natural Resources 1.The applicant shall plant a total of 29 trees in the development. A revised landscape plan shall be required prior to final plat approval. 2.The applicant shall remove Amur maple from the plant list and replace it with an alternate ornamental tree. 3.Prior to any grading, the applicant shall install tree preservation fencing using metal stakes around tree #33 on Lot 4. The fencing shall be placed at the dripline or the furthest point possible from the trunk and no closer than 20 feet. Within the fencing, the applicant shall spread a 3 to 4-inch layer of woodchips to protect the root zone. These protections shall remain in effect until construction is completed. east of the grading limits on Lot 1, 4.A tree conservation easement shall be recorded over the 3and over the rear 75 feet of Lot 4 rear 85 feet of Lots 2 through 4 . The applicant shall supply a legal description for the easement. 5.Easement signage shall be placed on the lot lines at the point of intersection with the easement on Lots 2 through 4. Signage shall be placed at points of directional change on Lot 1. Signs shall be approved by the city. Engineering 1.The grading plan shows steep slopes on Lots 2 and 4. Grading must be revised so that no slope is steeper than 3:1. 2.Grading plans must be revised to show existing and proposed elevations at each lot corner and the center of the proposed driveways at the curb line. 3.The developer’s engineer must revise plans to include spot elevations and building corner elevations that direct water flow away from all structures. 4.Grading plan must show spot elevations to illustrate where water will flow at the back of Lot 3. 5.The EOF shall be noted with arrows showing the direction of the overflow. 6.Include a lot benching detail in the plans. 7.Draintile service must be provided for Lots 3 and 4, which have drainage flows from the back to the front of the lot. 8.Proposed stockpile areas must be indentified in the plans. 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 9.All existing easements shown in the plans must be properly referenced with the document number or plat they were dedicated under. 10.A conservation easement is proposed along the back of Lots 2, 3 and 4 as well as the east corner of Lot 1. 11.A new drainage and utility easement over the filtration basin and the channel on Lot 1 will provide the City access to these stormwater facilities. 12.The developer’s engineer must include the elevation of the top and bottom of the retaining walls. 13.The following retaining wall materials are prohibited: smooth face, poured in place concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties and timber. 14.Grading must be revised to include a swale at the top of the retaining walls for drainage. 15.The topography shown must include elevation contours for Dogwood Road adjacent to the proposed lots. The centerline gradients must be labeled. The developer’s engineer must incorporate pressure-reducing valves and a surge protection system into the watermain plans. 16.At the time of final plat, the Dogwood Road improvements assessment must be paid or reassessed. 17.Partial water and sewer hookup fees must be paid at the time of final plat. Water Resources 1.A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including all required elements listed in the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Program must be prepared and submitted to the city for review and approval. 2.No native soils may be used in the filtration soil. Instead Mix B from the MN Stormwater Manual - 70% washed sand and 30% leaf-litter compost mixture shall be used. 3.Pretreatment practices to be employed shall be shown on the plan view and in the detail sheet. This shall be shown at the curb cut. It is highly recommended that something similar to the Rain Guardian developed by Anoka Conservation District be used. The pretreatment device must be approved by the City. 4.It shall be called out on both grading plans that steps shall be taken to prevent compaction and siltation of the area resulting from construction activities on the site. 5.Remove the filter fabric from the detail and use a choker course of rock instead. 6.The underdrain shall be smooth walled and have a tracer wire. 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 7.A knife gate valve shall be included prior to the underdrain entering the proposed 27-inch manhole. This valve shall be reasonable easy to access. 8.Calculations shall be provided demonstrating that the feature will draw down within 48 hours. 9.Efforts shall be made to decrease the depth as close as possible to the 9.6 inches but no greater than the 14.4 inches recommended for MH HSG B soils. 10.Side slopes shall be no steeper than 5:1 and as close to 10:1 as possible except that the south boundary may be up to 3:1. 11.The feature shall be kept offline until the vegetation has been established. Plans and the SWPPP must include this information and describe the methodology to be used to achieve this. 12.A detailed planting plan and schedule must be developed and included in plan set for approval 13.The in-situ soils shall be ripped to a depth of 12 inches prior placing the amended filtration soils. 14.The developer shall be responsible for the construction of the biofiltration feature and shall make assurances that the plant materials, mulch and side slopes into biofiltration feature are maintained throughout the life of the feature. This is most typically accomplished though a Homeowners Association. The city will be responsible for maintenance of the underdrain, outlet pipe and inlet protection device at the curb. An operations and maintenance manual shall be developed describing how the feature will be maintained and by who will be responsible for the maintenance. 15.The applicant shall include tree 119 and 129 into the protection plan. 16.The drainage and utility easement shall extend from top of bank to top of bank for the proposed channel. 17.The 988 and 986 contours shall be broadened to create a more laminar flow before discharging onto city right-of-way. 18.The plan shall maintain a separation of at least two (2) feet between peak flow elevation in the channel during the 100-year storm event and the top of bank for that portion behind the proposed structure on Lot 1. 19.The SWPPP as well as the erosion control plan must indicate how the conveyance from the wetland will be permanently stabilized. 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 20.A detail of the rock checks must be included. This shall be consistent with Technical Supplement 14C to Part 654 of the National Engineering Handbook. 21.An estimated surface water management connection fee of $14,066.50 will be due with the final plat. 22.The plans must meet all requirements set forth by other agencies with authority over the site. The applicant is responsible to procure all necessary approvals and permissions. This includes, among others, the MN Pollution Control Agency and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Planning 1.Lots 1 through 4 are the only lots included in the land use map amendment from Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low Density. 2.Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. 3.Lots 1 through 4 are the only lots included in the rezoning from Office Institutional District to Single-Family Residential. 4.Approval of the Rezoning is contingent upon approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. th Aanenson: And this item appears before the City Council on their April 28 meeting. Aller: Thank you. And again all the documents are on the website. Moving onto item number 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENTS: CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS (SECTION 18-61) , AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING (ARTICLE VIII PUD DISTRICT AND ARTICLE XXIII GENERAL SUPPLEMENTAL); AND CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller. Commissioners. Aller: Excuse me, can you go outside. Thank you. Generous: Most of these amendments you’ve seen before and so we’re just coming back to, we have to hold a public hearing before we can take them to City Council and have any adoptions to them. Again your review responsibilities for Chapters 18 and 20 which are Subdivision and the Zoning ordinance. In Chapter 18 we’re looking at the tree requirements in our ordinance and everyone knows about the Emerald Ash Borer and so we’re eliminating that as an approved tree within our ordinance. We’re also doing some clean up for consolidating all the tree species. Instead of listing them separately we’re saying if you want to have a maple you can have a maple. The only exception is platanoides which Jill told me to put that name in and I don’t know exactly what it is but it doesn’t do very well up here and it’s 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 susceptible to disease. And then again all the oaks are acceptable trees in our community so we felt that rather than try to list them all we’d just put it as a generic name and they can come in. The other part of 18-61 that we were changing is trying to get more diversity in the trees that are planted so we’re limiting to 20% any one genus of tree and 10% any specific species of tree so we’ll get a little more variety again so that you have long term health. They don’t all get wiped out at one time like the elms in Minneapolis or the Emerald Ash Borer in the rest of the community and up north eventually. So those are the changes to 18-61 and it’s 3 sections within that. The second part is changes to Chapter 20 which is a Zoning Ordinance. We’re on page, it starts on page 5, Section 20-904. What we’re doing is there’s a little bit of confusion. Docks have their own separate ordinance. It’s in Section 20-920 so we’re saying look there if you want to know what the requirements are for docks and so we excluded from the accessory structures discussion in Section 904. 20 Section 908, we’re trying to come up with some, there’s some exceptions to the setback requirements and so we want to make a distinction between those that are associated with the principal structure or anything attached to the principal structure and those are the only ones that received these specific exceptions. Because if you have a detached structure there’s also some exceptions that are in the regulations so a little bit of, and Section 20-909, Subsection 6(a). There’s just a wrong word. We use principal meaning the main idea as opposed to principle meaning an idea. So that change in Section 6(a). In Section 20-960 the current ordinance references the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. I think we’re in the third iteration. It was last adopted in 2006 so we’re going to, in the future we’ll reference the most recently adopted ordinance so when we make a change and we’ll probably have one coming up in the next year or two, we don’t have to go back and change the City Code. So that’s the changes to Chapters 18 and 20. And then while we don’t have review responsibility over Chapter 1, we wanted to, we’re looking at defining what an expansion is for non-conforming uses because currently there isn’t any and so we looked at Minnetonka and Lakeville’s ordinance and we wanted to get beyond just the discussion of expanding a structure or the size of the structure but also look at the intensity of the non-conforming use and say that if you increase that, that is an expansion of the non-conformity and it has to meet City Code requirements so. And then finally under Lot, flag and neck lot. We used to have a schematic that showed what they were talking about because pictures are easier for people to understand. Somehow got dropped when it was codified and we just want to put that back in so we’re requesting that Planning Commission move these items forward for City Council review and approval. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Questions? I will move to comments then and just say that I think it’s great that we’ve cleaned up a lot of things that can cause people to be confused and anytime we can do that it’s a good thing so it’s much appreciated and I think it follows the intent of what we were trying to do originally when we talked about it in work session so. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Aller: I’ll entertain a motion. If any. Tennyson: There is a motion. I’ll move. Aller: Commissioner Tennyson. Tennyson: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council adopt the ordinance amending Chapters 1, 18, and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 Tennyson moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council adopt the ordinance amending Chapters 1, 18, and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Aller: If someone would note the Minutes of the April1st work session and meeting. Hokkanen: So noted. Weick: I would make one comment there. Commissioner Weick was present at those meetings and he’s listed as absent. Tennyson: Good correction. Generous: Nice catch. Weick: Because sometimes I am not present. I want to be sure that I am present. Aller: And I want to thank Commissioner Tennyson for taking over the Chair and doing such a great job. Tennyson: Thank you. Aller: So the Minutes are noted. Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 1, 2014 as presented and the amended Work Session Summary Minutes dated April 1, 2014 showing Commissioner Steve Weick as present. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: No City Council update. Aanenson: I don’t know that I have one. Aller: Future agenda items. Aanenson: Yeah we can go to future agendas. Unless you have something Bob. I don’t have any update. In your packet I did give you some new business signs that are in, so we’ve got 3 new businesses in town. And then I just want to review with you upcoming agendas. The City Council will be, is planning on not thth having a meeting on July 14 so if we have projects that would come in on that June 17, there’s a big thst gap between the 17 so we always try to gauge that. And for you, the July 1 week historically we have th not had a meeting. There’s a lot of people traveling. Sometimes it’s hard to get a quorum. The 4 of July is a few days later so right now, while it was shown on here, it’s my intent to probably not have that unless there’s some strong feelings but we’ll try to juggle those. We are working with some other projects. Some of those are brought up by the neighbors tonight. There are some projects in the area still th that may come to fruition. And speaking of that, so on your May 6 we do have a subdivision. This one on Chaska Road. It’s one home on a larger lot. It’s an outlot being platted. There’s also revoking some Conditional Uses that are no longer in existence. Speaking with the City Attorney we do need to take a formal process for revocation so you’ll hold a hearing on those and they’ll go up to City Council on consent. We are also doing the rezoning. Bob Generous just talked about that. The church owns that 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 property. That house so it’s really kind of an errand mapping that we should probably rezone that so we are going to rezone that one little piece of property. It’s ancillary to the principal structure of the church so it’s, what did we find out today? It’s 2 1/2, 2 acres? Generous: 1.25. Aanenson: Oh, 1.25 acres so that little house on the corner going into the subdivision there. And then we may go into a work session to do some Planning Commission interviews so we are advertising for that so. If anybody knows anybody that’s interested in that so. Aller: Great. Aanenson: And any feedback that you can give us on our presentations. You know clearly it seemed like we were mis-communicating some of that information tonight so if you want to give us some feedback on that, we try hard to color them so people can see but if you want to give us some feedback on that, we’d appreciate any direction you give us on that. So we will have a meeting in 2 weeks and we’ll kind of th gauge stuff so we kind of miss that, have to get to that June 17. Either advise people. They may want to stth wait or, because we’ll have that gap, and then try to cancel that July 1 so people can do their 4 of July plans there so that’s all I had Chairman and Commissioners. Aller: Thank you. And the last thing I have is I received information regarding linking land use to clean water, which is a workshop invitation to elected and appointed officials and there are two sessions. One thth May 8 with Barr Engineering in Edina and one May 14 and it looks like they’re same program given twice at, the second one’s at the Bayview Event Center in Excelsior. They’re both from 5:00 to 8:30 so if any of the commissioners are interested, I know I’m going to be going to at least one, if not both to make sure that I’m up on the current items. Aanenson: I did have one other item and I believe I spoke about this at the work session but, Bob’s been working on, we’re trying to figure out what we have for vacant commercial land in the core. The council asked about that and we’re looking at the other vacant land that’s currently serviceable by sewer and water and then we’ve just completed with our consultant what we’ve got at the bottom of the 61 corridor so those are all going to be on a work session and then that will be the same work session we have with the council so I think we would have that as a joint meeting. Feed everybody and then have an opportunity so you can understand kind of where we are with all that too. I think it’d be a great opportunity to kind of interface and kind of get up to date because all that information then really kind of parlays forward as we go to the Comprehensive Plan update starting in 2007 so we’re kind of building that data point and collection and see where we’re at and yeah, so. Aller: Great. Aanenson: With that, that’s all I had. Aller: I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Undestad 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 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 34