Loading...
PC 2015 04 07 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 7, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, and John Tietz MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryam Yusuf and Lisa Hokkanen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Stephanie Bartels, Project Engineer OATHS OF OFFICE: Chairman Aller administered the oaths of office to Nancy Madsen and John Tietz. PUBLIC HEARING: 3701 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE VARIANCE, PLANNING CASE 2015-07: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO PERMIT ENCLOSURE OF EXISTING DECK ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3701 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE (LOTS 19 & 20, BLOCK 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA). APPLICANT/OWNER: DAN & SUSAN FAGAN. Generous: You caught me off guard but, Chairman Aller, fellow commissioners. As you stated Planning Case 2015-07 is a request for a variance from the City’s code requirements. The Planning Commission sits as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to determine whether a variance should be approved, denied or forwarded to City Council for ultimate action. In this case the Fagan’s, Daniel and Susan who’s house is located at 3701 South Cedar Drive. It’s on the peninsula on Lake Minnewashta. South facing property. Existing single family home on the lot. It was built in 1986. That’s part of the, probably the issue that they have on their property. The house was built in ’86. The City didn’t adopt the shoreland protection ordinance to sometime in ’86 so they were, came in before the ordinances were in place. The shoreland protection ordinance requires a 75 foot setback from the lake. The existing house or portions of the house and the deck on the lake side of the house are closer to the lake than 75 feet and it’s closest approach to the lake is 60 feet. The applicant’s proposed request is to expand a part of their deck, or to enclose a part, a 12 by 13 section of deck and make it part of the interior of the house. Additionally they will be expanding this area of the house to add a second floor. That level will cantilever slightly over the deck area but it will be way behind the face of this expansion area that they’re looking for the interior of the house. However by definition, even though there’s a structure here, enclosing this area is an expansion of a non-conformity and to do that they need to receive a variance. This case has been problematic for staff. We can actually go, see both for, pro and con on this development but for consistency sake staff has been going forward and recommending denial of any variance request unless there is truly something very unique about the property or some other alternative that cannot be done. What the applicant is requesting is convert a portion of their deck into living space. This living space would be a 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 by 13 enclosure of that portion of the deck that’s there so where the face of this new wall would be is the edge of the existing deck. They wouldn’t, they’re not proposing to get any closer to the lake but the volume of area that’s non-conforming would be increased because we’re enclosing that area. However as the property is also non-conforming because they exceed the hard cover on their property there at approximately 27.7 percent. As measured to mitigate any proposed variance approval they are saying as part of this project they’d be willing to remove hard surface from the site and bring it into compliance with the ordinance so there is a benefit for the City to reduce the hard surface on this property. The encroachment into the required shoreland setback would not be any greater than it is now so, and additionally there’s, the existing garage encroaches 5 feet towards the road right-of-way. However their expansion they’re proposing on that side of the house would comply with ordinance so. And this is just a schematic to show the red areas are proposed expansion of the indoor space. The green areas are hard surface areas that would be, they’re proposing to remove as part of their development project on the site and what’s hard to see but this is approximately the cantilever area of the second floor expansion. This red area would be over the existing deck so again it doesn’t get any closer to the lake but because it is an expansion of interior area it is, requires a variance to go forward. Here’s just a schematic showing where the hard surface coverages would come off of the property. And then we did look at whether there are any other non-conformities or variances in the neighborhood to see if this variance application would be consistent with what’s going on out there. There are five variances in the neighborhood all relating to setback requirements from the lake. Two of them are, have actually greater setback than the applicant’s proposing. One of them is the same setback that the applicant is proposing and two of them are less than the applicant is proposing in this so really granting of the variance would tend to be in harmony with the characteristics of this immediate neighborhood. However as part of the shoreland management it’s not only stormwater that we look at but aesthetic considerations and so when people are on the lake looking towards the houses we don’t want those to encroach too far into that aesthetic situation and so that’s one of the concerns. However again we’re looking at their expansion would be only to the point of the existing railing of the deck that they have in place so while it’s a bigger wall it’s not going to be any closer to the lake. Again staff is recommending denial of the variance application. However we did provide an opportunity should the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments believe that approval of the variance is appropriate, that there are conditions that would be provided for that and there’s additional Findings of Fact. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Anyone have questions at this time? Weick: I would have one point of clarification. Aller: Mr. Weick. Weick: There’s expansion in the front and the back. Are they both requiring the variance or is it only the back? Generous: It’s only the lake side that requires a variance because this porch, this expansion over the existing porch by the road would meet the setback requirements. It’s just this small area of the enclosing of the deck that needs a variance. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Weick: But the garage. Generous: Is a non-conforming. Weick: It is non-conforming. Generous: They’re not changing anything on that so they can maintain what’s there. Weick: Okay. Aller: And as a non-conforming use should they, should it be struck by lightning they can replace that in the existing condition. Generous: That’s correct. It’s just non-conformities, any expansion would have to comply with the ordinance so it would have to be set back 5 feet. So if they wanted to put a second story on that side it would have to be 30 feet back or receive a variance. Aller: Are measurements for purposes of the hard cover surfaces also including the eaves? Generous: No they don’t because they’re less than 2 ½ feet so they’re exempted from our calculation. We usually go to the foundation or the wall. Aller: Any additional questions of staff at this time? Madsen: If they expanded another part of the home would there be, would that cause other non- conformities? Too close to other, to the property line. Is there any other way they could expand it another way? Generous: Commissioner Madsen, theoretically they could go to either the west or the east. The side yard setbacks are 10 feet but from internal configuration on the property or on the structure I’m not sure that works for them. This would be the most logical place to expand if they go over to the, but here again you already have an existing projection out here. Their expansion is to continue that line for another 13 feet and then bring it back to the existing house. Aller: And then the package includes the correspondence of one neighbor. Was there any other response? Generous: We had people call but once they heard what was going on, since we weren’t putting in apartments or anything they didn’t have any issues. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions at this time? Hearing none, happy to hear from the applicant at this time. If they’d like to step forward and give a presentation. If you could state your name and address for the record please. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Dan Fagan: Hi, my name is Dan Fagan. We have two homes right now so we live in Chanhassen. 7184 Fawn Hill Road but we also purchased this home, 3701 South Cedar Road in Chanhassen. It says Excelsior. It’s one of those goofy mailing things so that’s our address yeah. Aller: So tell us about your project. Dan Fagan: You know the project is, my wife and I, you know we love this community. We’ve been here since 1997. Started out in the Lake Susan Hills area. Love the city. Our boys all born here so our dream was a lake home but we love the community so much we didn’t want to get out of Chanhassen so we have been working for a number of years to try and find a property. We did, had another property that we were trying to do but based on different items it didn’t come through and so this property became available and our goal is not to build a huge house. It’s really to just get on the lake. However having 3 teenage boys and things we are limited. It’s about a 2,000 square foot house as it is. We’re coming from a 4,300 square foot house, which is more than we need so the idea is to try to build something that maintains the integrity of what was originally intended there. Not to put a larger home but to work within, with what we had and obviously maintain or try to work within what the City had. We’ve been working with a remodeler to try to design a home because we’ve obviously looked at a complete tear down which we would really desire not to do. We’d like to just try to make it fit into the community and into where it is. We know many of the neighbors that are there existing, especially and Tom and Jackie Johnson live right next door and then the other neighbor which I did get an email. I apologize, I would forward it but he was in favor of it. The neighbor to the north just about the process and any variance and guidance on things that thought would be helpful. We met with Bob several times and he made it clear that it was a variance and that he would deny it but just said you know if it’s a reasonable request that the City would consider it and so we wanted to do everything possible, including taking away part of the driveway to meet hardscape requirements and obviously I’m of the opinion that it appears reasonable because the deck was already there. We weren’t aware, we’re not actually building the foundation underneath it out. All it is is literally just kind of enclosing and if you look at the other house, a smaller cabin there in front so their vision of it won’t be impacted. Their lake views and the Johnson’s again because the three season porch is already there, this is going to be inside of that so we try to do everything we could and we’re here tonight to request or ask if you would bless this opportunity. Aller: Great, thanks. Questions from anyone? Undestad: I would say thanks for not leaving town. Dan Fagan: Well you know it’s interesting. The schools was a big thing. So we, it’s Minnetonka schools but we’re in this. Undestad: But also it looks like you’re giving it a complete makeover on it too. Dan Fagan: Yeah. No, complete makeover on it too. Undestad: So on the house so. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Dan Fagan: Yeah. We want to be here a long time so that’s the plan. Aller: Thank you very much. Dan Fagan: Thank you. Aller: At this point in time we’ll open up the public hearing portion for this matter. Anyone wishing to come forward and speak for or against this item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing portion of the item and open it for discussion amongst commissioners. Comment. Discussion. Undestad: Yeah just looking at staff’s comment about it was a, could go either way on that. You know I think looking at it, with the reduction of hard surface and things. The aesthetics. They’re redoing the entire outside so I think from people on the lake it’s going to look nicer. And net effect is really we’re coming up with less hard surface so I’d be for it. Aller: Any additional comments? Weick: I concur. Tietz: I would too. I think the renovation looks to be in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood, which is nice to see and also I think the treatment that you used in the elevations and the way you’re remodeling the interior looks to be a much more functional home and for your 3 boys. We have 3 boys too. They’re a lot older than your’s but I know those years when they were active but I think it looks like a, it’s compatible with the neighborhood which is really important and I think recognizing the setbacks and doing what you could within the confines is to be you know it’s good. Aller: Great. Well I’m inclined to adopt the Findings of Fact for approval. I think it’s great that our citizens continue to come forward and ask for the blessing so to speak and following the code and requesting variances so that we can do the building and we can grow as a community in the proper fashion. Looking at the property I love the fact that we’re actually reducing the hard cover surfaces back to something which would be appropriate and it looks as though they were stuck with a piece of property that was non-conforming originally. It doesn’t expand the, other than the technical legal expansion but in a real world sense for our purposes I think it doesn’t expand it so that it’s an unreasonable use of the property or an unreasonable request. For that purpose, for those stated reasons I would support it as well. Any further discussion? If not I’ll entertain a motion. Undestad: I’ll make a motion. That the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 15 foot setback variance from the 75 foot shoreline setback to expand a 13 foot by 12 foot section of the existing deck subject to the following conditions. Number 1, the applicant shall reduce the hard surface coverage of the property to not exceed 25 percent. Number 2, the building expansion does not encroach farther than 15 feet into the 75 foot shoreline setback. And number 3, the applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Undestad and a second by Commissioner Weick, I would offer any further discussion. Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Planning Commission acting as the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 15 foot setback variance from the 75 foot shoreline setback to expand a 13 foot by 12 foot section of the existing deck subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reduce the hard surface coverage of the property to not exceed 25 percent. 2. The building expansion does not encroach farther than 15 feet into the 75 foot shoreline setback. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REDSTONE RIDGE, PLANNING CASE 2015-08: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF 2.74 ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 6341 AND 6400 TETON LANE-REDSTONE RIDGE. APPLICANT/OWNER: CHRIS MAY/CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This is an application from Chris May. Again this is scheduled to go to the City Council. The application is for a subdivision. This is located on lots 6341 and 6400 Teton Lane. Approximately 2.74 acres are included in this 4 lot. The property is zoned Residential Single Family and the site contains 2 existing single family homes which will remain. Access is gained to the site via Bretton Way and Teton Lane and again there’s 2 existing homes. Ultimately 2 other homes will be created. So this looks a little catty whompis here but there’s a couple of different things going on. There’s an excess right-of-way that’s on this northern piece right here that needs to be attached. It’s actually part of a street right-of-way and that will be public hearing for vacation of right-of- way will be held at the City Council meeting and that will be attached. That’s what this red arrow is to show you that it will be attached to this lot and then there’s another portion of this lot here that is owned by this property so the assemblence of those two, with these existing homes is what makes up the requirement for the subdivision. So as I just mentioned this is the right-of- way vacation. Again this item will go to the City Council but we wanted to show you that it is included in the actual application for the subdivision. So as we always do when we do a subdivision, before we look at any variances because this application does have a variance for a flag lot, is to look at what would the implications of doing a public street and looking at how that 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 would service 4 homes on the site and it would mass grade the site. You can see down here it’s pretty steep on the bottom part of the lots and also wrapping around so in looking at that it really took out quite a bit of vegetation so in looking at the other position which would be to use the existing access to the site and see how that would lay out. So using the existing infrastructure in place which would be Teton and Bretton Way was how we looked at providing those additional lots. So you can see the existing home. 3 and 4 and then Lots 1 and 2 would then be the new lots so again that’s picking up the reconfiguration of this excess here and the street right-of-way. But what that does is that it creates number 3 would then have a flag lot so that’s what we’re doing for the variance. In the past when we’ve looked at flag lots sometimes the orientation of the house sometimes doesn’t kind of match the neighborhood. That maybe you might have someone, instead of having side yards next to each other you have someone that’s front yard facing them but in this circumstance you’ve got the separation is such that it lays out pretty well as far as the access to this lot. The existing garage. The front of the lots facing kind of the side or portion of the back of Lot 2 so we believe that it, with the variance, saving some of those natural features there makes sense so we would recommend the variance in this layout. Again not putting additional road right-of-way in an area that we were talking about kind of at our work session earlier. Talking about how you manage stormwater issues on these sites where you have existing lots of record and maybe not as much space. Preserving those trees. Providing for extraction for some of that stormwater we think makes a lot of sense. All these lots do meet the requirements of the 15,000 square feet and actually one of the lots is significantly larger and that would be Lot 3 with existing home. Again all these lots then do meet all the other requirements of the RSF zoning district. So with that with a variance we do have the criteria for the variance in your staff report. If you have questions on that I’d be happy to go through that with you but based on the topography and the likes we do support that variance and so we are recommending approval for the combination and then re-subdivision for a preliminary plat for the 4.74 acres for the property zoned Residential Single Family at 6341 and 6400 Teton Lane and then adoption of the Findings of Fact. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. Tietz: Kate about the building, designated building sites for Lots 1 and 2. How were those determined and how will those be controlled because it looks like the grading was done for a specific building pad. Aanenson: Yes. Tietz: Yet there’s no architecture for that pad. Aanenson: Yeah that’s a good question. When we look at the grading plan, and actually I do have it here at the end of the report. What we do when we look at the grading plan is we do an elevation so it’s a little difficult to see on here but that’s something that engineering reviews. Tietz: Right. Aanenson: And we mark on that whether it can be a lookout or walkout so when the plans come in they have to match that. And what we do is with the building plans we show approximate location of where that building should be sited in there. That doesn’t give a lot of deviation from that with staying with the grading plan. What we’ve learned historically and we’ve gotten better 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 at is not allowing that change because then it causes excessive grading and what we envision for controlling the water. If someone goes in and does excessive grading will change the drainage pattern in the neighborhood so that is the intended approximate location of the building pad. Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: And then driveway orientation again and then the plans will call out whether it can be lookout, walkout, or just a full basement. Tietz: Yeah because the site, building pad number 1 looks more flexible depending upon, you know how the property sits today. Aanenson: I would agree, it’s the flattest. Tietz: That’s the flattest. Aanenson: Correct. Tietz: And then number 2 it starts to go up in the back side of the property. Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Tietz: So there would be some latitude if a contractor, developer, architect wanted to come in and push that building pad back as long as they deal with the stormwater runoff? Aanenson: Correct. Or if there’s tree preservation in that area. There’s also, let me go to the, there’s a tree preservation. So this is the area we’ve identified that most of the trees will be in that shaded green area. Tietz: Right. Aanenson: So the existing trees as I mentioned, where it’s steeper on the backs of lots, most of those is where we’d want the trees to be saved but you can see on the back of Lot 2 there is still some area that we would preserve some of those. You know most of this is not much vegetation so to get access to lots is mostly in the front. It’d be an area then for replanting or buffer. Tietz: Okay, thank you. Aller: Any additional questions of staff? Seeing none we’ll have, open the public hearing portion. Is the applicant present? Chris May: Hi. My name is Chris May. I own the property at 6400 Teton Lane. Just want to introduce myself and. Aller: Welcome Mr. May. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Chris May: Thank you. Yeah just asking for you to consider this proposal with the flag pole lot. I think it fits best with the neighborhood not having to have another cul-de-sac or street coming into the property and it gives the best options. And also looking at the house pads, you know for Lot 2 they’re, we tried to keep the setbacks so that that house could still even be moved towards the back of the lot as well so it’s just where it might finally end up could be different from where it’s shown on that picture but still sticking within the setbacks and variances there. I’ve owned the house for about 4 years now and you know just kind of looking at developing the front 2 lots. Probably just market it and see what the options are. Whether it be you know a custom build or maybe even trying to build a house on my own on one of the lots too so. And the plan too would be you know custom homes but keeping it consistent with the other sizes of the homes in the neighborhood and hopefully it works out. Thank you. Aller: Great. Just the packet for those of you who are here haven’t seen it or those at home and haven’t checked the website, you just talked about taking a look at other options. We did look at the public way option which would have been a cul-de-sac but that would have been a detriment with regard to the water and access for purposes of the homes and setbacks correct? Chris May: I agree. Yes. Especially I mean seeing the slope of the hill and trying to cut a road in there and now all of a sudden the houses would be pretty well set up. Otherwise you’re going to have a real steep kind of street going in there so it’s kind of, I think for grading issues and everything just you know being able to do the flag pole lot would kind of be the best for the existing. Aller: This way we can maintain a lot more trees. Chris May: Yes. I mean it’s. Aller: Preserve. Chris May: And again a lot of the tree coverages in the back behind the house along the bluff, towards the park and all that will be left undisturbed. And then along the fence line to the east, you know there’s some nice trees that are along that way and that all remains not to be taken out so. Aller: Great. Any additional questions? Mr. Weick. Weick: Just is existing house 4 included because you needed a little bit, did you redraw the property on that? Chris May: Yes. Weick: Just to gauge. Chris May: If you can see the original property lines, so that 6341 I worked with the neighbor to do a lot line transfer. They owned the whole frontage along Teton and I needed that frontage to allow my driveway accesses for Lots 2 and 3.\\ 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Weick: Oh it went that way. Oh I got you. Chris May: Yeah, you see he owned that whole frontage there so I. Weick: Yep. Yep, understood. Aanenson: Can I just add, with any infill development there’s challenges, yeah. So obviously he worked with staff. With Sharmeen who actually put, did the staff report to try to figure out a way to accomplish that and then even vacating the street to get that little remnant piece attached to this so a little bit more. And back to the cul-de-sac issue, and maybe Stephanie had some additional comments on just the implications of trying to address additional stormwater and the like. Bartels: As I think has been mentioned it does a service to keep the trees and the existing tree coverage where it is. As far as keeping additional water flowing down there. Keeping all the sediment that’s already there. The soils that are there in place with those tree roots and with that tree coverage. It’s to the benefit of the stormwater in the area to keep that there if possible. Weick: Because it’s a significant drop. I’m horrible with directions. That way you know off. Bartels: Yeah you can see right here. Chris May: In the back yeah down to the park it’s. Weick: Well the other one too. There’s houses right back. Chris May: On the east side as well it drops off that way but it’s pretty level to the west. Weick: So we certainly don’t want to create anything that pushes stormwater that way. Aanenson: Yeah, right. Weick: Okay. Aller: Great, thank you. Chris May: Thank you. Aanenson: And I just want to point out too, I think which was mentioned that there is trees up in this area so if you push that house back you could put a driveway through that might minimize some of those trees and preserve. I think so too yeah. So we would work on that because these are custom homes we’d work on that with the future buyer. I’m assuming that someone buying it may want to consider that too. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Aller: When they come in to do a final. With that I’ll open up the public hearing portion. Any individual wishing to speak either for or against the item before us can come forward and do so at this time. Sir if you come forward and state your name and address for the record that would be great. Daniel Fuller: Daniel Fuller, 6430 Bretton Way. So I’m 2 doors down to the east on the corner on Bretton Way. Overall I’m fine with this. I think it will look nice. You know have the lots be similar with the rest of the neighborhood. My only concern is because you know it was mentioned before that to the east there is a very steep hill and I’m at the bottom of the hill along with some of my neighbors. Our yards are pretty much unusable from March until June because of the snow melt and the rainfall so anything we can do to make sure all these houses, their stormwater goes west instead of down the hill that would be great. Thanks. Aller: Thank you. Bartels: And if I can address that. Aller: Please do. Bartels: Yeah. Taking a look at the grading for the proposed site, you can see that it keeps the existing drainage pattern of the area. It’s continuing to drain mostly towards Bretton Way and towards Teton Lane and it’s not creating additional grading that would, that would be sending extra water down that hill towards those homes. Aller: Any additional comments, questions? Any other individual wishing to come forward to speak for or against the item or comment on the item. Seeing no one come forward I’m closing the public hearing and opening it up for commissioner discussion. I think it’s preliminary plat. What we’re trying to do here is give a good starting point. It will be finalized in the fine tuning and the drainage, final drainage issues will be resolved at that time and certainly part of the record and staff is aware of our concerns and as a City we’ve always been concerned with our waste water management and our management system so based on the report and the comments as provided I would support a motion. Undestad: I’ll jump in again here. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: I recommend that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve preliminary plat with variances to replat of 2.74 acres into 4 lots, Redstone Ridge on property zoned single family residential (RSF) and located at 6341 and 6400 Teton Lane and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Aller: Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Undestad and seconded by Commissioner Madsen. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Preliminary Plat with a Variance for the use of a neck lot, to replat 2.74 acres into four lots, Redstone Ridge as shown in plans dated received February 14, 2015, including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: 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 Redstone Ridge for the two new housing units only. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the city’s 2015 single-family park fee of $5,800 per unit, the total park fees for Redstone Ridge would be $11,600. Engineering Conditions: 1.The plans shall show the first-floor elevations of existing buildings on adjacent properties. 2.The grading plans shall be revised to show the proposed elevations at each lot corner and at the corners of the proposed structures. 3.Draintile service must be provided for Lots 1 and 2 where runoff will flow from the back to the front of the lot. 4.A soils report is required indicating soil conditions, permeability, slope and water level if detected. 5.The plan must indicate that all swales discharging off site are to have the final 200 feet stabilized and the method to be used. 6.The silt fence must comply with City Detail 5300 which requires the use of metal tee-posts. 7.The silt fence shown across Lots 3 and 4 must be placed twenty (20) feet from the top of the bluff to ensure that entire bluff impact zone is protected. 8.Inlet protection shall be shown on all existing catch basins with the potential to receive runoff from the site or tracked material. 9.Plan must demonstrate the placement of a rock construction entrance and include a detail. 10.A note shall be made that no less than six (6) inches of topsoil, meeting the MnDOT specifications for 3877.2 Loam Topsoil Borrow must be placed to achieve the final grade and prior to the placement of any sod. 11.The plan must show a stockpile area for stripped topsoil. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 12.The erosion escrow shall be required reflecting the quantity of topsoil necessary to place six (6) inches over Lots 1 and 2 excluding the 25% hardcover allowed with the Development Contract. 13.The grading plan shall label the elevation at the centerline of the proposed driveways. 14.The plan must label the proposed grade of the new driveway for the home on Lot 3. 15.The new driveway pavement being installed at Lot 3 may not exceed a width of 50 feet. 16.Escrow for the construction of the new sanitary sewer and water services and the associated restoration of part of Teton Lane will be collected with the Development Contract. 17.Surface Water Management Utility fees totaling $6,025.80 shall be due at final plat. 18.Partial water and sewer hookup fees will be due at the time of final plat; the remaining hook- up fees will be due with the building permit. The fees will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time. Environmental Resource Conditions: 1.Tree protection fencing will be required at the edge of grading limits near any preserved trees. It shall be installed prior to grading. 2.Each lot will be required to have a minimum of one tree in the front yard. Planning Conditions: 1.Approval of the subdivision is contingent on approval of the right-of-way vacation. 2.All lots must maintain a maximum hard surface coverage of 25%. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: Okay going back to new business. ADOPTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS. Aller: Under the present Bylaws 7.4 review, we do an annual review of the Bylaws. Has everyone had an opportunity to read and review the Bylaws that are in draft form before us? Any comments? Recommended changes. Hearing none I’ll take a motion to adopt the Bylaws. Undestad: Motion to approve. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission adopts the Bylaws for the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. Aller: According to those Bylaws on 4.1 at the first meeting in April we elect Chairman and a Vice Chairman. So moving to that item for election, we can proceed by ballot. We can proceed by voice. Undestad: I’ll nominate Andrew as Chairman again. Weick: Can I second that? Is that what we’re looking for? Aller: I guess you can. Weick: I would second that. Aller: Any other nominations? Okay. Undestad: For Chairman no. Aller: For Chairman. Hearing none, nominations are closed. Undestad moved, Weick seconded to appoint Andrew Aller as Chairman of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: Motion for or requesting a person to come forward for a Vice Chair. Undestad: I’ll nominate Steven down there. Aller: Having a nomination for Commissioner Weick. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: We have a nomination and a second. Any further nominations? Nominations are closed. Undestad moved, Madsen seconded to appoint Steven Weick as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Aller: I have in review of the Minutes and in discussion with the individual who is speaking Charles Gust, if you turn to page 15 of those Minutes. On paragraph 6, line 6 where Mr. Gust is discussing. He says I’ve got really, and it states I’ve got a you know a dog in the fight. He clarified at the council meeting subsequent to that and in discussions with me that he had stated no dog in the fight. So with that amendment are there any other amendments? So would someone like to move those Minutes as amended? Undestad: So noted. Aller: Thank you. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Undestad moved, Madsen seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 17, 2015 as amended on page 15, paragraph 6, line 6 to read “no dog in the fight”. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Aller: I’d just like to remind everybody and those individuals at home that the State of the City th Address is on Tuesday, April 28 at the American Legion. That’s sponsored by Buy America, or Buy Chanhassen which is also in America. The price is $15 either in advance or at the door so I would suggest and it’s a great opportunity to support Chanhassen. Go listen to our Mayor give his State of the City Address and that will start at 11:30 with a social and at noon they’ll have the food and the presentation. Any additional commission presentations? Then we’ll move on to City Council update. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. This update are for a couple of meetings because we haven’t rd met for a little bit so on February 23 the zoning ordinance amendment for the sale of wine at Bluff Creek Golf Course was approved and I do believe they’ve come in for that. Mission Hills Senior Living was approved and that one’s, there’s some engineering work to do on that yet and some architectural so that very specific for the memory care units. Very detailed architectural plans on that so we don’t expect to see a permit on that until probably June or later. Maybe July th while they work through all their issues to get their permit. Then on 610 West 96 Street, the request for a variance there was denied. And then on the County Road 61 corridor study, that amendment is before the Met Council for their review so we should be hearing on that probably in 30 days. Generous: Yes but they found our original submittal incomplete because of a map error. Aanenson: Yeah so we should be through there within 30 days. The nice thing is we actually had a tour. Some of the Met Council representatives out here so we were able to go down and so th I think it will help to better understand what the issues are down there. Then on March 9 the 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 City Council did consider the conceptual PUD for the lifestyle center. For the 78 acres. The City Council did order preparation of the AUAR which is the environmental document. That AUAR is going, the City is the governmental unit to control that so that is going to the City th Council this next Monday which is the 13 so that will start that process. As I mentioned earlier the City will also be undertaking a visioning process and so you will certainly be informed of both of those and I’ll keep you updated on that as things go along so you don’t get it all at once. rd Kind of in a big hearing without kind of being kept up to speed on that. And then on the 23 there were no planning items because there was no planning meetings so we’ll be catching up. I did have a couple other things I’d like to share with you. I did include a couple articles on, as we’re tracking. As we’re starting to work towards our Comprehensive Plan. Tracking the growth populations. You know where they think growth is happening. You saw in there Carver County they still think a lot of growth is going on in Carver County. Again we’re tracking that as far as willing sellers and kind of mixing up, matching the market. Some of the senior housing needs. Some of the different product needs as we talked about. Maybe some single family. Not single family but single story. More senior. Detached senior housing type products so we’re seeing some demand for that and you may see an application in on that one. Future Planning Commission items. I did exchange that up from what was in your packet because we didn’t have th on there the May 11 joint meeting with the City Council. So at your next meeting, which is two st weeks from tonight. On April 21 you will be hearing from the Children’s Learning Adventure that’s on Galpin Boulevard so again we transfer, we’re doing a PUD. Keeping everything on the north side of that road as open space and then again that provides for as part of the Bluff Creek and stormwater mitigation. Open space. It is a large daycare. 33,000 square feet you can see on that so I do anticipate a few people from the neighborhood there so, so also we’re going to have a discussion then on the housing action plan so just open discussion. I’d keep you informed of th what that is. And as of right now we do not have anything in for May 5. As we talked about there are quite a few projects that are trying to get legs. That they’re working through their entitlements and we do have something going to the City Council, a purchase agreement for a medical office on the water treatment site which what we call Gateway West so that’s just on the other side of, would be right on Highway 5. Just on the other side of Great Plains so that’s an office building so you’ll probably see that here in a couple months so a few things that are coming in. And then also Beehive expansion. So Beehive is doing really well. They’ve actually got a purchase agreement and they’re going to buy some of the property immediately to the south and then they ghost platted the rest of that. We thought that would come in right away. We saw the ghost plat and it needs a little work yet so. We like to always make sure that you know our job is to make sure that all the pieces of the puzzle fit so when you’re taking off one piece and adding it to another, you can’t just leave the other and say well now what are we going to do with this. We want to see how that’s going to lay out with the road issues. The nice thing with this plat is that it does create a T intersection to go into the middle school. Safer turning movements. Safer conditions. It’s a little bit problematic out there right now. Do you want to say something on that? Bartels: Yeah it will…accesses onto Trunk Highway 41 to help MnDOT with reduced accesses to that street. Aller: So the, will the access run behind the property that’s there or. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Aanenson: Right in front of it. Aller: Is it where you’re talking about the T in the 41. Aanenson: Yeah you’ll come in and go in front of the existing house. That homeowner will stay there and then it will go over to the existing. Aller: So 7 and 41 and we’re going south on 41. That’s a, right now it’s just an in/out for Beehive? Bartels: Yes it is and when they put in the addition it will also access the current existing home to the south there. Aanenson: He’s not ready to move yet so we’re ghost platting it but yeah you’ll have full turn movement there at one location with the middle school. I think that’s where some of the conflict comes in right now. Turning movements at the end of day. End of school day so. Aller: I’m familiar with it. th Aanenson: So that takes us up to, up to May 19. We anticipate that they were trying to shoot th for May 11 but again the ghost plat came in. The engineering where they’re looking at stormwater so we need to work on some of those issues yet so. Aller: Great. Aanenson: And there are things that are out there in the works so right now that’s all we have for action items that we know of that’s on the agenda. We’re tracking some projects under possible future items. We talked about a few of those industrial parks. And also another one at the southwest corner of Lyman and 101. Someone’s working on that for kind of a single story. Maybe adult active living. It’s a really nice fit that when we did that neighborhood, kind of blends in nice with the transit so again it’s a little bit of a challenge site. That’s kind of what’s left right now. Kind of the more challenging ones so. And then we also are working on one now too on the northeast corner of Lyman and Lucy. Again infill 3 lot subdivision so some of those might pop up here so see those. And then I was just going to give you an update on the new businesses. So we talked about all that. Potbelly’s and Smashburger opened. Hopefully you have opportunity to go there. Sports Clip Hair also at that same, and AT&T at those same shopping center there. And then another chiropractic, Abundant Life Chiropractor at Stone Creek and then Regal Connection dog products on Park Court. So with that, that’s all I had Chairman. If there’s anything else you have for us. Aller: Nothing more here. Entertain a motion to adjourn. Weick moved, Undestad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 18