Loading...
PC Minutes 02-16-2016 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 2016 Acting Chair Undestad called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, and Maryam Yusuf MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Aller, Lisa Hokkanen, and Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC PRESENT: Aaron Brady 8735 Flamingo Drive Mark Randall 6460 Yosemite Steve Burke 9591 Meadowlark Lane Dan Hanson 1450 West Farm Road Wayne Beuban 361 Trappers Pass PUBLIC HEARING: 9641 MEADOWLARK LANE WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND VARIANCE, PLANNING CASE 2016-04: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SHORELAND SETBACK AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RR). APPLICANT/OWNER: DAVID VOGEL. Spreiter: Thank you Chairman Undestad and commissioners. As stated this is the public hearing for the wetland alteration permit and variance request for 9641 Meadowlark Lane. The site is located on the south shore of Lake Riley. It’s within the Riley Lake Meadows neighborhood which is a rural residential neighborhood. The intent of the project is to provide access to the property and allow for future construction of a single family residence. The existing site does not have a driveway. The applicant has, or I’m sorry the owner has been accessing the site utilizing the neighbor’s driveway. I don’t know why it’s not. There are no current structures on the property. The property contains 3 wetlands. One of the wetlands contains a tributary stream that flows from the south to north into Lake Riley. The current required setback is 100 feet from the tributary stream. The applicant is proposing to encroach 70 feet into the required setback in order to construct the driveway. The current proposed alignment was chosen in order to avoid impacts to Wetland Basin 3. Next slide please. This is a drawing of the proposed access. The highlighted green there is the proposed driveway and alignment. The areas in red are the wetlands and the area in yellow is the proposed wetland impact to Basin 1. The proposed angle was chosen to avoid impacts to wetland 3. So while as to provide a safer and easier access from Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 Meadowlark Lane, specifically to accommodate construction vehicles and larger vehicles such as delivery vehicles. City code does recommend a 90 degree angle. In order to achieve this the driveway would need to be widen and that would result in more impacts to Wetland 1. One of the conditions of approval also states that the current variance only allow for construction of the driveway to occur just beyond the wetland areas until a site plan and building permit has been submitted and approved. Next slide please. The nature of the site currently as well as the location of the tributary stream makes it very difficult to access the site and comply with the 100 foot setback, especially in the southern portion of the site. Next slide please. Wetlands on the site were delineated in October of 2015. There are 3 basins on the site. The tributary stream is part of Wetland Basin 1 which also runs parallel to Meadowlark Lane which also makes it hard to access the site without having impacts. Next slide please. A total of 957 square feet of impact is proposed as part of the project. The impacts are to be mitigated for using wetland bank credits. This is consistent with Chapter 8420 of the Wetland Conservation Act. Next slide. The Wetland Conservation Act has specific sequencing requirements for wetland replacement applications including minimizing impacts to the greatest extent possible. Impacts could be further reduced by bringing the width of the driveway to a minimum of 10 feet allowed by city code. This was originally not discussed in the original application that was submitted. However the applicant has submitted an addendum that addresses this minimization. The primary reason stated was to create a safer access as well as allow for construction vehicles to enter the site in order to construct the single family residence. Staff is recommending approval with conditions for both the wetland alteration permit and variance in this case. Next slide please. Undestad: Okay, thank you. Spreiter: Sorry, in summary the applicant has made significant efforts to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Sequencing requirements for the Wetland Conservation Act were not fully met in the original application. However the applicant has provided further argument and explanation of alternatives and minimizations. Therefore staff is recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit and shoreland setback variance from a tributary stream with conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. That concludes my presentation. Thank you and I’ll take any questions at this time. Undestad: Thank you. Back to our commissioners for any comments or questions. Madsen: I have a question. So are you proposing then that they reduce the width to 10 feet, is that correct? Spreiter: No. It was just that it should have been included. That option should have been included in the original application so one of the conditions was that they provide an argument as to why they could not minimize to 10 feet which they did at a later time and then that was submitted as an addendum to the application. So they’ve now fulfilled their sequencing requirements. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 Madsen: So it is not a condition at this time? Spreiter: It is a condition but the condition has been met. So after the conditions were made and the staff report was submitted they came back with an addendum. Madsen: Okay. Spreiter: And I believe that was submitted to the commissioners or available online for viewing. Aanenson: So just to be clear you’re making them reduce it to 10. Spreiter: No. No sorry. The answer is no we’re not. Madsen: Okay because it was listed under the recommendations so that’s, I just wanted to clarify. Spreiter: Right. Madsen: Okay, and are you recommending that the intersection be at a 90 degree angle now or not? Spreiter: No because it would actually result in more impact but because it’s recommended by city code and it was a comment by engineering I thought I would address it. So the reason for the angle that’s proposed instead of the recommended 90 degree angle is that it allows for a narrower driveway. Less impact and easier access. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Spreiter: Sure. Undestad: Anyone else? Tietz: Yeah assuming that the slide is for future development how will sewer and water be handled? Aanenson: Septic will be required for this. Tietz: It’s septic. Aanenson: Yep, septic and well correct. Tietz: Okay. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 Aanenson: There’s no municipal services in this area. Tietz: There are no, okay so sewer would be a well and septic. Aanenson: (Yes). Tietz: Okay, sorry. I should have looked at the map. Aanenson: That’s alright. Undestad: Okay. Anyone else? This is a public hearing so we’ll. Aanenson: Maybe let the applicant speak before the public hearing that’d be. Undestad: If the applicant’s present would you like to speak? Dave Vogel: Hello. My name is Dave Vogel. Just thank you for being here tonight and we’ve been working with Krista and some of the others at the planning committee for some time. It’s been tough with the dual permitting with Riley-Purgatory Creek district as well but we would really like to have this set so we can figure out when to put our house on the market and proceed with other plans including you know the house location and final settlement of everything right now so. The width, working my builder we absolutely need it to be more than 10 feet. The truck that would be bringing most the material on, the wheel base is 9 feet 8 inches so also there’s a pretty good ditch there with snow in the winter, I absolutely don’t want to have any guests or heaven forbid myself or my wife go off into the ditch so a wider driveway with the angle and then also you know it’s using an existing road that we’ve been using for over 100 years. You can see it on the maps. It’s been a dirt road forever. I’ve got a hard copy if you’d like to see it. There you go. And the kindness of the neighbor to the right said well just instead of driving through the ditch just drive on my driveway and take a left so that’s what we’ve been doing for now but that doesn’t work for the future so. That’s all I’ve got. Undestad: Okay, any questions for the applicant? No. Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Dan Hanson: Could I? Undestad: Oh sure, come on up. Dan Hanson: My name is Dan Hanson. I’m with Wausau Homes. I’m the builder for the Vogel family. Been working with them for the last 6 months on this project and we started about 3 months ago trying to get our arms around the challenges with this particular piece of land and making sure that we’re ahead of the game with regards to, which we found out was quite a bit of stuff with regards to wetlands and setbacks and all that so we originally went in for the request to 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 build a bridge or a road over that ditch area from the cul-de-sac road to what you can see is that dirt road that they’ve been using for many, many years. Our intent all along was to use that road as the primary road getting to the property and because it was basically a good location. It fed the lot the way we needed it to and left us with room at the top of that lot near the lake to place the home. We quickly found with the wetland study that we had some real challenges with regards to placement of not only the ditch area. The road over the ditch but the road itself continuing on. Our assumption was when we were going through this process we were addressing not only that ditch area but we were addressing, excuse me the road and the location of that so when we were requesting variance we were also hoping to get the same variance for that road the entire length of the road as it currently sits. Placement. We were not going to be excavating that road. We were basically building on top of it so we felt best location, least amount of impact to wetlands because we’re not excavating, digging anything up. We’re not creating a new road. We’re just going over the top of the existing so we later found that we are now in a situation where we’re only addressing that first few feet of the lot and getting over that ditch area. We did not have a building survey for the lot at the time we started this because for us it was like we needed to know whether we could get the road where we want it so we’d know how to set up the survey. We’ve since now paid engineers to do quite a bit of work on the bridge area. We’ve also had engineer do a complete survey of the lot. We’ve had a wetland study to show us everything that’s going on with regards to the lot. We think that the survey we’ve now, excuse me have is pretty detailed. We were hoping to get as much detail on that survey because we’re not only dealing with the folks in the many departments here in Chanhassen but we’ve now been told we have to work through the, through the watershed district as well and they are asking for almost the same stuff that we’re doing here and we are now going through that same process all over again which keeps setting us back, setting us back. So the reason I’m talking today is I’d like to at least plant a seed with regards to what we have coming next because it sounds like we have to now go in and put together documentation to get a variance for the entire length of that road and the placement of that house. We would like to see that house with the same setback and road with the same setback as that driveway. Otherwise we have to reroute that road somewhere else to get to that 100 foot setback from the creek. We submitted the survey to building officials for them to review so that we could get ahead of the game there and hopefully not get caught off guard and have to start the process all over again and unfortunately they came back. We were assuming they were onboard with that same road being used. They are now saying that they’re going to, unless we can come up with some argument, push us to the 100 foot setback from the creek which would now take that road clear to the lot line. To the far right of the property and it would completely change everything we are doing with regards to our septic systems drain fields. We’ve got 2 drain fields in there that have been engineered and they are actually all fitting in nicely the way they are if the road can go where we’re asking it to go. If they force us to go to the 100 foot setback we will have to, I don’t even know if we’ll get those drain fields in because they’re very tight already. And even if we do get them in we’re still going to need a variance because they’re going to be within the 100 feet so I just wanted to just at least bring it up that we are, we are really a bit frustrated because we keep thinking we’re getting ahead of things and we keep getting setbacks so but we’re going to follow the steps and 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 bring forward to you the next steps which are getting the variance for the driveway the entire way up. Thank you. Undestad: Thank you. Aanenson: Just for everyone’s edification I think it’s helpful to understand the, so this survey was submitted last Thursday so the packet had gone out. The wetland sequencing all that was done. Gone to the watershed district so the concern was from the staff’s perspective is does the driveway need to be that long to accommodate the site and now there’s also 2 drain field sites on that. While they may have been marked we haven’t reviewed them. I’m not sure the building department’s looked at them to make sure that they work so that was the question is, is this the right place for the driveway because we looked at what the setbacks would be, and I understand what they’re saying is that it was their intent that if the driveway would be over here then they were, if they stayed within that line that, that met their intent but unfortunately it wasn’t how we noticed it. We noticed it for the driveway variance so we’re just trying to get a handle on this because all this just came to light of what their expectations were today so we’re trying to get a handle on that. Understanding that they’re saying that these already staked the drain field sites and again we haven’t received any documentation or anything on that and that may be true. Obviously that’s important to make sure they’re in the right place so we’re trying to work through that issue. So there was a condition addressing that and I’ll let Krista address that. That was on the shoreland variance setback, condition number 1. Is that the condition that talks about the driveway not being approved beyond what was necessary. Spreiter: Right so it’s just contingent on having a submitted an approved site plan such as this. When they came in for the driveway we didn’t have a site plan or a certified survey even really showing where the edge of the creek was so we didn’t want to approve just a blanket variance for a driveway that we didn’t know how far it would go into the site. Where it would curve or lead to a house so that’s why that condition was added. That upon approval or submittal of a site plan and a building permit that we would explore the rest of the driveway. Aanenson: So you can see the house is in that setback area which we didn’t notice on that so we’re trying to find a way to work through that issue so right now the variance you have in front of you is for the driveway length. The way the condition reads is that if it meets, unless it meets the setback and I’m trying to get an opinion on that. Whether or not where we are on that. This meets that test or not so. Undestad: So what we have, what we’re looking at right now is the length. The variance for the length of the driveway. Aanenson: Right. Undestad: There’s a good chance we’re going to see something else coming up or. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 Aanenson: Right. The challenge is, because what’s for a driveway if you look at the notice it was for a driveway location so you know they didn’t have the house there as shown yet so we were just saying you know does the driveway need to go that far back if you’re not sure where the house is going to go and so because we just received this so their interpretation was as long as we stayed behind that line we were okay. And I’m not sure if that meets the, you know the legal interpretation of what we were giving the variance to so we have time between now and when it goes to City Council and this was scheduled because we were supposed to have it 2 weeks ago but we had snow and so we were going to try to turn it around quickly. We’re trying to meet their timeline so we try to get a legal opinion on that tomorrow and see if it would stay on or if we need to kind of go back and revisit that so that’s kind of where we’re sitting right now but we’d still like you to make an opinion. You should make one as shown. An opinion on the house setback but a motion for sure of what was presented tonight and maybe just give some direction on the other I think would be helpful. Undestad: Okay so again that’s all we’re looking at tonight is what’s in front of us and not what’s dealing with the house location or the. Aanenson: I think you may want to make some comments on that if it goes to City Council and they make some different interpretation on that. If that makes sense but correct, you should at minimum do the motion that’s in front of you now. Undestad: Okay. Aanenson: The two. Undestad: Okay, this is a public hearing. Anybody else wish to come up and speak? State your name and address. Steve Burke: Hello, Steve Burke, 9591 Meadowlark Lane. I’m just 2 lots to the west of the property there and I’ve been there 27-28 years. This is a unique piece of property. I can see where it’s going to be difficult. I just listening I just want to make sure that today’s action, your ruling on getting across the ditch through the wetland and getting them a road. This is any variance that you grant is for the road. You know the driveway. Undestad: Right. Steve Burke: Not for the house site and not for anything else. Undestad: Yep. Steve Burke: And other than that we’re looking forward to having a house finally to finish off that development but it is a very challenging piece of property there. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 Undestad: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none I’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commissioners for comments, questions. Madsen: So this is just for the access to the, really it’s not the final driveway. Or the house. Yusuf: No it kind of sounds like it would be. Aanenson: Well the motion doesn’t take it all the way back. Do you know how many feet it goes back approximately? How far the driveway goes back, do you have lineal feet on that? Spreiter: The current mowed driveway or? Aanenson: The proposed variance. Spreiter: The proposed variance only, I don’t have a footage. It’s only to get beyond the wetlands so this shows basically what, in this diagram right here this shows what you’re approving. Madsen: Okay. Spreiter: That would be all the length that you’re approving tonight with that condition that was added, yes. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Spreiter: If you, do you want. We could maybe go to another image that would zoom out if you’d like but that image was basically it so just beyond that, you see W3, that wetland area. That’s basically it is what this is proposing. Yusuf: I think I may have misunderstood. Did you say earlier that we were approving the length, the total length of the driveway? Spreiter: No we’re not. Yusuf: Okay. Undestad: Yeah the access in. Aanenson: Yeah I’m just trying to get a better picture because I’m struggling. Spreiter: I know we don’t have a lot of. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 Aanenson: Well so the issue is, is once you get, I’m asking a question. So once you get past the wetland, the impacts are, they can stay without, they can continue constructing without a variance or? Spreiter: No then they have to meet the setback as that condition is written right now. Aanenson: Okay so let’s clarify that. I think that’s a helpful piece of information. Spreiter: Right. Aanenson: So I’m just trying to find out that shows the driveway on there. Let’s go back to the drawing at the end. I think that’s what, so what we’re saying is once you get past these wetlands which is somewhere in here correct. Spreiter: Yeah. Aanenson: The rest is as long as this driveway stays outside of the required 75 feet setback. Spreiter: It’s 100 feet. Aanenson: 100 feet. This is the 100 foot then right here correct? Undestad: The solid line. Aanenson: Oh 100 feet so none of this is within 100 feet so what we need a variance for all of it so what you just said is they still would need, okay. Spreiter: The way that condition is written yes. Aanenson: Okay. Tietz: What’s the dash, the black dot dash line? That parallels the tributary. Spreiter: That is the wetland, proposed wetland buffer line. Tietz: Okay. Spreiter: So the tributary is in blue there. That’s the edge of creek so that’s what they’re setting back from or approximate OHW. The dotted red is the 75. These are all approximate of course because we don’t have a certified survey but the 100 feet is the dark red. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 Tietz: And the proposed grading for the road within that, within the 75 feet is that proposed grading or as it’s graded today? It looks like the contours have been altered on this drawing so it looks like proposed grading. Spreiter: (Yes). Maybe the builder would like to speak to that. Dave Vogel: Just to go back that road’s been there for, I mean it’s been in the family for over 100 years. My grandparents owned it. My parents owned it. My mom recently gifted to us and so throughout the whole time we were trying to not cut down any trees for this driveway because of these, you know the cattail wetlands were a given. There’s a small area that’s, it’s called wetland but to avoid that wetland we’re moving over and cutting down very nice large maple trees. We were then going to continue along a driveway. It’s compacted dirt. It was tractors before and now it’s you know Ford Explorers. I’ve been driving on it now so it’s, we tried to not cut down any trees. We’re cutting down trees to save the wetland. The cattails, wherever we go there’s cattails just on the ditch itself and so the whole proposal was, what our understanding was, not catching the conditions part of it until today is that it’s only so far. If we have to do a right angle on that right hand side there I don’t understand why we’d be doing this. There’d be more wetlands if we go to the right because there’s one of those screen shots. There’s across the ditch there’s another little bubble of wetland and so we were trying to avoid that and that tied in nicely where the vast majority of the way could go on the existing road and not cut down additional trees. If we push it all the way to the right, the east end of that lot there’s more trees that would need to go down and it’d be tucked up right against the neighbor and that’s also where the planned septics were going to be going so. Aanenson: If I may there’s, so there’s 2 operating rules here. One is the creek setback. Here’s the creek so that’s one thing you have to follow. The 100 foot setback from the creek and the other one was trying to avoid this wetland so those are the 2 drivers and that’s how the decision was made and I’m not sure if you have comments from the watershed district on. Spreiter: I don’t have comments from the watershed district, no. Dave Vogel: But that group of trees on the east end are also very nice big trees. Part of that is wetland on the edge there. That you know bottom red dot. Right there. So that’s why we. Aanenson: And hug the driveway right here. That was the intent. That’s what was shown on the other. Dave Vogel: To follow the existing driveway as much as possible while avoiding those 2 wetland spots yes. And not taking down trees as well and then leaving what little space there is on the lot so that we could put the house and the garage and the septic and the well. And when you know my parents sold this land this was all plotted as a developed lot and you know some of the variances have changed on setbacks and what not it seems but you know never thought it was 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 going to be this hard so we’re trying to work with the City as best we can but there’s definitely challenges here. Tietz: Kate could you bring up in those last 2 images again. I have a question I just want to follow up on the grading. The image on my left. Aanenson: If you can say proposed or alternative maybe. They say proposed and alternative on the drawings. Tietz: Mark would you tease us…or does it work? Undestad: Yeah right there. Oh it just won’t show up on the screen yeah. Tietz: But are those proposed grading? Is that a rough proposed grading plan for access? Dave Vogel: Yes it is. Tietz: So even cutting the existing road back to do the grade that you’re proposing with the swales adjacent to it is going to have an impact on the vegetation? It looks like the road goes right through the trees. Dave Vogel: No. Tietz: It’s to the east? Dave Vogel: The road is to the east of the trees. Tietz: The existing road is completely to the east of the trees? Dave Vogel: Right. Tietz: Okay. But this is a proposed grading plan then? Dan Hanson: It is. Dave Vogel: We were originally trying to get the driveway in so that we could start construction right around now and never thought we’d have you know where we’re at so that’s as Dan explained, I mean we’ve been waiting to get this approval to know whether I sign a contract with him to build. I don’t, it’s questionable whether we can build if we go to the alternate project site. I mean so we’re trying to get as far down the line as we can but, and again now the watershed district is also got their own thoughts. We’re stuck on a culvert right now and the size of the culvert which the City didn’t have a problem with so you know we’re trying and we’d be happy to work with them on this alternative project and proposed project and working as best we can in 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 there but our intention, our thoughts were this variance would run the length of the creek and that the house would also fall within that. All maintaining the 100 back from the lake so not moving closer to the lake in any way. Just getting down the east side of that property line as best we can for everything else. Undestad: Okay. Alright, again what we have in front of us we’re dealing with. Dave Vogel: Understood. Undestad: The initial across the, across the ditch. You know I think at this point what you presented here and what you’re putting together is probably something that you need to continue working on with staff and try to get something that because obviously we’re going to have to come back and see this again so tonight really all we can do is. Dave Vogel: Understood. Undestad: Go with what’s in front of us on the initial phase crossing the ditch on there so. Dave Vogel: We’re not building anything until the house is approved so this might just stay the way it is so. Undestad: Yeah but at least you can get over the ditch. Dave Vogel: Well yeah. Undestad: Okay. Back to commissioners for any comments. I mean it looks like we have a couple of different issues that showed up here from our original report so, all we can look at is our proposal for tonight yeah. So if there’s no other comments or questions I’ll entertain a motion. Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit number 2016-04 and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the interagency water resource application subject to conditions within the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. And the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to encroach 70 feet into the required 100 foot shoreland setback from a tributary stream as shown on plans dated January 6, 2016 to construct a driveway subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Undestad: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tietz: Second. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 Undestad: I have a second. Any other comments? Yusuf moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit 2016-04 and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the Interagency Water Resource Application subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation; And that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to encroach 70 feet into the required 100 foot shoreland setback from a tributary stream as shown on plans dated January 6, 2016 to construct a driveway subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: Wetland Alteration Permit 1. Impacts must be minimized to the maximum practicable extent, or arguments and discussions on alternatives and further minimization must be presented to the Interagency Water Resource Application in order to fulfill the sequencing requirement, including narrowing the driveway to 10 feet and presenting alternate alignments at the wetland crossing. 2. No driveway beyond what is required to access the site and get beyond the wetland shall be approved until a site and/or building plan is provided and approved. 3. A letter from the Board of Soil and Water Resources stating that the credits have been debited and applied towards this impact must be provided prior to any disturbance of the wetland. 4. An erosion prevention and sediment control plan consistent with Section 19-154 of city code must be included. 5. The plan must indicate how temporary impacts to the wetland and the buffer area will be permanently stabilized. 6. Culvert shall be aligned with the flow line of the wetland being crossed. Elevation at both culvert openings shall be indicated on the plan. 7. The applicant must obtain approvals from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Shoreland Setback Variance 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 1. The driveway shall not be approved beyond what is necessary to access the site and get beyond the wetland. No other portion shall be allowed within the setback unless approved with a site and/or building plan application. 2. Any future structures including, but not limited to, Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) shall meet all ordinance and setback requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Undestad: This. Aanenson: Is going to the City Council next Monday. Yusuf: Was there anything else you wanted us to add? Aanenson: No. I think the concern here is on the entire driveway was the setback along that 100 feet. Maintaining that so it appears there has to be some relief somewhere along the way. We don’t have enough information you know for tree loss and I think grading was brought up so we’ll try to get that additional information and see where we go from there. If that the driveway stays where it is, if that makes the most sense but we don’t have enough information based on the survey that was submitted. If they have details on the septic system and that location, that’s the best location for that would also help to make a good decision if that’s the best place for the home but we don’t have all that information at this point so unless you had something additional you wanted to, yeah recommend or. Yusuf: No I assume that the applicant would just continue working with staff and to try to find a working solution. Aanenson: Yeah, correct. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 19, 2016 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. th Aanenson: Thank you on Monday the 25 the City Council did approve the Mount Olivet Rolling Acres adult daycare so that should be getting under construction and they also, the Golf Zone withdrew their application so there will not be the paintball activity down there. And then th on the February 8 the council did approve, interim use permit for grading for the additional width of the driveway accessing out of Minnetonka Middle School West for safety improvements so that is all I had for action items. For your next agenda we do have 2 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 16, 2016 st applications for March 1. Both of them, one’s an interim use permit for construction of a stable and the other one would be for a variance for, a height variance for a fence so that will be on stth your March 1. Right now we did not have anything come in for March 15. We are working th on a couple subdivisions. We’ve penciled one in on April 19. Are shooting for that date and Terry Jeffery also talked about doing some stormwater on that date too so right now March 15 th we may not have a meeting. And April 5 was typically our work session where we go through kind of a year end review. All the cases we looked at and then do some additional training so we th haven’t finalized that yet but that would be on the April 5 meeting. And then just for note of clarification, we will be doing interviews right after this meeting. We’ll go into a different room. Little more comfortable. We have people here for interviews so as we normally incumbents don’t interview. The Planning Commission will recommend people that are applying and then ultimately the council reviews, interviews everybody so that’s all I had Mr. Undestad if you would like to adjourn. Undestad: I’ll open for a motion to adjourn. Yusuf moved, Tietz seconded to adjourn the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 15