Loading...
PC 2017 04 18 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 2017 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, John Tietz, Maryam Yusuf, Nancy Madsen, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, and Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Mike Hoagberg 17550 Hemlock Avenue, Lakeville th Joy Gorra 1680 West 78 Street Dale Hetland 542 Mission Hill Drive Duane Moon 536 Mission Hill Drive th Carol Dunsmore 730 West 96 Street Char and Bill Schubert 9610 Meadowlark Lane Karla Thomson 8524 Mayfield Court th Teri Byrne 700 West 96 Street Gary Halona - Maryanne 670 Creekwood Street th Dr. Carissa Haverly 750 West 96 Street Doug Tucker 585 Mission Hills Way West PUBLIC HEARING: MISSION HILLS SENIOR HOUSING PUD AMENDMENT FOR CHILD DAY CARE, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SUBDIVISION. Al-Jaff: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The subject site th is located north of Highway 212, southeast of the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and 86 Street. Just a brief background that we need to provide regarding the Mission Hills development. This will allow us to move forward with what is before you today. So back in 1994 the City approved a planned unit development that allowed 16 units of low density as well as medium density developments. There are townhomes that, thank you. There are townhomes, fourplexes located within the northwesterly portion and then the lower or the southerly portion of the site also has townhouses only it’s a combination of six and eightplexes. The western portion of the site is commercial. The underlying zoning or the designation within the planned unit development allowed for commercial uses that are catering to neighborhood related daily needs. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 One thing that we also need to point out is the total number of units, resident units that got built between the low density and the medium density districts were 212 and we’ll get back to this number later. Also in 2015, which is only 2 years ago, City staff received an application that we took through the process. We brought it before the Planning Commission as well as City Council and the request was for a four story apartment building designated for seniors only. It was a combination of the memory care as well as assisted and independent living. We also had 9 twinhomes. This request was approved by the Planning Commission as well as City Council. To accommodate this request the City approved a planned unit development amendment, a site plan as well as a replat of an outlot. None of those documents got recorded with the County and approvals have lapsed since then. This will bring us to the proposal that is before you today. So let’s start with the land use of the subject site. So the land use designation is mixed use. Within the mixed use category it is intended to accommodate either neighborhood commercial and/or high density residential development. Within the high density residential you can have up to 16 units per acre. The zoning of the site is planned unit development. It is, the planned unit development designates the site for commercial use but it also states that the commercial use has to be neighborhood related type of service. Amending the planned unit development to high density, to allow for high density residential within this area as well as accommodate a daycare which the applicant is proposing to be located inside the high density residential apartment building would be consistent with the land use of the subject site and staff is recommending approval of the planned unit development amendment. As far as the number of units that is being requested by the applicant. Earlier I went through the previous approvals from 1994 that included the low density as well as medium densities for this overall planned unit development. The site between the low density, medium densities could have accommodated 246 units. What actually was built 210 units so the remaining 36 units density can be transferred to the commercial portion which staff is recommending be amended to allow for high density residential. In addition to that this portion of the site has an area of 8.6 acres. Under the planned unit development and the zoning ordinance you’re allowed 16 units per acre. That adds up to 138 units. With the transfer of density we would be able to accommodate 174 units, residential units. The applicant is requesting a total number of 152 units between the apartment building as well as townhouses that are being requested on the site which is under the maximum number permitted within this development. Within this acreage. Some of the characteristics of the site, this 8.6 acres have been farmed for many years. It has been graded. It falls within 1,000 feet of Lake Susan. The area that you see shaded in pink must comply with all ordinances associated with the Shoreland Overlay District. That means any building within that area may not exceed 35 feet in height. They need to maintain a 50 percent open space. There are other regulations. The location of the apartment building is completely outside the Shoreland Overlay District and is in compliance with the DNR requirements. The townhouses are two story only and they are in compliance with the height requirements. The overall open space for this site is 52 percent. Again we are in keeping with all ordinance requirements for the zoning ordinance and regulations to meet City requirements as well as DNR requirements. The daycare is proposed to be located inside the apartment building. One of the programs that the applicant is familiar with and I will let the applicant address this part, is the importance of and the success of intergenerational programs where you have children and seniors working together. I also need to 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 point out that intergenerational programs is one of the goals of the senior commission here in the City of Chanhassen and we have, we often have seniors that will go to daycare centers or elementary schools and just read to children and it has been a very successful program. The daycare is proposed to accommodate 90 children. Have an area of 8,600 square feet. The areas that we have circled on this slide are intended to be play areas. The portion that is along the southeast corner is intended to be the intergenerational play area. The portion that is to the north is for the children only. When you, we’ve worked with the applicant for quite a while and they’ve really done a good job ensuring that we have sidewalks throughout the development. Some of those sidewalks do connect with the trails. Circulation is for pedestrian versus vehicular traffic is very well designed. The vehicular traffic into the site or access into the site is gained th off of 86 Street and at this point I would like to turn it over to Alyson to address the traffic study. Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission, when this proposal originally came through there was a traffic study completed for the site assuming maximum buildout of the site. Maximum density so looking at the highest and most intense use from a traffic perspective. They looked at multiple things. For example the intersection of 101 thth and 86 Street. The intersection of 86 Street and the proposed site access as well as internal circulation to the site. So working from 101 into the site the traffic study revealed that there were no decreases in level of service at that intersection. That it’s not warranting any signalization or such at that intersection. Carver County has provided some comments that they would like to continue to monitor that intersection, looking at traffic volumes and seeing if there’s any intersection improvements that might be needed in the future and the City is certainly willing to continue to cooperation with Carver County in their efforts for intersection improvements. Also as a result of that study looking at that intersection, one of the th recommendations was to modify the median on West 86 Street to provide for better channelization and then also to do some striping at the intersection so it’s clear for the traffic existing onto 101 which lane they should use. Another thing to note on the site is a stop th condition before vehicles enter onto West 86 Street. Again that was a recommendation from the traffic study as well as when they looked at internal site circulation was to have a one way operation in front of the apartment building to facilitate the traffic through there. Thank you for pointing that out Sharmeen. Included in the packet are a couple communications from the homeowners association. The latest one was dated April 13, 2017 and there were 3 things that th the HOA requested that we look at. First one being the median on West 86 Street which as I mentioned previously but there are some improvements recommended through there. In addition to the median improvements and when this proposal first came through with the council the th council ended up approving no parking on the north side of West 86 Street and that was to facilitate sight distances. The second comment within the HOA’s current letter was the speed limit within 101 to be reduced. 101 being a County road it’s their jurisdiction for that. 101 is, the use of 101, the classification and the design of 101 is for the current speed that’s been posted there. Any changes to that we would leave to Carver County. At this point I don’t anticipate that they would look at lowering the speed limit but just wanted to address that request that came through the HOA letter. And then the third one was taking a look at the car lights coming out of 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 th the site onto West 86 Street and doing some screening. Given the right-of-way in that area at this point staff is not making a recommendation to provide any screening but the homeowners association has certainly got some space and they do have a little bit of screening. They could certainly intensify that to help mitigate some of those headlights that would be coming from th vehicles that are existing the site onto West 86 Street. Summary of this traffic study is on page 17 and 18 and at the time of staff comments I would be more than happy to answer any questions that the commission has. Aller: Thank you. Al-Jaff: I just want to make a comment regarding the letter that Alyson was addressing. It arrived after the staff report went out and the homeowners association wanted to ensure that it was part of the record so we are including it. Aller: As always when we get these I typically will announce that we have received the correspondence. It is part of the record. It has been, have ample time at least tonight to read and review it and has been addressed by staff at this point and it will be included in the package that goes to City Council. Al-Jaff: Thank you. The design of the building is attractive. It has pronounced entrances. It utilizes durable exterior materials and it exhibits articulation. The materials are of high quality. It includes masonry, painted siding, exterior finish and insulation system of EIFS and the structure will have sloped shingle roofs. The twinhomes design compliments each other yet each unit has it’s own unique features such as shed or gabled roof. Tapered siding versus square columns. Standard garage doors versus doors with transom windows. Signage on the site. This is an area that is limited to one sign for this parcel. What the applicant has shown is a sign along th 86 Street as well as a second one along Highway 101. Great Plains Boulevard. The sign is in a V shape which is permitted under the ordinance as long as it does not, as long as this angle does not exceed 45 degrees. In this case the applicant is proposing 30 degrees and the sign will be carrying the name of the development. It may not exceed 24 square feet nor 5 feet in height. There are multiple parks within the area. Bandimere Park, Chanhassen Hills Park and Lake Susan Park. You will notice that this is one lot only. Currently the outlot is being requested to be replatted into a lot. We will have technically 9 buildings on a single lot. Under the planned unit development ordinance you may have multiple buildings on a single lot. All of the units that will be on the site will be rental units. The applicant did have a neighborhood meeting and that was after the staff report went out and I’m sure he will be able to address some of the comments that were, concerns that were raised at the meeting. Staff is recommending approval of the planned unit development amendment, site plan as well as the preliminary plat approval with conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and we’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Aller: Any questions based on staff’s presentation at this time? Commissioner Madsen. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Madsen: I have a question for Alyson with regard to the traffic study. Just a question about the trips. So for example at a daycare center when a parent would drop off a child and there’s one trip in and then they drive out. Is that just counted as one trip in or is that an in and out on the study or how is that accounted for? Fauske: It’s by trip ends so that would constitute as two. Madsen: It would count, okay. Okay thank you. Fauske: You’re welcomed. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward. They can state their name and address and representational capacity and tell us about your project. Mike Hoagberg: Hi, my name is Mike Hoagberg. I’m with Headwaters Development. I’m the President and we’re in Lakeville, Minnesota. First off I’d like to thank you for your time and consideration of this project. It’s good to finally be back in front of you guys. I know this has taken some time to come together but we really feel that we’ve incorporated a lot of the concerns, not only of the City and the community around it but different uses that we have been considering and really this plan is looking at one major modification from the first approval and that is the daycare center. As you may know we’re working with Ebenezer who is one of the largest senior operators here in the State of Minnesota but a little lesser know, they are one of the larger operations of intergenerational programs throughout their communities and in fact they are award winning nationally on the programs that they’ve implemented with both seniors and children and what they’ve found is that it’s a fantastic way to mix kind of that wisdom of the senior population and the energy of those children and that interaction is so beneficial for both the seniors and the children and in fact we call them grandfriends instead of grandparents and it’s a really neat thing to see. It is in some of the communities that we’re a part of as well as other communities that Ebenezer does operate so we’re really excited about this. We think it’s going to be great for this community and for this area. Furthermore we have heard the concerns from a couple of neighborhood meetings that we’ve had and from the letter from the HOA. We appreciate their support but we also appreciate their feedback and we are, we have looked at several different studies within this area and this corner and we are really considering different alternatives and I’ll echo what Alyson was saying is that, you know I really want to go on record here to say that this is important to us. This intersection is really important to us and we understand the concerns and we’re going to work with the City and the County to try to figure out what are the best solutions here and I think it might be a combination of some of the ideas that have been put forth and we’ll work hard to make sure we come up with a good solution. So that is it, if you have any questions of me. Aller: Any questions? 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Tietz: Yeah Mike? Mike Hoagberg: Yes. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Well regarding some of those options that are being considered. Would they have any impact on how the site would be developed or is it just a matter of where the entry road and how you deal with the entry road? Mike Hoagberg: Yeah so we would have no, right now none of the proposals would affect the th actual site plan and development itself. It’s more about making sure the queuing on 86 is proper and potentially looking at all the options for traffic control out on 101 and that corner. That left turn is pretty difficult. Tietz: Yeah it’s kind of a blind corner. Mike Hoagberg: Yeah. Tietz: When you come around there. We take that turn off frequently off of 212 and you come up and traffic can move pretty rapidly along there and I think if you’re trying to take a left off of th 86 to get onto 101 it’s a challenge I think at times of day so yeah, anything that you all and the engineers and the County can do to make that a safer intersection would be I think greatly appreciated by everybody. Mike Hoagberg: That’s important to us and we will continue to work with them for sure. Tietz: Good, thanks. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I really like the intergenerational aspect of the facility and I’ve seen some of those in some of the senior facilities that I’ve visited and the ones that I’ve seen have had separate entrances for the daycare and the seniors and I’m wondering if it’s a shared entrance here and how that flow will work. Mike Hoagberg: No it’s a proposed separate entrance and so just outside, maybe you can’t really see it on this one but just outside of, on that far right side of the building there is a separate entrance for daycare with a separate lobby for them to come in and it’s a secured entrance as well so you don’t have children running out it’s secured in and the seniors is on the center part of the property there. Now we’ve also designed the flow of the building that will allow on the center part of the building allow children in a secure way to come through the building to work with the 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 seniors and the seniors can flow back through without having to go outside and so it’s a very specific design to promote that activity between the two. Madsen: Great, thank you. Mike Hoagberg: Yep. Aller: Based on those questions anything additional? Thank you sir. Mike Hoagberg: Thanks. Aller: At this time we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item so any individual here present who would like to come forward and speak their mind either for or against the proposal can do so. Thank you sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Doug Tucker: Hi, Doug Tucker, 585 Mission Hills Way West. Aller: Welcome Mr. Tucker. Doug Tucker: Thank you. Thank you for your time tonight. First off I would just like to say that I think seniors would be a great addition to the neighborhood and would make excellent neighbors. I do have a concern with the overall height of the structure, especially on the eastern most portion of the land. If we can get just the diagram up there again that would be great. It appears that on the eastern side where I live in those row of townhomes, if you go back to that other one that would be great. There doesn’t appear to be much of a buffer between the eastern most part right there and the property line and that’s just a bit concerning to me. Being that it’s 4 stories it would be the largest building in the area and it’s already on an elevated parcel of land so that’s just a little bit concerning to me and I’d just ask the commission to take that into consideration with their plans. And that is all, thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Any additional comments? Hearing no one come forward we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item. Open it up for commissioner comments and questions. I’m going to ask the height of the building hasn’t changed or been modified since the last time it was before the commission? Aanenson: Yeah Sharmeen just indicated that it had been moved 65 feet back. We don’t have the full landscaping plans here but we can double check that before it goes to City Council and maybe give a little bit more detail on that. Aller: Great, thank you. Any additional questions, comments? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I do have a question on the parking area. In the packet it indicates a certain number of spaces for the independent living and a certain number of spaces for the assisted living and, but 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 those units don’t total up to the total units in the building so I’m just want to make sure we’re accounting for all of them. Al-Jaff: The total, there will be. There are certain units that for every 3 units you need 1 parking space. There are also the memory care which does not require any parking spaces so that’s why the numbers don’t add up. Madsen: The number of units. Al-Jaff: The number of units doesn’t add up but the math is accurate. Madsen: Okay so they’re all considered. Al-Jaff: Yes. Madsen: Okay thank you. Al-Jaff: My apologies, I did not make that clear in the report when I did the calculations. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Audience: It was my understanding there’s underground parking though too. Al-Jaff: There is. Aller: So the public hearing portion of the item was closed but for the record the comment was whether or not there existed parking, underground parking and that is in the plans as far as we’ve seen and it’s available to the individuals that are residents there. Alright well based on the. Tietz: Yeah I just want to comment. It looks like an excellent project. You’re to be commended I think for the inclusion of the youth and the children in a daycare facility. I think that’s, as I get older too I think it’s not a bad idea. My mother was in an Ebenezer structure in south Minneapolis for some time and I know that they’re an excellent provider. I think it’s going to be a great addition to the community and it’s nice to see the independent of the free standing units on the site too. I know this has been always part of your plan but I think the incorporation of that and I look forward to the development. It’s been an interesting parcel to watch for a few years and now it’s exciting to see that this is going to actually going to take place. Aller: I think an intergenerational facet is spot on for what is needed here in this community and we’re planning for lifetime here and it gives an opportunity for individuals to not only come in at the first home purchase or rental or just starting off their new life here in Chanhassen and move their way through to raising a family in single family housing and then have a location where they can not only reside but spend time with maybe grandchildren or friends or be exposed to 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 that and stay right here in the community so I applaud them for that as well as for the effort. Although it took a little time to get here the effort to have the community hearings and to listen to them, to obviously commit to work with the City on traffic problems that might arise in the future is commendable so I look forward to the project. And I would entertain a motion if there’s, I can’t make a motion. Madsen: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of a planned unit development amendment to the existing standards Mission Hills PUD, Site Plan approval for the construction of 136 unit multi-tenant senior housing apartment building, 8 twinhomes and a daycare center, and Preliminary Plat approval to replat 8.64 acres into Lot 1 Block 1, Mission rd Hills 3 Addition on property zoned Planned Unit Development and located at 8600 Great Plains Boulevard, Outlot E Mission Hills and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Randall: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves the Planned Unit Development amendment in the attached ordinance for Mission Hills to allow High Density Use with a Childcare Center on the site and set standards for the structures as shown below with the following conditions, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact: 1.The site must comply with the DNR Shoreland Rules. 2.The site shall comply with the following standards: Mission Hills Zoning Standards a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial/mixed density housing zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. Except as modified by the Mission Hills standards below, the mixed density housing development shall comply with the requirements of the R-8, Mixed 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Medium Density District. Except as modified by the Mission Hills standards below, the commercial development shall comply with the Neighborhood Business District, BN. rd Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3 Addition shall comply with the R-12, High Density District. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the development shall include the following:  Single Family Residential  Medium Density Residential  High Density Residential with a Child Daycare Center c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, the building setback for commercial is 50 feet from any public right-of- way. The High Density parking setback shall be 35 feet from any public right-of-way and/ or interior property line. There shall be a buffer separating the residential portion from the High Density portion of the site. This buffer shall be in the form of a berm and landscaping. The following setbacks shall be observed: Commercial Residential Residential Commercial Street High Density Medium Density Parking Parking Building Setback* Building Setback Setback Setback* Highway 101 * 50’ 20’ * Highway 212 * 50’ 20’ * West 86 th Street * 30’ 20’ * 0’(from commercial) 0’ (from commercial) Interior Lot Lines 0’ 0’ 50’(from residential) 35’ (from residential) * Setbacks shall be established pursuant to section 20-505 of the Chanhassen City Code. d. Development Standards Tabulation Box Minimum Lot Size multi-family units: Mission Hills: As approved on October 24, 1994 in the Plat of Mission Hills; Mission Hills th Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 9 Supplemental filed April 10, th 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 10 Supplemental filed April 10, 1996; Mission Hills Villas, A Condominium, Common Interest th Community No. 8, 11 Supplemental filed May 7, 1996; and Mission Hills Villas, A th Condominium, Common Interest Community No. 8, 12 Supplemental filed May 20, 1996; 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 nd Mission Hills 2 Addition: Area: 2,100 square feet Width: 46 feet Depth: 47 feet rd Mission Hills 3 Addition: Area: 376,358.4 square feet Width: 480 feet Depth: 620 feet Net Lot Hard Surface BLOCK USE Density Area Coverage 152 Multi-Family rd Mission Hills 3 Units/Child Daycare 8.64 acres 17.5 50% Addition Center 138 Multi-Family Block 1, Mission Hills 18 acres 7.66 37% Units Block 4, Mission Hills 56 Multi-Family Units 8.92 acres 6.28 43.2% RESIDENTIAL 1.Building exterior material shall be a combination of prepainted 5-inch aluminum siding and brick. 2.Arched transoms and soffit returns shall be used over the entries of the one-story units and horizontal transom windows over the 2 story windows. Introduce some variation among the buildings through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, and adding dormers. 3.Colors used shall be earth tones such as soft gray, creamy white, pearl gray, shell white, etc.). 4.Each unit shall have a minimum of one overstory tree within its front yard. 5.All units shall have access onto an interior street and not 86th Street. rd 6.The apartment building located on Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3 Addition shall: a.Have pronounced entrance. b.Insure that all foundation walls are screened by landscaping or retaining walls. c. Have materials which include masonry, painted siding, and exterior finish and insulation system (E.I.F.S.) and the structures will have sloped shingle roofs. All elevations that can be viewed by the public have received equal attention. e. Site Landscaping and Screening 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 The planting plans prepared for the site are intended to create a strong sense of street tree plantings using overstory deciduous trees such as Summit Ash, Linden, and Sugar Maple. Highways 101 and 212 will be buffered with a combination of overstory evergreen trees and ornamental deciduous trees. The outdoor private living areas will be buffered with the use of evergreen trees. The wetland will be highlighted with the introduction of native wetland species. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. Berms of 2 to 3 feet high shall be added along the Highway 101 and 212 right-of-way. These berms shall be seeded and/or sodded and bushes and trees shall be planted on them. All disturbed areas within the single family lots shall be seeded and/or sodded. Two trees with a minimum of a 2½ inch caliper shall be planted within the front yard setback. These two trees shall consist of one overstory evergreen tree and one ornamental deciduous tree. 1.All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. 2.Outdoor storage is prohibited. 3.Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed appropriate. 4.The Outlot shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas proposed for future development. f. Signage One monument sign along Great Plains Boulevard shall be permitted for Lot 1, Block 1, Mission rd Hills 3 Addition. 1.Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2.Wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontages. The total of each wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet. 3.All signs require a separate permit. 4.The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. Signs shall be an architectural feature, they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5.Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 rd 6.No illuminated signs within Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3 Additionmay be viewed from the residential section of the PUD. 7.Only back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 8.Individual letters may not exceed three feet in height. 9.Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. RESIDENTIAL One monument identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. The sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height. g. Lighting 1.All light fixtures shall be shielded high-pressure sodium or LED fixtures. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. The maximum height of a residential street light shall not exceed 15 feet. rd Light fixtures within Lot 1, Block 1, Mission Hills 3 Additionshall not exceed 25 feet. 2.Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates. 3.Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as activated by yearly conditions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves the preliminary plat to replat Outlot E, Mission Hills into Lot 1, Block 1, rd Mission Hills 3 Addition, as shown in plans dated received March 17, 2017, 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 Mission Hills Senior Living. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current residential park fee rates of $3,800 per apartment dwelling, $5,000 per twin home dwelling, and $500 per bed for continuing care units, the total park fees will be $478,000. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Unit Type No. of Units Amount Total Independent Apartments 100 $3,800/unit $380,000 Assisted/Memory Care 36 $500/bed $18,000 Apartments Rental Twin Homes 16 $5,000 each $80,000 Total $478,000 Engineering Conditions: 1.The estimated Surface Water Utility fees are $125,691.69. These shall be due with the final plat. 2.The applicant must prepare an operations and maintenance manual that provides for the protection and preservation of the stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to provide for the designed water quality benefit in perpetuity. 3.The applicant must enter into a maintenance agreement with the city and record that agreement against the property. 4.The applicant must dedicate public drainage and utility easements over the BMPs. Planning Conditions: 1.Approval of the subdivision request is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment and Site Plan application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves the site plan consisting of a 136-unit senior housing apartment with a childcare center and eight twin homes, Planning Case 2017-07 as shown in plans dated received March 17, 2017, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resource Conditions: 1.The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for approval. The revised plan shall meet minimum bufferyard requirements. 2.Additional planting may be required along the southern half of the east property line. 3.Park grade trees are not acceptable quality and will not meet landscape standards for the City of Chanhassen. Item #12 of the General Notes shall be deleted. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 4.The applicant shall consider locating landscaping along the rain garden near the corner of th 86 St W and 101 to block headlight glare from turning vehicles. Building Official Conditions: 1.The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A “Code Record” is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For “Code Record” information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.asp 2.Buildings must be protected with automatic fire suppression systems. As required by Minnesota State Building Code and /or Minnesota State Residential Code. 3.An accessible route must be provided to all buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and common use facilities. 4.Parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various parking areas and building entrances. 5.Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 6.The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures (in particular, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed). Fire Marshal Conditions: 1.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 2.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs and yellow painted curbing will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for specifics. 3.Street names are required for the main road entering the project and the loop road serving the twin homes. Street signs shall be installed prior to building construction. The current street names proposed on the plan are Oriole Drive and Oriole Lane. The name Oriole has already been used within the City of Chanhassen and may not be reused within this development. Alternative proposed street names must be submitted to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. 4.Fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible construction. 5.Prior to combustible construction fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 6.In lieu of a fire lane to the back side of the building, additional fire protection features shall be provided, including but not limited to Class 1 standpipes installed per Fire Department requirements. 7.Provide to Chanhassen Fire Marshal radius turn dimensions for accessing the building. The concern is the center islands for getting fire apparatus to the front doors. Engineering Conditions: 1.The low area where filtration basins #1 and #2 discharge shall be modeled or the discharge pipes shall directly tie-in to the MnDOT drainage system. 2.Plans must show the location and elevations of the Emergency Over-Flows (EOFs) on the project, specifically for Filtration Basin #1, #2, #4 and #5. 3.Plans must show the style of home for the twin homes. 4.The stand-alone SWPPP document shall be submitted to the city for review with the final plat documents and will be required prior to any earth disturbing activities. 5.An NPDES construction permit must be granted to the applicant prior to any earth disturbing activities. 6.Stockpile locations shall be shown on the plans. 7.The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured in place concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties and timber. 8.Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. 9.Any wall taller than four feet must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 10.If a wall is taller than six feet, a fence or other barrier would be required to provide separation from any drive or walkway within 10 feet. 11.The developer’s engineer must submit documentation that the street pavement meets a 7- ton design. 12.The developer shall incorporate the recommendations from the traffic study into their plan set. 13.The parking lot aisles must be a minimum of 26 feet wide and the parking spaces must be 18 feet long. 14.Pedestrian ramps shall meet ADA requirements. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 15.If required by MnDOT, the applicant shall obtain a LUP for the trail connection on MnDOT right-of-way. 16.All water main and sanitary sewer main constructed in this project shall be privately owned and maintained and must meet the city’s requirements for public utilities. 17.The plan shall use 2017 Chanhassen standard detail plates, which are available on the city’s website. 18.This parcel has paid the city for one (1) water and sanitary service hook-up. The additional twin home units (7) must pay a water and sanitary service partial hook-up fee at the time of final plat. The remaining hook-up fees would be paid with the building permit. 19.The hook-up fees for the main building are due with the building permit. 20.All work within the MnDOT right-of-way must be approved by MnDOT. 21.This site will need to be compliant with the City of Chanhassen’s MS4 permit. 22.The applicant’s engineer will continue to work with the Watershed District to update their permit and meet requirements. 23.City staff will evaluate the design based on the requirements above until the city receives confirmation from the Watershed District that this project will be evaluated under a different requirement. The annual reduction by the proposed BMPs (Best Management Practices) are 67% removal for TSS and 60% removal for TP. This does not meet the requirements for TSS, so the design must be revised. The current design removes only 20% of the required 1.1” of impervious run-off volume. The design must be revised to meet the 1.1” volume removal. 24.The applicant shall evaluate the practicality of implementing, to the “maximum extent practicable,” volume reducing practices including re-use. 25.The P8 model submitted shows an anticipated infiltration rate of 1.0”/hour, this is contrary to the MN Stormwater Manual’s estimation for Type D soils: 0.06”/hour and shall be revised. 26.The construction plans shall include filtration basin cross sections and call out information about the iron filings. 27.The infiltrometer testing results for each basin shall be submitted to the city to verify the infiltration rate prior to release of the security for the filtration basins. 28.Pretreatment shall be provided for all filtration basins accepting water from driving and parking surfaces. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 29.In areas where storm water is directed to the basin through a catch basin, a sump manhole, at least three feet in depth should be used, four feet is recommended. 30.The plans shall label the sump catch basins. 31.The proposed BMPs will be privately owned. 32.Erosion control blanket shall include the swales in their entirety. 33.The design of the stormwater BMPs shall follow the guidelines of the MN Stormwater Manual unless the City Engineer agrees to a deviation for those guidelines. 34.A planting plan for the filtration features will be required before recording the final plat. 35.Staff strongly recommends using plantings rather than seed, as seed can take up to three growing seasons to establish. The city will not release security until the vegetation is established. 36.It is the applicant’s responsibility to assure that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Planning Conditions: 1.The applicant shall work with staff to improve the screening of the southwesterly portion of the site through the use of berming and landscaping. 2.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 3.The site is permitted one monument sign facing Great Plains Boulevard. Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. 4.Approval of the Site Plan application is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment and Final Plat Approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: That motion carries and again this matter will move forward. If you’d like to follow it to City Council it’s set for May 8, 2017. For those of you at home or in the audience that want to go home on the website is the entire report if you want to take a look at the process and what’s been required. It’s not just what has been presented tonight but there’s more available to you for your review. Aanenson: Chairman if I may. Aller: Yes. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Aanenson: I have a cold. I’m having a hard time hearing or everybody else. I think a few other people are having a hard time hearing so if you can make sure everybody’s talking into their mic that’d be helpful. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT-STABLES. th Walters: This item was brought before the committee I believe back in February 7 and we tabled it to give us a chance to talk to residents and individuals holding stable permits to fine tune it and I believe we’ve got it in working order right now so without further adieux resuming discussion on the stable amendment. A little bit of background. So this was first brought to staff’s attention in March, 2016 when an interim use permit was filed for a stable in a residential single family district. Staff was asked to look into whether or not this was still an appropriate thth use. An issue paper was presented on August 16 and January 9 to the various councils and th staff was directed to draft the ordinance that’s before you today. On February 7 we had the public hearing I mentioned at the start of the presentation. It was tabled due to concern about the ordinance and to give us time to work with the owners of the horses and address some of their rd concerns. On February 23 staff sent a revised proposal to all stable permit holders and requested that they contact us with any questions and concerns. Three of them reached out to th staff. On March 20 we sent a second letter informing them of this hearing and with a final draft of our changes and two additional permit holders contacted staff to discuss their situations. So basically staff sees there being 4 issues before us today. The one is the one mentioned earlier that stables are not really compatible with 15,000 square foot single family lots so that’s represented in them being interim uses. The second question of course was what happens to any pre-existing stables if we change the ordinance. Third issue is how do we treat smaller horse like animals and the fourth is a general lack of clarity in the existing stable code so as long as staff was investigating the stable ordinance we decided to try to tackle all 4 of these at once. The first issue is as we mentioned. A residential density of 2 to 4 units an acre is not compatible with agricultural uses. This isn’t so much a problem with existing stables where there’s 5 or 6 acres and you know families that move into the neighborhood know this use is there but more of when someone buys a larger lot that’s an acre and a half and decides to keep horses in an area where they had not previously been kept. As mentioned this was listed as an interim use. Interim uses are designed to be phased out of zoning codes so our rationale was that stables should, future stables should be limited to large lot rural residential and agricultural estate districts. But again we do have pre-existing stables. One of the first things we realized when we began looking into it is that changing the ordinance due to another clause in the city code would similarly revoke all existing interim use permits. That was not our intent so we added language to allow existing interim uses to continue under their current permits so they would not be affected. Those permits have an existing sunset clause. That would not be modified by this. We also wanted to add language to clarify how stables operating under conditional use permits would be treated. Basically we added language saying that they would be allowed to continue under their existing permit and function under the limits that it was issued under. We also added language to clarify that non-conforming uses would be able to continue at previous levels of intensity. Again our goal with these changes are not to remove horses or punish individuals who already have stables. The goal is to limit the expansion of stables into areas where they have not presently been seen, that are currently zoned residential single family. Mentioned the interim use permit that started this discussion involved a mini horse and we decided we should be very clear in our definition of 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 what animals are considered horses and fall under the jurisdiction of the stable permits so this is mostly modifying the definition and then establishing minimum pasture requirements for mini horses and alpacas that fall into this category. The other thing was, as I mentioned, general lack of clarity. Speaking with Stable Inspector Dunsmore we realized that there had historically occasionally been situations where there were concerns about shelter conditions of animals and the potential for these concerns and ambiguity in the language of the ordinance made it difficult for us to enforce standards we were comfortable with. These were not frequent occurrences by any means but by the same token we wanted to make sure that we had the contingency in place so we require the construction of free access shelter and ensured adequate pasturage by differentiating between dry and grassed pastures. So the changes that are before you from the first time you saw this ordinance are we, in response to concerns from stable permit holders explicitly state in the ordinance now that the applicant will state what is dry pasture and what is grassed. That was based on their concern that a future inspector might say no, you’re all grassed and use that to limit the number of horses. We added a minimum of 120 square feet of shelter for new or expanded permits. We clarified that stables and shelters must be 100 feet from residences not owned by the applicant. There was some concern there was some ambiguity in the language there so we wanted to clarify that. And we removed the provision that stated that they could seek a variance based on a U of M extension class or accredited program. When it became clear that in many ways that would defeat the purpose of having concrete standards. And beyond that there was a clarification of how we treated the different uses. The interim use permits, conditional use permits and non-conforming uses. Again the goal there was to guarantee that anyone with an existing permit can continue to have horses on their property in the same way they have historically. Only expanding would trigger any of the clauses. That being said I would be happy to field any questions you have at this time. Aller: Any questions? Tietz: Yes. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Does that, what happens if a land transfer, sale of property? Then they have to go through the process again? The new owner would have to go through the process? You can’t transfer the right? Walters: No. So because the, it would depend a little bit on what they’re operating under. If they were operating under an interim use permit there’s only one of those in the city and it has a clause in it as it’s written now that says upon sale it terminates so in that one instance yes. Conditional use permits run with the property and as long as horses were kept throughout the period and there wasn’t a year long period of absence where no horses were kept on the property, those would continue as is. Tietz: With the sale. Walters: Yep and non-conforming uses always continue, again unless there’s that year period where the use is absent in which case they would need to meet the requirements of the new 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 ordinance. So essentially new owners would have one year to buy horses. Get their shop set up and still then be grandfathered in under the existing permit structure. Tietz: Thank you. Randall: Would they have to have horses there for the permit? Walters: Yes. If they’re operating under either the conditional use permit or non-conforming use, the way the ordinance is written throughout the city code for all non-conforming uses and conditional use permits in the city, if there’s a year long period where it’s not being used those permits lapse automatically. Randall: Okay. I didn’t know if they could just keep the permit up and not have, okay. Thank you. Tietz: Also MacKenzie also is there a, looking at the grassed or what. The grassed or dry pasture, can that be right up to the property line? Walters: No it has to be fenced in so they would have to be able to build a fence in the area and the stabling and fencing have to be 100 feet from any you know residence that isn’t owned by the applicant. But you know assuming they met those criteria and met the other restrictions we have regarding distance from wetlands and things of that nature yes. Tietz: So a large lot, let’s say a 5 acre parcel and someone had a grassed pasture on the back side but it abuts another adjacent property that’s strictly residential with no animals, is there a potential of an issue with pasture and manure and other things that may come up in the future? I don’t know. I’m just it’s kind of a hypothetical question but you know I don’t, it’d be difficult to have 100 foot setback for a fence. You decrease the amount of acreage that you have access to so if they can’t, you can’t do with it but you can put a fence on your property line right now and have other activities behind it right? Walters: Yep so we do have you know provisions regarding the disposal of manure and then not creating a general nuisance is covered by Chapter 13 of the city code. You know the nice thing is with as the, with the dry acre distinction, acreage is no longer the primary consideration for these lots. If they have 400 square feet they can call it a dry pasture and that will accommodate a horse under the current ordinance so if they, you know due to setbacks found that they could only enclose an acre of pasture that wouldn’t necessarily limit their ability to have horses. Aanenson: I would just add Commissioner Tietz to your question is, the nuisance ordinance always regulates those. Whether there’s flies or smells or you know other problems, biting on the fence. Those would all be handled on a complaint basis. Tietz: Okay. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Hearing none we’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item so anyone wishing to speak either for or against this item can do so at this 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 time. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record and tell us about your feelings or concerns. Welcome. Dr. Carissa Haverly: Hello. Let me set my notes up here for a second. Hello. My name is Dr. th Carissa Haverly. I live at 750 West 96 Street. I’m a veterinarian licensed to practice here in the State of Minnesota. I also am a current stable permit owner and have 4 horses on my property. When I was looking at the code I had a couple of questions that I would like to clarify so I wanted to make sure that in Section 5-104 Part 11, the owner must successfully complete an Equine Management Program, that has been removed and is no longer a requirement? Walters: That is correct. Dr. Carissa Haverly: Wonderful, thank you. Now the second comment that I had is under definition of horse. Let’s see in this article horse includes a horse, colt, pony, mini horse, mule, burro, alpaca or llama. The word colt, colt is actually an immature male horse so it’s actually not needed. Walters: I’ll be happy to remove that before it goes to council. Dr. Carissa Haverly: Alright now those were the little things. My concern is that changing this code was to use scientific evidence to support the care and keeping of horses but there’s no taking into account the forage or food that you have to keep clean and dry and away from the elements. Now there’s another section of the city code not dealing with the stable permits that only allows 1,000 square feet of accessory structure and if you want more than 1,000 square feet, i.e. to accommodate your horses and their food you have to apply for an accessory structure. Get that approved. Then you have to go through the rigmarole of getting the stable permit and I saw that there was a lot of care and attention to meeting the daily nutritional requirements of the horse but there is really no mention on the space that you would need to keep food clean and dry. And when I applied for my stable permit and had to go through the 1,000 square feet. That rigmarole, that was I had a lot of sleepless nights about that. Is the committee open to possibly changing the code to allow for square footage for forage? Aanenson: The problem that we’ve had with some of these is that they’re not used for horses and they become accessory structures. That’s why they’re put in place so that’s why we do require the variance. The nexus to go through. Dr. Carissa Haverly: Okay. Aanenson: That was our attempt to try to meet with everybody. Everybody that had concerns so we could kind of address these not in this process but try to have that so I still feel comfortable with the 1,000 square feet. We have a better understanding of who the, where the property is. The size of the parcel. You know and how the horses or alpacas, whatever they may be, are being managed on the site. That’s one of the things we do know even with some of the smaller ones that they have to bring food in regularly and try to keeping it dry. I know that’s a challenge so. 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Dr. Carissa Haverly: Okay so the hope is, is that if someone comes in and buys a large acreage and would like to do the stable permit they should go through that accessory structure variance so that way you can verify that they’re meeting the needs? Aanenson: Sure and I guess we go back and look at where we see stables in the future on some th of those lots. There’s, you know I think we did that exercise before as obviously 96 Street still has probably the preponderance of horses in the city but there is, well there’s a lot of large lots in the city. Most of them are in areas that their HOA’s or the style of homes aren’t really set up for, that sort of thing so I think it would really only is in that area and I would say most of those in that area are close to or over 1,000 square feet already on that street so. Dr. Carissa Haverly: Okay. Aanenson: We also have some other issues down there with non-horses that are over 1,000 square feet so I think it’s just kind of striking that right balance but I think the council was more than accommodating in your circumstance so. Dr. Carissa Haverly: I would absolutely agree with that and I appreciate that. I lost my train of thought there for a second. Alright well I’m comfortable with that. I also I apologize for bringing this concern up now. I didn’t actually receive any of this notice or paperwork for some reason until probably last Thursday I wasn’t even aware of the code was changing but I have been updated and that’s why I brought my concern tonight. So having said that and knowing that my fears have been allayed I’d just like to thank everyone, especially for working with the University of Minnesota Extension Office to develop a scientifically supported policy and for being open to public comment and being able to work with us as the stable owners so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional individual wishing to come forward? Yes sir. If could please state your name and address for the record that’d be great. Bill Schubert: Good evening, Bill Schubert, 9610 Meadowlark Lane here in Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome Mr. Schubert. Bill Schubert: Thank you very much. I was here and spoke last time and I’d like to thank all the work that you guys have done for making this thing a much better document than the first round. It helped clarify a lot of our concerns and issues so now I’m just down to minor little things. Just th a side note to your point where you state that 96 Street may be the only, one of the last places. Every house on Meadowlark Lane is zoned and allowed to have horses. Now we happen to be the only ones on Meadowlark Lane that actually have the horses. Aanenson: That’s my point. That’s all I was stating. There are other places but most of them they’re set up that typically you don’t go into those thinking of horses. Some people do but agreed. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Bill Schubert: Just a few quick questions on one other thing. I still have, I don’t understand why there is a one, you know if you don’t have a horse for one year time period why everything becomes null and void. Walters: That’s a blanket provision in the general city code for every single land use in the city that’s non-conforming or a conditional use permit. Bill Schubert: So will that work if we’re rural residential is that, is that not an issue for us? Walters: For rural residential it’s allowed as a conditional use permit. I believe you are currently, according to my table legal non-conforming so you would be able to have horses again but you would have to get a conditional use permit if you spent one year without horses on your property. Bill Schubert: So it’d be, my grandfathering would be null and void after a one year time period? Walters: Yes. You would have to seek a conditional use permit as per the code. Bill Schubert: Okay and then I would have to follow just the rules and regulations of the code. Walters: Yep. Bill Schubert: Which would be the, okay. Currently we are permitted for 3 horses. I just want to make sure that that, because the permitted horse worksheet states you can continue with the current number of horses yet we had a discussion that it’s based on what the stable permit says. Is that still true? Walters: So the language we used was historical permit and this was designed because we, you know from speaking with you. From speaking with Stable Inspector Dunsmore it became very clear that you know in your traditional non-conforming use I look at an aerial photo and 10 years ago there was a shed or there wasn’t a shed. Horses being animals pass on. Folks buy new ones as new riders come into the family and we wanted to grant a little bit of flexibility for that so if you have the facilities for so under it and you have a historical permit for say 4 horses and you have 4 stalls in your stable, that would be considered in line with the non-conforming use. Bill Schubert: If I have a permit for 3 horses but I have covered shelter that complies for 2 horses. Walters: But you have 3 horses. Bill Schubert: I have a permit that allows 3 horses but I currently have 2 horses. Can I continue to have 3 horses later on if I wish to get a third? Walters: (Yes). 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Bill Schubert: Okay because just that, the permitted horse worksheet was nebulous on that. Just wanted to verify. There was a brief discussion of the 100 feet from the neighbor’s home and reading that I read it to be the barn and stable property. Not the fence. Is that a true statement? We are perfect there. Then I have just one last little thing. This is an old one. It’s not a change but I just, I’m hoping to get, I’m taking this opportunity for clarification. The shelter and stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that it will not be harborage for rodents, flies and insects. There is no barn that doesn’t have rodents, flies and insects. And in order to make it free of rodents, flies and insects there would be so much pesticide and insecticide in there that it would not make it a viable structure for a horse. Can we get a clarification on that one please? Aanenson: I think we had modified the language. I think what we’re trying to do is limit that so it’s not a nuisance so we can modify that language. Bill Schubert: Okay. I’d be comfortable with that. Thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Any other individual wishing to come forward at this time? Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing. Open it up for commissioner comment and discussion. Yusuf: I just want to comment, I want to commend the staff really because given tonight’s turnout versus the last time we discussed this it seems like you’ve done a great job of addressing the public’s concern so great job. Great job. Walters: Thank you. Aller: Any other comments or questions? Madsen: No it seems that this, as staff has mentioned has really listened to the input and incorporated it into the changes and addressed it and have made good amendments to what we previously looked at. Aller: Any additional comments? And again I’d like to thank the individuals that have come forward at both hearings and obviously met at length with the City and working together to accommodate and come to what should be a workable city code amendment regarding an issue which is near and dear to your hearts and certainly near and dear to our’s. We all love our pets. Your’s are different than most because they’re horses but a pet is a pet. They become part of the family so we hope that we’ve accommodated that and treated you as homeowners and as pet owners, horse owners appropriately so. I’ll entertain a motion if someone would like to make one. Tietz: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending the Chanhassen City Code concerning stables. 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Walters: And I should mention. Tietz: With the modifications, with the work that MacKenzie’s going to change the language of those couple items, yeah. Aanenson: Yep there’s a couple language changes. Aller: Okay I have a workable motion. Yusuf: And a second. Aller: And a second. Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Tietz moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending the Chanhassen City Code concerning stables with the noted modifications to be made by staff prior to City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. th Walters: And then I would just like to announce this will go before the City Council on May 8. th Aller: So if you want to you can follow the item to the City Council on May 8. Again the package and proposal for that hearing by the City Council will be on the City’s website. Aanenson: Yeah. I would also encourage people to read it before it goes to City Council. Make sure we’ve got those corrected items in there and if you have questions or concerns that we haven’t modified them correctly to let MacKenzie know. Aller: Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 4, 2017 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting to let audience members leave the room.) ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: So City Council update. John Tietz and Mark Undestad were appointed. You took your oath of office. Lake Lucy Ridge, approval for a conditional use permit which you looked at for the recreational beachlot. Recreational beachlot really meaning just dock so that was approved. Colonial Square sign was approved and then the AUAR was submitted to the EQB and actually that comment period ended yesterday so we’ll be responding to the comments that came in which really weren’t too many. There was quite a few from the neighborhood so the th City Council will be seeing that I believe also on their May 8. The other issue I had, future 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 Planning Commission. This is going to segue into our work session. We’ve tried to pencil in on the agenda a work session so again we kind of gave you an overview. That 2 ½ hour overview that we gave you at your last work session meeting. I’m going to do a condensed version of that at the City Council meeting. Just kind of going through some of the high points of each of that so mine will probably be more 20 or 30 minutes as opposed to the 2 ½ hour one but now we’re going to be coming forward with more detail of each of those chapters. So just for your information we’re trying to plug those in where we can, where we don’t have a long meeting so actually on your meeting on Avienda, the project came in last Friday so that means on our May th 16 you’ll be looking at that project so we are not anticipating doing any additional Comprehensive Plan work on that. I suspect that will go at least a few hours and may go to the next meeting. We’ll just see how many comments there are and how many issues and how comfortable you are making a recommendation on that so the Comprehensive Plan process is very fluid. I know people are following, we’re updating that all the time but just a further note on that. Terry Jeffery, I don’t know if we mentioned that before, yeah has taken a different job so water resources so Alyson and Stephanie are kind of covering some of that so we’re getting some extra help for their section of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to that the park and trail system plan is being worked on. What we need for the comp plan from park and the trails. A very, very small part of the system plan but so we’re trying to work those dates in so we are trying to give you as best information we can on those but again it’s all development driven. If we have a big project come in I don’t want you here til 11:00 at night trying to make some th decisions on the comp plan so having said that your next meeting on the 24 with the City Council. I’m just going to go ahead and jump to that. I did put some talking points in there for you to, and I had this under work session but if you’re comfortable with the items that we put in there, you’re reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and then looking at the Avienda project to be your big ones and then we have the United Properties with the Aldi project moving forward and then we’ll plan another joint tour with the Environmental Commission, Park Commission and potentially Senior Commission too. Then with that these talking points I’ll attach the work plan that you saw that talked about all the stuff we did last year so that will be the genesis for your th discussion, joint meeting with the City Council on the 24 and that will be in the Fountain Conference Room next Monday. So is everybody okay with just making that your, if there’s anything else you wanted to share with them or, let me know and I’ll put it on the agenda. Aller: Great thank you. Aanenson: Okay so back to what’s coming up for your next meeting which would be the May nd 2 meeting. We’ll be doing, let’s see we changed that around didn’t we Robert? Generous: Yes we did. We pushed that farther out. Aanenson: Yeah we pushed both natural resources and park and open space back. There’s a conflict with the City Forester for that meeting. Having a gardening open house that night and then again the parks and trails, they’re still working on some things on that with their committee. They did make a presentation to the City Council. Quite a bit of detail at their last work session. Kind of where they are with the overall system plan but so that will get pushed back so on your nd May 2 there’s two variances on so that will be the main part of it. If there’s something else that we can talk about we may put that on but then as we indicated there won’t be anything on the 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 18, 2017 th 16 because Avienda will take up that entire time so I’m trying to keep that agenda on a whole separate track so people that want to track items can do that so again your next thing you’ll be seeing as a deeper drive on each topic, we want you to get grounded in it so you feel comfortable so when we open it up for public hearing you kind of have your good understanding of what the issues are and can take those comments. So with that that’s all I had under administrative so if you want to adjourn when you’re ready then we will just move into the open discussion. Aller: Motion to adjourn and we’ll move to work session. Yusuf moved 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 8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission continued with an open discussion of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan pertaining to sewer, transportation and water and an update on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan schedule. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 28