Loading...
PC 2017 09 05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz, and Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Sather 10432 Purdey Road Steve McAuley 20 Hill Street th Mason McClellan 470 West 78 Street DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA; TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 11: REVIEW PLANS TO DETERMINE IF THEY COMPLY WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. So your action tonight is really just narrow in scope. The City is considering putting together a Tax Increment District Number 11 for the redevelopment of the apartment building and in the Aldi’s area so one of the requirements is the Planning Commission insure that it’s in conformance with the th Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. So on June 20 you did approve that project and in order to approve it one of the findings that we put in there for your Findings of Fact was that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance and I wanted to point out the last one you approved doing this format was when we did the Southwest Transit. That was also Park and Ride was in that district so what the findings would say is that the property zoned Central Business District. Both uses are permitted in there, again consistent with the findings. The property is guided for commercial. The Central Business District does also allow residential and the subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance and it meets all the applicable regulations as were in the Findings of Fact so again a public hearing will be held on the tax increment district. Your role is to say the zoning part of it is consistent with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. So we are recommending that you approve the attached resolution stating that the 19,000 square foot commercial retail building and the 134 unit apartment building is consistent with the zoning and Comprehensive Plan. So with that I’d be happy to answer any other questions. Otherwise I would just recommend someone make a motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 Aller: Okay for those of you that are present and at home there’s a comprehensive report as well as the documents that we’ve reviewed in this matter to determine whether or not, that the TIF meets those requirements. Whether it’s consistent. We’ve gone through this process. We have had hearings on this matter before. It is extensive in nature. Has several exhibits. It’s not necessarily something that we need to go through at this point in time but it is available for your review on the City’s website as are all our Minutes and documents and packages so please take the time to take a review of these and this matter as it moves forward. It will be going to City Council then when Kate? th Aanenson: September 11. th Aller: September 11. Aanenson: And there will be a public hearing on the TIF district at that time. th Aller: September 11 so based on the report which I think is very comprehensive, I don’t have any questions but maybe these commissioners do. Do you have any questions for staff at this point? Weick: I think it’s consistent with what we’ve reviewed. Aller: Okay, hearing no questions for staff then we’ll take a action as deemed necessary. We can table it or someone can make a motion in accordance with the documents that we have before us tonight again are on the website for review. Undestad: Alright I’ll make a motion here. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission adopts the attached resolution. Weick: Second. Sorry. Aller: I have a motion. Weick: Little jumpy tonight. I’m sorry. Aller: Commissioner Weick, would you like to make a second? Weick: Sure. Second. Aller: Having a valid motion and a second. Any further discussion on this particular item which is basically to indicate that we’re adopting the resolution which is in line and that the proposed TIF is in line with our plan. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 Planning Commission Resolution #2017-01: Commissioner Undestad moved, Commissioner Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission adopts the attached Resolution of the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission Finding that a Modification to the Redevelopment Project Area and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 11 Conform to the General Plans for the Development and Redevelopment of the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: TH 470-480 WEST 78 STREET – MEDICAL ARTS BUILDINGS: SIGN PLAN REVIEW TO AMEND CURRENT BUILDING SIGN PLAN TO CONCUR WITH CITY STANDARDS. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I indicated to you that I did pass out a slight change and I’ll go through this amendment but the, this item does require because it’s a site plan amendment and we have a lot of different, we have a variance on layer but a site plan amendment does requirement approval because it’s actually like a rezoning. We’re changing the terms of it so this will have to go to the City Council for final approval but the applicant, Mason McClellan, owner of Chanhassen Medical Arts is requesting a change to the two different buildings located on what we call the Medical Arts Building, Phase I and Phase II. It’s zoned Business Highway and there’s a percentage of wall façade that can be used so they th are, again they’re located just to the east of where we are today on West 78 Street. So the existing sign band on Phase I and II was, when this building was put into place was very narrow in scope and the fact that there’s a designated sign band. Then there was a minimum for letters. There’s also a maximum for logo and the signs were intended to be on the front and back of the building. Originally there was more office in there and now there’d be kind of some quasi type uses in there. Maybe kind of more retail or medical office and some professional things like MacPhail Center is also in there so they’ve been looking at the different, the criteria of the sign band again which was put in place a number of years ago so in looking at the two different buildings, trying to keep the band at the same width between the two. Looking at our overall sign ordinance and trying to be consistent with that. We’d like to, as requested here and what we’ve looked at, you can see in the staff report where we did a summary. MacKenzie had looked at some of the surrounding uses in the area to see how we’re being treated and making sure that these are being treated similarly. So on Phase I there was the 3 foot designated and then on this one we changed it. There was a 2.2 in there. We want to both be at the 3 foot and that would be consistent so when you’re looking across that band that that width is the same across both buildings and not have a narrower penalized one so the maximum footage, square footage is still restricted to the band on the building so you can see where there’s existing bands. The main criteria then is the lettering so with 3 feet you could have two rows of lettering which some of them do. You can also have the logo. There was restrictions originally on the size of the logo but as long as it stays within that band we’re going to allow that to move forward. So you can see the 12 inch maximum letter size is smaller than other similar properties allowed in the city and the 14 that we looked at, 8 didn’t meet current ordinance. The largest sign in Phase I is 3 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 feet high with the 21 inch letters. Prior to 2014 portions of the Phase I were allowed 3 foot so over time as we’ve had different people reviewing those there’s been a little bit of interpretation. Generous interpretation so to make everybody whole we are agreeing that the sign band, to make it 3 feet across both buildings and we think that’s reasonable. Again that’s the front and the back. You can see here now where you’ve got the MacPhail and then some of the dental offices and the like to be consistent so up in this area you can see where it’s the much narrower band, the 12 inch letter. I know it’s kind of hard to read that on there but so this is being requested by someone that wants to put a larger band on there. So with that we think it makes sense. We are recommending the 3 foot band. So if you look at the attachment that I handed out, that’s what you’ll be adopting. That will be the new sign criteria for both buildings so again we want to change it to their consistency so that’d be on Phase II as shown in bold. Where it says 2 feet we’re changing that to 3 feet, the band so they’d be consistent between the two buildings. So with that this is a public hearing and I’d be happy to take any questions that you have. Aller: Any questions at this time for staff? Commissioner Weick. Weick: Just for clarification. The sign band on both Phase I and Phase II of the buildings would roughly be the same height relative to the ground. Aanenson: That’s a great question. Yep they are pretty much the same height, yep. Weick: So it’s kind of a consistent eye line. Aanenson: Yeah and that was one of our goals in looking at this is, unfortunately I didn’t catch this before it got written the difference between the two but I think it’s good to have it consistent on your eye. The visual part of it. Weick: And then, can I have one more question? Aller: Of course. Weick: On page, well on either page I guess. You know on the handout where it says b(1). Is that consistent to have the building on the monument sign not to have tenant identification but only to have, I assume it’s just the address of the building. Is that normal? Aanenson: Well that’s what we did on this one. Weick: Okay. Aanenson: It’s not the normal. On this one I think we tried to, not all those tenants can get on there so it’s kind of a, it can be a leasing thing too and then it gets some confusion so really the goal there was to get identification that you know where you are. This is the Medical Arts Building. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 Weick: Okay. Aanenson: So if you’re a person that you’re going to says I’m in that Medical Arts Building then you know where to find it. They may just have a sign on the back. Weick: Okay. And are the, and I’m sorry if I’m getting too detailed but is the address for the entire building, like for instance the one story one I think says 480 or something on there. Aanenson: I think there are just suites on the inside. Weick: So is it like 480 and then Suite 200 or whatever? Aanenson: Yeah, somebody…yep. There are suites, yeah. Weick: I just want to make it easy for people to find it. Aanenson: Nope but that’s why you would say 480 would be the identifier on there. Weick: Right. Aanenson: And there’d be suites on the inside. Weick: Your GPS would take you there and then it would. Aanenson: Correct, correct. Weick: Okay, thank you. Aller: Great, thank you. Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: And I just want to confirm that so these proposed changes would just make the sign more consistent with the existing city’s sign code, is that correct? Aanenson: Correct, yep. Yep. Madsen: Thank you. Aller: Okay. So at this point in time would the applicant like to come forward or is the City the applicant on this? Aanenson: Nope. There’s someone here that would probably like to speak to it. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 Aller: So if the applicant would like to come forward at this time they can choose to make a presentation or not. Mason McClellan: I’m Mason McClellan and I…but if you guys have any questions. Other than that I mean she covered everything. Aller: Okay so you really have nothing to add? Mason McClellan: No, no. Aller: The articulation of the buildings themselves will stay the same? Mason McClellan: Yep. Aller: So it will just be, it’s pure signage? Mason McClellan: Yep. I recently moved in and the MacPhail Center obviously they’re up there and it didn’t occur to me that there was a difference since I’ve had my sign in the city for the last 8 years and now moving it’s been a little. Aanenson: If you can go to the microphone and talk. Mason McClellan: Sorry, and moving has been a little trickier than I had anticipated but MacKenzie was kind enough to work with me and he just said I should be here and if you guys had any questions for me, here I am. Aller: Additional questions of the applicant? No, thank you very much sir. Mason McClellan: Well great, thank you. Appreciate it. Aller: Alright, this is a request that was before the public so we will have a public hearing and I’ll open the public hearing at this point in time so any individual that’s present can come forward and speak either for or against the item before us. Seeing no one come forward I’m going to close the public hearing and open it up for commission discussion and proposed action. Randall: I’ve just got one statement. I think it’s nice that it’s going to be consistent with both Phase I and Phase II so it will add to that so. Aller: I agree. When we do a lot of these projects, especially in the downtown area and when we like to get, I know I like to get PUD’s because we can usually squeeze a little bit more value out for the city as a whole and community and we can tweak things but here when we’re talking about signage and the capability to see what’s out there. We want people to shop and stop and provide services and receive services here in the city and you can’t do that if you don’t know that 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 they’re there so the consistency in the signage I think is important. Alright I’d entertain a motion if no one has any other comments. Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the attached sign plan criteria for Medical Arts Buildings Phase I and II and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. Aller: So I have a motion. Do I have a second? Randall: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a valid second, any further discussion? Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the attached Sign Plan Criteria for Medical Arts Buildings Phase I and II; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. th Aanenson: These items are going to the City Council on September 25. Aller: Yes so those of you present or at home that would like to follow this item it’s before the City Council on September 25, 2017 and again the documents that have been provided to the City and that were just voted on are available to you on the website. Moving onto our second public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: 20 HILL STREET: VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ADDITION WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. Aller: For the record we received a couple of attachments to the application package that was previously received and those consist of several emails and if you could address those during the presentation that would be great. They are being read and considered and are being made part of the package. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. So this item too unless th it’s appealed would stop here. Otherwise it would go to the City Council also on the 25 so there’s a number of days to appeal this decision. So the applicant, Sather Design Build, on behalf of Steven and Beth McAuley are requesting a variance to expand their garage. The house is located on 20 Hill Street. It is zoned residential single family. It’s 15,000 square foot minimum lot area, 30 in the front, 10 on the sides, 25 percent hard cover, 75 foot lake setback and the 30 foot bluff setback. So the house is steep towards the back and you can see the change in grade. It does have a 22.7 percent lot coverage. It meets the setback. The house was built in 1961 with a 25.5 front yard setback. It has an existing garage which I’ll show you in a minute 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 and an existing detached one car garage with, that’s set back 2.8 feet from the front setback and a 3 foot side setback. Because of the steepness of the lot and the way it’s setting on there, there’s no way to put anything else to the back of the lot to make it work. You can see here that as it goes deep back here it’s impossible to try to find another spot so this is the existing detached garage and this is the location for the proposed garage. So the closest point here as I mentioned was just over 2 ½ feet and then the proposed addition would maintain that same line and not go closer to the house so it’s kind of closing that gap between the house and the existing garage so the existing garage is dangerous to access in the winter and that’s existing. I’ll show you a picture of that in a minute. It’s dangerous to access in the winter and the current garage on the lower is access means is better than being used, it’s kind of being used for storage so two all season garage stalls is we believe a reasonable use. The short driveway limits parking options and again we talked about the topography so converting the one car garage to the two car garage. You can see now this is the single car garage so this is where the new space would be coming in and this is the existing garage here with the steep slopes. So again as I mentioned steep slopes. The configuration of Hill Street mitigates the impact, or mitigates the ability to move the street forward. We can go back to that. So here you are. You’re close here then coming out that steep curve. Maybe if I go back to the location of that house you can see how you come in here. So this is 101 over here but this is the end of that street coming in to the garage and then a separate one going down to the driveway as you can see here. So I did attach, the staff is supporting the recommendation for the additional garage. Again if you look at that this situation, maybe if I go back to the very first slide you can kind of see how this access, this is kind of splitting it here but this is how you come in off of this street here. Hill Street with 101 further away but it’s, really there’s not a lot of options on the lot so the staff is supporting that. I did give you letters of support from 4 neighbors that were supporting the variance. All in favor of it. Again the staff is supporting it too. I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have and this is a public hearing. Aller: So the applicant will lose the off street parking and the view would change and be modified if for whatever reason Hill Street’s re-centered or modified or changed. Aanenson: Yeah and engineering looked at that. Probably not likely to happen but. Aller: And that was the question, should it happen. Aanenson: Yep, should it happen. Aller: I guess the flip side is, is if that happens then at least them have some off street parking. Aanenson: Yeah so the Rust’s who just sent a letter also are remodeling their house. They’re that first house coming directly off 101. It’s that last one that, before that you can access off of 101 and their’s is pulled closer too. It’s steep in the back of those lots so there’s not a lot of options along there. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 Aller: Any other questions of staff at this point? Commissioner Weick. Weick: Just following up on that. I had a, it’s on page 5 of 7. I just don’t understand that bottom paragraph of, is the front yard is not their front yard or I don’t understand how that works. Aanenson: Well it’s excess right-of-way that’s you know, so probably you know so the City granted the 20 foot Hill Street you know to access those properties. Weick: Yeah. Aanenson: So it’s one of those things that the structure’s been there for a number of years. Probably won’t ever improve that street beyond that. You wouldn’t want to give them direct access onto 101. That would not be, and actually with the change in grade like I say the Rust’s is the last house to do that and that’s kind of a quick turn down from there too so don’t see those, that changing at any time in the future. It’s kind of like some of those anomalies in Carver Beach. It’s going to be that way. Weick: Yeah, okay. Aanenson: Not the best but that’s what we’re going to go forward with. Weick: Okay. I just, okay. Aanenson: That was a good question. Aller: Any additional questions of staff? Okay, if the applicant would like to come forward or his representative would like to come forward and make a presentation at this time they may do so. Steve Sather: Hello, my name is Steve Sather and this is Steve McAuley our client and I’m here to answer any questions. I might also add, I’ve known this family a long time because we built on this home even before they bought it. I put a kitchen on. Put a rear family room so they made a big investment and they’ve got 3 boys and they plan on staying in the community so the car thing is a big deal and there’s no place to park in the street without causing problems and that steep little storage driveway. Steve’s been talking about this for years and I said it’s going to take a variance but, and we’re just, we’re trying to leave that front corner, which would be the southeast corner where it is and then just expand the garage into the house and make it an attached garage. They’d still actually have to enter it from the exterior because that’s a bedroom but, and not pushing it back any further. You know there’s a hill there so just, it’s not really even really a big two car garage but it just gives them a chance to park two cars in there. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 Aller: Can you address for those individuals at home watching and, we get these reports and we see them and we’re there but when we’re looking at the steepness of the existing garage when people say well they already have one so could you describe the difficulties that you have with what is the proverbial slippery slope. Steve McAuley: Yeah absolutely. You know so clearly during the winter times that’s a tough spot. I have hit my house multiple times just even trying to get out of that garage so when you look at the size of that space and the actual garage itself, I mean it’s a severe slope. Any kind of snow or ice condition whatsoever good luck getting out. So that’s obviously not a very feasible garage concept. I do have as Steve said 3 boys that are getting closer to driving age. As I said there’s no parking on Hill Street whatsoever. There’s turnarounds right in back of us that quite frankly gets used as parking so I just see ourselves down the road wanting to stay with this house. Obviously as Steve said we’ve done a lot of improvements to it. This is for us at least the last phase to be able to get an extra car in there and not have to use that sloped garage. Steve Sather: I might add Steve had mentioned as that steepness goes down it doesn’t level out at all. It goes downhill right to the door and during some of our building projects and that house in the rear materials, I’ve literally personally slid all the way down when the sun comes out and just melts any snow that’s up in the street it runs right down to that garage and there’s just no way to get into it. It’s really shoe horned in there. Steve McAuley: I don’t like to use it. My wife never uses it so she has, wants to have nothing to do with it. Aller: Any questions of the applicant or Mr. Sather? None, okay. Thank you very much gentlemen. Steve Sather: Thank you. Aller: Okay, this is a request for a variance so we’ll have a public hearing on it. Any individual wishing to come forward and speak either for or against this item may do so at this time. And again for the record we have received correspondence from several of the neighbors which will become part of the package and has been read and reviewed. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and open it up for discussion and action. Comment. Commissioner Randall, pretty straight forward. Randall: It is. Very straight forward. Great use of the space. I think the variance is needed there for these people to enjoy their property. Weick: I think it improves right. That’s hopefully what we try and do is improve the value of the property and without you know any objection clearly from the neighbors, it seems to fit all those things right? 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 Aller: Well I think more importantly here it’s not for economic reasons but the value, the intrinsic value and the use of the property. Weick: For sure. Aller: Is going to be increased and for my purposes it just seems to make sense. That’s what I like to look at and once we get through the technical aspect of obviously it’s a unique property. He came to the property in that position. That it’s not for solely economic purposes and, but it’s not going to change the character of what is existing along Hill Street there and in fact the, what we have before us is the testimony of the neighbors indicating that they don’t feel that it’s going to change that character either so I will be voting in favor. Any other comments? Okay, would someone like to make a motion? Weick: I will. Aller: Commissioner Weick, sure. Weick: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to allow for the conversion of a non-conforming detached garage to an attached garage via a nine foot eight inch wide expansion within the front yard setback subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions. Aller: So I have a valid motion. Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, do I have any further discussion? Weick moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to allow for the conversion of a non-conforming detached garage to an attached garage via a nine foot eight inch wide expansion within the required front yard setback, subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. The structure must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 3. The closest point of the expanded garage must be at least 2.8 feet from the front lot line. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 Aller: That concludes the public hearings for this afternoon and we’ll move onto the agenda item for the approval of Minutes dated August 1, 2017. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 1, 2017 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: And then we’ll move onto administrative presentations. City Council action update. th Aanenson: Thank you. On Monday, August 14 Fawn Hill was approved and they were given final plat at the last meeting so I think they’re set for a pre-con next, either this week or next week so I don’t know if you noticed or not but Arbor Glen is underway. If you’ve been by 101 and Lyman Boulevard they’re out grading. The City Council also approved Bongards so they should be ready to get going on their building. I think they have their watershed district approval too so that’s moving right along. I did include in your packet the future Planning Commission th items but I did make, I’m not sure if it’s the exact same one that I have but on the 19, so we do not have a meeting 2 weeks from today but I’m hoping next week that you choose to come to one of the open houses, either Wednesday or Thursday. So there’s one at the library here on th Wednesday night from 6:00 to 8:00 and then one on the 14 so this is our, we’ll give a plug here for that. So hopefully resident can come again, 6:00 to 8:00 both nights. One at the, Wednesday night at the library and Thursday night at the Rec Center. At those we’ll have the different stations, the different elements of the Comprehensive Plan. I guess our goal is to really kind of show it in illustrative form so we’ll have land use maps. Kind of coverages. We’re trying to find ways to make a sewer map and a water map interesting. Transportation map but we’re also doing some fun things, by the numbers so kind of make it interesting. Kind of get some conversation going so we’re hoping to get some good comments on that and from that our next meeting with one section of the comp plan which we’re kind of revisiting, spending a little bit more time on the surface water. Looking at the watershed district. I know Vanessa is looking at, our Water Resource Coordinator looking at some of the other watershed districts plans since we rd want to make sure that we’re aligned so that will come back before you on October 3. So we were going to have a public hearing at that time on the comp plan but we’re going to bump that rd back so on October 3 the MS4 permit was not done. I know you find that riveting when that rd public hearing is held so that public hearing will be on the October 3. Also the comp plan review of the surface water management and then we’re going to, you had asked about it. We’re going to spend a little bit more time going through all the goals and policies so you can see the interconnected of those. There’ll also be a vision statement with that. I think the resource protection is actually the historic district and then, so we’re going to put that in with land use but we want to spend a little bit more time. Make sure you’re entrenched in that. Then on October th 17 we’ll have the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan so if we need extra time on that we th will also then, because we do not have a meeting on November 7, because there’s a school 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 st board election. Then we will also carry that over to November 21 so that’s our goal. We’ll also be going to the City Council to share with them, after the, to order the distribution in October so hopefully we can get through the public hearing on those two meetings and then there’s a 6 review by all the other cities. So all the other cities adjoining us or any other jurisdictions, the county, the watershed, all get a chance to review and comment on our comp plan so you’ll get another look at any significant changes as will the City Council so that’s kind of our tact. I was also going to tell you some other projects that are in, potentially in the works. We talked about the apartment building here next to the school. That they’re looking at that building. That’s the Hanson property behind the school looking at that one so that one could still be coming forward. Avienda’s been hung up at the Army Corps of Engineers so they’ve made an interpretation they might not have quite as much jurisdiction on some of the wetlands so we’re still trying to get their wetland permitting going forward so I’m not sure what’s going to happen yet this year on any of that project or not but we’ll keep you informed on that. Also I did want to share with you we, the council gave, the consultant’s Hoisington-Koegler gave a presentation on the downtown plan and so I’ll be sending out to you, it’s going out in the council packet. It’s a market scan. Just kind of looking at what uses. What they think would be desirable. What are we, you know what’s our market strategy? Where do we fit in the marketplace? Who would want to locate downtown? Those kind of things so I’ll be sharing that with you too so you’ll get a copy of that as that study also moves along so we had that discussion last week and their packet’s going out the final of that but I’ll be sharing that with you too. So unless you have any other questions that’s all I had. Aller: No other than the announcement obviously that Commissioner Yusuf will not be able to attend anymore. th Aanenson: Nope. She’s, I believe she sold her property on August 29 so that would make her ineligible. She just moved across the border so she did resign. Aller: Missed it by this much. Aanenson: I know. I know so, I told her I hope we cross paths. Aller: So we sadly say goodbye to Commissioner Maryam Yusuf and again we’ll miss a lot of things about her presence here on the Commission and it’s her passion and her viewpoints and most of all her smile that she brought in every commission meeting so those individuals at home that are looking at the commission and what we’re doing here in the city and want to potentially participate, I’m sure in the near future here we’ll have that vacancy will be looking to be filled so go ahead and take a look at the website and keep your eyes on all the commissions if you’re interested in participating in moving and continuing to make Chanhassen a great place to live. With that I think that’s all we’ve got. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 5, 2017 Commissioner Undestad 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 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 14