AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2014, 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2014, 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD"

Jonah Bates
5 years ago
Views:

1 AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2014, 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A. 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None C. NEW BUSINESS None D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Twin Cities Self Storage-Planning Case Request for an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to increase the number of storage buildings; and Site Plan Review for five additional storage buildings on approximately 16.5 acres of property zoned Business Fringe (BF) and located at 1900 Stoughton Avenue and 1875 Flying Cloud Drive (CR 61). Applicant/Owner: Bruce Lamo, Twin Cities Self Storage, Chaska, LLC. Documents: Twin Cities Self Storage.pdf Sandy Hook Circle-Planning Case Request for a variance to exceed the impervious surface limitation to construct a driveway on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 7015 Sandy Hook Circle. Applicant/Owner: Rick Kolbow. Documents: 7015 Sandy Hook Circle Variance.pdf E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated October 7, 2014 Documents: pc-sum.pdf, pc.pdf F. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS G. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. City Council Action Update Documents: City Council Action Update.pdf 2. Future Planning Commission Agenda Items

2 Documents: Future Planning Commission Agenda Items.pdf H. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION I. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.

61 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuf, and Dan Campion MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller asked if other alternatives for the hard surface were explored, i.e. wood decking. The applicant, Rosemary Kelly explained the reasons for the variance request being handicap accessibility. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard encouraged everyone to make sure that the drainage is going in the right direction and noted that she is working with the City in designing a swale on their property. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. Campion moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, tables the hard surface coverage variance and shoreland setback variance for 9015 Lake Riley Road subject to receipt of the waiver of the 60 day time allowance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN SPECIALTY GROCERY: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 2.71 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 14,000 SQUARE-FOOT ONE-STORY SPECIALTY GROCERY STORE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND LOCATED ON OUTLOT B, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 4 TH ADDITION. APPLICANT: VENTURE PASS PARTNERS, LLC. OWNER: NORTHCOTT COMPANY. PLANNING CASE Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller asked for clarification of the lighting plan and stormwater drainage. Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Randy Rauwerdink, Vice President with Venture Pass Partners introduced Dave Carlin, President and Jim Ottensteen, Senior Vice President and noted they were available to answer any questions. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Dale Woodbeck, General Manager of Lakewinds

62 Planning Commission Summary October 7, 2014 Food Co-op at 435 Pond Promenade asked the Planning Commission to not approve the variance to the 30 inch letter height because Lakewinds had to comply with the 30 inch letter height. He informed the commission that Lakewinds has a use restriction with Northcott Company which prohibits specialty grocery stores and other various uses which they will be addressing. Christoph Leser, 8110 Marsh Drive being an avid shopper at Lakewinds, asked how the size of the lettering compares to Lakewinds and if it is any larger he would be against the request. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. After discussion from Commissioners asking for clarification on the letter size height variance request and comparisons with what was granted for Lakewinds, the following motion was made. Tennyson moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Villages on the Ponds 11 th Addition and approve the site plan for Chanhassen Specialty Grocery with a variance to the sign letter size on the north and west building elevations subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Subdivision 1. The final plat shall include a 20-foot drainage and utility easement centered over the public utilities within Outlot A. 2. The fees collected with the final plat are: a. Surface Water Management fee: $46, b. Park Dedication fee: $33,875 c. GIS fee: $25 (plat) + ($10/parcel x 3 parcels) = $55 3. City water (WAC), City sewer (SAC) and Metropolitan Council sewer (Metro SAC) fees will be collected with the building permit and will be calculated based on the uses within the building. 4. Prior to issuance of the building permit the applicant must record a drainage and utility easement, or other equivalent protection as agreed to by the city, over the Ecostorm and the sand filter basin. This recorded easement must specifically address who is responsible to own and maintain the system and must meet the requirements spelled out in Part III.D.5.(5) of the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit Program. Site Plan with Variance Building: 1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 2

63 Planning Commission Summary October 7, Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 4. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Engineering: 1. The western portion of Pond Promenade shall be at least 26 feet wide to meet the City s minimum requirement for a private street serving two-way traffic. Fire Marshal: 1. No Parking Fire Lane signs and yellow-painted curbing will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for specifics. Natural Resource Specialist: 1. The applicant shall install trees in the larger landscape peninsulas located along Pond Promenade on the north and west sides of the lot. 2. The applicant shall re-submit a corrected landscape plan to the city prior to construction. Planning: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. Install two benches east of the building on Main Street. The applicant should also consider providing additional benches on site and along Pond Promenade. The applicant shall provide benches similar to others used in Villages on the Ponds. 3. Change the design of the ECO mesh green wall to be slightly curved (in footprint) to help break the monotony of the long, straight wall along the street. 4. The street/sidewalk lights along Main Street have to be preserved and operational when the site construction is completed. 5. Additional landscaping shall be provided to the south of the building. Water Resources: 1. The applicant must provide adequate evidence that there is no area on the subject property suitable for infiltration. The discussion must include the practicality of altering the site layout. 2. The applicant must provide volume control to the maximum extent practicable and must provide a discussion of the feasibility of other methods of volume reduction. 3

64 Planning Commission Summary October 7, The applicant must provide water quality modeling, acceptable under Section (a)(1)c. of Chanhassen City Code, showing that the water quality treatment conditions are met for the required water quality volume from all new impervious surfaces. 4. A comprehensive, stand-alone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the NPDES construction permit and Section of city code shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment before any earth-disturbing activities, including but not limited to dewatering of the pond, removal of any existing surfaces or structures, and removal of vegetation. 5. Any dewatering of the pond must have a dewatering plan, approved by the city, prior to executing. This plan must assure that no sediment-laden water leaves the site and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 6. The applicant must comply with the requirements of all other jurisdictional agencies with authority over the project area. 7. The applicant will be responsible for procurement of any permission required by any other agencies with authority over the project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 16, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson provided an update on action taken by the City Council at their September 22, 2014 meeting, new business sign permits and reviewed upcoming agenda items. Hokkanen moved, Tennyson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 4

65 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 7, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuf, and Dan Campion MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. The request before is Planning Case is a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage variance request. The applicant are Phillip Sosnowski and Rosemary Kelly. The property owners. The property s located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It s a riparian lot on Lake Riley. It s in the northwest corner of the lake. The property is zoned Single Family Residential and it s guided for residential low density uses. The hard surface variance request is to increase the hard surface 2.9 percent above what the 25 percent minimum requirement. When this property was previous redeveloped they had a 1 percent variance that was approved and they re adding 1.9 percent to that so a total of 2.9 percent variance. The shoreland setback variance is to increase a 32 foot approved variance to 35 feet allowing a 40 foot shoreland setback when 75 feet is required. Part of the existing property has a single family home located on that. There s a patio under a porch area and then there s a deck area in the middle of the house and on the northeast corner there s an open space. The applicant would like to, and you can see views from the south and then from the north on the back side of this property on the lake side. Part of the problem staff has had with this request is we believe the applicant has under estimated what they re actually requesting for a variance. Their notes show that they re looking at a 240 square foot expansion of the patio. We believe they meant in this area. However the hard surface would be added underneath the deck area shown in orange on the plan and then extending closer to the lake. The other question we have, and it s unclear from the drawing is we believe that the shoreland setback would be reduced between an additional 8 to 10 feet so it would be, we estimate a 30 foot shoreland setback rather than the 75 shoreland setback. In either case the proposed expansion we believe is not good for the environment or the water resources in this area. By increasing hard surface we will increase the stormwater runoff in this neighborhood. The property to the north was inundated this June with one of the rain events and we believe any additional hard cover in this area would only exacerbate that problem. Staff is recommending. We looked at other variances in the area.

66 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 There were 4 other requests. One of them was for this property. It s the bottom one on that and that s the 1 percent hard cover variance that was approved in 2005 and the 32 foot variance to the 75 shoreland setback. It should be noted at that time that that was actually a decrease in the previous conditions that were on the property. It reduced the amount of hard cover and it also reduced the variance or the closeness to the lake on the existing home. The other applications were for various setback requests that were approved in this area due to the narrow nature of the lots. Again the design for this development shows that we were looking at it, could we exempt it under our shoreland accessory structure thing. In that case you re limited to 250 square feet. However we believe that there s approximately 730 square feet of additional hard surface that would be included as shown on their plans and any hard surface increase in this area would actually lead to degradation of the lake and increase runoff volumes, rates and pollutant load into Lake Riley. And they of course create, potentially create additional problems for adjacent properties. The staff is recommending denial of the hard surface variance request and from the shoreland setback variance request and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision attached to the staff report. With that I d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: I guess my first question is, was there an exploration with the applicant on alternatives like wood decking or anything like that? Generous: We hadn t directly brought that up but that is a possibility. Under the City s ordinances we do not count a traditional deck as hard surface provided underneath is maintained as ground area. Aller: Okay. I don t have any further questions based on the report. Anyone? Okay. Any from this side? Would the applicant like to come forward? If you could state your name and address for the record that d be great. Rosemary Kelly: Okay. I m Rosemary Kelly, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome. Rosemary Kelly: Thank you. And thank you for the time this evening. I have a few comments to make in regard to the application and then the staff s reviewal of our application. In the first application I did not have an opportunity to review some of the alternatives with the staff at the time it was submitted in July. I think both individuals at the date of submission were not available and for that reason I think there was some discrepancies maybe in the understanding and the measurements. The other component of this, the main reason for asking for the variance is as you saw with the property it s the, getting out of the home towards the lake is difficult directly kind of out of the main living area of the home. The area of concrete underneath the four season porch is off a second bedroom. Our interest in making this a hard surface, particularly off the main portion of the home is for handicap accessibility. The home itself has been built with a lift you know and every other consideration for handicap accessibility and we wanted to make this in accordance with that design of the home. It s one of the reasons we bought the home and it s also important both to my husband and myself but also my mom who is 90 and so that was a main consideration for completing this patio area. The, in response to the staff s concerns I looked over our prior building measurements and the setbacks. The setback is 2

67 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 accurate. However some of the, I think some of the measurements were misunderstood. The original concrete surface underneath the patio was double counted in the original application for the home and, meaning it was counted as a separate surface area whereas the roof already would have counted that as hard space because it s part of the home. In addition I kind of just went around again and measured everything more specifically and my calculations for the design we re expecting to do is about 360 square feet additional hard surface. There would be approximately a 5 foot setback in addition so both are still a request and compliance with the variance but if you look at the 25 by 10 that would allow for 25, or 250 square feet in addition for say a shed or something within the setback allowance. We re requesting approximately a 200 square foot variance of a setback. My main point in all those numbers is to point out I d be happy to work with the City and the planners to come up with a feasible and more appropriate construction design that would fit within better understanding of what the proposal is. Finally the consideration that this additional hard surface would impact negatively the lake or the neighborhood seems a stretch in my mind. The biggest problem that we faced this spring was that there was poor drainage from both the street inbetween our homes which was a consideration of my neighbor. There used to be a swale between our two properties which seems needed and appropriate and I, my understanding was already on the plans with the city engineers to reconstruct. That is going to be I think more appropriate handling of the water that s coming down both from the streets and from the pond possibly due to the significant development that has occurred in that area just north of us of multiple homes. So my request I guess is to just state I think this is a smaller area is to build our home in compliance with the handicap accessibility that we plan to use the rest of our lives. And I believe that we are within both the setback consideration of a 250 square feet as well as a smaller than maybe anticipated amount of hard surface area. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Just as a quick question. So if I m understanding you, you don t believe you need to make a request for a variance? It sounds like you re saying that you fit. Rosemary Kelly: No, no. Aller: You fit the requirements already with the accessory structure footage. Rosemary Kelly: Yes, for that portion but the extra hard surface area of 360 square feet approximately still needs the variance approval. I believe the setback requirement for like a shed or would fit, the amount we re requesting would fit in that allowance already. And I d be happy to work with the city planners to make sure that that is the case. Our intent is not to make an extensive patio. It s to make it so that we can more easily exit the home and be at the lake side. Aller: Okay. Had you considered alternative patio materials like wood deck? Rosemary Kelly: Yeah, actually we had discussed that. The main reason to not do that, actually we just had, we re a stucco home and in order to be, again in design with the original design, we had stucco pillars for the deck and what we re finding is because they re wood core, it s allowing water to come up into the core of the columns. Where it s the concrete, those pillars are fine. It s more a desire to again allow for a consistent construction that s going to be durable. I think if we use wood deck again the water s going to be able to move into the core of those pillars so 3

68 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 that was an unfortunate discovery. Aller: Anybody have any questions of the applicant? Alright, thank you. At this point we ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting for this particular item. So anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this item can come up to the podium. State your name and address and speak either for or against. Are you coming forward? Okay. If you could state your name and address for the record, that would be great. Joan Ludwig: Hi, I m Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard. I m Rose s neighbor. Aller: Welcome. Joan Ludwig: I m the person who was most impacted by the water last spring and I think that my situation is, I don t care what they have in their yard. In fact I encourage everyone to have whatever works for them. What I would ask is that we all make sure that the water drainage is going in the right direction and isn t going to put me under water again. The City is working with us. Our plan is to take out a tree and reinstitute the swale and I m happy with that. My concern is that we look at all of the development that is going around and making sure that we ve got the infrastructure to handle it. So I am not opposed to any development or anything. I just want to make sure we ve got the infrastructure to handle it. That s all I have to say. Aller: Great, thank you. Joan Ludwig: Thanks. Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak either for or again? Seeing no one come forward I ll close the public hearing and open it up for discussion amongst the commissioners. Any comments? Questions? Further questions. Undestad: My only thought if they were working with staff is, then maybe they want to take a little more time to work with staff. Hokkanen: Or revise it. Aller: Maybe it s premature. Hokkanen: Maybe revise the plan and come back. Aller: Is that, how would that impact the applicant at this point? Aanenson: There s a little bit of confusion about this accessory structure because even with an accessory structure it s over the hard cover. It would still need a variance so I think there s some, maybe not clear understanding of the requirements there and the measurements. Make sure we ve got those correct. 4

69 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 Aller: So it s just a matter of amount that we re still going to need the variance. Still going to have to. Aanenson: That s correct. But that doesn t mean we would be happy to work with the applicant. Aller: Sure. Aanenson: If that s okay, if the applicant would be entertaining some time. Give an extension on the application we d be happy to do that. Aller: I guess that s what I would be inclined to recommend. Is, the applicant s here, are you interested in doing that? What I see, I think it s just a little bit premature and I don t, I just don t want to deny this which is my alternative I think at this point and I d rather give you the time to work with them and see whether there s some alternatives and move it forward with the extension on the application and that way you re moving forward with hopefully something that will be satisfactory to you in the future. Rosemary Kelly: And that sounds Aller: Great. So I suppose someone needs to make a motion. Aanenson: Before you do that Chairman, we re at the end of the 60 days so before we do that. Aller: Oh, so you need a waiver. Aanenson: We d like to get a letter right now, if that s okay before you make the motion extending the additional 60 days from the applicant and I m just looking for a blank piece of paper here. Aller: How about we do this. If somebody wants to make a motion subject to the waiver being received. Then we can do the motion right now and they can do the paperwork. Well to extend the application past the 60 day because she s waiving the requirement that we rule because the alternative is that we deny. Hokkanen: Do we have to put a time on the extension? Aanenson: She s going to give us 60 days. Aller: or grant but I m inclined to. Campion: Alright I ll present a motion to extend the application by another 60 days. Aller: Well subject to receipt of the waiver. Campion: Subject to the receipt of the waiver. 5

70 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 Aanenson: That s fine. I think you re technically tabling it for extend the 60 days, if I may. Campion: Yes. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: Any further discussion? Campion moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, tables the hard surface coverage variance and shoreland setback variance for 9015 Lake Riley Road subject to receipt of the waiver of the 60-day time allowance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Good luck Ms. Kelly. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN SPECIALTY GROCERY: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 2.71 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 14,000 SQUARE-FOOT ONE-STORY SPECIALTY GROCERY STORE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND LOCATED ON OUTLOT B, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 4 TH ADDITION. APPLICANT: VENTURE PASS PARTNERS, LLC. OWNER: NORTHCOTT COMPANY. PLANNING CASE Aller: We have received some alternate pages. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commission. There s pages and 5 and 18, there were some minor changes. A strike through and bold format. There s nothing really substantive to them but it s for accuracy and consistency in the report. Aller: Thank you. Generous: Planning Case , Chanhassen Specialty Grocery is really a commercial retail building that s being proposed within Villages on the Ponds. The applicant is Venture Pass Partners, LLC and the property owner is Northcott Company. As you said it s located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Lake Drive in Villages on the Ponds. If people go to the site they ll see the open field with a bunch of water in it and that was actually created because at one time they dug up the lower level to put in an underground garage and that building never went forward so. At the time they thought they would save some time and money but in the long run it hasn t worked out that way. Villages on the Ponds is a mixed use development. It permits commercial, office, institutional, and residential uses. It s zoned Planned Unit Development so there are specific design guidelines. That s the part of the reason why there s a variance in the request. Their request is for subdivision approval, preliminary plat approval for Villages on the Ponds 11 th Addition and site plan review for Chanhassen Specialty Grocery with a variance to the sign letter size. Under the PUD standards a 30 inch letter is the maximum size. The 6

71 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 applicant would like to put in 42 inch letters and we ll get into that a little later. The subdivision would create two lots. Initially Lot 1 would be platted and Outlot A would remain as an outlot as Pond Promenade. That s a private street within the development and it also contains parking opportunities and Lot 2 as shown in this plan would be platted as Outlot B and come in in the future and be final platted. There is a condition in the staff report that they remove the parking lot from Outlot B or they d have to pay stormwater fees so they will be revising this property line slightly and it will, you know almost go straight across here and take out this little jog so remove, add that parking area into Lot 1. It s about 5,000 square feet approximately of area that would be removed from Lot 2 and added to Lot 1 so staff is in favor, is recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to, there s a few conditions in the staff report. The site plan review is for a 14,000 square foot one-story commercial building. It would be a retail user on the site. Parking within the entire area exceeds the minimum requirements under city code. Within Villages on the Ponds there s a requirement that a lot of parking be shared between different uses and so on Pond Promenade they pick up Houlihan s and Bookoo Bikes to the west would be able to use some of the perimeter parking area. In the future they have a second building site on the south side. They ll come in, as part of their development they would add additional parking and access onto Main Street but that would be a separate site plan review some time in the future and at that time they would final plat that outlot into a lot and block. With this development the utilities are available surrounding the property. They would just have to extend it onto the site. The biggest improvement that they ll have to make is a stormwater improvement. In the initial phase they ll create a ponding area that s a sand system in there to treat and then discharge water into the existing stormwater system which will then take it down farther through the City s system and discharge into the lake and stream to the south of this area. Sewer and water are available to the site and they ll have connections coming in. They ll come in and re-grade the entire property as part of the first phase including that stormwater area in the southeast corner of the site, and then they will install the parking area for the retail space as well as asphalt some of the gravel parking that s developed over time along the north side of the lot and then they d make parking stalls along the west side of the property. As I said the building is one story. It has several materials that they re proposing to provide interest. The brick, it s a lot of bases in browns and tans. There are three colors and styles of block that they would be using on the building. Some of it is for accent materials. Some of it is to create a base on it. The brick would primarily be by the main entrance to the building. We believe that this is, it s a very attractive building and it will provide interest into the development. One of the things we require is that they incorporate 70 percent sloped roof elements. They re doing this both at the top of the building and through the use of canopies over the window areas and so they do comply with that ordinance. This picture shows the west and north elevations. These are the two sides of the building that staff is supporting the variance request for the signage. Whoops, went too far. On the east and south elevation, on the east side of the building which would be on Main Street, this is going to be a narrow area. There s a building that has been approved just to the east of that and so there s only a 60 foot space of visibility for that signage and then this elevation we believe maintaining the 30 inch standards would be consistent with the overall development. It s pedestrian scale. They don t need that big a sign there and so, and then on the south elevation, because they don t have frontage on a public street they don t get to have a sign but they are providing additional landscaping to help soften this building elevation. Their storage area for their trash and pallets is in a little building that s just on the very, what is it? This area in here and then trucks would be in here and then with the landscaping we believe that will provide the nice screening for that 7

72 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 elevation. Back to the sign variance. This building has visibility from both Market Boulevard, Highway 101 and Highway 5. The scale of signage for this needs to be a little larger to provide a good image for people to see where it is. Staff is in support of the material that they have. We actually came to the same conclusion separately for why to justify this variance request on those two elevations. Again the pedestrian scale is not on either the west or north elevations but it will be along Main Street and then again when Lake Drive comes in so this building would come in under the PUD standards. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision, the site plan and the variances to the sign letters for the north and west elevations subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Anyone? Lighting. Generous: Yes. Aller: How is it being lit? Is it all up to code? Generous: Yes, they would provide lighting standards, or typical standards within the parking lot areas. They re providing wall pack units on the building and then on the east elevation they re actually requirement that they preserve those acorn lights that are out there and after they re done constructing the site, make sure they re put back in place to light Main Street. Aller: Great. Generous: And then that would be consistent with the lighting across the street and on other areas. Parking lot lighting are the shoebox fixtures. While Villages has a few different standards, that s the predominant one that they re using for parking areas so. Aller: Thank you. And then the water drainage area. How is that going to work? Fauske: Thank you Chairman Aller. The applicant did provide some additional information to staff today that we re still in the process of reviewing. That included in particular a question about the infiltration abilities of the soils so we will continue to work with the applicant to ensure that the process that they re going through is, is palatable with, as far as the requirements go for these developments and the stormwater mitigation that can be done on the site. Aller: Thank you. Questions? Thorough report. The eaves system. In here it looked like there was something that, coverage percentage wise was or was not being in compliance. Somewhere. Generous: Chairman, within Villages on the Ponds they may exceed any, the 70 percent standard because we re looking at the entire development. Aller: Because of the PUD. 8

73 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 Generous: Theoretically they could have the entire north half of this site as hard cover and still meet the requirements overall. However we are getting green space on each of the sites and within the surrounding developments. Aller: Great. Okay. We ll have the applicant come forward if they d like to make a presentation. If you could state your name and address for the record sir, that d be great. Randy Rauwerdink: Good evening. My name is Randy Rauwerdink. I m a Vice President with Venture Pass Partners and also represented tonight we have the whole team here. Dave Carlin is our President and Jim Ottensteen the Senior Vice President. Aller: Welcome. Randy Rauwerdink: Mr. Commission, members of the commission we re glad to present the project tonight and grateful for your review. Bob did a very thorough report. I think we ve worked very well with staff with both Kate and Bob and coming to some common ground and I think an exciting project that we re bringing forward to the community. I don t think there s a lot that we have to add to what s been presented this evening but we re certainly available for any questions that you want to put before us. Aller: I don t have any except for the one I always ask when it seems to be going so well. If you ve had an opportunity to read the report and review the report, and you ve been working with staff. Is there anything that you can foresee right now that you might run into a problem with? Randy Rauwerdink: No, I ve got to tell you we jumped on the report kind of as soon as that hit the desk and we ve got both the civil engineers and the architects you know well on their way to working through that. I think you mentioned that you ve received some follow up from Sambatek today and I think we re going to come to a consensus on a system that works there. It s a challenging site. You know there s no question. It s been vacant for some time and there s maybe there s a reason for that but you know we look at a site with very challenging soil conditions and a lot of corrections and kind of an inordinate share of improvements I m going to call almost off site within the Pond Promenade roadways that are benefitting everyone but maybe being born by this project so that s been the biggest challenge and I think we ve got a plan that works. You know our challenge is going to be making the numbers come together as we see these final specs but we re excited to bring the project to Chanhassen and I expect it to be successful. Aller: Great, thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. Okay, we ll open up the public hearing portion of the meeting for this particular item so anyone wishing to speak either for or against the item before us can do so. Come up to the podium and state your name and address. Hi. Dale Woodbeck: Good evening. My name is Dale Woodbeck. I m at Strawberry Court in Shorewood but I m the General Manager of Lakewinds Food Co-op at 435 Pond Promenade. Aller: Welcome. 9

74 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 Dale Woodbeck: Thank you. Specific to the zoning variance request, I d urge you to reject your staff s recommendation. If the purpose of a variance is to relieve a hardship, I don t see that this is a hardship. When we built our store very close by in we complied with the 30 inch letter height ordinance and we were not allowed to go above that. I mean we discussed I think pylon signs and so forth at that time at least according to the property manager and have struggled for years with signing and our, have complied with the 30 inch and I don t really think the City ought to be involved in picking winners and losers and giving another retailer a competitive advantage or any kind of advantage at all through zoning variances. So I d like to say that. This is not specific to the variance request but I wanted to give the commission and the City a heads up even though it s not an exclusively a city matter but we have, from Northcott Company when we had built our store, they gave a use restriction that prohibits the type of, that prohibits a specialty grocery and a variety of other things on the exact site that s in question here. So we have that use restriction. I ve presented that to Northcott. It s the same individual that signed our lease document. The use restriction document and I think the application for this and I ve informed the developer, I think that Northcott has too. That we intend to enforce that use restriction and as I say, I know that s not specific to the zoning but I just wanted to put that out there so if that, if you re looking for a snag, there it is. Aller: Okay, appreciate it. Dale Woodbeck: So thank you for your time. Aller: Thank you. Sir, if you could come forward and state your name and address. Christoph Leser: Yes, my name is Christoph Leser. I live at 8110 Marsh Drive which is about 2 blocks away from this property. Aller: Welcome. Christoph Leser: And I m an avid shopper at Lakewinds. We enjoy this very much. I think this is one of the best additions to the city of Chanhassen in the last few years. It s a very wholesome retailer and this was my first question, yeah. How does this signage compare to Lakewinds and if indeed it was any bigger than Lakewinds then I would want to be against it. Aller: Okay. I think it s going to be bigger the way it s set here. Christoph Leser: Okay, then I would state my opposition to that. Aller: Okay. Christoph Leser: Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Aanenson: I d like to make just a clarification on the signage. 10

75 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 Generous: Yes I checked into the signage on other buildings on it. He s correct, the letters for Lakewinds are, meet the 30 inch but they have a swoosh on their letter. Their total signage I believe is 48 inches so. Aller: Okay. Okay, anyone else wishing to come forward speaking for or against? Seeing no one come forward I m going to close the public hearing at this time and open it up for commissioner comment. Hokkanen: I d like clarification on signage. So they re asking for a variance to go to the 42 inches from 30 plus the site? Aller: To go to, right. Generous: That s correct. Under the PUD standards they re limited to 30 inch sign height. Aller: Based on the sight lines to the roads. Undestad: Was Lakewinds granted a variance for their sign? Generous: No. Undestad: If they re over the 30 inch. Generous: Their letters are at the 30 inches. It s just they added a swoosh above it and there s two rows of it so they have overall the height of the signage is larger. Tennyson: So it s not actually about the letter size, it s the sign in total? Generous: No, well their variance request is just for letter size because they would be under what would be permitted under the zoning regulations for total sign area. So if they wanted to stack them they could have two 30 inch letters. Two rows of them. Aller: It s just the size of the letter. Aanenson: Right. So it s a way to achieve more visibility and that s, as Bob said is to stack them so we re taking the narrowest interpretation and just making a single. A line but taller. Aller: So there s nothing in the ordinance right now that would stop them from stacking two half letters? Generous: No. And I believe under their plans they re showing a box of signage and they actually calculated they could get 217 square feet of signage on that elevation. On the east side. Here s where we re looking at the variances. 201 square feet for signage so that would be a lot, you could put a lot in that area. 11

76 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 Aanenson: That s some of the rationale basis that we had for supporting the variance so. Aller: And it s only, it s being restricted to the two long view sight lines so the walkable sight line will still be restricted? Generous: That s correct. Aller: And then I do agree, any of the use restrictions based on tenancy are not before us. Does anybody have any comments or issues? I just don t think that s before us. It wouldn t be proper for us to discuss it any further so in looking at the actual requests, does anybody have any further comments? Based on the report. Okay. Entertain a motion then if anyone wants to undertake that. Tennyson: I ll make a motion. Aller: Okay. Tennyson: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the preliminary plat for Villages on the Ponds 11 th Addition and approve the site plan for Chanhassen Specialty Grocery with a variance to the sign letter size on the north and west building elevations subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Tennyson moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Villages on the Ponds 11 th Addition and approve the site plan for Chanhassen Specialty Grocery with a variance to the sign letter size on the north and west building elevations subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Subdivision 1. The final plat shall include a 20-foot drainage and utility easement centered over the public utilities within Outlot A. 2. The fees collected with the final plat are: a. Surface Water Management fee: $46, b. Park Dedication fee: $33,875 c. GIS fee: $25 (plat) + ($10/parcel x 3 parcels) = $55 12

77 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, City water (WAC), City sewer (SAC) and Metropolitan Council sewer (Metro SAC) fees will be collected with the building permit and will be calculated based on the uses within the building. 4. Prior to issuance of the building permit the applicant must record a drainage and utility easement, or other equivalent protection as agreed to by the city, over the Ecostorm and the sand filter basin. This recorded easement must specifically address who is responsible to own and maintain the system and must meet the requirements spelled out in Part III.D.5.(5) of the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit Program. Site Plan with Variance Building: 1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 4. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Engineering: 1. The western portion of Pond Promenade shall be at least 26 feet wide to meet the City s minimum requirement for a private street serving two-way traffic. Fire Marshal: 1. No Parking Fire Lane signs and yellow-painted curbing will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for specifics. Natural Resource Specialist: 1. The applicant shall install trees in the larger landscape peninsulas located along Pond Promenade on the north and west sides of the lot. 2. The applicant shall re-submit a corrected landscape plan to the city prior to construction. Planning: 13

78 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. Install two benches east of the building on Main Street. The applicant should also consider providing additional benches on site and along Pond Promenade. The applicant shall provide benches similar to others used in Villages on the Ponds. 3. Change the design of the ECO mesh green wall to be slightly curved (in footprint) to help break the monotony of the long, straight wall along the street. 4. The street/sidewalk lights along Main Street have to be preserved and operational when the site construction is completed. 5. Additional landscaping shall be provided to the south of the building. Water Resources: 1. The applicant must provide adequate evidence that there is no area on the subject property suitable for infiltration. The discussion must include the practicality of altering the site layout. 2. The applicant must provide volume control to the maximum extent practicable and must provide a discussion of the feasibility of other methods of volume reduction. 3. The applicant must provide water quality modeling, acceptable under Section (a)(1)c. of Chanhassen City Code, showing that the water quality treatment conditions are met for the required water quality volume from all new impervious surfaces. 4. A comprehensive, stand-alone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the NPDES construction permit and Section of city code shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment before any earth-disturbing activities, including but not limited to dewatering of the pond, removal of any existing surfaces or structures, and removal of vegetation. 5. Any dewatering of the pond must have a dewatering plan, approved by the city, prior to executing. This plan must assure that no sediment-laden water leaves the site and shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 6. The applicant must comply with the requirements of all other jurisdictional agencies with authority over the project area. 7. The applicant will be responsible for procurement of any permission required by any other agencies with authority over the project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 14

79 Chanhassen Planning Commission October 7, 2014 Aanenson: Mr. Chair I just want to point out that this item does go forward to the City Council on October 27 th so we ll forward the concerns on the sign height that were brought up here and maybe illustratively show that on a maybe little bit different format for the City Council meeting. Aller: And it might be a good idea to, when you re doing that illustration for the council to see what. Aanenson: Yeah that s what I m saying, yep. Aller: See what comparative. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: Of the businesses in the area so they can see that. Aanenson: And just to be clear, there was another height variance one that was given for Community Bank. Not the size but to go up higher. They wanted to go really taller so they could get the visibility so there s been a couple different approaches of how to make that happen so I think we ll put that in a table for the council to see the different choices that have been done to accomplish that. Aller: But at some point I don t see our recommendations being a, almost like the baseball bat where we re going to go up and say I m higher. I m higher. I m higher or I m bigger and bigger and bigger. We ve got to stop somewhere so. Aanenson: And all of were recommendations. Aller: Yes. Aanenson: That s all that s going forward and I m sure the two parties will then discuss the other issue between now and City Council meeting. Aller: Yep. Just because it s moving forward doesn t mean that that s the end all be all. Aanenson: Correct. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 16, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: The City Council approved a cell tower on Lyman Boulevard. The conditional use permit that you saw. They also did approve the Bluff Creek 6 th Addition. That s the last Addition out there at the Preserve so we did, we ve got some concerns with some of the 15

Bartlesville City Planning Commission SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURE AND APPLICATION

Bartlesville City Planning Commission SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCEDURE AND APPLICATION Site Development Plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permit for any tract within a district