9 Site 441 79th StreetCITY OF
PC DATE: May 1,2001
CC DATE: May 29, 2001
REVIEW DEADLINE: 5/30/01
CASE #: CUP 2001-1
By: RG,JS,ST,ML,MS
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Request for conditional use permit to amend the existing conditional use permit
(#78-2) for an automotive fuel station and retail convenience store, a variance
from the 250-foot separation requirements between gas pumps, and site plan '-
review for a 3,984 sq. fi. retail building, 48' x 80' canopy, Holiday Stationstores,
Inc.
Lot 1, Block 1, Zamor Addition, 441 W. 79th Street
Victor Sacco
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
4567 west 80t~ Street
Bloomington, MN 55437
PRESENT ZONING:
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
Highway and Business-Services District (BH)
Commercial
ACREAGE: 0.74 acre site
DENSITY: F.A.R. 0.12, Site Coverage 65%
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant, Holiday Stationstores, Inc. (Holiday) is requesting an
amendment to an existing conditional use permit to intensify the use of the site for a gas
station/convenience store. Since the original approval of the convenience store with gas pumps, the
city has amended its ordinance to require a 250 foot separation between gas pumps and, therefore, a
variance is required since there is only a 213 foot separation from the nearest pump at the Amoco
Station across Great Plains Boulevard. Additionally, Holiday is requesting site plan review for a 3,984
square foot building, three pump islands with a total of six gas pumps and two diesel pumps, and a 48
foot by 80 foot canopy over the gas pumps. The existing buildings and equipment will be razed or
removed and new facilities will be installed.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 Feet.
~ :~i '< -' J'
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use perm'Rs, based on whether or
not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the
:
>.:
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 2
City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be
approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level
of discretion with a variance because of the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet
the standards in the ordinance.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed
project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must
then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-106 through 20-122, Site Plan Review
Section20-231 through 20-237, Conditional Use Permits
Section 20-288, Convenience Stores with gas pumps
Section 20-711 through 20-716, "BH" Highway and Business Services District
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
Holiday Stationstores, Inc. (the developer) is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a
convenience store with gas pumps on their property at 441 W. 79th Street. While the property currently
has a conditional use permit to operate a convenience store with gas pumps, it was approved based on a
specific site plan. The new site plan includes a third gas island with the addition of two pumps which
represents a 50 percent increase in the intensity of the gas pumps (from four to six pumps) which
represents 12 fueling stations, two diesel pumps (four fueling stations), a 3,984 sq. ft. retail building,
and a 48' x 80' canopy. The developer is proposing the demolition of the existing building and gas
pumps/canopy and redevelopment of the site with a completely different site plan. The only things that
will remain are the pylon sign in the southeast comer of the property and the curb cuts on to West 79th
Street. Additionally, since the original approval of the conditional use permit to operate a convenience
store with gas pumps on their property at 441 W. 79th Street, the city has amended the ordinance to
require a 250 foot separation between gas pumps on separate properties, Section 20-288. Currently,
there is a 241 foot separation from the nearest gas pump at Amoco. The proposed site plan has a 213
foot separation from the nearest gas pump at Amoco.
Staff believes the proposed redevelopment of the site will enhance the appearance of the property and is
in the best interest of the city. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with a variance
from the separation requirements and the site plan.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
The proposed building is 91 feet by 43 feet. The main entrance is oriented toward Great Plains
Boulevard. The current building, which will be demolished, is oriented toward West 79th Street and
has its side and rear oriented toward Highway 5. The proposed building is one story (height to roof-
approximately 16 feet) with a sloped, asphalt (heather blend) roof. Primary building material is
Summit Brick #357HT Questa (tan), with a stark white, EIFS, fascia approximately five feet wide
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 3
around the top of the wall. Within the expanses of brick are fire engine red medallions spaced
approximately seven feet on center. The building facade is broken up with columns spaced
approximately 20 foot on center on the north and south elevations and approximately 30 feet on center
on the west elevation. The columns have a white pilaster base, a soldier course of brick at the height of
the fascia, and a decorative light centered in the top portion. Display windows dominate the east
elevation of the building over 70 percent of its length.
(With the exception of windows or doors that cover only 46 percent of the elevation visible to the
public - 50 percent required, the proposed building would comply with the requirements of the draft
design standards being reviewed by the city. The building is highly articulated and is located
reasonably close to the north property line.)
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council approved ordinance # 116 making convenience
stores with gas pumps a conditional use in the BH district and amending section 20-288 adding the
follow, ing:
(6) Gas pumps and/or storage tank vent pipes shall not be located within one hundred (100) feet of
any parcel zoned or guided for residential use.
(7) A minimum separation of two hundred fifty (250) feet is required between the nearest gas
pumps of individual parcels for which a conditional use permit is being requested.
On December 10th, 1979, an agreement was approved between the City of Chanhassen and Holiday
Stationstores, Inc. for a conditional use permit (#78-2 CUP) and development contract for the operation
of an automobile fuel station and retail convenience shopping facility on the property described as Lot
1, Block 1, Zamor Addition. The development was required to be in conformance with the site details
plan dated March 1, 1978 with a modification to the plans requiring "a five foot high mansard
constructed of bro~vn aluminum shall be erected on all four sides of the station building." This
approval represents the current configuration of the site.
(The Amoco across Great Plains Boulevard received approval from the Chanhassen City Council on
January 23, 1989.)
GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL
The current plans show a store with a proposed floor elevation of 953.4. The plans also show the
store and parking area draining toward the east to a proposed catch basin in the parking lot. The
parking lot and store drainage is proposed to be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing Great
Plains Boulevard catch basin at the southeasterly corner of the lot.
No erosion control has been shown on the plans. Staff recommends that silt fence be added around
the perimeter grading limits of the site. A rock construction entrance should also be added to the
entrance that will be accessed during construction.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 4
UTILITIES
The existing building has a sewer and water service from West 79th Street. The plans for the new
building propose on extending new sewer and water services from West 79th Street. Staff would
recommend that the applicant utilize the existing sewer and water lines to serve the proposed
building. This would alleviate the need to open cut West 79th Street and minimize the disturbance to
traffic. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City's Building Department.
STREETS AND PARKING LOT
The plans propose on utilizing the two existing accesses from West 79th Street. Concrete driveway
aprons will be required for both accesses. The existing flag pole is located within the West 79th
Street right-of-way. This pole must be relocated on the property at least 10 feet from the property
line.
LANDSCAPING
Minimum requirements for landscaping include 1,364 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking
lot, 6 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along highway 5, Great Plains Blvd. and W.
79th Street, as well as neighboring property lines. Applicant's proposed as compared to the
requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table.
Vehicular use landscape area
Trees/landscape area
Hwy. $
Buffer yard B - 155'
Great Plains Blvd.
Buffer yard B - 155'
W. 79th St.
Buffer yard B - 130'
West prop. line
Buffer yard A - 125'
Required Proposed
1,364 sq. ft. > 1,364 sq. ft.
6 canopy trees 3 canopy trees
3 canopy trees 3 canopy
6 understory trees 4 understory
9 shrubs 15 shrubs
3 canopy trees 0 canopy
6 understory trees 4 understory
9 shrubs 39 shrubs
3 canopy tree 0 canopy trees
5 understory trees 5 understory
8 shrubs 17 shrubs
1 canopy trees 8 canopy
3 understory trees 2 understory
4 shrubs 18 shrubs
The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for buffer yard planting or parking lot landscape
trees. Staff recommends that landscaping be increased in order to meet minimum requirements as
shown in the table. Additionally, according to ordinance, parking lots shall be fully screened from
the street. This will require more understory trees and shrubs to be planted along the southern and
eastern property lines. The applicant shall also be advised that the mechanical equipment on the
western side of the building must be screened. Screening can be done by either building a wall of
materials compatible to the primary building material, i.e., brick, or through the use of site
landscaping.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 5
Concerning the choice of species in the plant schedule, staff recommends a different variety of oak
be planted on site. Pin oaks, as specified, prefer a slightly acidic soil whereas the existing soil on site
tends to be more alkaline. In the downtown area, pin oaks have a proven history of poor health due
to the soil pH. Bur, white or bicolor oaks would be a better choice. Also noted in the plant schedule
are 5' Austrian pines. Ordinance requires that these trees average seven feet in height. Staff
recommends the schedule be changed to reflect this requirement.
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE
The developer is proposing parking lot area lights as well as wall lights for the property. While the
lighting isometrics appear to comply with ordinance, details for the lighting are not included. The site
plan notes that the light poles are 16 feet tall, which should comply with city ordinance requirements.
All light fixtures shall be shielded. Area lighting shall have a 90 degree cut-off angle. Lighting shall be
shielded from direct off-site view. All site lighting shall comply with Section 20-913 of the zoning
ordinance. Canopy lighting shall be recessed into the canopy. Such lighting shall not project beyond
the bottom face of said canopy.
The developer is proposing to keep the existing pylon sign on the site. Wall signage is proposed on the
east and south elevations. The developer is advised that wall signage is permitted on only two
elevations. The size of the signage complies with city ordinance. A separate sign pern~it application is
required for the installation of signage.
FINDINGS
When approving a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, the City must determine the compatibility of a
proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the
conditional use Section _0-2~2 include the following 12 items:
4
Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general
welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Finding: The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Approval of the
conditional use allows the intensification of the site and enhances the appearance of the
development.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter.
Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan
and this chapter.
Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with
the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential
character of that area.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 6
Finding: The proposed use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will
not change the essential character of that area. The site is currently being used for a
convenience store with gas pumps.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding: The proposed use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring
uses.
o
o
o
Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools;
or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies
responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
Finding: The proposed use is served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools.
Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The proposed use will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation
that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash.
Finding: The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents,
or trash.
o
°
Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The proposed use has vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic
features of major significance.
Finding: The proposed use does not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access,
natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May I, 2001
Page 7
Finding: The proposed use is aesthetically compatible ~vith the area. The proposed
redevelopment of the site should enhance the appearance of this comer.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Finding: The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: The proposed use meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this
article. The development complies with Highway 5 Corridor standards, the BH district
regulations, and the conditional use standards.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
VARIANCE unless they find the following facts:
ao
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property carmot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The site is currently being utilized for a convenience store with gas pumps. The
proposed redevelopment would enhance the appearance of the comer. The literal enforcement
of the ordinance would require that the site be reoriented to the west, orienting the rear elevation
of the building to the public views contrary to the requirements of the Highway 5 Design
standards.
bo
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: There are limited viable locations for the siting of convenience stores with gas pumps.
The separation requirements between gas pumps are, in this instance, absurd, since the use
would be permissible by reorienting the building in such as way as to violate city design
standards.
C.
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential
of the parcel of land.
Finding: The proposed variance is due to the desire to efficiently utilize the existing access
points as well as comply with the requirements of the city's design standards.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 8
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged difficult is due to competing design requirements of the city.
ee
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The
redeveloped site will positively impact the appearance of the area.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property
or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of
fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood. The proposed site design efficiently utilizes traffic circulation patterns on the
site.
In evaluating a SITE PLAN and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1)
Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be
adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3)
Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree
and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general
appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas;
(4)
Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
ao
An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision
of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 9
C.
Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the
design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d.
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and
parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets,
width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of
parking.
(6)
Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air
and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may
have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: Subject to the revisions contained in the staff report, the proposed site plan is
consistent with all plans and specifications and development design standards for
Highway 5 and the BH District.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 1, 2001, to review the proposed
development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
conditional use permit with a 37 foot variance to the gas pump separation requirement and the site
plan subject to the conditions of the staff report with the addition of condition 24 requiring the
applicant to work with the adjacent property owner to address the screening of the mechanical
equipment and the review of the drainage issues.
The developer has revised the grading plan to incorporate a swale to the west of the building
directing storm water runoff to the south. This should, at a minimum, reduce the amount of runoff
flowing adjacent to the Mike Ramsey Building. The developer has also revised the landscaping plan,
incorporating a series of Techny Arborvitae which, in conjunction with the existing and proposed
evergreens, should screen the mechanical units.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
A. "The City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #2001-1 to pem~it a convenience store with
gas pumps with a 37 foot variance from the 250 foot separation requirement for gas pumps between
the nearest gas pumps of individual parcels based on the findings of fact and subject to the following
conditions:
(6) The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property.
(7) No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 10
(8) No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles shall be permitted on the premises.
(9) No public address system shall be audible from any residential property.
(10) No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles,
snowmobiles, or all-terrain vehicles.
(11) Facilities for the collection of waste oil shall be provided."
B. "The City Council approves Site Plan Review #2001-3, plans prepared by Insites, dated March 16,
2001, revised March 25, 2001, based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions:
(6) The developer shall increase buffer yard plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised
landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
(7) The developer shall increase the number of understory trees and shrubs along the southern
property line to fully screen parking lot.
(8) The pin oaks specified in the plant schedule shall be changed to white, bur or bicolor oaks and
will have a minimum size of 2 ½" diameter.
(9) The Austrian pine in the plant schedule shall have a minimum size of seven feet.
(10) Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 1 O-year storm event.
(11) Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 5203, 5207, 5300, 5301 and 5302.
(12) Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the state of Minnesota.
(13) Revise existing catch basin invert elevation on Great Plains Boulevard
(14) Add rock construction entrance for the duration of construction.
(15) Add silt fence around construction site prior to construction and removal of the silt fence at the
end of construction.
(16) The developer shall utilize the existing sanitary sewer and water services for the new building.
(17) The developer shall revise the utility plan as follows:
a. Show the existing water and sewer service lines.
b. Add a legend.
c. Under the General Notes add, "All connections to existing manholes shall be core-drilled."
d. Under the Sewer & Water Notes add, "All sanitary sewer services shall be 6" PVC SDR 26.
e. Show the proposed pipe slope of the storm sewer.
f. Add a storm sewer schedule.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 11
g. Revise the 8" storm sewer to a 12" RCP pipe.
(18) The developer shall revise the grading plan as follows:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements
b. Add a legend.
c. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
(19) The existing flagpole must be relocated on the property at least 12.5 feet fi'om the property line.
(20) Canopy lighting shall be recessed into the canopy. Such lighting shall not project beyond the
bottom face of said canopy.
(21) A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. Wall signage is
pern~itted on only two elevations.
(22) The mechanical equipment on the western side of the building must be screened.
(23) The retail store is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
(24) The west wall and the west portion of the south wall must be of one-hour fire-resistive
construction as it is closer than 20 feet to the property line.
(25) The accessible route and accessible parking space must be located as close as possible to the
building entrance.
(26) The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
(27) The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
(28) The developer shall revise the roof drainage on the west elevation of the building to discharge
to the no,nth and/or south of the building.
(29) The applicant shall work with the neighboring property owner to screen the mechanical boxes
and address the drainage issue."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation
2. Development Review Application
3. Reduced Site Plan
4. Reduced Building Elevation
5. Reduced Canopy and Signs
6. Letter from Paul Czech (MNDOT) to Robert Generous dated April 2,2001
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 12
7. Public Heating Notice and Mailing List
8. Planning Commission Minutes of May 1, 2001
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 13
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Application of Holiday Stationstores, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Site Plan
Review
On May 1, 2001, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting
to consider the application of Holiday Stationstores, Inc. for a conditional use permit, variance and
site plan review for the property located at 441 West 78th Street. The Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the proposed use, preceded by published and mailed notice. The
Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The property is currently zoned Highway and Business Se~wices District (BH).
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for commercial land uses.
3. The legal description of the property is' Lot 1, Block 1, Zamor Addition
4. Ordinance Compliance
Section _0-2o2 (Conditional Use Permits)
a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Approval of
the conditional use allows the intensification of the site and enhances the appearance of
the development.
b. The proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan
and this chapter.
c. The proposed use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area.
d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1,2001
Page 14
e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer
systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed
use.
f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not
be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents,
or trash.
h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion
or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
i. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
j. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
1. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Section 20-58 (Variances)
(6) The site is currently being utilized for a convenience store with gas pumps. The proposed
redevelopment would enhance the appearance of the comer. The literal enforcement of the
ordinance would require that the site be reoriented to the west, orienting the rear elevation of the
building to the public views contrary to the requirements of the Highway 5 Design standards.
(7) There are limited viable locations for the siting of convenience stores with gas pumps. The
separation requirements between gas pumps are, in this instance, absurd, since the use would be
permissible by reorienting the building in such as way as to violate city design standards.
(8) The proposed variance is due to the desire to efficiently utilize the existing access points as well as
comply with the requirements of the city's design standards.
(9) The alleged difficult is due to competing design requirements of the city.
(10) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land
or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.. The redeveloped site will
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1, 2001
Page 15
positively impact the appearance of the area.
(11) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger
the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The
proposed site design efficiently utilizes traffic circulation patterns on the site.
Section 20-110_(Site Plan):
Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be
adopted;
(2) Is consistent with this division;
(3)
Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and
soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general
appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas;
(4)
Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5)
Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision
of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the
design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
do
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and
parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets,
width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of
parking.
(6) Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface
water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those
Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
May 1,2001
Page 16
aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial
effects on neighboring land uses.
Se
The planning report #CUP 2001-1 and Site Plan Review 2001-3 dated May 1,2001,
prepared by Robert Generous is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conditional
use permit and site plan for the Holiday Stationstores, Inc.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1 st day of May, 2001.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
g:\plan\bg\development review\holiday station store cup 2001-1.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
.AP?~JCANT:
ADDRESS'.
VICTOR SACCO
4567 W. 80TH ST.
BLOOMINGTON, MN
55437
-J'FI ]::PHONE (Daytime) 952/830-8767
OWNER: HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES ,
ADDRF$$: 4567 W 80TH ST.
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437
TELEPHONE: SAME
INC.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
-¢ Conditional Use Permit
,
,interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Platted Unit Development*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
× variance
Wetland Alteration P. ermit
Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
X Notification Sign
; .i~ Site PJan Review*
Subdivision'
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CU P/SP RNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $ 1,064.71
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the propertY must be included with the
** appHcatio~ REQUEST CITY PROVIDE AND BILL APPLICANT FOR PROPERTY OWN]DRS.
Budding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
"Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of
~ansparency for each plan sheet.
'* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
:NDTE-When multiple applications are pi'ocessed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME _
LOCATION _
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
~oL. TDA,y. STNI'IONSTORS ~I99 -.gE~U'rLD
~.5 &HW~ 101
TOTAL ACREAGE
.?P,39~_ SO. FT.,,_.
WETLANDS PRESENT
YES
X NO
PRESENT ZONING .... I~Tt",I-YW..A¥ ~t]gTtqF,,$S
REQUESTED ZONING ~IIGEWA¥ BY3'S'I'NES,q
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
:{EASON FOR THIS REQUr:ST'..__,SE.~_ ATTACHED
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or cleady printed and must be accompanied by all information
'~nd plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
3epartment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal, A written
)otice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
this is to certify that i am making application for the described action by the City and that ! am responsible for complying with
'.!! City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and ! am the party whom
~e City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
0PY of Owner's Duplicate. Certificate of Title, Abstract of T'rtle or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
~is application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
'rWfll keep myseff informed of the deadlines for submission, of material and the progress of this application~ I turther
i'derstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feas~iUty studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
'~.,hodzation to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
knowledge.
city h_ereby notifies the appli~ th,~t development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public he~ring
'quirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
'~tension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
,tensions are approved by the applicant
7natur~f Fee O[vner Lynn 14, -Anderso'n;
, Assistant Secretary
%i tion Re iwa on 5/ /9t Fee P~d
' Da{e
3/21.9/20021.
..
Date
/ d/,, "/I ._ Reoeipt No.
applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
'~ot contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
TOTRL P. 02
CHA~H~SSEN ~1:]1~
BT'I~ AR~'~k DATA
I::XIE, TINO IMPI"R¥IOUB AREA · 18~1 Q.PT,
I
I
,,-%
(D
!
/
!
/
/
/
NORTH
.CAL.., 'r' - =,o'
PROPOgED GREEN AREA · 11,~,53 SQ. pig'. 135X) ~ / I
P~OPOSrD ~IPF'RVIOU$ AR~A - ~1,0~ ~0' ?~ ~XJ
PRO~GED PAVED AREA - 17,0+~PT. 15~Xl 31
~O~5~D BUILD]N~ AR~A ~84 ~Q. PT. [12~1 ~
Holiday
,) q
~v_z./^
CZ) =.q
zm
XDpIIOH
.......... /;L',;,ZLh .... ~ '
~v/A
2--I
XDpllOH
/
/
/
/
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
April 2, 2001
Mr. Robert Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Post Office Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Subject: Holiday Station Store #199
Dear Mr. Generous:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above-referenced site
plan and has no comments, as the proposed project should have little or no impact onMn/DOT's
highway system.
Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans,
environmental reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to:
Paul Czech, Principal Planner
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Please note that Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats
and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3)
copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete
and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your
anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from
having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals.
Feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1771 if should have any questions.
Sincerely,
Paul Czech
Principal Transportation Planner
Copy: Mn/DOT LGL - Chanhassen
Mn/DOT Division File C.S. N/A
An equal opportunity employer
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY i, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Amend C~nditional Use Permit, APPLICANT: Holiday Station Store
Site Plan Review and Vadance
LOCATION: 441 West 79th Street
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Holiday
Station Store, is requesting to amend their existing conditional use permit (#78-2) for an automotive fuel station
and retail convenience store, site plan review for a 3,984 sq. ft. retail building, 48' x 80' canopy on a 0.74 acre
site and a vadance for separation of gas pumps, property zoned Highway Business District (BH), located on
Lot 1, Block 1, Zarnor Addition, 441 W. 79th Street.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public headng is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. Dudng the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall dudng
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Fdday. if you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public headng has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on Apdl 19, 2001.
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
0VILBAR PROPERTIES INC
C/O AL KLINGELHUTZ
3600 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
2HANHASSEN MN 55317
BLUE CIRCLE INVESTMENT CO
1304 MEDICINE LAKE DR STE 301
PLYMOUTH MN 55441
Use template for 5160
.
3LOOMBERG COMPANIES INC
PO BOX 730
2HANHASSEN MN 55317
GARY L BROWN
1831 KOEHNEN CIR W PO BOX 474
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
3 L B PROPERTIES LLC
1831 KOEHNEN CIR PO BOX 474
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
NORTHCOTT COMPANY
18202 MINNETONKA BLVD
WAYZATA MN 55391
LMERICAN LEGION-CHAN POST 580
z995 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
2HANHASSEN MN 55317
SILO I LLC
200 HWY 13 W
BURNSVILLE
MN 55337
UMOCO AMERICAN OIL CO
'ROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT
;00 EAST RANDOLPH DR M C 2408
;HICAGO IL 60601
HOLIDAY STATION STORES/NC
4567 80TH ST W
BLOOMINGTON MN 55437
tALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE
499 DABNEY DR
,EXINGTON KY 40509
MICHAEL E RAMSEY
6362 OXBOW BND
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
~IICHAEL J SORENSEN
5648 200TH ST
;ELLE PLAINE MN 56011
CHANHASSEN INN
531 79TH ST W
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
9TH STREET CENTER PARTNERSHIP
84 EXCELSIOR BLVD
XCELSIOR MN 55331
4 D LLC
55 3RD AVE NW
~UTCHINSON
MN 55350
ALPH G MOLNAU &
ONALD F DUBBE
56 3 1/2 ST W
/ACONIA MN 55387
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 1, 2001
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jay Karlovich, Craig Claybaugh, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Uli Sacchet
and Rich Slagle
MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Linda Jansen
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Project Engineer; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Project
Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Name
Debbie Lloyd
Janet Paulsen
Address
7301 Laredo Drive
7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO AMEND THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (#78-2) FOR AN
AUTOMOTIVE FUEL STATION AND RETAIL CONVENIENCE STORE, SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR A 3~984 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING, 48' X 80' CANOPY ON A 0.74 ACRE SITE
AND A VARIANCE FOR SEPARATION OF GAS PUMPS ON PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY
BUSINESS DISTRICT (BI-I), LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ZAMOR ADDITION, 441 W.
79TM STREET, HOLIDAY STATION STORES, INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Barreji
Vic Sacco
Mike Ramsey
4567 W. 80th Street, Bloomington
4567 W. 80th Street, Bloomington
6362 Oxbow Bend
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
BlackoWiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff?.
Claybaugh: No questions, however I do need to abstain from the discussion and subsequent vote. My
current employer, Riverside Construction is currently engaged in a project with Holiday Station Stores
within the city of Ramsey.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Karlovich: I just had a quick question with regards to the purpose of the 250 foot separation
requirement. Is that a fire requirement or?
Generous: It was intended to limit the number of gas stations and convenience stores. They didn't want
every corner to have one. The market has sort of taken over and determined how many the city could.
The actual ordinance started out, they were just looking at convenience stores. Gas stations weren't part
of the discussion, but it evolved over a year and a half period when they were reviewing the ordinance to
incorporate gas stations. They were also, the city was concerned that we did not permit in our ordinance
a full service facilities for auto repair as part of gas stations so they amended that at the same time. In
this instance it wouldn't work.
Blackowiak: Rich?
Slagle: Just one question. I'm looking at the landscaping blueprint and wondering, as I drove by, I saw
there were 3 large spruce trees I believe that were located just directly south of the eastern most parking
spot. Am I to assume, we've not seen these on this plan, that those are being taken out?
Generous: I believe so, yes.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I have 2 questions too. First of all I want to be really clear about the time
line of how this came about. The holiday station was there first in '79, and then the Amoco came 10
years later, and then it was in the following year when we introduced that setback requirement. Is that
about the right time line?
Generous: That's correct.
Sacchet: Okay. I think that's somewhat significant to see the order of how things happened. Now, these
questions are more for the applicant. Is there enough space to put all these extra trees in that we're
asking for from the view of staff?. I'm going to ask you too, ask the applicant of that but what's staff's
opinion on that?
Generous: That was Jill's directive that they could comply with.
Sacchet: It should be possible, okay. Under the conditional use permit findings, finding number 8. That
has not too many because actually I believe the proposed use does not have vehicular approaches to the
property which do not create traffic congestion. That means they all do create congestion. I think you
want to take one of the not's out I believe. Is that correct?
Generous: Yes, it will not create traffic congestion.
Sacchet: Yes, so the current approaches are such that they do not create. I think it's actually correct in
the second go around when you wrote it. Now there's another clash between the two versions that's
under the variance findings. Finding C states the proposed variance is due to the desire to efficiently
utilize the existing access points as well as comply with the requirements of the city's design standards.
The corresponding finding in the recommendation part reads somewhat different, if I remember right.
That was corresponding to on page 13, number 8. Is that correct? The one that says the purpose of the
variation is not based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the land.
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1, 2001
Generous: Correct. That's the requirement under ordinance.
Sacchet: They say slightly different things, those two the way I understand it.
Generous: Yes, and I believe I went into more detail under the staff report. Under the final findings.
Sacchet: Okay. So basically your, because it's a little bit slippery one. I mean obviously this change is
to estimate the property and generate more income and, but it's, yeah it's true that they do use it more
efficiently at the same time.
Generous: Right, and they could actually do it, but then they violate some of the other things. The
design standards that the city's trying to get and so I was trying to balance the two of those.
Sacchet: Okay. One more question about the signage. We say that the big stand-up sign is actually in
place, right? So they wouldn't need an approval for that. That's already there.
Generous: That's going to stay there.
Sacchet: That stays the same. In addition they can have on two walls of the building they can have
lettering and they chose to have that on the east side and on the south side.
Generous: Correct. -
Sacchet: So for instance they couldn't have another sign on the north side, is that what we're saying?
Generous: Noo
Sacchet: Okay. I think that's the questions I have from staff. Yep, thanks.
Blackowiak: Ms. Kind, any questions?
Kind: No.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I've got a few. Bob, you talked about the original approval was tied to a
specific site plan. Do we do that now?
Generous: That's what we're doing, yes.
Blackowiak: So everything is tied so it's nothing changed.
Generous: Well it's a different site plan though.
Blackowiak: Right. So we just have to go through the approval with, okay. Alright. Do you happen to
know what the current retail building size is, or should I ask the applicant that?
Generous: I don't remember off the top of my head.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Blackowiak: Okay. According to my calculations there are 3,840 square feet of canopy. Is that counted
in the site coverage percentage as well as the building?
Generous: Well the impervious surface underneath it is, yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I was just kind of curious. As I did the math I looked at it and I thought boy,
that's huge because it's almost as big as the building.
Generous: Yes.
Biackowiak: I mean it's almost like two buildings so that's what I'm trying to get that through my head.
This is I guess an engineering question probably. Can you talk to me a little bit about the current
distance between the east entrance, the east access point on West 79th Street and Great Plains Boulevard.
To me it does not look like it's a huge distance in terms of feet. How does that comply with current
standards and is this an opportunity for us to improve that because it seems like it's, if you exit out from
that east entrance you're just right there by the stop sign and I'm wondering, is there any room for
improvement there?
Sweidan: Well Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. Actually there's no specific distance from the
main street toward the east entrance, how much it should be exactly. But main reason he's using the
existing also entrance, but he is doing some, on extending to the curb toward inside the curb and gutter.
That's all that he is doing. Just reshaping the whole existing entrance.
Blackowiak: Okay. I was just curious because it seems like it's rather close to the intersection so I was/
wondering if we could, if now would be the time to change anything and that was I guess my question.
Saam: Madam Commissioner. We could add that condition if you'd like. We were just, our thinking
was they're not looking or proposing to change either of the existing accesses so our thinking is they're
working fine now. We don't have complaints. Let's leave them alone. However, if you would like that
condition added, we could look at that more closely.
Blackowiak: I don't know that it's necessary. I was just I guess asking the question because I think this
is the time to do it. If that would be an issue for engineering at all.
Saam: I guess one thing we'd have to think about then is where the other access would be. I'm sure
they'd want two accesses.
Blackowiak: Well I just meant shit~ed it a little bit further to the west is kind of what I was, and I don't
know how that would work. If it would work but.
Saam: That's something we didn't look at in too much detail but we could.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I was just kind of worried about that. I guess that's, those are my questions for
now. So would the applicant or their designee care'to come up to the microphone and make a
presentation. Please state your name and address for the record.
Victor Sacco: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Victor Sacco, S-a-c-c-
o. Manager of Real Estate for Holiday Companies. Address 4567 West 802 Street in Bloomington.
Basically we have worked with staff. We've got about 27, 28 now I think, conditions of our site plan for
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
this development. Want to redo the whole facility. We've been there approximately 20 years. I think
it's working nicely~ We've enjoyed the association with the City of Chanhassen. Want to reinvest in the
city and we feel that this site plan does that. Basically we don't have any issues really, working with
staff I think we're in agreement with all the things that they've talked about. This new condition here,
we're fine with that which is draining from the roof to the north or south side. We have to look at that.
Work with our engineer and put that together but we're fine so if there's any questions that you folks
have of us. I also have John Barreji who is in charge of our construction, is here to help answer any
questions involved.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Uli, you're nodding.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I do have a couple questions of the applicant. I think you propose to put
new sewer and water access in, or city staff recommending that you use the existing ones. Is that an issue
for you?
Victor Sacco: I don't believe it is.
Sacchet: No problem there? The flag pole is something that staff points out that it would have to be
moved. Would you know where to move it?
Victor Sacco: I'm not sure exactly where we're going to move it but.
Sacchet: ! think it's one of the conditions.
Victor Sacco: Yes, we'll make sure that it's within the setback area and that.
Sacchet: So you don't foresee any problem there?
Victor Sacco: No.
Sacchet: How about placing the extra trees that are necessary? Have you given some thought because
there isn't really all that excessive amount of space the way I see it.
Victor Sacco: We've talked to our landscape folks and we're fine with that, aren't we? Yes, we think
we can fit all those trees.
Sacchet: So you're fine with that? That's great. Let's see ifI have more questions for you. Nope, that's
it. Thank you.
Victor Saeco: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I have a similar question to what Madam Chair had and that is, what is the size of
this new building compared to the previous?
Victor Sacco: The existing was a 3,920 square feet. 3,920 square feet is the old one. And the new one is
3,984. Real similar is size. Very similar.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Kind: Okay. Thank you.
Karlovich: First of all I just want to make some comments before my question. This is probably the
most beautiful looking gas station building I've seen in a long time and I think it will greatly enhance the
city of Chanhassen. Be a great improvement over the existing one, and I do understand in today's market
that the newer stations are doing much better. The only question I had for you and possibly for staff, was
there any consideration of any windows on the south side? I thought that was part of the design
standards or I don't know...
Aanenson: Let me take a stab at it first. The first site plan Bob worked a series of different drawings
with the applicant. One, to increase the impervious surface. There was some parking in the front comer
that we objected to so in fairness to the applicant, I think they've worked really well to meet some of our
objectives that we had as far as design and layout and visibility from the comer. I believe as far as the
pitched roof and some of those things that we pushed, they worked well with us. We gave some
examples to look at as far as gas stations that we thought were good designs. We certainly know what
direction we're looking at with windows and I believe indicated that to them but as far as today's
ordinance, it does meet that so. They were suggested as much window space as they could. But as far as
what they see is their prototypical design and what they see for their needs, I would leave that up to them
to answer that question.
Karlovich: Okay. I guess I saw it as possibly, maybe you think it's better to have the wall there as
opposed to the windows but I thought that would probably be an opportunity to probably even market a
little bit more from Highway 5.
Victor Sacco: Well we felt that, it's a relatively narrow building. It's 45 feet. It has a lot of frontage
going north/south but east to west, it's only about 40-45 feet and we do have that column feature there to
break it up so I think we just, we hope that you think that it will look okay without the windows. The
faux windows.
Karlovich: I think it looks great with or without the windows. I was just throwing that out as a
discussion item. I mean it's a very nicely done building. Thank you.
Blackowiak: I guess I just have one more question. Back to the square footage question. What is the
current canopy size as compared to the proposed?
Victor Sacco: 52 by 50 is existing so, what is that?
Blackowiak: That's 2,600 square feet. Okay. S° it's about a 50% increase in both the intensity of the
gas pumps and, okay. Is that a Holiday Station over on Highway 7, in Shorewood by Waterford Towers?
Victor Sacco: Madam Chair, it is yes.
Blackowiak: How big is the canopy over there, do you know? I mean comparable or no?
John Barreji: Three times the size of our building. The one in Shorewood with the massive roof?.
Blackowiak: Yes, the massive roof.
Victor Sacco: That thing is huge.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Blackowiak: I want to make sure that we don't have the massive roof in Chanhassen as well.
Victor Sacco: Okay, good. We won't have that. That was part of a strip shopping center and the
developer and the city wanted something, it's huge.
Blackowiak: That's their option I guess but okay. Alright, that was it for my questions. This item is
open for a public hearing so if, well excuse me. Before I do that, did you want to add anything sir?
John Barreji: No.
Blackowiak: I didn't mean to cut you off.
John Barreji: John Barreji, Holiday Station Stores. I am in charge of construction. 4567 West 80th
Street. No, I don't. Not unless we push the access. Driveways.
Blackowiak: Okay, and would you be, talk to me about that a little bit. Since you're up here.
John Barreji: The reason is, if we push this further back then cars, the cars as they come through will
take the first exit as they come through. If we push this further back then the cars hit the island
perpendicular so we should stand at least 5 to 10 feet from the end of the island to the end portion of the
curb. So that's why, it actually worked up really well with...
Blackowiak: Right. I was just kind of curious about the distance. That was my question. And if
engineering is not worried about it then I guess I'm feeling a little better about it so. Alright, well let's
try it again. This item is open for public hearing. Oh excuse me, Rich.
Slagle: One more question Madam Chair. There's a mention in the conditions for a rock construction
entrance. Can you talk a little bit about that? I don't see it on the.
John Barreji: It's not shown on the plans as part of our revisions. When we got the conditions, they're
not done yet but they will be ready for the City Council meeting. A rock entrance is just a typical
entrance for construction access into the site.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay, let's try it. Third time's a charm, right? The item is open for a public hearing so if
anybody would like to comment on this proposal, please come up to the microphone, state your name and
address for the record.
Mike Ramsey: Hio My name's Mike Ramsey. I own the property just west of you guys. My address is
6362 Oxbow Bend, Chanhassen. I own the Gold Medal Sports and run the plaza right behind you guys.
The building looks great and I welcome it next to our building. I just have, I guess I've got to voice a
couple of concerns and the drainage issue is I guess being addressed. I still worry about the drainage
issue. I guess I don't know, I'm not an engineer so I don't know about the elevation of the building. The
Holiday sits higher than the plaza right now and in the winter when everything melts and there's runoff,
we've got it coming in the back doors of all the tenants right now so that's something I'm dealing with
right now so I'm a little skeptic and worried about the elevation issue of the new Holiday coming in. I
know you're talking about running the drains to the north and south, which would be great. I still, I know
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1,2001
the building is pitched east and west so is it caught by gutters and then dispersed the other way? I'm still
worried about that so I guess that's it. An issue and a question, a big question I have. I also have a
question on your mechanical boxes behind. Right here. I have a patio just to the south, it would be the
southwest of all these mechanical boxes on the end of my plaza and at the present time there's a
restaurant in there that doesn't use the patio but the patio was put in at considerably expense and I can in
the future I can see the patio being used and if the mechanical boxes are sitting right out in front of the
patio, I can see quite a big of noise. If the air conditioning duets, mine in the plaza everything had to be
put on the roof and it's screened in. I'm looking at your drawing and I don't think, I don't know how
you'd put it on the roof but so all the mechanical boxes I guess, regardless of whether they're fenced in
or screened in, right offthe patio is I guess a bit concern of mine also. And the space, I guess you're
talking about landscaping. It's going to be a tough squeeze to put in trees inbetween there now, and I've
got no problem with trees being put in there but there's a bunch of pines in there already and I don't
know if you can put, there's a shrub tree and a canopy tree. I'm looking at, we've got understory trees
and canopy trees. I was asking my wife, what's the difference on that. Is an understory tree, is that
pines?
Generous: They're ornamental trees generally.
Mike Ramsey: Okay. And canopy trees obviously are shade.
Generous: Those are the larger ones.
Mike Ramsey: I just think it will be tough squeezing them along there because there's 15 feet between
all the property lines, and especially if there's mechanical boxes. They'll be in the mechanical boxes so I
guess, and the garbage. That has nothing to do with I guess the building of the property. Right now I
deal with a lot of garbage from the Holiday Station. It's, I'm on constant pick-up and so I know the
garage is still going to be on that end of the building and it will be inside which helps immensely. I know
'it's outside right now so it has the tendency to blow around everywhere but we're on constant pick-up of
everything that blows over so, those are my concerns I guess. If you want to yell back at me or have any
questions on some of my concerns I guess.
Blackowiak: Okay. Kate, can we talk to him a little bit about the drainage issues and also the
mechanical boxes? I don't know who.
Aanenson: Sure. I did speak to Mr. Ramsey about that too. As far as the drainage issue, there is a
problem already on his site and I guess we would ask the two property owners to get together. Obviously
you figure landscaping behind it is tight with the mechanical equipment, and maybe both problems could
be solved if they worked together to try to go back and retrofit so the water isn't going into Mr. Ramsey's
building. As far as mechanical boxes, I believe Bob has put a condition in there as far as wing walls. It
is a pitched roof. We wouldn't want them on top, but also we want to mitigate the noise and if we can
work that with the landscaping or wing wall or something like that to screen that, I think that's certainly
achievable and I believe the other condition on there, in there Bob on that. And then the other one as far
as trash, I guess I'd leave that up to the Holiday. I think this building does have the enclosed trash in the
building, which help alleviate that so.
Mike Ramsey: The mechanical boxes, when you say screen, what kind of wall?
Aanenson: It'd be like a, something to match the building. A brick wall or something to match the
building so we'd muffle that noise.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
Mike Ramsey: It wouldn't be just a fence or a boxed in or would it be bricked in or?
Aanenson: We would like it to match the building. Something that's durable.
Generous: If it's brick. Otherwise it'd be, the other way to screen it is through permanent landscaping.
Evergreens.
Mike Ramsey: I just know that...to the property line in the building, we're going to be 30 feet apart with
two buildings as it is and then you put those, it will be about 15 feet apart. And if there's a patio out
there, I know I wouldn't want to be sitting on the patio drinking a coffee or that so.
Aanenson: I think it'd be helpful between now and City Council if the two parties could get together.
Make sure, if they have to get cross access to get landscaping and the like to work some of those issues
out.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's a good idea. Okay.
Kind: Madam Chair, if they do add a wing wall, would that meet the setbacks?
Generous: We'd treat it like a fence. But you can build up to the property line.
Kind: So you can encroach?
Aanenson: Yes, right. Right. But I guess my intention, if they can work to see what's best for both
parties, that works well. Reduce maintenance so they're not crossing each other's property, whatever to
solve kind of the drainage problem overall.
Karlovich: So will staff mediate that? It appears as though the entire site in front of the building all
drains towards Great Plains Boulevard so I'm assuming there's going to be gutters that are going to go
out in the front and then it will drain away from the building. So drainage doesn't seem to be a huge
issue° The landscaping though looks like.
Saam: It's on the other side.
Aanenson: It's on the back side between the two buildings.
Mike Ramsey: The west side.
Aanenson: Historically it has been draining that way. I guess that's what we said and Mr. Ramsey's
building came in second. Again I'm not sure what the final elevation or the final grading was there, but
we're saying here's an opportunity as long as the Holiday is going in and grading, that maybe the
problem can be resolved in the best interest of both parties, and we'd be happy, if we need to, to mediate
that meeting. Set something up.
Blackowiak: Would anybody else like to make comments in the public hearing portion? Seeing none, I
will close the public hearing. Commissioners. I'd like to hear comments. Rich, why don't I start with
yOU.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Slagle: Well I again think it's a pleasant proposal. It certainly looks very nice. I just have a concern as
voiced by a couple of comments I made regarding trees. It's unfortunate those 3 large trees will have to
go. I don't know if there's any alternatives with that. And I think I heard from Mr. Ramsey that noise is
also a concern. Possibly equal or more than the site lights of seeing the boxes so I hope that's addressed
in your discussions. And other than that I think I'm okay with it.
Blackowiak: Okay. Uli.
Sacchet: I think it's very appropriate use of that location. I think it's well designed for that location. I'm
glad to hear that all the conditions the applicant is fine with. The only comments are more of an
editorial, when we get to looking at actually a motion but basically I'm fine with this proposal.
Blackowiak: Okay. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I too agree. I really like the site plan. I think it's greatly improved over what's
there right now. It always kind of bothered me, the building orientation. The way it is now and I think
this improves upon that a lot and will be a nice addition to our city.
Blackowiak: Okay, Jay.
Karlovich: For the record I think the only comments I have is that the council may want to see windows
on at least the south side of the building. With regards to landscaping screen with the adjacent property
owner, if you look at the utility plan it appears that there is, I don't know if they're going to be able to put
landscaping. They'd have to be putting them in right on top of the water and sanitary sewer. I guess
maybe the mitigation there is if the adjacent property owner allows them to put some landscaping on
their property to do the screening. It would appear as though staff already recognizes that. Otherwise I
think it is a very nicely done building and will be an improvement to the community.
Blackowiak: Okay. My comments are fairly consistent with what we've heard so far. I do like the
building. The main concerns I had were the 250 foot separation and the reasoning behind that but I'm
comfortable with that now. The retail building is staying approximately the same size, and as long as we
don't have a Shorewood type canopy, I feel very good about that. I think the building orientation is a
huge improvement and I generally like this project. So with that I would like to have actually I believe
it's going to be 3 separate motions or condition.
Generous: Two.
Kind: And just a procedure question Madam Chair. Under the first recommendation the numbers start at
6. What's the reason for that?
Generous: The computer.
Kind: Oh, okay. There isn't a reason. Okay, so I'll renumber those in my motion. And same with B.
Same deal there?
Generous: Yes.
Kariovich: Prior to the motion are we going to make the findings of hardship or how are we going to do
that7
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
Blackowiak: Well I think, that was I guess my question. That the variance, doesn't the variance, and I
guess I'm asking you Kate. Okay so the conditional use permit with a variance, okay. So it's wrapped
into one. Alright, and then Findings of Fact are attached? Procedurally Kate I don't think we need to,
can we reference that or do we need to specifically?
Generous: You can reference it.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Aanenson: With the Findings of Fact.
Blackowiak: Okay. Jay, would you be comfortable with that?
Karlovich: You know, I think you can adopt at least the findings that are here in the staff report and that
would be enough of a record for an undue hardship if we feel the need. If there's going to be any other
type of opposition or create more of a record, that's something else but the city staff has put together, as
long as this is adopted as part of the motion I think there are some, appear to substantiate the variance.
Blackowiak: Right, and also we do have the Findings of Fact attached.
Karlovich: And it's not so much, we're just making a recommendation but the City Council just adopts
our recommendation.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well with that, I'd like to have two motions please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I'll move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit #2001-1 to permit a convenience store with gas pumps with a 37 foot variance from the 250 foot
separation requirement for gas pumps between the nearest gas pumps of individual parcels based on the
Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions 1 through 6. And then I do
have one correction for the Findings of Fact, I think that apply to this which is point number 8. The
finding should be reworded to say the proposed vehicular approaches to the property do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Blackowiak: A motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: I second that.
Blackowiak: Okay, any discussion?
Sacchet: Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to make sure we wind up most of the comments in the
attached Findings of Fact part that goes to the council. I'm trying to figure, this is the variance part.
That also has the wrong numbering and plus for the first bullet on page 13 of the variance which is
currently numbered number 6, which should be number 1. That first half of the paragraph is a carryover.
A cut and paste apparent mistakenly. That should be taken out. Are you with me Bob, what I mean?
Generous: Yes.
11
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1, 2001
Sacchet: Okay. And then I would further like to request that the finding number 8 on that page, which is
really number 3 should read the same way as the finding in the staff report, okay? That's my comments.
Kind: I'll accept those friendly amendments.
Blackowiak: Okay, so we have a motion and a second.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit #2001-1 to permit a convenience store with gas pumps with a 37 foot
variance from the 250 foot separation requirement for gas pumps between the nearest gas pumps
of individual parcels based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property.
2. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises.
3. No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles shall be permitted on the premises.
4. No public address system shall be audible from any residential property.
5~
No sales, storage, or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles,
snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles.
6. Facilities for the collection of waste oil shall be provided.
The Findings of Fact in the staff report shall be revised to amend item number 8 to read as
follows. The finding should be reworded to say the proposed vehicular approaches to the
property do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public
thoroughfares.
e
Finding number 6 on page 13 of the staff report shall be amended to delete the duplicated
portion.
Finding number 8 on that page 13 of the staff report, which is really number 3 should read
the same way as the finding in the staff report.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Craig Claybaugh abstained.
Blackowiak: Now we need a second motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Site Plan Review #2001-3, plans prepared by Insites dated March 16, 2001, revised March 25, 2001,
subject to the following conditions which should be-1 through, oh here comes math.
Kind: I think it's 23.
Sacchet: It will be 23. And I would like to make a couple of changes besides just numbering it starting
at 1. Number, what is currently 14, what should be 9. After rock construction entrance, I'd like to
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
specify for the construction. What is labeled number 15, what should be number 10, add silt fence
around the construction site. I'd like to add, and will be removed after construction. And I believe that's
my motion, yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second?
Kind: I'll second that motion and add one friendly amendment to number 23. Old 28. Change the
sentence to read, and/or south of the building.
Sacchet: That's certainly accepted. Can I amend myself'?.
Karlovich: If it's friendly.
Sacchet: I would like to propose a number, what would be 29 with this numbering which will be 24 I
believe. That the applicant works with the neighbor to screen the mechanical boxes. That's probably
specific enough. Yeah, I'd like to add that as another condition. And I accept that.
Blackowiak: Uli, could I just add something too?
Sacchet: Sure.
Blackowiak: On that number 24, this is new number 24. Applicant works with neighbor to screen utility
boxes and address the water issue between the two properties.
Sacchet: You can add that with it, yes. That's fine~
Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, so it's been moved and seconded.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
Review #2001-3, plans prepared by Insites, dated March 16, 2001, revised March 25, 2001, subject
to the following conditions:
The developer shall increase buffer yard plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised
landscape plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
2~
The developer shall increase the number of understory trees and shrubs along the southern
property line to fully screen the parking lot.
3~
The pin oaks specified in the plant schedule shall be changed to white, bur or bicolor oaks and
will have a minimum size of 2 ½" diameter.
4. The Austrian pine in the plant schedule shall have a minimum size of seven feet.
5. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year storm event.
6. Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 5203, 5207, 5300, 5301, and 5302~
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
e
.
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
Revise existing catch basin invert elevation on Great Plains Boulevard.
Add rock construction entrance for the duration of construction.
Add silt fence around construction site, and removal of the silt fence at the end of
construction.
The developer shall revise the utility plan as follows:
a. Show the existing water and sewer service lines.
b. Add a legend.
c. Under the General Notes add, "All connections to existing manholes shall be core-
drilled".
d. Under the Sewer & Water Notes add, "All sanitary sewer services shall be 6" PVC SDR
26".
e. Show the proposed pipe slope of the storm sewer.
f. Add a storm sewer schedule.
g. Revise the 8" storm sewer to a 12" RCP pipe.
The developer shall revise the grading plan as follows:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Add a legend.
c. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
The existing flagpole must be relocated on the property at least 12.5 feet from the property line.
Canopy lighting shall be recessed into the canopy. Such lighting shall not project beyond the
bottom face of said canopy.
A separate sign permit application is required for the installation of signage. Wall signage is
permitted on only two elevations.
The mechanical equipment on the western side of the building must be screened.
The retail store is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
The west wall and the west portion of the south wall must be of one-hour fire-resistive
construction as it is closer than 20 feet to the property line.
The accessible'route and accessible parking space must be located as close as possible to the
building entrance.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
21. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
22. The developer shall revise the roof drainage on the west elevation of the building to
discharge to the north and/or south of the building.
23. The applicant shall work with the neighboring property owner to screen the mechanical
boxes and address the drainage issue.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Craig Claybaugh abstained.
Blackowiak: Kate I have a question. It says City Council date is May 29th. Is that Memorial Day?
Generous: It's the day after. It's a Tuesday.
Blackowiak: It's a Tuesday, okay° That helps. So City Council is Tuesday, May 29th. Don't come on
Monday, there won't be anyone there. Alrighty.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY
OFFICE BUILDING (8,450 SOUARE FEET) WITH A PARKING SETBACK VARIANCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL, LOCATED AT 7811 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, BURGER OFFICE BUILDING, DERRIL BURGER.
Public Present:
Name Address
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Fred Richter 3610 So. Co. Rd. 101
Derril Burger 18001 Highway 7
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for staff'?. Jay, do you want to start?
Karlovich: I'm going to pass for right now.
Claybaugh: Yes, I have some questions for staff.
Karlovich: I'm sure you're going to hit everything that I was.
Claybaugh: I'm just going to take it in the order that it comes up on the documents. I don't want you to
read into my priorities I guess. First thing that jumps out is the existing 24 foot oaks. Those 2 that are
there. It seems like you compromised with respect to the number of peninsulas that were going to be
required and you're only asking for 1 when the ordinance requires 2.
15