7. Site Plan Review for Abra Auto Svc Center 1 P.C.
•
C I TY 0 F CC DATE : 3 - 22 93 11 -18 -92 7
\` I CA SE:. 92 CUP Plan -
1 C
By:
Al -aff
1
1
STAFF REPORT
1
1 PROPOSAL: Site Site Plan Review for an Abra Auto Service Center, 6,494 Square
Feet
,_-) Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Auto Service Facility in the
1 Z BH District
4 LOCATION: South of Hwy. 5, north of Lake Drive East and Chanhassen Estates and
1 _ east of Emission Control Testing Station
J
0 APPLICANT : Beisner Ltd. Chanhassen Holding Company
1 6100 Summit Drive 14201 Excelsior Boulevard
Q Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Minnetonka, MN 55436
1
1 PRESENT �C#ion by City Administrator ZONING: H ighway Business 8ndorsed ✓ v��s
1 ACREAGE: 34,163 s.f. R toditied
Rejecter ..
Date, '... 3
1 ADJACENT ZONING Date Submitted to Commission
AND LAND USE: N - Hwy. 5
S - RSF; Chan Estates and Lake Drive East Date Submitted to CotgCij
1 E - IOP; DataSery - & a - 3
W - BH; Future Goodyear Facility eZ
Q SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site.
• al ,
LI
I Ei SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is undeveloped and vegetated primarily with
mature poplar and elm trees.
1 6 2000 LAND USE: Commercial
1
1
1
1 Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
1 February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 2
' PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
1 The applicant is proposing to construct an Abra Auto Body Repair Facility. The site is located
between Lake Drive East and Hwy. 5 adjacent to the recently approved Goodyear Facility. The
34,163 square foot site is located in a Highway Business District. It is visible directly from
' Highway 5 and has access from Lake Drive East via a common private drive shared with the
Auto Testing Station and the recently approved Goodyear Store and a third parcel which is
presently vacant.
The site plan is reasonably well developed. Staff has been working with the applicant for several
months on the site plan and building architecture. Building architecture has been the subject of
much deliberation. The Planning Commission expressed their dislike of the original design on
several occasions. Ultimately they sent the proposal to the City council with a condition that the
' building be redesigned. The Goodyear Store on the adjacent site was recently reviewed and
approved by the City Council with improved design features and a brick exterior. Staff has
attempted to use these considerations in reviewing the current request. The current design is
1 completely new and was developed by a different architectural firm.
The Abra building has decorative integral color concrete block. The west, north and south
elevations have a pitched element to them. The garage on the north elevation facing Highway
5, is recessed behind the pitched element, which adds an interesting dimension to the building.
All services for both facilities will take place inside the buildings. Staff has informed the
' applicant that we believe that based upon the recent action on the Goodyear site, a brick exterior
will be required. The applicant has objected on the basis of cost and aesthetics and will make
their case at the meeting. Minor landscaping revisions are being proposed to further improve the
1 site plan.
Parking for vehicles is located on the north and west side of the structure away from Lake Drive.
1 This location is ideal since it places these areas further away from residences south of Lake
Drive. The Abra site will be operated from 7:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays to provide estimates on work required on a vehicle.
' Body work will take place from 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The site will
be closed on Sundays. There will be no outdoor storage or outdoor servicing of vehicles. Staff
is further requiring that there be no outside storage of damaged or inoperable vehicles.
The site landscaping is generally of high quality due to the attention that was paid to this issue
by staff and the applicant. Additional landscaping is being requested on the east and south sides
of the site along the east elevation to break up the long mass of wall area, and along the
perimeters of the retention pond located to the south of Lot 3. Staff is also requesting additional
trees along the southern lot line of the Abra site. There is a large number of poplar and elm trees
1
1
Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 3 1
on the site. All of the trees on Lot 2 are proposed to be removed to prepare the site for
development. These trees are not of valuable quality, however, the large quantity gives it
significance. Their loss is unfortunate but is unavoidable if the land is to be developed.
Staff regards the project as reasonable if unexceptional use of the land. It is unfortunate that the
Hwy. 5 Study could not have been completed earlier since it will likely result in development
standards that are more sensitive to the corridor's image.
Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the site plan,
without variances, and conditional use permit requests for this proposal.
BACKGROUND 1
On January 28, 1991, the City Council approved final plat #90 -17 for Chan Haven Plaza 3rd
Addition. The subdivision resulted in dividing 5.59 acres into 2 lots with an area of 1.9 acres
for Lot 1 and 3.0 acres for Lot 2. Lot 1 became the site for the Emission Control Testing Station
which was approved as a conditional use permit concurrently with the subdivision. Lot 2 was 1
reserved for future development and is being proposed for subdivision into three lots with this
application.
On November 18, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and conditional use
permit requests for the development of an Abra Auto Body Repair and a Goodyear Auto Service
facility. The Planning Commission tabled action on the proposal as there were a number of
issues related to architectural design raised by the Planning Commission and residents of
Chanhassen Estates Subdivision that needed to be resolved before a vote could be taken. The
applicant was directed to meet with staff and Planning Commissioner Jeff Farmakes to resolve
those issues of concern.
On December 2, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the changes. The request was 1
approved for the Goodyear site, however, the Abra building design was not satisfactory. The
Planning Commission directed the applicant to refine the design before it appears before the City
Council.
On January 11, 1993, the City Council reviewed the site plan and conditional use permit requests
for the development of a Goodyear Auto Service facility. The City Council tabled action on the
proposal as architectural and site design issues resurfaced. The city does not have specific
architectural standards in the ordinance and the City Council noticed a pattern of struggling with
site plan applications and trying to revise them to meet the city's expectations. Staff was
directed to investigate the possibility of a moratorium along the Highway 5 Corridor while the
city develops the Highway 5 plan and new approaches to regulating development in this area. 1
1
1 Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 4
The moratorium along the Highway 5 Corridor was rejected at the February 8, 1993, City
Council meeting. The City Council directed the applicant to revise the plans by providing
1 additional landscaping along the south property line of Lot 1 and change the exterior finish from
block concrete to brick. The application was approved based upon these requirements together
with other conditions.
GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE
1 The building is situated parallel to Lake Drive East and Hwy. 5. Access is gained off of a
private driveway which connects to Lake Drive East. Parking is located to the north and west
of the proposed building. The nearest home is located 350 feet away from the south edge of
' the actively used portion of the site. Direct views of the service bays will be screened by
berming and landscaping from both Hwy. 5 and Lake Drive. The Abra site is located 105 feet
1 from the north, 10 feet from the east, 45 feet from the south, and 55 feet from the west property
line.
' Materials used on the Abra building will be of integral color concrete block with a pre - finished
galvanized steel canopy accent. Pre- finished metal overhead doors will be used on the west and
north elevations of the Abra building. The building architecture meets the standards of the site
plan ordinance requirements. What is more difficult to determine is if it meets the as -yet
unwritten standards of the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff told the applicant that
a brick exterior is likely to be required. While staff acknowledges that brick can be an attractive
material, its utilization does not guarantee an attractive building. However, based upon the City
Council's recent action, staff has added a condition requiring a brick exterior. The Abra building
will have a combination of pitched /mansard roof that is a 100 feet in length. Staff is
recommending the introduction of some architectural elements such as dormers along the eastern
roof line to break it up and reflect what has become typical Chanhassen CBD design. The north
and south elevations of the Abra building have a pitched element to them, and the doors are
recessed behind the pitched element. Auto services will take place inside the building. The roof
system is being used to screen roof mounted equipment. The applicant is showing the trash
enclosures screened by a split face concrete block to match the Abra building materials. The gate
1 to the trash enclosure is shown facing west on the elevations plan which is consistent with
previous staff recommendations designed to minimize direct views from Hwy. 5. The gates to
the trash enclosure will be constructed of chain link fencing.
' PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION
1 The City's parking ordinance for vehicle service stations requires 4 parking stalls per service
stall. The Abra site will require 24 stalls. The applicant is providing 25 stalls.
1
1
1
1
Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 5 1
Berming and landscaping is proposed along the north side, adjacent to Highway 5. This will
provide screening of cars parked in the lot. 1
ACCESS
Access to the development is provided by an existing private street off Lake Drive East which
services the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS). A driveway or cross - access easement
should be recorded in conjunction with the final plat recording to guarantee access to the lots.
There should also be a joint maintenance agreement, acceptable to the city, filed against each
parcel. We do not wish to see the city petitioned to accept the street or its maintenance at some
point in the future. 1
The existing private street was built in accordance to the City's typical commercial pavement
design with the thought that someday it would be dedicated back to the City for ownership.
Engineering staff feels with the concept proposed the City will not be taking ownership of the
street and therefore the street pavement/parking lot designs may be designed accordingly. The
preliminary plat which was approved by the City Council on February 8, 1993, provides the
necessary drainage and utility easement for the public improvements with the exception of a
storm sewer line along the easterly line of Lot 3, Block 1. Staff recommended that the easement
be increased to 20 feet wide to provide adequate room for maintenance. We also recommended
that a standard 5 -foot wide drainage and utility easement be dedicated on both sides of the
common lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
The plans propose extending the private street from the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station
located adjacent to the development. Since this roadway will not be a public street, staff is
comfortable with the proposal. The layout is similar to a mini -mall type parking lot design with
one access from a public street (Lake Drive East).
LANDSCAPING 1
The landscaping plan is very well designed. Berming is proposed along the north and south sides
of the site. The vehicles that will park along the north edge of the site must be totally screened
by the berms and landscaping. Additional landscaping is being requested on the east side of the
site. Staff is recommending that 8 spruce or Black Hills evergreens be added. Also, along the
south lot line of Lot 3, the applicant is proposing a retention pond. This pond will have a depth
exceeding 8 feet with an average of one foot standing water. Staff is recommending that the
pond perimeter be landscaped with trees and hedges. The southerly portion of the Abra site is 1
also lacking in trees. Four additional evergreens are required.
1
1
1
1 Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
1 February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 6
There is a large number of poplar and elm trees on the site. All the trees on Lot 2 are proposed
to be removed to prepare the site for development. These trees are not of high quality, however,
1 the large quantity gives it significance. The applicant is attempting to replace some of these trees
with a better quality.
1 LIGHTING
Lighting locations have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and
1 the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than l foot candles of light at the property
line as required by ordinance. An acceptable lighting plan should be submitted when building
permits are requested.
SIGNAGE
1 The applicant has submitted a conceptual signage plan. One monument identification sign is
proposed at the north edge of the site facing Highway 5. Staff proposed that if the Goodyear and
' the Abra signs were combined into one free standing sign, the third parcel located to the south
would be permitted to have signage facing Highway 5 too. This third sign would be integrated
as part of the Abra and Goodyear free standing sign. The applicant has been working on a
design for the free standing sign; however, we believe additional refinement is required. The
area of the sign is proposed to be 60 square feet. The ordinance allows 64 square feet in area
and a maximum height of 8 feet for monument signs. The sign is designed as a monument and
not a pylon due to the height of the sign board above the ground. The applicant is requesting
a height of 12 feet. Considering the fact that the applicant could place a pylon sign with an area
of 80 square feet and a height of 20 feet, staff is in favor of granting a 4 foot variance for the
height of the monument sign. It is a clear benefit to have one coordinated sign instead of two
individual pylon signs. Both buildings have two wall mounted signs along the north and west
elevations. The ordinance requires that no wall mounted sign exceed 80 square feet of display
1 area or 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the sign is mounted. The applicant
must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the sign on site. One stop sign must be posted on the
driveway at the exit point of both sites. The Planning Commission has conditioned approval
1 upon their review and acceptance of the sign plan.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The site is approximately six feet lower than the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station. The plan
PP Y
proposes to regrade a portion of the access drive to provide a smooth transition between
developments. Storm drainage from the proposed development will sheet flow across the
driveways and parking lot areas and then conveyed via storm sewer system to a proposed
detention pond located over the southerly portion of Lot 3, Block 1. Staff has reviewed the size
1
1
1
Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 7 1
of the detention pond and found it is under capacity and needs to be enlarged to accommodate
runoff from this development and the adjacent MVIS site. The pond should be modified to
accommodate 0.95 acre /feet of runoff below the 927' contour line. This will also provide a 2-
foot freeboard around the pond basin.
The P and is not designed to meet NURP standards as is the city's current policy. To do so
would require additional wet area which would severely compromise the utility of the remaining
lots. Staff believes that this problem can be addressed downstream at a city owned pond. The 1
developer should be required to pay an equivalent fee into the Surface Water Management
Program fund to accomplish these improvements downstream.
The applicant is proposing a series of catch basins and storm sewer to convey runoff to the
ponding basin. From the city's standpoint, the catch basins and storm sewers located within the 111 drainage basin and main street access should be owned by the city to maintain drainage. The
individual storm sewer line extended between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 from the street should be
maintained and owned by the individual property owners.
Erosion control measures shall be incorporated onto the grading plan. Type I silt fence shall be
installed along the north, east and southeasterly sides of the development. 1
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Both municipal sanitary sewer and watermain are available to the site. The plans propose on 1
extending the existing 6 -inch watermain and looping to the existing 10 -inch watermain located
just east of the development. Sanitary sewer was extended previously in conjunction with
development of the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station. The applicant is proposing to extend
sanitary sewer and water service to each lot. All utility construction should be in conformance
with the latest edition of the city's standard specification and detailed plates. Formal plan and
specification approval will be required at time of final platting.
Since the development will include construction of public improvements, it will be necessary for
111
the applicant to enter into a development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee
installation of the public improvements. Upon completion of these public improvements, the city
will formally accept for perpetual maintenance and ownership most of the utilities within the
utility and drainage easements. The city will not be responsible for ownership and maintenance
of the storm sewer extended between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. This is considered a private storm
sewer line. 1
All three lots will be served with municipal utilities. The appropriate hookup fees will be
1 charged at the time of building permit issuance.
1
1
1
Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
1
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
1 Page 8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 9 1
COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT
Ordinance Abra Goodyear
Building Height 2 stories 1 story 1 story 1
Building Setback N -20' E -10' N- 105'E -10' N- 75'E -30'
S -25' W -10' S- 45'W -55' S- 75'W -75'
Parking stalls 24/16 stalls 25 stalls 32 stalls 1
Parking Setback N -25' E -10' N- 60'E -10' N- 27'E -15'
S -25' W -10' S -45' W -15' S -35' W -26' 1
Hard surface 65% 62% 64.6%
Coverage 1
Lot Area 20,000 s.f. 34,163 s.f. 42,410 s.f.
Variances Required - none
PUBLIC UTILITIES 1
Both municipal sanitary sewer and watermain are available to the site. The plans propose on
extending the existing 6 -inch watermain and looping to the existing 10 -inch watermain located
just east of the development. Sanitary sewer was extended previously in conjunction with
development of the Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station. The applicant is proposing to extend
sanitary sewer and water service to each lot. All utility construction should be in conformance
with the latest edition of the city's standard specification and detailed plates. Formal plan and
specification approval will be required at time of final platting.
Since the development will include construction of public improvements, it will be necessary for
the applicant to enter into a development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee
installation of the public improvements. Upon completion of these public improvements, the city
will formally accept for perpetual maintenance and ownership most of the utilities within the
utility and drainage easements. The city will not be responsible for ownership and maintenance
of the storm sewer extended between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. This is considered a private storm
sewer line.
1
1
1
Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
' February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 10
All three lots will be served with municipal utilities. The appropriate hookup fees will be
charged at the time of building permit issuance.
' PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES
The City is requiring that park and trails fees be submitted in lieu of park land. Fees are paid
at the time building permits are requested. These fees are currently assessed at a rate of $2,500
per acre and $833 per acre for park and trail fees, respectively. As such, the Goodyear site will
be charged $3,245 in park and trail fees, and the Abra site will be charged $2,614.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Auto Service Facilities are permitted in the BH District as a conditional use. The following
constitutes our review of this proposal against conditional use permit standards and with
conditional use permit standards provided in the draft ordinance revision pertaining to emission
control testing stations.
1 GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city.
FINDING - The site is zoned BH. The proposed uses will not create any significant
or unexpected impacts from this use and, in fact, in many respects impacts
generated by this use are less by a significant factor then would have
' occurred or could have occurred if more intensive uses allowed by the
Zoning Ordinance were to be developed on the site.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
1 FINDING - The proposed use would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan.
The Hwy. 5 Corridor Plan is not yet completed or incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
g P P
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will
not change the essential character of that area.
1
1
1
Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 11 1
FINDING - The site is located adjacent to a major highway and a collector road. It is
in the Chanhassen commercial district and as such a commercial building
is fully consistent with this site. Staff has worked with the applicant in an
attempt to achieve design compatibility with the Chanhassen CBD and
Hwy. 5 design efforts.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
FINDING - Potential impacts are possible in the following areas: Traffic, noise, air 1
quality and light. Traffic levels that will be generated are low particularly
when compared with other potential uses. Access is via a street designed
to accommodate commercial traffic. Noise impacts will be mitigated by
requiring that all work be conducted within the building and that the
garage doors be kept closed except to let vehicles enter and exit. No
exterior speakers are allowed. Air quality is regulated by the State PCA
and light impacts are minimized by city ordinances.
5. 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 1
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed use.
FINDING - Full city services are available to this site. Roads serving the site have
recently been upgraded and are fully capable of handling the access needs
of this proposal.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not
be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
FINDING - There are no projected needs for public facilities and services beyond those
which are already provided in this area.
7. 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. 1
1
1
1
Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 12
FINDING - This site will not create adverse impacts to persons, property or the general
welfare of the area. Hours of operation, orientation of the bays away from
residence, and lighting standards will comply with city ordinances.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
1 congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
FINDING - The site is visible from a major highway and is accessible from that
' highway by 2 signalized intersections and a collector street designed to
commercial standards. There will be no direct traffic impacts to any area
1 residential neighborhood.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
' historic features of major significance.
FINDING - The development of this site will result in the loss of a large number of
poplar and elm trees. These trees currently act as a buffer between the
highway and area residential properties. These trees are not of high
quality, however, the large quantity gives it significance. In order to
develop the site, the majority of the trees will have to be removed.
Extensive landscaping is being required in part to make up for this loss.
There are a large number of mature evergreens located along the south
side of Lake Drive East that still provide the required buffering.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
FINDING - The site plan is well designed to provide adequate landscaping and
buffering from adjoining properties. Staff is recommending that building
be built of brick. Site operations are designed to maximize off -site
screening as much as possible.
1 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
FINDING - The site is being used for a commercial type of operation which is
consistent with its designation.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
FINDING - The following is our review of conditions of approval and appropriate
findings:
1
1
1
Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 13 1
a. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises except in
appropriately designed and screened storage areas.
FINDING - All operations will be conducted inside the buildings.
b. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall occur 1
within closed building except minor maintenance including, but not limited
to, tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement.
1
FINDING - There will be no repairs performed outdoors. Staff is further restricting
outdoor parking of damaged or inoperable vehicles.
1
c. No public address system shall be audible from any residential parcel.
FINDING - The buildings will be at a distance that exceeds 300 feet from any I
residence and will be screened by landscaping.
d. Stacking areas deemed to be appropriate by the City shall meet parking
setback requirements.
FINDING - There are no drive through facilitates being proposed. I
e. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as 1
motorcycles, snowmobiles, or all- terrain vehicles.
FINDING - Both operations specialize in repair of vehicles, not sales. This condition
1
will be enforced.
f. Disposal of waste oil shall comply with PCA regulations. Facilities for the 1
collection of waste oil must be provided.
FINDING - A condition is being added requiring proper disposal of waste oil. 1
g. Gas pumps and /or storage tank vent pipes shall not be located within one I
hundred feet of any parcel zoned or guided for residential use.
FINDING - Not applicable. 1
1
1
1
1
Abra Facility
I November 18, 1992/
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
1 Page 14
h. A minimum separation two hundred fifty feet is required between the nearest
I gas pumps of individual parcels for which a conditional use permit is begin
requested.
1 FINDING - Not applicable.
I Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the conditional use permit be
approved with appropriate conditions.
1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1 Staff recommends that the requests be approved as follows:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
1 CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
III
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen
I hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use:
Abra Auto Service Facility
1 2. Property. The permit is for the following described property ( "subject property") in the
City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota:
l Lot 2, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition
3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions:
1 1. No public address systems are permitted.
I 2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site. Garage doors are to
be kept closed except to allow vehicles to enter or depart.
I 3. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or
public rights -of -way.
1
1
1
1
Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 15 ,
4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored outside overnight on the Abra
site. 1
5. No outdoor storage of materials shall be permitted at the Abra site.
6. Noise level shall not exceed OSHA requirements or Minnesota Pollution Control
agency guidelines at the property line. Doors will be kept closed or no more than
a 12" opening. 1
7. Environmental protection shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. 1
8. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and
Subdivision #90 -17." '
SITE PLAN REVIEW
"Approval of Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on the site plan dated November 30, 1992,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Obtain a sign plan approved by the Planning Commission and City Council.
2. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to
be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must
be posted prior to building permit issuance.
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the
necessary financial securities as required.
4. The applicant shall provide a flammable waste separator as required by Building
Code.
5. Provide a complete, final set of civil engineering documentation to staff for review
and approval.
6. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memorandum dated October 8,
1992.
1
Abra Facility
November 18, 1992/
February 22, 1993/
March 22, 1993
Page 16
' 7. The applicant shall post "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs along the south curb line
on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Signs shall be placed at 100 -foot intervals and the curb
1 painted yellow.
8. Concurrent with the building permit, a lighting plan meeting city standards shall
1 be submitted.
9. The applicant shall pay $7,580 into the Surface Water Management Program fund
1 for water quality treatment downstream of the site. This fee will cover Lots 1 and
2 only.
1 10. No signage will be allowed until sign plan approval is obtained from the Planning
Commission and City Council.
1 11. The applicant shall provide eight additional Black Hills evergreens along the east
and four along the south side of Lot 2, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition.
1 12. Brick shall be used on the exterior of the Abra building. Plans shall be developed
to staff approval. The brick shall be designed to incorporate highlighting
treatments similar to the or better than the current proposal. Also, the applicant
shall introduce architectural elements such as dormers along the eastern roof line
to break the long mass of wall along the east elevation.
1 13. Compliance with conditions of Subdivision #90 -17 and Conditional Use Permit
#92 -2."
1
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated February 22, 1993.
2. Planning Commission minutes dated December 2, 1992.
1 3. Staff report dated December 2, 1992.
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 1
You can say that Mr. Lindbery is difficult and all of that but I really don't
think he ever was of the mindset that this was what was going to happen.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to call the question. 1
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council finds the
Conditional Use Permit 188 -11 for a contractors yard on property located at 1700
Flying Cloud Drive is still valid and to schedule a public hearing to consider
revocation of CUP 188 -11 for non - compliance. All voted in favor except
Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4
to 1. 1
Jeff Carson: Thank you for your time. What then will happen?
Mayor Chmiel: This will get scheduled and staff will get in contact with you 1
and let you know when this comes back before us.
Jeff Carson: Thank you. Does that come before the Planning Commission? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. You go before Planning, it comes before us. Item
number 3. 1
ABRA AUTO SERVICE CENTER, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND
CHANHASSEN ESTATES AND EAST OF THE EMISSION CONTROL TESTING STATION:
A. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 6,494 S9. FT. BUILDING.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AUTO SERVICE FACILITY IN THE BH DISTRICT.
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Al Beisner 7549 Mariner Point
James Benson 15034 Cherry Lane
Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Cr
Donald Hagen 4501 Hunters Ridge, Minnetonka
Tom Kotsonas Chan Estates
Gerard & Lindsay Amadeo 8007 Cheyenne Avenue f
Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: On item number 3, which we're coming to. I guess just so
there's no pre -tense that we are again leading anybody down the path or down the
road, I'd like to make a motion that this item be tabled until after our Council
work session next month.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. For what specific reasons? 1
Councilman Senn: In that the Council work session is to specifically further
discuss and seek understanding as well as potential action on a moratorium
involving Highway 5.
20 1
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilman Wing: The date of the work session?
Councilman Senn: Is scheduled for March 3rd.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor I guess I did not anticipate that However, given
some of the comments I have tonight and the concerns and the phone calls I've
received, I think that this applicant may be better served if this was handled
in that work session and some issues dealt with that maybe would save us a lot
of trouble tonight. I think he might be in a better position to address this
after that work session.
1 Councilman Senn: Does that mean you're seconding that?
Councilman Wing: I am seconding that.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion's on the floor to table until after March 3rd and be
brought before Council on, that would be the 8th of March. I think that would
probably not throw too much off one way or the other. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I would like to ask the City Attorney what are our
options if they are already meeting all the, it's a conditional use permit.
1 They're meeting everything that we're asking them to meet. How will we be
served by delaying this further?
Elliott Knetsch: Well the conditions are as requested by staff. Council may
agree with those conditions. May have other conditions so I don't know if what
staff is suggesting is acceptable to Council for conditions.
Mayor Chmiel: By discussions I'm hearing here, there may be some other real
concerns.
Councilman Mason: Well I understand that but we have approved, rightly or
wrongly the Goodyear operation and I understand that there are community members
that feel very strongly about this. I kind of feel unfortunately like what's
been done is done on that site and I think quite honestly the City, had we acted
11 originally when our City Planner suggested getting a task force going, I think
we could have avoided a lot of this. Unfortunately we didn't and I guess I'm
not happy with an Abra Auto Service center going in there. Don't get me wrong.
11 My contention is that after the work session, we're still not going to have any
options. So if we're just putting these off to grasp at a couple of straws, I
don't think we can do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and just to clarify some things that were in the paper, a
letter to the editor taking that this is the same old Council that they had seen
before, I stand to that person to be advised this isn't, and I objected to that
1 rather strenuously. I do feel though that those people, if they are in
compliance, just like anybody else would like to build anywhere else, they're in
compliance with the requirements of the City Code, we cannot stop them. That's
to be understood. There's no way that we can do this, nor would I impose the
City under any circumstances to be put to a suit because of that. And I just
want that understood. But discussions on the floor is as such and if there are
any other discussions.
1 21
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilman Wing: Well I can go down a list of 1,000 questions and 1,000 items '
that are going to take half the night to answer here and may still approve it.
But I believe this item is so significant and the impact on the city and it's
continuation of the strip development and the movement of the auto industry out
of downtown, I think it needs to be addressed at a workshop. I think the
Council needs to sit down and go over this with the attorneys and go over this
with planning and set some expectations, and I won't question it's approval. It
may be our only option but it's certainly going to be with better faith and
people are going to know where this Council stands once and for all and I want
to know about the lot behind it. What's going to happen. I want to know about
buffering for the neighborhood. I've got a lot of questions. This isn't the
time or place to do it. We have not had the time as Council to sit down and
review this item and issue and this is I think a tremendous impact on the city.
I don't think it would be to the benefit of the applicant to move on this
tonight. I think it'd be very unfair to him.
Councilman Senn: Don, I guess you know I feel quite the same way and I can't
disagree with a lot of the things you're saying but I guess I have a lot of
questions of our attorney as to how and why other cities passed even specific
moratoriums against this type of use and get away with it. I mean like I say,
I'm getting so much conflicting information on this issue, or these issues, that
I agree with Dick, we really need to get it into a session where we can get all
the issues on the table and look at them.
Mayor Chmiel: True. I guess one other thing that I look at too is that it's 11
our responsibilities to provide the kinds of needs for the community, for the
residents of this community for whatever this might be. Whether it be a grocery
store or a gas station to provide those conveniences for these people within our
community. I'm not saying that the need is not here. I think some of those
needs are basically here and that's why you grow as you do grow within a
community. I think we have to look down the road a long way to determine those
basic needs for this community and that's the only thing that I'd just like to
impose upon your minds is that there is a need for this within the community.
Thank heavens I never had the opportunity to look for those needs but I've had
kids driving cars that have had those needs and had to look for something close
to home.
Councilman Senn: Well Don I think one of the issues is we want to look, just to
go on the tail end of that. Maybe you do need it but I think that's part of the
question we need to look at. If we're going to have it, where does it go. I
mean the east part of Highway 5 at this point is an atrocity. In my mind and a
lot of other people's minds. It contains so many gas stations. So many, I
shouldn't say so many. That's all it contains.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're all saying the same thing. Let's put it in a 1
work session and deal with it.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor to table this particular item to 1
our work session and be brought before Council back on March 8th. Paul.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, it sounds like the topic of this work session is
something that, I mean I'm glad it's going to happen because I think we could
have started a long time ago. The thing I'm concerned with is we're tossing out
22
1
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
a lot of ideas that have been tossed out, this is probably the third or fourth
time. And they're valid ideas but we have somebody who submitted an application
here almost a year ago and we still haven't processed it. We've continued it
several times because they didn't satisfy what we felt we needed. They
continued it once. One time we didn't have a quorum. It's been continued
because we didn't like the architecture. We continued it because we thought we
might do a moratorium. Then we put it back on the agenda. Now we're continuing
it to have another work session. I'm not sure. I mean it's really hard to
define what the statutory requirements are for processing an application. But
it's pretty clear this one's not working nearly as smoothly as these things are
supposed to. And I honestly don't know at what point, is there a line here
where the thing's going to be approved if we don't act and have we crossed it or
are we on the verge of crossing it? I don't know the answer to that.
r Councilman Wing: Paul, if it's a mistake, it's a permanent mistake. Whether
it's legal or not. If it's a mistake, it's a permanent mistake and I want to
make sure that if we pass a permanent mistake, that we gave it our very best.
That's all. Because this is on my shift and it's going to be there with fenders
piled up outside 20 years from now and who knows what else is going on.
Councilman Mason: No, no outside storage.
Councilman Wing: If you want to run this tonight, we can beat it to death but
this is the first time the Council's getting a chance to look at it and it's
come up through the ranks and I've got a feeling that if the Council looks at it
tonight without having resolved this in a quiet little work session. I mean
it's a public meeting. Anybody can attend that work session, but at least when
it goes to the Council next time, it will be pretty definitive on where we're
going to go probably. And I think that short delay for that applicant is really
in his benefit at this point. It will save him a lot of embarrassment and
questions and if's and but's and why's and where's and I want 3 more trees and
we argue all night long. By the way, I don't see a landscaping report in there
either so I would have stopped it tonight for the landscaping report. I'm
not...10 minute period here going to, if the landscaping's my key figure, I'm
not going to decide it tonight in a 10 minute time period. I need time to study
it and I have not seen it so that would have shut it down for me tonight alone.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: You saw it with the Goodyear application. It's the exact same
landscaping plan. And we are requesting additional landscaping.
11 Councilman Wing: Okay. I did not understand that.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call the
question.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the Abra Auto Service
Center Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit until after the City Council
work session March 3, 1993. All voted in favor except Councilman Mason who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: I believe you gave your clarification.
23
r
City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993
Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I just wanted, and again. I'm agreeing with what ,
Paul is saying. I'm not saying I want Abra there or not. I just agree with
what Paul is saying.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 36 ACRES INTO 33 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3
OUTLOTS, BOLEY SUBDIVISION, 7340 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, LUNDGREN BROS.
Kate Aanenson: Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Bros is proposing to 1
develop 36 acres of property into 33 single family lots. This property is
currently owned by Mr. Boley. It's part of a larger parcel that's also in
Victoria. If I can explain the limits of the property here. This area here is
in the city of Chanhassen. This is outlots. Exemptions...from the property...
so these are actually in the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Outlots are not within the city of Chanhassen?
Kate Aanenson: No. These right here are exemptions. This is all Victoria and
this is also part of Victoria. So there is a...city line that splits the back I/
of those lots. The property has a gross density of .91 units per acre and a net
density of 1.37 units per acre. There's two wetlands on site and the rolling
topography has some significant views from the property and some treed areas
also. The three tree areas located along Minnewashta Parkway on Lots 1 and the
backs of Lots 13, 12, 11, 10 and there's also significant tree areas in Outlot
C. At this time the area, Outlot C is being left out. It seems to make sense
that the property to the south, which is in Victoria is lotted out, that the
access be gained from Victoria's side and we think this makes good planning
sense too in the fact that you can save those significant amount of trees. As I
mentioned, the Victoria city line, the City Attorney, Don Ashworth and myself
did meet with Victoria. They had concerns about the lot line splitting the
subdivision and their preference would be to have it pulled in and not plat that
into two different jurisdictions. It's our contention that we have other
circumstances in the city where we provided service where properties aren't in
the city. We have this across the street actually with Victoria. The church
and those homes part of the Trolls Glen area. We feel like, as far as the lot
remnants it makes less sense to leave that and to be platted into the
subdivision.
Councilman Senn: Just so I understand what you're talking about. This is the
line right here?
Kate Aanenson: Right. Yeah, you can see the lines up to the back of these.
The homes would actually fall into the city so it's the back portion of the lot
that would actually fall into the city of Victoria.
Councilman Senn: But the houses would be in Chanhassen and the back of the lot 1
wouldn't be?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. 1
Councilman Senn: And that line goes right there?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. So we feel it doesn't make sense to leave that as a
lot remnant. Although in working we've asked Victoria and obviously their
24
r
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 2, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Jeff Farmakes, Brian Batzli, Matt Ledvina,
Steve Emmings, Joan Ahrens and Tim Erhart
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planner II; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I;
Dave Hempel, St. Engineering Technician; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City
Manager
PUBLIC HEARING:
BEISNER, LTD. PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF GOODYEAR TIRE AND ABRA
FACILITIES ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN EMISSION
CONTROL STATION:
A. REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 3RD ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE AN AUTO SERVICE RELATED USE IN THE
BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,397 SQUARE FOOT GOODYEAR TIRE BUILDING AND A
I 6,494 SQUARE FOOT ABRA FACILITY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Thomas N. Thompson 1011 Butte Court
Michael Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue
Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Batzli: Did that correspondence, was that written after the current?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Batzli: So they had seen these?
Al -Jaff: No, they haven't seen these. o•
Batzli: Okay. And another question. Your first condition of the site
plan review talks about the applicant preparing revised architectural
plans.
' Al -Jaff: Correct. We hadn't seen the plans at the time when we wrote
this report. We don't usually do this.
Batzli: In view of the plans that we now have, that were hand delivered
to us, would this condition change? Are you asking for something in
addition to what was hand delivered to us?
Al -Jaff: We are still asking for dormers on the Goodyear building.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 2
Batzli: Otherwise staff is, finds that the current revised plans that
were hand delivered are acceptable? That's staff's position, other tha
the dormers? Okay. If the applicant would like to make a presentation
regarding any of thr conditions or revised architectural plans, why doll
we do that right now.
Al Beissner: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. We
have taken the time and effort we think to revise to reflect what came
out of our meeting a couple of weeks ago and we.did meet and if there was
a timing problem or a gap it's because we were under some pressure to tr
and get it done in time and I hope what we put together reflects what
meeting we had with Jeff was helpful in bringing forward. I have my
architect here and I have some colored renderings of what you see there
that will better reflect. We even have an elevation taken from or draw
from a view from Highway 5. That we'll show with our berming and you'l
virtually not see any cars at all that are parked there. Where as you
drive right now by the McDonald's and the Emission Control building, yo
can see the pavement and you can see cars that are parked there. My
architect is here and I'd like to at least show you our color landscape
plan, building plan and elevation plan if we could.
Batzli: That'd be fine. 1
Al Beissner: We were also under the impression, and mistakenly so
obviously that we could put signs on all four sides of the building. W�
didn't in our original drawing and we can modify that to what city
requires.
Batzli: In order for the camera to see these, they're going to have toll
be slid over more toward the podium.
Al Beissner: I'll start out briefly explaining what Johnas did in here"
with his detail. First one is just basically a colored site plan showing
the existing lot that's not being developed and the two lots with our
coverages. Green area to asphalt and to building area and as before, we!
have met the requirements of the city of Chanhassen. We've also in this
elevation, in this landscape plan, put in the additional trees that were
requested last time that we were here. This is an elevation taken from"
Highway 5 and this is what your view will be with the berming that we
have proposed and that's in place. If you 1.00k closely you can see a
couple of cars drawn in here. With the normal standard size American
car, that's probably about how it will look from the freeway. If we get!
some bigger campers or things, you'll see at least the tops of them but
you won't be seeing grills. You won't be seeing headlights. You won't
be seeing anything like that with the proposed berming that we have.
This was the same berming we had last time but wasn't illustrated as it II
is here. This is the proposed Goodyear elevation, and we do have in the
drawing 2 weeks ago, we did have gables on the end of the roofs here. W�
now have introduced the gables on the sides and have broken up a lot of
it and I think put some of the detail into the Goodyear store that we
didn't even discuss last time. And this is the Abra store. The one tha
we put a lot of time in and discussed last time and it doesn't look even
close to what it was last time. And I'm again trying to interrupt what
everybody wants architecturally is difficult sometimes and I don't know
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 3
C still if this is all that we had in mind but we think it's gone a long
way in accomplishing what we had to do as far as screening our rooftop
unit. Creating something different than what you will see in any of the
drawings that we've had. This is the elevation from the freeway and as
you saw in the berm, the berm would come across here and you'd only
probably see the top. This is the elevation that you would see from Lake
Drive, if the trees were down. The trees aren't down so it's there.
This is the elevation as you look from the Goodyear store and this is the
back elevation that faces east. And like any good architect, when he
thought we could have signs on all four sides, we put them on. We didn't
proposed it the first time and we can take some off. So the architect is
here, Johnas Blumental, if you want to ask him any questions about it,
feel free.
Johnas Blumental: I guess I can answer questions or explain what we are
talking about. These are mansard roofs and they enclose equipment.
These docks...spots, they are mansonary recesses to give a little more
interest to it. The idea is created to break up the roofline but
obviously these are not downtown buildings. There is no pedestrian
traffic walking by... As what you can see from Highway 5, and people that
are out in the parking lot, so like I mean when I read the report about
dormers for a Goodyear, instead of putting several small dormers, we are
using one larger dormer and breaking up the roof line. That was the
idea. And we are also breaking up this roofline on the end of the
buildings so there is not that, pardon me for the expression, a barn
II( look. And we are creating the peaks and we have a...because we have in
this case, there is really attic effect on...we need some louvres for
roof ventilation anyway so we are oversizing them I mean for the
architectural effect. In a way this probably is probably very telling
elevation of the entire site because this is what the public will be
seeing. They will see the different roof lines and so on. And as Al was
explaining about the cars, berms for me have an elevation shown here on a
side. Usually the berms are 4 feet higher than a parking lot. And
normal car is 4 -4 1/2 feet high so it might be that the car top, 6 inches
or so might show. That is...
Batzli: Is there something architecturally or some architectural reason
why you don't want to put the dormers that the staff is requesting on the
Goodyear building?
Johnas Blumental: My understanding was, we talked about the dormers in a
meeting...the report. And we made one big dormer instead of several
smaller ones because the reason why I mean that that will be more
noticeable from the highway than I mean several small things.
Batzli: So you feel that breaking up the mass of the building has been
accomplished by the one large dormer?
Johnas Blumental: Right, yes.
Batzli: Anyone else have any questions?
ir Ledvina: Was there any attempt to coordinate or propose the coordination
of building materials between the two Goodyear and Abra buildings?
11
I
Planning Commissic Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 4
II
( Johnas Blumental: Actually they are very similar in a way. I mean theyll
are concrete block and moving some, I mean one is ivory color. One is
beige color and so everything is coordinated. They both have stripes.
I mean obviously the Goodyear has different color stripe and things like
that so we felt very' comfortable that they are two individual buildings II
but they are coordinated obviously. It's not the same design.
Ledvina: One of the comments that we had at our last session related to
the possibility of having the same type and color of building materials.
Maybe the same types of roofing materials and things like that. I don't
know, was that discussed with Jeff at all?
Farmakes: We were not defining materials at that point. We were talkin11
about architectural issues of bringing light industrial to what we would
consider I guess more of a retail type building where we had more
detailing. And we were not, there's only so much you can do in one
meeting. I think that the next step maybe would be to consider to look
closer at the materials that they're talking about. 1
Johnas Blumental: My comment would be that the materials would be,
should be complimentary but not necessarily the same and that's what we
are trying to do. I
Farmakes: The blue that you have issued on the Goodyear building. Is
that indicative of the blue that you're proposing there? 1
Johnas Blumental: Not exactly I mean. This is our print. It's rather
regular blue color that Goodyear uses but it's not exactly the final
selection. I was just trying to illustrate that it is going to be blue.I
Al Beissner: We will get color chips from Goodyear on what they proposed
and what they use and what is their standard and this is about as close.II
When Johnas asked me, this is about as close as we could come we thought
to duplicating it.
Farmakes: That's a colored stone? I
Al Beissner: Yes...And the other thing that I think, to answer your
question, we talked last time if we wanted the buildings all to be the II
same or be in a shopping center kind of look and they're small enough
here so they can be individual, almost like fiomes. You don't want the
same home repeated but yet you don't want a very inexpensive rambler nex
to a very expensive two story. So we did take that into consideration
trying to do it but we didn't, it would be virtually impossible to try to
get Abra and Goodyear to be identical because each company seeks for
their own identity so we thought we did that. If you would like, I have I
the prints that I had here 2 weeks ago that we didn't like. If you want
to rehash that and refresh that?
Batzli: No. II
Al Beissner: No. Okay. 1
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 5
Farmakes: The color, the proposals that you're doing here for the
exterior is far different than the samples that you brought in
previously. Do you have samples here?
Al Beissner: No, I don't have samples here. This, the Goodyear, in
their specifications have what their talking about and they have
different shades of what they have. We went to a lighter shade here to
try to coordinate with the lighter shade that Abra has. They will give
us their samples and say these are the, this is.the color that are in the
specs that we can choose from but they're shades of that.
Farmakes: The shingling that you're putting on the roof, is that a
raised type shingling? The sample that you had was sort of a black,
shingle.
11 Al Beissner: That was from their colored rendering that they supplied us
that basically was their standard throughout the country. We don't have
samples of the colors of the shingles that we'd like to use yet.
Farmakes: But you anticipate that it's going to be close to what you
have here in the color renderings?
Al Beissner: Yes. We used the black one before. They had a blacker and
a grayer and the blue tone. Now we're going into a beige and a lighter
and we can do that.
I ; Johnas Blumental: The idea is that the roof would be a little darker
than the building.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Have you had a chance to look at the staff
report? Are there any conditions that you don't agree with at this
point?
Al Beissner: Well the only one I think we had a misinterpretation about
the dormer thing and when Johnas came up with this big dormer as opposed
to the small ones, I think when we talked about dormers last time we put
the smaller ones in and that's.
Farmakes: I think the issue of dormers that's not functional. It may
let a little more light on the inside. It may create a little bit more
problems for the construction. The issue of dormers again is if you look
at the mass of the roof there, there's nothing much breaking it up.
These large expanses of nothing being broke up are typical of more
industrial type structures. It is more of an aesthetic thing than
functional.
Al Beissner: I think when we put that up before we had one solid roof
and then we were throwing in, you know small dormers here and there.
Here Johnas thought it was better to go with bigger ones on each side
than say 6 smaller ones. And again, I don't know. The dormers were, are
false dormers. They don't provide any light inside the building.
They're just there for the aesthetics from the outside. Other than that
I don't have.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 6
Farmakes: I have one question on the Abra structure. You know have I II
believe a garage door on both ends of the building, is that correct?
Al Beissner: We've always had a garage door on both ends of the
building.
Farmakes: You have?
Al Beissner: Yes.
Farmakes: Okay. That was my error then. 1
Al Beissner: This is, that's for the paint line that begins at one end
and comes out the other end at the back of the building. If you have a 11
site plan, that's always been there.
Farmakes: And then that's the air conditioning vent?
Al Beissner: That was the problem we had. It's right over here. It's II
right over here.
Farmakes: The north elevation then would be the side that's facing the 1
highway?
Al Beissner: Correct. And if you get back to, that will face the
highway. We still have the grove of trees that's between us and Lake
Drive that someday will probably come down but they aren't coming down
when we're developing this. 1
Batzli: Thank you. I'd like to give any member of the public here
tonight an opportunity to speak. I would ask that if you can keep your
comments fairly brief, that would be appreciated and also please step up
to the podium and give us your name and address prior to speaking for th
record. Would anyone from the public like to address the Commission?
Tom Kotsonas: Tom Kotsonas. I live at 8001 Cheyenne Avenue, Chanhassen ll
Estates. I'm not too sure how brief I'm going to be but I've got a
statement to make. I spoke to you last time also when we talked 2 weeks
ago and I wish to again street some of my concerns and point out that as
�
far as our neighborhood is concerned, that both of these businesses are
an extremely negative and will have a negative impact on our residential
neighborhood. And would like, if they are going to go through, to keep
several things in consideration. The buildings, as been talked already,
should be as pleasing and the roof line should be imaginative. Something
noticing as they're driving through Chanhassen, looking at the new bank II
building. I thought that was an imaginative design. The Country Suites
the new Market Square mall. Also the roof line again, for such a large
building, large site is rather well developed I thought. Another thing
to keep track of is what's going to happen to trash and cars left
overnight as we talked about before and the layout of the buildings,
I don't understand and maybe they could point out where these things are
What are we as a neighborhood going to be facing? Is all the traffic in
and out of the garage doors going to be facing our neighborhood or is it
going to be facing the highway? That's something that should be
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 December 2, 1992 - Page 7
considered so that what we're looking at. Also the trees and the
evergreens that are going to be planted, that they're strategically
placed so that they do .give us privacy and and our neighborhood privacy
so that they're not all on the highway side. Or'facing the emission test
center which does nothing for us. So that when that third lot does get
developed someday, which probably will be in the near future, that
whatever goes there, we also are well protected from whatever goes there
and whatever is developed. And keeping these things in mind then, please
keep in mind that the site should be developed so that not only the owner
but the neighborhood and the city of Chanhassen can be proud of whatever
goes in there and whoever enters into Chanhassen coming through the east
end can look at that and say, well that is a well developed, well
designed, commercial site. Okay, thank you very much for the opportunity
to speak to you tonight.
1 Batzli: Thank you. I was actually pleased that you noticed some of the
new roof lines. We put a lot of effort into trying to, thank you. Thank
you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Mike Koenig: Hi, my name is Mike Koenig. I live at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue
and I guess a couple of my concerns is there seems to be a lot of talk
' about how we're going to put a berm up to block it from Highway 5 but
what about on the other side where taxpayers are going to look out their
back windows and see this all the time. This grove of trees that you're
talking about, right now I can look out and see all the way through it.
That's not going to help us at all. Another question, a sign on all 4
sides of the building. Is this the lighted sign that I'm going to look
out my window at night and see lighted signs? That's not real appealing.
My taxes, or real estate property values were raised last year and this
going in is definitely going to not increase them. It's going to lower
them and at least if it's going to be there, let's put some trees or
something. Evergreens or something to block it from us. Thank you.
Batzli: Let me ask you a question. From your window you say you can see
through the trees. Is that because the leaves are down?
Mike Koenig: Right.
11 Batzli: So you prefer to see something green all year?
Mike Koenig: From the time that they're, in' the fall when they drop
their leaves until they're full in the summer again, you can see all the
way through there. Obviously something's going to be going in there
before long and they won't be there is another concern too.
11 Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission?
Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Just by way of introduction, to those of you who may not have
attended a Planning Commission before, we're now going to ask each one of
the commissioners for their comments on the plan. From time to time
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 8
people do have questions right in the middle and we'll try to entertain
those questions if we have time at the end of each commissioner's
comments. Joan.
Ahrens: The only issues we're discussing are the architectural issues?
Batzli: Pardon me?
Ahrens: The only issue we're discussing is the architectural issues? II
Batzli: You can bring other issues up.
Ahrens: Well I didn't attend the last...but I'm glad to see some
progress here in the architectural plans. However, I don't think that
they are creative or attractive...along Highway 5. I think that they, I/
I like the...I think you did a good job on those.
Farmakes: They'll be copyrighted next week.
Ahrens: I like the dormers along the roof. I think that's nice. I like
the brick on the front of the Goodyear building. We need buildings like
this. Too many cities have buildings like this towards the entrance of
their city and...and I think that we need to provide that...our city wil
be proud of...As far as the trees, I think if these people think that
there's not enough trees in there, there should be some more trees...
Batzli: Jeff.
Farmakes: I share the concerns about the car care development center
developing on it's own on that end of town. We've had a long discussion
on this. I'm not going to repeat myself, about our ability to control
the development there. I think that the applicant, in the meeting that 11
we had, had made a start with this. They have taken some of the element
that we discussed. It's not the intention that the sketches that we
worked on were to be done verbatim. It was simply to be used as a tool I
to communicate what the city is looking for and the quality of
architecture. Not necessarily that we have a comtemporary building or
that we have a theme building throughout the city. Or that sort of
thing. We weren't discussing style as much as issues of detail and
quality of materials and things of that nature. Typically with car care
type structures you wind up with the very minimum it takes to do the job.
That's the type of light industrial use that you often see with these
type of buildings. It is not something that I think would be in the
interest of good planning to be putting next to both the entrnace to the
city and single family residences. Very close by. I too would like to
see landscaping, evergreen type to be a year round barrier continued ovet�
on that east side of that property on the lot that's yet to be developed.
We need to also be thinking about how to incorporate the pylon signage
with this new type of architecture that we're looking at. I'd like to
see the detailing that they're working on, whatever it winds up being an
the building to also work it's way into the pylon itself. The signage is
an issue that has yet to be resolved. I think it's a major issue
considering the single family residents close by. Actually in materials"
that are being used on the buildings I think would also go a long way in
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 December 2, 1992 - Page 9
helping the discussion here. Perhaps at the next round here we could
I discuss those more in detail rather than a colored magic marker. I know
obviously when a client•is looking at what they're going to buy, they see
a sample. It would be helpful I think to assess the quality of the type
of the building if we could see some samples. I think the Goodyear is
perhaps more cohesive as a design than the Abra. I think the work on the
roof needs to further modify. I like the different approach the client,
the applicant has taken to the color. Again that they're attempting to
be less obtrusive and relying on their signage to identify their position
and not the gawdiness of the structure. I think it needs work, to sum it
up but I do believe that we're no longer on step one, where we were at
the last meeting.
Emmings: I've got a couple of questions. When staff says they'd like to
see more dormers on the Goodyear building, what have you got in mind
there? All the dormers, do you want a bunch of them or one more?
Al -Jaff: We want the roof broken up more. You still have a long roof
line on the building. If we can break that up someway and the thought
that comes to our mind is, dormers. I don't know if that helps.
Emmings: Well you don't have a specific?
Al -Jaff: No. We don't have a specific design.
Emmings: In your condition number 4 on the site plan review you're
talking about an additional 16 evergreens on the south side of Highway 5.
Is that in addition to the landscape plan that we've seen?
Al - Jaff: Those have been shown on this plan. The plans that were
submitted to you on Friday reflect that, yes. So we no longer need
condition number 4.
Emmings: Okay. For my two cents worth on the way the buildings are
1 looking. I agree that, I think the landscape plan looks pretty good.
Perhaps there should be some more evergreens to the south but otherwise I
think it's a pretty nice landscape plan that we've seen. I don't really
have any reservations about the Goodyear building. I personally don't
like the Abra building. I think the roof line is just too choppy. It
just, the building itself is not something that I particularly like but I
have mixed feelings about how far we go with what we like and don't like.
I don't think it's an inappropriate use here in this location. Those are
my comments.
Ledvina: I generally share Jeff's sentiments as it relates to the
architecture. I guess softening that a little bit. I think the
applicant has gone quite a long way in this process and I'm sensitive to
that too. He's spent a lot of time and money in developing many
different concepts. I would have hoped that we could have zeroed more
into what we really want at this point because there has been a lot of
effort on both sides and I know that. But still I feel we do need some
more work with the building and if it's adding dormers, well that's fine.
r I generally agree with the landscaping plan. It seems to, from Highway 5
I think that will improve the view of the buildings and I'm not too sure
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 10 1
about the south side of the site. There are quite a few plantings there
but I don't know if there would need to be some more evergreens in there ,
I don't know how staff would feel about that. I really don't see
evergreens. Mostly honeysuckles and things like that. About the
lighting issue, is there a possibility that they could have lighted sign
on that south side of the building?
Al -Jaff: They're entitlted to one but it's a conditional use permit. I
you want to have non - illuminated signage to the south, illuminated to th
north, I think you have the option to do so. You can make it a condition
of approval.
Emmings: Can you also limit, if there are lighted signs, can you limit
the time that the lighted signs are on?
Al -Jaff: It's a conditional use permit, so yeah.
Ledvina: That might be more appropriate. Their working hours. And I
don't know about that. I think that was it in terms of the site plan.
did have one thing on the conditional use permit. I guess in the staff
report we talked a little bit about the pollution and that ought to be
associated with this development. And I think that the discussion that
we had at the last session related to cars coming in and out of the
facility. The pollution as it relates to more traffic. I guess I feel
that that is really pretty much out of the control of the proposers here'
in that they can't obviously keep cars from coming in and out. That's
what they want. I guess your condition number 7, pollution levels shall
meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I just,
there are literally thousands of pollution levels and I don't think it's
applicable. I think they'll do what they have to in terms of their
sanitary discharge and I guess I would just propose that we would delete
that condition. I don't think it's useful. That's it. '
Batzli: Thank you Matt. Ladd.
Conrad: I think that the applicant has made some strides and I'm t
comfortable with some of it. Most of the issues that were brought up the
last time. I hear the neighborhood concerns and I think if I were them
I'd still be concerned as to how this looks and their impact. Overall I
think it's a good site plan. And overall I think it's, based on the
zoning, it's appropriate. I don't have a problem with the Goodyear.
Whether it's the current design or whether it's one with more dormers.
The current design is fine. I really don't like Abra.
Batzli: The roof line?
Conrad: Yeah. The roof. Abra 's welcome here but the roof line is just
not, it's not there yet. I'm real uncomfortable with that. I think the '
north /south elevations are okay. The east /west is just choppy and the
mansard enclosures of the mechanicals are not good. So real briefly
that's where, I think some good strides have been made and again, as
we're playing around with architecture, we're doing a lousy job folks.
We don't have standards to apply. Remember, we took Target. They had am
330 foot expanse and we put one dormer. We put one big block in the
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 11
(
'` middle of it, okay. So let's be kind of realistic what we're doing.
We've got a building that's a whole lot smaller here so. It doesn't mean
we shouldn't have our standards. It is a gateway. It-is the way people
come into Chanhassen but we don't have those architectural standards that
' are real solid that we can apply in every situation here and I get
uncomfortable. I don't want 7 of us designing this building. However, I
don't like Abra. I just don't like how that looks. It's got to change
and I don't think I'm asking for a great deal. I think I'm talking about
1 that roof line. There's just something wrong with it.
Batzli: So Ladd, before we move on to Tim, what would you propose we do
1 with Abra? I mean do you want to see one more shot at it here?
Conrad: I really don't. To tell you the truth, I feel real
' uncomfortable talking architecture. Real uncomfortable. The Planning
Commission shouldn't be doing that. We should have some standards out
there that guide. That guide the developers and the architects and then
we just make sure they follow the standards. We don't. We do have some
power here simply because we do have some conditional use. This is an
area that we perceive to be an entrance to Chanhassen so I think we have
some power that can make the developer do some things that we like. But
' you know, again I just don't want, I want staff to do that and I prefer
to have it go to City Council because they're going to see 5 new
perspectives once it gets there. But it's not going to go up there with,
the Abra building's not going up there with my approval.
II ( Batzli: Thank you. Tim.
' Erhart: Well looking at the landscape plan, I think there's a lot of
trees on the north side of this site with all the evergreens. It's just
a matter of years and you're not going to be able to see these buildings
from Highway 5 at all. In 10 years so I'm not asking anybody to take
them out but I'd say the landscaping site is pretty good in that area.
The south side we don't know what's going to go in there ultimately. I'm
surprised. I guess I thought at the last meeting I thought we had an
understanding with the developer that they were going to make the roof
lines like we wanted them and Jeff raised his hand to go tell them what
we wanted. And I think, this is what you did Jeff? Is this your work?
Farmakes: Yes.
Erhart: Yeah. I think Jeff did a great job and then they came back with
something different so I'm confused because we spent quite a bit of time
listening to the developer tell us that they've gone back and forth at
the request of staff and that it was staff leading them around the loop
11 and all this and then we bought that. So then we gave them a chance to
show them what we wanted and they come back with something different. So
now I don't understand anymore. But I agree with everything that's been
said pretty much here. Abra is just awful. We've got partial flat roofs
and partial pitched roofs and it looks like there wasn't any planning
into it at all so. The Goodyear building, I'd say it's marginal. At
least it has a pitched roof over the whole thing. Certainly it could be
done with a little more pleasing to the eye. I think Ladd you hit it on
the nose. We pass this up to Council tonight and let them take a hack at
r
Planning Commissia,, Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 12
it. Probably the best thing to do. I think the site plan's pretty goo
The conditions seem to make sense. I hope it makes the motion to pass
on with our comments.
Batzli: Does it make sense to you Tim to require that they put
evergreens in there which will really be interim screening until the
southern piece develops? You've indicated that the northern side looked
good and would you require them to put a couple more evergreens in on t
side?
Erhart: When all these trees, essentially this area here is going to
remain in until it's developed? '
Batzli: Right.
Erhart: Yeah. Well in the first place, I don't think so. They've gone'
beyond the requirements already on this. Extensively beyond the
requirements. I guess without studying it anymore, my reaction would b
think they've done a pretty good job.
Al -Jaff: The...landscaping could be required when site 3 develops.
Because right now you do have existing trees that will provide some
screening. If that would help.
Batzli: You think we should make that a condition? Currently or just 11
when it develops?
Al -Jaff: When it develops. When site 3 develops. Then we could requir
that additional landscaping. Because right now they are providing some
landscaping around the drainage pond.
Batzli: Right. But those are hackberries and things like that. They'r'
kind of low.
Al -Jaff: Yes they are.
ll
Batzli: Okay. My comments are more of the same. I don't mind the Abra
building north and south elevation. In fact, I think there's almost a
repetition of the shed dormer almost effect from the background to
bringing it in the foreground in the Goodyear building but then I start II
designing their architecture for them and I 'didn't want to do that
either. The side elevations do, we've added depth to the, cast time we
talked about how it looked like a set from an old western when you went II
to the side and it's just a piece there. We've added depth. We've
broken up the middle. We've added some interesting elements but I think
from what you've heard from the commission, there's still a problem that"
looking at it it either looks contrived or choppy or something doesn't
jell. I think, obviously I'm not going to tell you how to build
buildings but if there's a certain number of people up here and all of II
them kind of look at it and kind of go, I don't know. I think you want II
to be pleasing to your customers and be visible and want to construct a
good building. So with those assumptions, I'm hoping that they'll try til
take one more shot at it as it goes before City Council because I think
they may have somewhat the same reaction. I would have liked to have
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 13
•
seen a couple of evergreens shifted to the south. But just to break up
I that southern side because we don't know when that particular parcel will
be developed so I would prefer not to wait with that. I would ask that
whoever makes the motion at least consider shifting some of the trees to
' the back. I think we've done a real good job on the north and in fact
I agree with Tim. I think you've got a lot of evergreens and I think we
could move a couple of them to the south side. With that I'll entertain
1 any motion on the site plan review. Or should we do subdivision first?
It doesn't matter.
Conrad: Okay, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on the site plan dated September 21, 1992
subject to the following conditions. With the conditions as per the
staff report except the following changes. Condition 1, that the
applicant present a revised building elevation for the Abra building
concentrating on fixing the choppy roof line. The second part of
condition 1 is to consider adding more dormers to the Goodyear building
and be prepared justify it's current design to the City Council.
' Changing condition 4. To eliminate condition 4 as it stands in the staff
report but to recommend the shifting of an appropriate number of
evergreens to the south side of the project to do, per staff
' recommendation, to help screen from the neighborhood. That's all.
Emmings: I'll second the motion.
11 . Batzli: Discussion.
Emmings: I'd like to have, with regard to the sign. Condition number 3
Ladd. I assume that your motion, because they still have to obtain a
sign permit, you're not, your motion doesn't in any way approve the signs
as they appear on the plans that we have in front of us?
Conrad: No it doesn't.
' Emmings: Just so that understanding is clear.
Batzli: Well actually the plans that Ladd included in his motion don't
have all the signs on it. I mean if we'd really would probably like to
include these new plans in the motion.
Emmings: Okay, I assumed that we were talki'`ng about the new plans.
Batzli: Have these been received? Date stamped received by the city?
No.
Ledvina: These are dated November 25th.
Emmings: So are the plans that we're approving the ones that we all got
at home that are dated September 20.
Ledvina: Two of them are September 29th...
Batzli: Well, Ladd if you'll reflect your motion to say something folksy
like the plans we're looking at tonight, I'm sure that by the time it
II
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 14 1
gets to City Council. 1
Conrad: Yeah, that kind of sounds like me too doesn't it Brian? Yeah,
the plans I see in front of me. Boy that's just so, I don't even want til
do that.
Al -Jaff: We received those plans on the 30th. The revised plans. Can
we change the date on the site plan to November 30, 1992? 1
Emmings: Instead of September 21?
Al -Jaff: Please. 1
Conrad: Yeah. I would change my motion to reflect the site plan dated ,
November 30, 1992.
Emmings: And then?
Conrad: I don't need to change 3 Steve. II
Emmings: No. I don't think so as long as the record's clear that you'r
not, and by my second, I'm not approving in any way any of the signs tha�
appear on these plans. They're going to have to come back and get those
approved.
Al -Jaff: Do you want to make a recommendation on the illumination of thII
signage facing?
Conrad: Do we do that here or do we do that in the conditional use I
permit? I thought that's where we'd put the condition on.
Batzli: Any more discussion?
1
Ahrens: Ladd, on number 4, did you just change the first sentence? Was
that what you were changing?
II
Conrad: Number 4 I took entirely out Joan except to move certain of the
trees, and I don't know how many, to the south side. So that condition '
no longer applies based on the plans that we have. They have done what
this motion was to, made them do. It's already on the plans so that, 4
does riot exist except to shift some of what 'they've put on the current
plans to the south side. 1
Ahrens: Including the part about the detailed...
Aanenson: That's city ordinance. That's a requirement anyway so they'll'
going to have to do it.
Ahrens: Okay. So why was this included in there?
II
Emmings: That would be before they saw these new plans. The new plans
reflect some of those things I think. I'm not entirely, even though I II
seconded the motion and I'm going to vote for it, I have to say that I'm
not entirely comfortable taking away trees from the Highway 5 side and
II
Planning a Wing Commissic Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 15
moving them back there. I'd rather see them add trees. If we think
they've done a good job on Highway 5, why wreck that to give them a
little bit on the south.side.
Ahrens: I agree.
Emmings: So I would leave the north side alone and I'd rather see the, I
would be willing to just leave the south side alone for now until it's
' developed and make sure we do a good job of landscaping once we know
what's going in there. But if the feeling is that there should be some
additional trees back there, then those should be in addition to the
1 Highway side.
Ahrens: I agree. I mean I can't think of one plan or one development in
' the city that we've ever over landscaped. It may have cooked great on
the plan.
Emmings: Well a good example is the.
1 Conrad: We took of the median down main street I think.
' Emmings: Yeah but a good example is the Valvoline, the quick oil change
you know. We saw those plans. You know, you couldn't see that building
unless you got in a helicopter because it was hidden in a forest of
trees. You look at it now and it's up there and you wonder where all
that landscaping went you know, and maybe it will be there in 10 years
but somehow I don't think so.
1 Conrad: Okay.
Batzli: Amend your motion Ladd.
1 Conrad: Yeah, I'm going to withdraw my change to condition number 4.
See if you can decide whether you, but my motion or my change would now
reflec the following. That the, 4 is worded is entirely deleted but that
I'd request that staff review the need for additional screening on the
south side with the applicant.
1 Emmings: Yeah...
Batzli: Is there any other discussion?
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on the plans received
November 30, 1992 and subject to the following conditions:
1 1. That the applicant present a revised building elevation for the Abra
building concentrating on fixing the choppy roof line. Request that
11 the applicant consider adding more dormers to the Goodyear building
and be prepared justify it's current design to the City Council.
2. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for the
1 Abra site with a gate facing east and a second for Goodyear with a
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 16 1
gate facing west. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior til
City Council meeting.
3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signs
on the site. Provide a detailed sign for staff review prior to the
City Council meeting. The monument sign may not exceed 12 feet in
height. Sign covenants are to be submitted outlining the use and
limit of one common sign and allowances for its use by the remaining
undeveloped lot.
4. Staff review the need for additional screening on the south side will
the applicant. The applicant shall also provide staff with a
detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the
required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prio
to building permit issuance.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city
and provide the necessary financial securities as required. '
6. The applicant shall provide a flammable waste separator as required
by Building Code.
7. Provide a complete, final set of civil engineering documentation to
staff for review and approval.
8. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memorandum dated II
October 8, 1992.
9. The applicant shall post "No Parking -Fire Lane" signs along the sout,
curb line on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Signs shall be placed at 100
foot intervals and the curb painted yellow.
10. Concurrent with the building permit, a lighting plan meeting city
standards shall be submitted.
11. The applicant shall pay $7,580. into the Surface Water Management II
Program fund for water quality treatment downstream of the site.
12. Compliance with conditions of Subdivision #90 -17 and Conditional Use,
Permit #92 -2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
Batzli: Is there a motion on the subdivision?
Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of 1
preliminary plat for Subdivision #90 -17 for Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition
as shown on the plan dated September 21, 1992 with the conditions in the"
staff report.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Ahrens: Second.
1
Planning ommissiL., Meeting
g
December 2, 1992 - Page 17
Batzli: Discussion. No discussion.
' Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision. #90-17 for Chan Haven
Plaza 4th Addition as shown on the plans dated September 21, 1992, with
the following conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time building
' permits are requested.
2. Provide the following easements:
a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be
dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block
1.
b. Drainage easement located over the drainage pond.
' c. A drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot
3, Block 1.
3. Enter into a development agreement acceptable to the city.
� 4. A driveway or cross - access easement for use of the existin g and
proposed street shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block
Ilk 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently
with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City.
5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from
the Watershed District, Health Department, etc.
6. If construction of public improvements proceed beyond freeze -up,
special modifications to construction practices shall be incorporated
as directed by the City Engineer, i.e. full depth select granular
material for trench backfill, etc.
7. The developer shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain
improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
' Standard Specification and Detail Plates and submit final plans and
specifications for formal City approval.
8. Outlot A shall be included with the repiatting of Chan Haven Plaza
4th Addition. The outlot shall be replatted /combined with Lot 3,
Block 1.
9. The developer shall revise the detention pond to accommodate 0.95
acre /feet of runoff below the 927.0' contour line.
10. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type 1) shall be shown on the
grading plan. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the north,
east and southeasterly perimeters of the plat.
11 11. The applicant shall reimburse the city for all engineering consultant
fees associated with the storm water study.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 18
12. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review *92-3 and
Conditional Use Permit #92 -2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Batzli: Finally the conditional use permit.
Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of I
Conditional Use Permit #92 -2 subject to the staff conditions with the
deletion of item 7 and the creation of a new item number 7 which would
"read, if illumination is used in signage on the south side of the two
buildings, that illumination would be limited to the operational hours o�
the businesses.
Batzli: Is there a second? '
Conrad: I second.
Emmings: When it says they have to come in for a sign permit. Who does'
that in the city?
Al -Jaff: I do. 1
Emmings: Okay. And is a sign permit a conditional use permit? Is it a
type of permit where you can impose restrictions on things like ,
( illumination?
Al -Jaff: Whatever you approve now is going to be my guideline to approvill
that sign permit.
Emmings: Well that and the sign ordinance.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Batzli: We need to add something. Jeff requested that we tie it in 111 somehow with the architecture of the building, at least the pylon. We
kind of skipped over that thought in the first two motions. Is that
something that's appropriate here? '
Al -Jaff: Or in the site plan.
Farmakes: As a condition? I thought we weren't approving the signage ail
shown.
Batzli: We aren't but if you don't impose a condition now, they would J1
merely have to comply with the sign ordinance. They wouldn't have to ti
it in architecturally.
Farmakes: Yeah, I think that's what we do with Market Square. We ask II
them to do the same thing. I don't see why that's any different.
Batzli: We can't I don't think. Move to amend? Would you like to move l
to amend the motion?
11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 19
Farmakes: I thought the motion was made already.
' Batzli: Yeah, but you can move to amend it. We'll vote on your
amendment then.
1 Farmakes: I'll move to amend it.
' Batzli: To include architectural equivalent standards on the pylon?
Farmakes: That would be with the signage design. When they do it.
1 Batzli: Is there a second?
Ledvina: Second.
Batzli: Okay, any discussion on the amendment?
Emmings: I want to be clear on what it is. Because I'm not. What you
want to do is see some kind of architectural compatability between the
sign and the buildings.
Farmakes: To the monument sign.
Emmings: Now how do you define that?
Al -Jaff: You can make a condition to see the signage before it goes up.
Farmakes: Yeah, I thought that's what we were doing.
' Al -Jaff: So you can review the signage separately. I mean you pass this
but we'll bring the signage in front of you.
Batzli: Okay. Does our motion accomplish that? No.
Emmings: We're getting real tangled up here aren't we?
Aanenson: You can either spell out the standards or ask to see it again.
That's really your two options.
Ledvina: Well, why don't I just, I'll amend my motion to add an 8th
condition which would say that the Planning Commission shall review the
actual signage for this project.
Batzli: Okay, is there a second to that?
Farmakes: Second.
Batzli: Okay, let's vote on Jeff's original amendment.
r Farmakes moved, Ledvina seconded an amendment to the motion to include a
condition that would require architectural standard equivalents to the
11 signage designs. Farmakes, Ledvina and Ahrens voted in favor. Conrad,
Erhart, Emmings and Batzli voted in opposition. The amendment failed by
a vote of 4 to 3.
1
1
CITYOF
CHANIIASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 111
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shanmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
DATE: November 23, 1992 1
SUBJ: Beisner Ltd. /Chanhassen Holding Company; Property Located South of Hwy. 5,
North of Lake Drive East and Chanhassen Estates and East of Emission Control 1
Testing Station:
1) Site Plan Review 92 -3 for Goodyear, 5,397 Square Feet and Abra Auto 1
Service Center, 6,494 Square Feet
2) Preliminary Plat 90 -71 to Subdivide 3.1634 Acres into 3 lots with an area
of 0.939 Acres, 0.778 Acres, and 1.445 Acres
3) Conditional Use Permit 92 -2 to Allow an Auto Service Facility in the BH 1
District.
1
On November 18, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan and conditional use
permit requests for the development of an Abra Auto Body Repair and a Goodyear Auto Service
facility. The Planning Commission tabled action on the proposal as there were a number of
issues related to architectural design raised by the Planning' Commission and residents of
Chanhassen Estates Subdivision that needed to be resolved before a vote could be taken. The
applicant was directed to meet with staff and Planning Commissioner Jeff Farmakes to resolve
those issues of concern.
Issue:
Architectural standards had to be revised because it is located on Highway 5 and is the 1
entrance into Chanhassen. Also the design had to be sensitive to the Chanhassen Estates
neighborhood. 1
is
t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
' Abra/Goodyear Proposal
December 2, 1992
Page 2
Solution:
On November 23, 1992, staff and Commissioner Jeff Farmakes met with the applicants,
the developer, and their architect. Commissioner Farmakes prepared three sketches, one
1 of Abra and two of Goodyear (Attachment #1). The intent of these sketches were to give
the applicants some guidance and show them how the roof elements could be revised to
achieve higher architectural standards. Staff wanted to review the revised plans prior to
writing the staff report update and sending it to the Planning Commission, however, this
would have meant waiting until the January 6, 1993, meeting. The applicants are facing
deadlines on the purchase of the property and the development of the facilities. They
requested that staff provide the report update for Planning Commission review prior to
seeing the revised plans and they will hand deliver them on Friday, November 27, 1992,
to all the Planning Commissioners. Staff agreed to this arrangement with the condition
that if the revised plans were not satisfactory, the item will be pulled off the December
2, 1992, agenda. On November 24, 1992, staff met with the applicant's architect to
review some revisions made to the buildings elevations. Staff informed the architect that
1 there was a significant improvement in the design. Work will continue on the design over
the next few days.
' The proposed Goodyear design should incorporate dormers in its roof line. Other features
were discussed such as shifting the roof line as shown in the rendering submitted by
Commissioner Farmakes.
The proposed Abra design should include a roof system that would incorporate pitched
roof sections and screen all the roof top equipment.
' Issue:
Noise level from the facilities and how they would affect the residential neighborhood to
the south of the proposed facilities.
Solution:
A
The following condition has been incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit conditions
of approval "Noise level shall not exceed OSHA requirements." State noise guidelines
shall be met at property line. Doors will be kept closed or no more than a 12" opening
as outlined by Abra representative.
Issue:
Additional landscaping as requested in the staff report.
Solution:
1
1
1
•
Abra/Goodyear Proposal
December 2, 1992
Page 3 Il
The following condition has been incorporated into the Site Plan Review conditions of I
approval, "The applicant shall provide an additional 16 evergreens along the south side
of Highway 5 to provide better screening of the parking area. The retention pond
parameters shall be landscaped with trees and hedges. The easterly portion of the site I
shall be provided with four additional evergreens."
Issue:
1
Outdoor storage of tires and cars on both sites.
Solution:
The following conditions has been incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit
111
conditions of approval, "No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on
the Goodyear and Abra sites" and "No outdoor storage shall be permitted at either site."
Issue: I
Pollution level from both sites. 1
Solution:
The following condition has been incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit conditions ,
of approval, "Pollution level shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control 1
Agency."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1
Based upon the forgoing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following
I
motion:
I. SITE PLAN REVIEW
I
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on the
site plan dated September 21, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1
1. The applicant shall prepare revised architectural plans incorporating the concerns raised
by the Planning Commission and staff and be more reflective of high quality design of 1
the site location on Highway 5 and adjacent Central Business District and residential uses
found in the area.
1
1
Abra/Goodyear Proposal
December 2, 1992
' Page 4
2. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for the Abra site with a gate
facing east and a second for Goodyear with a gate facing west. Plans must be submitted
for staff review prior to City Council meeting.
' 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide
a detailed sign plan for staff review prior to the City Council meeting. The monument
sign may not exceed 12 feet in height. Sign covenants are to be submitted outlining the
use and limit of one common sign and allowances for its use by the remaining
undeveloped lot.
4. The applicant shall provide an additional 16 evergreens along the south side of Highway
5 to provide better screening of the parking area. The retention pond parameters shall be
landscaped with trees and hedges. The easterly portion of the site shall be provided with
four additional evergreens. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost
estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These
guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the
necessary fmancial securities as required.
6. The applicant shall provide a flammable waste separator as required by Building Code.
7. Provide a complete, fmal set of civil engineering documentation to staff for review and
approval.
8. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memorandum dated October 8, 1992.
9. The applicant shall post "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs along the south curb line on Lots
1 and 2, Block 1. Signs shall be placed at 100 -foot intervals and the curb painted yellow.
10. Concurrent with the building permit, a lighting plan meeting city standards shall be
submitted.
11. The applicant shall pay $7,580 into the Surface Water Management Program fund for
water quality treatment downstream of the site.
12. Compliance with conditions of Subdivision #90-17 and Conditional Use Permit #92 -2."
1
1
1
1
Abra/Goodyear Proposal I
December 2, 1992
Page 5
1
II. SUBDIVISION
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #90 -17 1
for Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition as shown on plat dated September 21, 1992, with the
following conditions:
1
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time building permits are requested.
2. Provide the followin g easements: I
a. A standard 5 -foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the
1
common lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
b. Drainage easement located over the drainage pond.
1
c. A drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 3, Block 1.
3. Enter into a development agreement acceptable to the city.
4. A driveway or cross - access easement for use of the existing and proposed street shall be r
dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The easement agreement shall be drafted
and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City.
. 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the Watershed
District, Health Department, etc. 1
6. If construction of public improvements proceed beyond freeze -up, special modifications
to construction practices shall be incorporated as directed by the City Engineer, i.e. full
I
depth select granular material for trench backfill, etc.
7. The developer shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements in
I
accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates
and submit final plans and specifications for formal City approval.
8. Outlot A shall be included with the replatting of Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition. The I
outlot shall be replatted/combined with Lot 3, Block 1.
II
The developer shall revise the detention pond to accommodate 0.95 acre runoff
9. pe po feet runo
/
below the 927.0' contour line.
10. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type I) shall be shown on the grading plan. Type
I silt fence shall be installed along the north, east and southeasterly perimeters of the plat.
I
1
1
Abra/Goodyear Proposal
y Po
' December 2, 1992
Page 6
•
11. The applicant shall reimburse the city for all engineering consultant fees associated with
the storm water study.
12. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and Conditional Use
Permit #92 -2."
' III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #92 -2 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and Subdivision #90-
1 17.
2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site.
3. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or public rights -
of -way.
' 4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored ovemight on the Goodyear and Abra
sites.
5. No outdoor storage shall be permitted at either site.
6. Noise level shall not exceed OSHA requirements or Minnesota Pollution Control agency
guidelines at the property line.
' 7. Pollution level shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 18, 1992.
2. Staff report dated November 18, 1992.
3. Elevations prepared by Commissioner Jeff Farmakes.
1
1
1
1
M : •\''.\' ‘-:..5:i ; -.`"
X .--, . 4 .P ZE.. • :`.....
'—'I ", • I • , i ‘,.'..■!'r ..c.,-z--._ _
T
M , • , - ' ,'. UP' Z
......
Tr .. __ ....
...,•
m , •••• ,
-
,
BRIL
,. ....__.
t . -...,. !.- ....- • -.
-- _
• - . ......-----
•
.. • ' --\ _ . ....-
. . .....
- '--7-
_ -
.... -
- • N 1,
I
, = .
,
1
i' 1
,
,7
W
1
4 ' k.
. ,
1
1
. .
1 - •-• ... ■ • •-. 1 ii...5 i
- Anil ' i • li ;1
..-
il I I i ...... \ 1
-----•''
1 :I I! I
\ :! II ' It, }
• :i 1 _
1 ! ! I; / ..,
1
, Li
UMW fi r
i r
_
\ : • • tr _
,---/,'
,...-uiiiiiiii- j....lt'17 2.17
..'• •av ‘ i '
'4.1.10."... - - A
S \
5■..k. 1
lI V N ‘,.. _ - .".... : ,/.../........
- )
----- ---
_
...---
-- _--
'0 ,-,:f:: -4111
- ------
--- --.._
**._--_*----:• ' ' '• ..---
1
_ .
, -
1
1
1
1 1
1 ■
, ----1 .
i I
I 1
I
rn I 1
I
I
4.4 III 1
i ... • ,
i
...4 !IIIII.
1
1 .
I n
, 1
1 i
, .....,
1
111 ill
1
. ,
, ...„;
i i
1
1 ; IL-
,--\' ;
U ' . 1"
INN I .
1
1,--)1 ;
I ii
1
.1
(i
1 . i
I 1 I
191 '
1 ' 1
1
I
1 /
1 m■•••■•••••
' I
I -
1
1
-.. . ._ .
1
1
1
I
Z •
t 4
RI
X i
st 1
r
1 0 \ / 1
J 1
1
1
le 1
1
1
1
i i I
I
111
1
i
f � 1
1
1, 1
1
1
1
1 .. "
1 0
• 0 - ___._. •.,
.. III" .
:3:. . 1
1111 i'l :
1
r �I 1
1
2
1
1‘ ' 1.1_11 4
_MIR" I
1 . -.2 ---- --
1 . , : , I
1 F.
1 .
1 -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1