Loading...
PC 2001 09 04CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Alison Blackowiak, Craig Claybaugh, Deb Kind and Uli Sacchet MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney and Bruce Feik CITY COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT: Mayor Linda Jansen STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Julie Hoium, Planner I and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive (Due to the poor quality of the audio portion of the meeting, discussion in the minutes is not complete.) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND VARIANCES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,640 SQ. FT. GARAGE/POLE BARN ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 9201 AUDUBON ROAD, ERIC THESHIP- ROSALES. Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few quick questions. They really only have to meet 75% requirement and so the variance is that small variance... Hoium: If they met 75%... Sacchet: Okay. Then in the one condition about the possibility of locating and establishing an alternate on- site sewage treatment, what other sewage treatment... Hoium: The applicant might be better able to address that. Sacchet: I can ask the applicant then. And then the last question, in the letter from the applicant there was an item that says this is a setback variance request for 5 foot setback. Did you determine that was not necessary or what happened to that? Hoium: What happened was, and I don't know if I, originally the applicant proposed a separate structure. We worked with him so that he would meet all of the setbacks... Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 Sacchet: ... okay, that answered my questions. Thank you. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Typically... do you have those numbers? Hoium: Yes .... currently the lot coverage is... With this proposed structure it's... Kind: Thank you. Blackowiak: Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Eric Theship-Rosales: My name is Eric Theship-Rosales, 9201 Audubon Road. If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them. The question about sewage on the site. The portion of the lot... Sacchet: In the conditions.., possibility of locating and establishing an alternate on-site sewage treatment site. What's your feelings about that? Eric Theship-Rosales: I don't really understand that. Sacchet: Maybe... The other question is... Blackowiak: This item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to speak to this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any comments? Uli? Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. I have so many... My comments. I think it's very straight forward and I think it's a sizeable... Blackowiak: Comments? Kind: I agree with Uli. I went and looked at the site today and there is a very large... At first I was concerned about the size of the structure... I think it will improve the site.., and I support the applicant's proposal. Blackowiak: Okay. Anything else to add? Claybaugh: No. Blackowiak: No? Okay. And I don't have much else to add. Just that I do think...it's a reasonable use of this property and as long as the applicant understands the prohibition on any type of home business, I think we're clear on this so with that, would anyone like to make a motion? Kind: Madam Chair I'll move the Planning Commission recommends approval of conditional use permit #2001-5 to permit construction of a 1,640 square foot garage/pole barn subject to the following conditions f through n. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 Sacchet: I second that. May I make a friendly amendment? Kind: Sure. What's currently there as (i), add silt fence along the north side of the proposed garage during construction and remove it after. Kind: I'll accept that amendment. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2001-5 to permit construction of a 1,640 square foot garage/pole barn, subject to the following conditions: 1. Show the loca6ion of the proposed driveway access to the garage. Also, show the proposed driveway grade. 2. Show the proposed floor elevation of the new portion of the garage. 3. Show all existing and proposed contour elevations. 4. Add silt fence along the north side of the proposed garage during construction and removal the silt fence after construction. 5. There shall be no grading past the top of the bluff line as shown on the survey dated July 26, 2001. 6. The applicant must contact the Inspections Division to discuss the possibility of locating and establishing an alternate on-site sewage treatment site. This site as well as the existing site must be protected from damage during the construction of the building. 7. A building permit must be obtained before beginning construction. 8. The proposed garage/pole barn may not be used to conduct any home occupation as subject to Sec. 20-977 of the ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Kind: Madam Chair I'll move the second motion here. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the 3,654 square foot variance from the 2 ½ minimum lot area for the construction of a 1,640 square foot garage/pole barn based on the findings of fact. Blackowiak: There's a motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: I'll second that. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the 3,654 square foot variance from the 2 ½ acre minimum lot area for the construction of a 1,640 square foot Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 garage/pole barn based on the findings of fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO GRADE PROPERTY IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT WITHIN ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK~ LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF TH 41 AND TH 5~ STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Kind: Yes Madam Chair, I have a couple questions. On the...I noticed there's no time limit on that... 10- 20 years... Generous: ... valuable piece of property and it costs the developer money just to leave that for holding dirt. They have an incentive when Highway 5 is completed to sell the property. And this is one that we really want to have a more corporate type.., put in there. Plus there's additional design standards that are built into the PUD. Kind: ... and I understand this is only 5 feet high so it's not a mountain.., was quite a bit of dirt.., visual impact if it stays a long time or? Saam: I can add some to that Madam Chair, commissioners. You'll see it from Highway 5. It's not like it's going to be over towering. I think the top of the berm...will be even with the road. We require it to be seeded, vegetated, a silt fence put up so erosion won't occur. Once the vegetation is established, we don't see a problem with it. And if I could just say, I don't believe there's any ordinance in town prohibiting people from, once they obtain a grading permit for stockpiling dirt for however long they want to so I don't have a problem with putting it in here. Kind: Once you grant this, could they make the stockpile bigger than it was... Saam: Conceivably they could. They would have to provide us with a revised plan for review and approval and I guess I have to check with Roger, the City Attorney to see if that would have to come back then to Planning Commission and City Council on that. I'm not sure. Kind: ...the other question I had is regarding the haul route. Do we have any more information about where that would be? Saam: No, I haven't. I was on vacation for a week. I haven't talked with Fred since the staff report came out so I'm hoping he'll say something tonight or in the near future. Kind: My concern is that if it is along a residential area, the operating time til 6:00 p.m .... at 7:00 a.m. is of some concern to me. Saam: I would assume, and again I haven't talked with them. I would assume they'd be using the Century Boulevard and maybe come out 5 or 82nd Street. Something like that. That's something that we would Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 review once they provide us with a haul route to see where is he coming from. Will he be going through a neighborhood or not and there isn't any residential right near the site so. Kind: Typically if they do go along residential areas... Saam: City ordinance right now is 7:00 to 6:00. What's provided in the staff report so I'm not sure of the legality. I guess we could go a certain.., from that. Kind: Very good, thank you. Blackowiak: Any questions for the applicant? Slagle: Not right now. Sacchet: Yeah... First of all I want to clarify where the boundary of the Bluff Creek Watershed. Is that that big dash line? Generous: On the plan, that black dash line is the wetland edge. What we're showing is the buffer requirement 10 feet beyond that. It gives you the primary zone boundary.., and that includes the primary zone boundary and then all the setbacks are established from there. Sacchet: And then you... Generous: Yes, under the Bluff Creek...the first 20 feet of the 40 foot required building setback is a no cut zone. In essence.., buffer yard. Sacchet: So that buffer would go from the back line... Generous: The 20 foot would be from 10 feet in. Sacchet: From 10 feet in. So we don't have...And in the staff report it says, it doesn't really do... northwest quadrant, the... Outlot C. That's not at all true for the lot...to the east, correct? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Do we have a... does the same hold true for the lot on the south... ? There are trees there... Generous: Correct. Sacchet: But we don't know how many... Generous: As part of the.., area wide review that was done originally. Sacchet: The PUD? Generous: Yes. Under the.., approval. Sacchet: In terms of the Bluff Creek overlay, does that allow that much... Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 Generous: I don't know that it specifically addresses that under the ordinance. The PUD knew that that site would... They are maintaining a 3 to 1 slope which is what our ordinance permits. We're doing what we can to mitigate the potential for erosion on that... Sacchet: The original PUD envisioned the... Generous: They looked at flattening this area. Sacchet: Just by looking at this, without looking in real detail, it looks like the northwest... Generous: In comparison, if you look at this plan and... Sacchet: Okay. Then I have another couple questions real quick. There's kind of a dip just west of Century Boulevard on the west side where the elevation goes down to... That's not a wetland... ? Saam: Commissioners, I spoke with our Water Resources Coordinator, Lori Haak on that subject. She had said no, that isn't. We looked at it because the City is currently upgrading Century Boulevard from there and just north of the Lot 4 up to Highway 5. So no. Sacchet: At best it would be a very degraded wetland. Saam: Exactly. Sacchet: I was curious where we had that. Saam: The only reason it's holding water is because this road bed was filled in. Sacchet: So that created the berm? Saam: Yes. Sacchet: ... That lot on the south that a lot of dirt comes from, it has proposed filling elevation of 990 feet, which is 5 foot lower than the Arboretum... It seems like the way the terrain goes it's actually higher... The elevations, I can't read the elevations on the plan. The elevation goes straight through the buffer... Saam: That's 1,000 right there. Sacchet: ... so basically we have...this water tower because we're putting that... Generous: All the pines on the west side will be... Sacchet: Yeah, they're kind of between where the buffer.., water tower, okay. Blackowiak: I just have a quick question. Let me go to my map. One of the conditions has to do with a silt fence on the north, south and east sides. Why not the west? What's the rationale? Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 Saam: Yeah, it refers to the stockpile area and Outlot C, west of Century Boulevard because west of the stockpile is rising in elevation. So typically you put silt fence where the dirt can fall off the cliff so to speak. Not on rising hill. It basically won't go anywhere to the west. It will only fall off the north, south and east. Blackowiak: Okay, so they're going to flatten the area out underneath it... ? Saam: Yeah, it will be tied into those elevations so it will be. Blackowiak: So what will be the highest point that we see? Will we see roughly 995 on this? What can we expect to see? Saam: Maybe the applicant can add something but I would say roughly 991-990. I don't think it's going to be 5 feet higher than the lowest point there, which is 992. Blackowiak: Alright. I just thought... Saam: We'll have to do a little grading there to tie into the existing land, yeah. Blackowiak: ... we're going to do all that, okay. Saam: And we will be having them revise this to show in a little more detail how that's going to work. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Alrighty. Well, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Fred Richter: Fred Richter with Steiner Development. I think I'll just make a little clarification.., why we're...this interim grading permit. Going back to our 1997 PUD, we had always anticipated the grades out here... We've had three phases already of grading and as we're marketing two of the subject properties, either side of Century, negotiating for the boundaries that with the buyers there's more final site plan review and platting beyond the future. There's quite a bit of compaction to get up to what we call the rough grade before we put a building on it. Therefore we're really asking the flexibility to kind of close out the development with the exception of setting the final grade on the large comer lot... So our objective is to implement our final, or our next to final grading plan. In fact we may have both site plan review projects come in on what I'll call on the east side, there might be two separate parcels created here... One of the other facets driving this request is the excess dirt coming off of... Sacchet: ... so a lot of dirt would go in the lot... Century Boulevard to the west because... And then some of the extra... Fred Richter: Because we can't, there's technical ramifications. You can't place compactable dirt on soil that hasn't been corrected. It has to be demucked and.., bring the soils into compacted... Sacchet: And then that pile you would use.., east of Century, you're taking... Fred Richter: Yeah, not quite 22. The highest point here is 988... Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 Sacchet: So on the east side of Century Boulevard you pretty much use the dirt and you take it off the hill... Slagle: I have just a quick question. Regarding the route... Fred Richter: That site is right up in here and they will either come out on 5 and go down the highway.., like that or they'll have to go through their service station and come down 82nd... Slagle: So do you see it going on 417 Fred Richter: No... Blackowiak: Any other questions for the applicant? Claybaugh: ...how close is... Fred Richter: ...this one will... Kind: Madam Chair, a question about the auto service center next to Citgo. If I remember right, we talked about some of those mature trees being spaded out and moved. Fred Richter: That's all, we don't have a plan on that particular.., we saved that mature line of ash on the north and then we saved a number of those mature pines... Blackowiak: Alright, this item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to come up to the microphone and make comments, please do so at this time. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, if you have any comments, now is the time. Rich, any comments? Slagle: ... question, just concerned about the route. I think otherwise it's.., certainly the folks on 5 and 41 who travel that. I'm sure they've had their fill... Blackowiak: Uli, comments? Sacchet: I think what the applicant's trying to do on the west side of Century Boulevard makes good sense. I don't have a problem with stockpiling of dirt...what's happening on the east side of Century Boulevard... that I really have a problem with.., with such a steep slope, so close to a sensitive area like Bluff Creek... findings for, that are required for this application, there are out of the 12 findings, there are 4, 5 and 6 that I have questions based on... I do think that this... I have not been able to research the... That this type of slope, this type of an impact... I really think that if something happens... Bluff Creek Overlay and I do think it will essentially change the character of that area. I do believe that.., and I do think that the proposed use is disruptive in that sense.., natural features... It is aesthetically not compatible with the area so my question is, I mean if we find that one.., one of those findings.., and therefore I will not be approving approval for the.., while I'd be perfectly happy to recommend approval of the west side. Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Kind: I guess before I make my comments I'd like to ask for some clarification. This whole PUD was.., before the Bluff Creek Overlay District, is that right? Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 Generous: That's correct. Kind: And therefore some of those things that Uli's talking about... PUD? Generous: Yes. We're working on compromising... We tried to accommodate those things. Their expectations were... Kind: ... that's basically what would be asked when.., with that I would say that I do support staff's recommendation and I think that this is a good idea because... Blackowiak: Okay... Claybaugh: ... Blackowiak: Thank you. And I just have a couple comments. Haul route seems to be an issue. I would certainly favor keeping the trucks off of 41 and 5. Given the construction that's happening on 5 right now, ... certainly in favor of having any hauling go through the existing... My other comment has to do with the amount of fill and.., so with that I would like to have a motion please. Slagle: ... can I ask... More importantly, after listening to Uli... was there compromise in that eastern lot? Generous: Yes. Slagle: Okay. Ijust...there was compromise and. Generous: The City worked hard to... we have all of Outlot A and B as... Additionally, when that comes in to plat, that lot, they're going to have to put the trail connection from Coulter Boulevard and Century, all the way over to the Autumn Ridge development so... Blackowiak: I need a motion. Kind: Madam Chair I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #2001- 1 to grade a portion of the development and Conditional Use Permit #2001-8 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions 1 through 12 with the following changes and additions. Number 9, I'd like to add a sentence that says the silt fence shall be removed upon completion of the project. Number 13. Stockpile shall not exceed 11,000 cubic yards. Number 14. The applicant is encouraged to use a haul route staying within Arboretum Business Park, avoiding Highway 41 and Highway 5. Blackowiak: There's been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Sacchet: Point of clarification... Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 Blackowiak: ... possibly to offer an amendment to specify the. Sacchet: ... Outlot D. Nowhere on the map do I see Outlot D. I assume that's the lot called... Blackowiak: That's 1. Generous: Lot 1. Sacchet: Lot 1, Block 3. So should we call it Lot 1, Block 3 then? Blackowiak: ... point of clarification... The fact that Lot 1, Block 3 is known as Outlot D... Kind: ... 13 to say stockpile shall not exceed 11,000 cubic yards or the elevation of 997. Blackowiak: So there's a motion, a second. We've discussed it here... Kind moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit/t2001-1 to grade a portion of the development and Conditional Use Permit/12001-8 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration and compliance with the interim use permit. 2. The applicant shall obtain a Watershed District permit. 3. The applicant must provide a proposed haul route for review and approval. 4. Type I silt fence must be added around the outer fill limits on the north, south and east sides of the stockpile. 5. All disturbed areas as a result of construction will be required to be reseeded and mulched within two weeks of site grading. 6. The applicant shall pay for the City an administration fee of $331 prior to the City signing the permit. 7. The existing building and outbuildings and any septic system or wells on Outlot D, Arboretum Business Park, shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 8. An erosion control blanket shall be installed on the faces of the south and east slopes on Outlot D, Arboretum Business Park. 9. Silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as wetland buffer. The silt fence shall be removed upon completion of the project. 10. A ten-foot wide wetland buffer shall be preserved around the wetland basin. Existing vegetation within the wetland buffer shall be left undisturbed unless otherwise approved. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 11. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 12. The grading plan shall be revised so that no grading is proposed within 20 feet of the primary corridor. 13. Stockpile shall not exceed 11,000 cubic yards or an elevation of 997. 14. The applicant is encouraged to use a haul route staying within Arboretum Business Park, avoiding Highway 41 and Highway 5. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Blackowiak: And comments as stated earlier? Sacchet: ...that the east side is... PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 4,768 SQUARE FOOT CULVER'S RESTAURANT AT 450 POND PROMENADE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 2m~ ADDITION, WAYNE RISER AND ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Robert Savard Wayne Riser Vernelle Clayton Mark Clarey 8080 Marsh Drive 13500 James Avenue, Burnsville, MN 55337 422 Santa Fe Circle Northcott Company Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Okay... Kind: ... talk about the roof is made of... standing seam metal.., is that a darker blue than a typical prototype building? Generous: I'm not certain... Wayne Riser: That is the. Kind: That is it? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 Wayne Riser: Yeah. Kind: Okay. Other questions, staff recommendation on page 12, number 4. The condition talks about the drive through window approved only for a restaurant use that custom prepares foods at the time of the order. My experience is that the Culver's in Navarre, I know people who call their order in...then go through the drive through windows to pick up their order. Are we prohibiting that? Generous: No. Because they don't start the preparation until the order... Kind: Okay... Sacchet: Yeah, I have a couple questions. I don't know whether you can answer them Bob or if that's something for the applicant. As I drive past... Generous: I would prefer the applicant... Sacchet: I want to know from the applicant why...that's that little line sticking out there. That little knob in the curve. Generous: That's correct. In the northwest comer of the building. Sacchet: Northwest comer... Drive through window. You mentioned that drive through windows are added and I was looking at the elevation, it looks like one of these windows is actually in the storage room. Is that a real window? Because the floorplan doesn't reflect a window. At least they don't correspond. I mean here we have one big one and two small ones... Generous: It's my understanding that there...that's the intent at least. Sacchet: Well we'll ask the applicant about that one. The patio by that.., little sidewalk coming out there that goes across and exits from the drive through lane, does that... ? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: And the sidewalk basically sloping around, on the west side. Alright. One thing I'm still kind of struggling with. As much as I like custard, we have this PUD and in all due respect, have this PUD that says pedestrian friendly. No drive through windows and now we make an exception, which very much.., custard but isn't it kind of spot zoning? Making a special accommodation... Generous: This is a planned unit development.., the original zoning, none of this would have been... Sacchet: So being a PUD we have this flexibility.., okay. So condition starting with your condition 6 came out so...flared end, I don't need to know... What's the difference between condition 10 and 167 Generous: Not much. Sacchet: Not much, okay. That's it. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 Slagle: Well I don't think it's a secret to those that were here last meeting that we had this subject as to how I stood... I'd love a Culver's, just not excited about a drive through. City Council approving that location as the only location to permitting one and come back with a conditional use permit here. I have to be honest with you and say that I still have questions and it revolves around some of the conditions that staff has listed on it in the first place. The second one, the site plan I should say I have no issue with. Conditional use permit, condition 1 is the drive through shall provide sufficient stacking to assure that traffic is not backed into parking lot drive aisles. I'm going.., further and throw out line of cars waiting to even get into what I will call the Culver's area. From either the east or the southwest. And my question is, what kind of data are we... this whether it's appropriate to have that number stacked or not? I'm just curious. I'm sure there's a good answer. And there on the fifth one, trip generations for any restaurant use on the site shall be within 20% of the average trip generation rates shown for a high turnover, sit down restaurants in the Trip Generation 6th Edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers. So that's a lot to say so bear with me. But I guess I'm sitting here and trying to compare things, you know I've been on this commission for just a short time. We've had other sites or applicants who have proposed building in a location that actually generate traffic studies for a site and they.., month ago. So my question is, how are we arriving at what that traffic volume is going to be in order to ask the applicant to come up with a way to assure us that it will be fine? And I know that they've worked through some of this data and provided the average Culver's store, but I almost feel like there's no average Culver's store location that is situated in such a tight radius with a Quizno's, with a Starbuck's, with a building.., right across from it, to the south of Starbuck's, and as I shared with Bob previous to the meeting, just as an observation. I drove that today and as you come through where the curve will be, which I appreciate the curve. I think it's a smart move, if you follow, and I don't know if Bob you can show on the map what I'm referring to, but you drive down that street, and let's see if we can get it on here. You know what I'm talking about Bob? You come down the curve, yeah. You're going right through there. There are parking lots across from each other that if you have an Expedition or Suburban, Explorer, anything that's of some length, and they've back to back, you do not have a lot of room to pass cars going both ways on that street .... the idea is to make it really tough to park and I almost.., but what was the council thinking? I mean seriously. I just think that it's common sense, because I'm afraid what's going to happen is this great restaurant's going to be built and we'll all enjoy it, but it will be an absolute mess from a traffic and a pedestrian.., and I hope I'm wrong. That's my concern so I guess I have to ask, where are you getting the traffic data to set these conditions for the Conditional Use Permit? That's all. Mayor Jansen: And Madam Chair, if I might chime in here. I don't want to speak on behalf of the entire council, and in fact maybe what we should do in the future when issues have been debated at the council level, the minutes from that meeting should probably be attached to the staff report coming to the commission so they can see all the individual comments. But we were provided the same traffic generated numbers that you were, irrelevant to it being a Culver's. We were trying to step back and look at this in the more generic fashion. If this were a drive through for a dry cleaner or there were a few examples thrown out to us, that would have been lesser volume than a fast food restaurant. And the fast food is what staff, when they originally looked at this PUD, that is what they were specifically trying to avoid have happening in this particular development. They didn't want it to mm into a fast food mecca of a comer. So as this was brought to us, we were given this same traffic grid showing that a fast food restaurant would generate 3 times the traffic that this potential use would bring into this development. There were council comments at the time to the community survey that was performed, and our community is telling us that they're looking for additional restaurants and services within Chanhassen. Restaurants with sit down service in particular. It's our understanding again, looking at more than the generic numbers, that this is primarily a more pedestrian type of a location. It's not meant to be a fast food drive through. You won't 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 have the same traffic. We're looking at it as meeting the needs that our community has now expressed to us through that community survey giving them one more alternative, not adding to the congestion in that development to the extent that fast food would, but it does give them the convenience of being able to opt to drive through or do a pick-up as Commissioner Kind's mentioned. Being able to call in and pick up and drive through. We have so many families in Chanhassen that there was a great deal of focus in a couple of the council people's comments about our families and being able to have that sort of a convenience provided without having again the congestion of a fast food location on that comer. Slagle: Thank you. IfI could just, as I respond to that. I understand exactly what you're saying. I guess the question is...what is a definition of a fast food versus a Culver's, and I know that there's a desire to call this a hybrid what have you, and I would agree that the food is better than most fast foods, but I would say there's a real fine line between fast food... Mayor Jansen: And if I might add, that debate's occurred. Slagle: I understand that. Mayor Jansen: And now this site is allowed this use, and I can certainly appreciate your comments and all of those comments did come to council and we were aware of some of the debates that had occurred at this level as that came forward. Slagle: Right, but is it not a fair question of staff to ask where the factual data is coming from other than... The only thing that's come forward, and that's what staff is using, I understand that. Mayor Jansen: That's whether this particular use meets the conditional use... Slagle: Exactly, but how we come up with it... on the other side of the page. Blackowiak: I guess I had a couple questions as well. Let me start with parking. We often have a table... required parking, etc. One of the conditions has the width of certain parking areas being increased to 8 ½ feet. I'm wondering, do we have to do any type of calculation to determine if parking is adequate or are we just relying on shared parking for the.., restaurant? Generous: That's correct. We're relying on the shared parking... If you look at this site, definitely there's not enough room for Culver's. Blackowiak: Yes. Especially with increasing the width of. Generous: Part of the Villages on the Ponds was each development comes in, they pay into a pool for the... Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And then I hate to trump on this trip generation thing but I've got a couple questions too. One of the conditions, and I don't know which number, talks about, here we go. Number 5 in the conditional use permit. Trip generations for any restaurant shall be within 20% of the average trip generation rates, okay. Let's go to page 8 and we've got a table here and it talks about, we'll take average daily. We've got an estimate of 621 for high turnover. 20% of that you've probably got 124, so I come up with 745. Culver's is showing at 771.2. Are my calculations correct? Are they within or not within that average daily rate? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 Saam: I can tell you how I came up with it... We took our 621 estimate, as you just mentioned. Divided that by the 771, which Culver's provided to us and it comes up to I believe 80 some odd percent and then take that from 100 percent gives you the 20. So we didn't take 20% of 621. We took 621 divided by 771 and that will leave. Blackowiak: Why did you go that way? Because as I would read it... 20% of all the average trip generation rates, you start with the rate given. You start with your Trip Generation 6th Edition rate and add 20%. And say it doesn't fall in that 20% range. Is that fair? Saam: Yep, I agree. Blackowiak: So in other words 621, add 124, you come up with 745 so it doesn't meet. P.m. peak, 92. Add roughly 18 to that you come up with 110. It doesn't meet. Saturday trips, 765. 20% of that is 151. Comes up to 906. It doesn't meet that. What do we do? I mean as I look at those numbers, do you want to relax standards? I mean what do we? Sacchet: Could I make a suggestion? Blackowiak: Go right ahead. Sacchet: We could possibly re-word it to calculate the way staff calculates it, that they calculate.., through that reference point and that way it seems we're very close... Blackowiak: Yeah, and if we relax the standards certainly we're going to get there. How about 25%? I just, I mean the way I read it... Okay, I don't have any questions at this time so would the applicant, their designee like to make a presentation? Please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Wayne Riser: Good evening. Wayne Riser... associates. I made the presentation I think pretty much last time so I think it's best right now to try and entertain questions. Who wants to maybe start? Blackowiak: Rich, do you want to start? Uli... Kind: Can you explain how this design that you're proposing for the Villages is different or better than your typical prototype Culver's store. Wayne Riser: Yes I'd be happy to do that. Let's see. We'll start with the drive through side. The drive through side of the facility you see that's the most controversial part of the building, and what we've done, normally there's a sign over the drive through. We've taken the sign away from the drive through and we've soften it. Put halfa roof detail there. Normally if you look, part of it comes out farther. Basically we've shorten that up considerably. Then the other features of the elements that we've added to this one is that normally we have split face block. It will be pillars that you see there, and that'd be EFIS pillars along there to break up the wall. And normally the top, it's a...we've changed that to an EFIS. It's warmer... and I think it's one of the nicer properties... And then also we've added a feature, actually the back of the building, right here, which tums out to be the front of the building also. I suppose it has two fronts. There's a back and a front. Together it faces Highway 5 and that, if we look down here, that is actually the back of the building. Normally it has.., but we think there's some interesting architectural elements in the back of the building. We've added the windows, these windows are windows that you can't see in, but you 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 can see out. Because our employees are... And the same would be true with the office. Then as we go to the opposite of the drive through, that's the side facing the present building to the east. Again we've added the architectural elements, more columns. We've also gone away from the standard awnings.., an awning that gives more color details. Softens your.., straight awning. Part of the building, which is here...that is the same except for the columns and the EFIS along the roof line. Does that pretty well explain that there? Kind: Yes, but I have one more question. Wayne Riser: Certainly. Kind: The storage window Uli brought up, will that be a functional window there? ... footprint of your floorplan, there's just one window shown there. Wayne Riser: There's going to be two...as it shows on this plan. One on each side. Kind: And one will be, it looks to be, will be near the storage room. Wayne Riser: Yes, and that will be only, you'll be able to see out but you won't be able to see in. Kind: So the same type of windows on the exterior... Wayne Riser: No, they'll all be the same. Kind: How about at night? If employees are taking a break in the break room and the light's on, can you see in at that time? Wayne Riser: I can't answer that. I don't know. We've never done this before. Kind: Not that it really matters. I was just curious. Wayne Riser: Good question... That's a good question but I can't answer it. Kind: On the elevation, the color renderings that we were given, I think the navy blue roof is beautiful, but I'm getting the impression that it's really a quite bright roof... Would you consider darkening the roof to this more navy? We would...but I don't think we'd want to do that. We would darken that. Did you say Wayne Riser: darker blue? Kind: Yeah. A more of a navy blue. I think a bright blue roof it might be a little bright for this image that we're looking at for. I think navy is quite handsome. Wayne Riser: Yeah, we would darken it... That wouldn't be a problem on our part. Kind: Okay...another question. I guess that's it. Blackowiak: Any other questions of the applicant? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah I had. Wayne Riser: ... I think it does, we'll have to see what colors. Kind: Oh I'm sure you can get it in any color you want. Wayne Riser: Well not any but we'll request... Sacchet: I have one question. You know that drive aisle double width. Wayne Riser: Yes. Sacchet: So you want to allow your customers to escape... Wayne Riser: That's part of how the stacking.., because that allows them, if there is a problem... Sometimes people drive in there and... I don't want to wait. I'll go inside or... Sacchet: So they can change their minds and decide... I was curious. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. The audio portion of the remainder of the meeting did not get picked up on the tape.) Vemelle Clayton spoke on behalf of the developers of the Villages on the Ponds and expressed support for the project. Debbie Lloyd spoke about concerns with the traffic generated from this site. Bob Savard stated his support for the project. Mark Clarey, a representative from Northcott, stated his support for the project as it related to the overall success of the Villages on the Ponds. Chair Blackowiak stated she would like the letter received from Mr. David Petty be included in the record to go to City Council. She then closed the public hearing portion on this item. Commissioners gave their comments on the project and then made the following motions. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit #2001-7 for a drive-through window subject to the following conditions: 1. The drive-through shall provide sufficient stacking to assure that traffic is not backed into the parking lot aisles. 2. The loud speakers used for ordering shall be shielded so that noise is not heard off-site. 3. The drive-through shall be screened from off-site views. 4. The drive-through window is approved only for a restaurant use that custom prepares foods at the time of order. 5. Trip generations for any restaurant use on the site shall be within 25 percent of the average trip generation rates shown for a high turnover, sit down restaurant in the Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 o The applicant shall gather traffic counts from the Shakopee Culver's to provide to the City Council. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2001-7 as shown on plans prepared by John Oliver & Associates, Inc., dated 8/15/01, subject to the following conditions: An understory evergreen element shall be added to the northwest area of the property. Evergreens should be 10-15 feet at maturity. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. All areas between paved areas and wetlands shall be revegetated per the planting plan that was approved as a part of Villages on the Ponds. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Add the following 2001 City Detail Plates to the detail sheet: 5203, 5215, 5300, and 5302. Also, show the most current revision of plate no. 3102. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be prepared and signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 9. No building permits will be issued until the City receives as-built plans for the development. 10. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner(s). 11. Revise the western slope off of the drive through area to show either a maximum slope grade of 3:1 or to install a retaining wall. 12. Some of the parking stalls are less than the minimum allowable width of 8.5 feet. These should be revised as necessary. 13. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2001 14. The utility plans will be reviewed during the permit process. 15. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 16. The applicant shall eliminate the staking and wiring instruction detail in the landscape plan titled "tree planting - guy wire". 17. All signs shall require a separate sign permit. 18. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire hydrant can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 19. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of fire lane signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division #6-1991 and Section 904-1, 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire code. 20. A stop sign shall be installed at the exit of the drive through. 21. Add windows on the floor plan to reflect the windows shown on the elevations. 22. The applicant shall consider changing the color of the roof to be compatible with adjacent buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. OLD & NEW BUSINESS: Bob Generous asked that any commissioner not able to make it to the work session scheduled for October 16th let Kate Aanenson know so that meeting could be rescheduled. It is very important that all planning commissioners be present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. Chair Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 19