PC Minutes 02-02-10
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 2, 2010
Chairwoman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, Dan Keefe,
and Tom Doll
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kevin Dillon and Kathleen Thomas
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOTUS RETAIL CENTER: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH
VARIANCES FOR A 7,992 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND AMENDMENT
TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOTUS LAWN AND GARDEN ON
PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT (BH),
THTH
LOCATED AT 78 WEST 78 STREET AND 19900 WEST 78 STREET.
APPLICANT: CENTER COMPANIES, LLC AND LOTUS LAKE GARDEN CENTER,
INC., PLANNING CASE 10-04.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ben Merriman Center Companies
Jay Kronick Lotus Lawn and Garden
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Larson: Tom, you have any questions?
Doll: I may have missed something but is the Hennepin County site in Chanhassen?
Generous: Yes.
Doll: Okay.
Generous: We go all the way to Dell Road.
Doll: Okay, I thought so but. Okay. I have no other questions.
Larson: Dan.
Planning Commission Meeting – February 2, 2010
Keefe: The hardship that’s related to the variance is, I mean if they can get, they’re going to
have a cross access or cross parking agreement anyway, right? Is there not enough room going
into the landscaping site to be able to accommodate the additional spaces so we don’t have to do
the variance? It seems like maybe on the north side, but maybe they’ve maxed out up there.
Generous: Yeah, if they push it over on the north side then they’re getting into our bio retention.
Keefe: Well to the east, yeah. But there’s no more room to the west that you know?
Generous: Yeah, they’re at the property. The property line is right, just the end of the.
Keefe: Yeah. Yeah, but they’re taking 4 or 5 of those spaces it looks like are cross parking,
right?
Generous: Yeah. Well they’re actually on the Lotus, the garden site and there.
Keefe: But those count towards this?
Generous: Yes. We calculated it all. If this had come in as one big project it would have been a
little easier to distribute them all because then we would be able to count the middle too.
Keefe: Right. So there’s no way to accommodate without, to get their minimum number of
spaces because it isn’t a consolidated.
Generous: Right, and then, they could have corrected.
Keefe: There’s no way to defer that either is there?
Generous: No.
Keefe: Without putting a variance.
Generous: They need to go forward with this one as a stand alone. Yeah, they’re not sure yet.
Keefe: You don’t know what the use will be up there.
Generous: And we need to get the bio retention in there and we, of course we like the trash
enclosure in the back because then it’s not visible from the…
Keefe: What’s the history behind the 50% requirement on the front street. Why, what is, why is
that a limitation? Why is that sort of set at that number? Do you have a…
Generous: Well it’s to distribute, so you don’t have a sea of parking in front of them basically.
Keefe: Yeah, right. Right.
2
Planning Commission Meeting – February 2, 2010
Generous: And those two, we like to get parking surrounding a building.
Keefe: Yeah.
Generous: It really works well in your downtown area where you can force the building all the
way to the front.
Keefe: Right.
Aanenson: One of the examples would be, if you go over to West Village Heights where we
have a lot of the downtown, for example where Byerly’s is. People think that that’s set back so
far and that was a struggle too that we went because of the slope in the back of the property. We
wanted to cover that slope and that’s where the loading docks are. It seemed to make some
sense. But the fact that it’s so deep walking from the street, with the wind blowing across, it’s
not as warm of a presence so it’s just to make it feel more urban and you don’t have that sea of
parking lot in front of you.
Keefe: Right.
Aanenson: So just always a balance. Is there a perfect ratio there? So that’s a number we put in
there and work with the best we could. What this picture isn’t showing you too is the big
wetland that’s behind so it is, the site is pinched. In a perfect world they would both come in
together and we could have balanced it more and it probably will ultimately but this is an
opportunity to keep the garden center in place and to kind of figure out how that mix works.
Keefe: What is located on the north side of the railroad track? Is that an apartment?
Generous: It’s an apartment building.
Keefe: It is? Then is that a 4 story? I’m trying to remember what.
Aanenson: It’s at least 3.
Generous: I think it’s 3.
Aanenson: Yeah, with separate garages, yeah. Do you want to look at that overall picture again
to kind of get a sense of.
Keefe: Well what I was, you know just the, you know I mean I really like the articulation on the
front of this building towards the street. I think they’ve done a really nice job with it. One of the
questions is just you know the back side. You know it’s fairly, you know vanilla across the back
and then you know I presume they’re going to have roof, you know cooling and potentially
heating structures. I mean do we typically have some sort of screening that we would require?
Generous: Well they do and they comply at grade. The third story I don’t know that, they won’t
be able to…
3
Planning Commission Meeting – February 2, 2010
Keefe: I’m just thinking you know, I mean is it going to negatively. It may not negatively
impact.
Aanenson: I think with the changing grade and that, and the industrial building that’s just, yeah.
The industrial building to the east.
Keefe: I don’t know if it’s an issue or not. I just am trying to you know think it.
Doll: Parking behind this apartment building.
Keefe: Yeah. More than likely the whole thing will be an improvement. I just want to make
sure we’re thinking about that.
Aanenson: Yeah. It’s an interesting mix out there because you have some pure office and the
majority of that to the east then is industrial. Then the last piece that just went in on Dell Road,
now that’s more office. Right there on the corner. The Dell Professional Office. Yeah.
Otherwise you do have a lot of, you’ve got a heavy user with Lyman Lumber.
Keefe: Right.
Aanenson: And that is an active rail yard. So there is some noise attenuation to consider too
because they do use that spur to take lumber off at that location. Then you’ve got, you go a little
bit just behind the apartments then, you’ve got the residential that’s in Eden Prairie there.
Laufenburger: And that railroad goes up a little bit.
Generous: Yeah, that railroad is raised out there. And they will get some landscaping in that
back and eventually that will grow to fill in some of those spots.
Keefe: They have overstory trees going back there or?
Aanenson: Yeah, and I think that was one of the things we looked at for the back of that
articulation. The best thing we think we can do for noise attenuation, some of that is actually
provide additional landscaping and we were just talking now. I think what we want to do too is
kind of field walk it as we get to that point to figure out the best placement for some of that to
revise that visual barrier and then a noise barrier.
Keefe: Right. So I mean in terms of you know their proposed planning, they’re not proposing
any overstory trees.
Generous: But they.
Keefe: But they need to right.
Generous: They’re required to.
4
Planning Commission Meeting – February 2, 2010
Keefe: They’re required to do? Okay. Alright. Cool.
Larson: Denny.
Laufenburger: Bob I do have a question. Can you give us a close-up of the loading zone area?
Just tell me how, did you talk with the applicant at all about what kind of trucks would deliver
there? Are they semi rigs or are they smaller trucks?
Generous: It was my understanding they’re smaller but.
Laufenburger: Address with the applicant maybe. Okay. It just seemed like there’s not a lot of
room for a turn around there. That was my only concern. Did you see that? Yeah. I mean it
looks like there’s an area for a truck to pull in, or maybe back in. I don’t know because they
would likely back in so that the rear of the truck is accessible to the door. I just, I need to have
an understanding of the safety of that. Okay. Second question. There was discussion about if
the additional two tenants happen to be a restaurant or one of them a restaurant, or both of them a
restaurant, additional parking would be needed. So where do you anticipate Bob that that
parking would come from?
Generous: The only place that it could happen would be on the garden center site.
Laufenburger: So it would be to the west of the area that is, we’re showing that is marked with
14. Where there’s 14 spaces.
Generous: Right.
Laufenburger: So that would impede into what I would believe would be a display area for
nursery stock and things like that. Does that make sense?
Generous: Right. And we anticipate it would only happen with the redevelopment of that site
because otherwise you’re eating into yes, Jay’s display area.
Laufenburger: So this, there is no plans at this time for any changing, upgrading, remodeling of
the garden center, is that correct?
Generous: Only to the extent of relocating.
Laufenburger: Just relocating the storage area. Okay. Just a moment. That was my questions.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Larson: Anything?
Undestad: Nothing.
Larson: Nor do I so have we got an applicant?
5
Planning Commission Meeting – February 2, 2010
Ben Merriman: Good evening. I’m Ben Merriman with Center Companies and just go through a
couple of comments. With regard to the trucks. It’s called a hammerhead so when the truck
pulls in it can pull behind the garden center or behind the building. It backs up and then it
th
actually starts coming out and then so it’s faced outward now towards 78 Street and then it
backs in to that little alcove where the loading dock is and so that’s how that works.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Ben Merriman: They’re shorter trucks. They’re not semi trucks. The garden center
occasionally does get semi trucks but they’re not very frequent. And those would use the same
th
means for getting in and out. Sometimes those semi trucks will actually back in off of 78 Street
but it’s rarity and the hammerhead isn’t designed to allow for them.
Laufenburger: So your thinking is that even if there are cars parked all along that load that, that
parking area which is identified as 14 seats or stations, the truck would go all the way to the
back. Kind of make a turn around and then come back out and then back into where the loading
zone is.
Ben Merriman: That’s correct.
Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you.
Larson: Anybody else have questions? Nor do I. Thank you. Okay at this time I will open the
public meeting, or the public hearing. I don’t see anybody stepping up so we will close the
public hearing. Well what do you think?
Undestad: I think it’s a good project. Looks nice. I don’t have anything to add in there. I think
it’s good.
Laufenburger: I agree and Tom made a comment earlier. I think, or Dan. They did a nice job
on the design of the building. I think it’s going to be a nice addition to the area.
Keefe: I’m good with it.
Doll: Same here.
Larson: Yeah, I am too. I think architecturally it’s beautiful. It’ll be a very nice asset to the city
and I’m for it. So with that, anyone want to make a motion?
Undestad: I’ll make a motion. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit 88-13 to eliminate the
Hennepin County parcel for a garden Center and to relocate storage bins to the Carver County
parcel. And that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve
the Site Plan for an 8,000 square foot, one story retail building, plans prepared by SEH dated
12/30/2009 with an 8% parking variance to permit 58% of the parking between the front façade
6
Planning Commission Meeting – February 2, 2010
th
and the primary street for property located at 19900 West 78 Street and subject to conditions 1
through 5 with the amended 4(d) to read not to exceed $25,000.
Larson: Have I got a second?
Laufenburger: Second.
Undestad moved, Laufenburger seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approves an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 88-
13 to eliminate the Hennepin County parcel for a garden center and to relocate the storage
bins to the Carver County parcel. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
Undestad moved, Laufenburger seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that theCity Council approves the Site Plan for an 8,000 square-foot, one-story
retail building, plans prepared by SEH dated 12/30/2009, with an 8% parking variance to
permit 58% of the parking between the front façade and the primary street for property
th
located at 19900 West 78 Street, subject to the following conditions:
1.Building Official
a.The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
c.Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings.
d.All parking areas must be provided with accessible parking spaces. As submitted, the
retail building must have a minimum of 2 accessible parking spaces, one of which
must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as
soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit.
2.Forester
a.This parcel is within the Emerald Ash Borer Quarantine area. All ash trees removed
on site must be disposed of at an MDA approved ash tree disposal site.
b.The Black Hills spruce proposed at the northwest corner of the building must be
replaced with a deciduous selection in order to avoid future sight line conflicts.
c.On the north property line, the applicant shall change two of the understory trees to
overstory selections.
d.On the east property line, the applicant is short over- and understory trees. Staff
recommends that the applicant meet minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings
on the east side.
e.A line of shrubs must be planted along the parking lot on the south property line. The
shrubs must have a minimum height of three feet at maturity. City approval of the
shrubs species and planting spacing is required before installation.
7
Planning Commission Meeting – February 2, 2010
3.Water Resources
a.The following Standard City Plates shall be included in the submittal set:
1)Plate No. 5300 – Silt Fence (wooden posts are not to be used)
2)Plate No. 5301 – Rock Construction Entrance
3)Plate No. 5302A – Catch Basin Sediment Trap
b.Sheet C1 of C5 calls out 8” PVC while sheet C5 of C5 indicates 8” PVC for the
standpipes and 6” for the remaining perforated PVC. This discrepancy must be
clarified. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual recommends an 8” draintile to reduce
the potential for freezeup.
c.No sock should be used around the under drain in the bio-retention areas.
d.This will primarily be a Filtration Facility with Partial Recharge as described in the
2005 Minnesota Stormwater Manual. As such, the filter fabric over the gravel bed
area but not extending to the side walls is adequate as shown. If insufficient
separation is discovered between the bottom of the facility and the ground water, the
fabric should be extended to the sidewalls as shown in Figure 12.BIO.4 of Chapter 12
in the 2005 Minnesota Stormwater Manual.
e.Rock specifications are required for the draintile bedding in the bio-retention area.
This rock must be clean, washed and may not include crushed limestone.
f.No soil mixture is specified for the bio-retention area. Sheet L200 calls out a soil
mixture for all areas to be planted with groundcover, perennials or annuals. This
mixture is not suitable for the bio-retention area. The mixture may include not less
than 40% sand by volume and may not incorporate any in situ soil materials.
g.Measures must be taken to address the drain tile and curb cut discharge points into the
bio-retention area to assure that they do not scour over time or fill up with debris.
h.The invert elevations of the drain-tiles where they enter the bio-filtration area must be
called out on the plans.
i.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies and comply with their conditions of approval.
j.The existing grades are not legible on the civil plans. These must be clarified.
k.The bio-retention area must be protected from heavy equipment traffic; this must be
shown on the grading and utility plan sheets.
l.The total disturbed area should be quantified and reported on the grading plan. If this
is equal to one acre or more an NPDES permit and SWPPP will be required.
m.The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Carver Soil & Water
Conservation District as specified in the letter to Robert Generous dated January 20,
2010.
4.Engineering
a.A cross-access and parking agreement must be executed and recorded.
b.The developer must provide a trucking route to the Engineering Department for
review and approval.
c.The grading plan must be changed so that the bio-retention basin will not be over the
existing trunk watermain and sanitary sewer easement area.
8
Planning Commission Meeting – February 2, 2010
d.The developer shall replace the trunk watermain and will be reimbursed for the cost
to replace the trunk watermain, install two gate valves, replace a fire hydrant and
produce engineering as-built drawings. The reimbursement will be based on the
actual cost to complete this work and shall not exceed $25,000.
e.The new watermain shall meet the minimum City requirements, including stainless
steel hardware on the valves and hydrant.
f.A snake pit for the tracer wire shall be installed at each end.
g.The sanitary sewer will be televised to determine its condition. The City will work
with the developer to include maintenance or repair work if needed.
h.The developer’s engineer must submit cross sections at the proposed utility crossings
for review and approval.
i.All civil sheets must be signed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
5.General
a.In locations where the sidewalk crosses the curb, a pedestrian ramp shall be provided.
b.The applicant shall revise the light plan to meet the requirement for ½ foot-candle
illumination at the property line. A revised photometric plan shall be submitted with
the building permit to verify compliance with City Code.
c. All signage shall comply with City Code and requires a separate sign permit
application.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Laufenburger noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 19, 2010 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS.
Laufenburger: Madam Chair, regarding one of the items in the packet was the Rotary Club.
Larson: Yes.
Laufenburger: Is that?
Aanenson: If you would like to do it amongst yourself. Do a paper ballot and if you want to at
the end of the meeting if you guys just want to take a minute and discuss that.
Laufenburger: Is there a suggestion out of the city planning department at all?
Aanenson: Just maybe the one that you submitted last time. You could resubmit. So you can
talk among.
Larson: Do we get one? We only get one?
9