Loading...
PC Minutes 04-20-10 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2010 Chairwoman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Larson, Tom Doll, Denny Laufenburger, Kathleen Thomas, Kevin Ellsworth, Andrew Aller and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Sharmeen Al- Jaff, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Bill Griffith 7900 Xerxes Avenue, Bloomington 55431 Juon Young 5416 Welcome Avenue, Crystal 55429 Candyce F. & Mark Brunsberg 7150 Utica Lane, Chanhassen Jill Antonich 7481 Canyon Curve, Chanhassen Barbara Klick 7116 Utica Lane, Chanhassen PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO AMEND THE FOLLOWING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: ECKANKAR/VILLAGES ON THE PONDS/BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER/ CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK/ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK/ CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, PLANNING CASE 10-03. Al-Jaff: Thank you Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Before you are the final six Planned Unit Development amendments. Brief background on this item. On December st 1 of 2009 staff presented an issue paper to the Planning Commission explaining the need to amend various ordinances governing Planned Unit Developments. Staff is proposing to reference the City Code in the event the PUD is silent on an issue. For example, the City Code has been amended to allow LED lights in addition to high pressure sodium lights. If the PUD ordinance references the City Code then these developments will be permitted to use LED lights and stay current with the City Code. The first 4 PUD’s are guided office industrial which permits light industrial, office uses. Staff is recommending that the Planned Unit Development agreement be amended to reference the Industrial Office Park district. And I’ll go through the different Planned Unit Developments. The first one is Arboretum Business Park. It is located at the southeast intersection of Highway 5 and 41. As I mentioned staff is amending, recommending the Planned Unit Development agreement be amended to reference the IOP district, Industrial Office Park district. Staff is also recommending amending the section pertaining to lighting to allow this site to utilize lamps that are consistent with the City Code. Bluff Creek Corporate Center located south of Highway 5 and north of Coulter Boulevard. Staff is recommending the Planned Unit Development be amended to reference the Industrial Office Park district as well as amending the section pertaining to lights to allow the site to utilize lamps that are consistent with the City Code. Chanhassen West Business Park is located at the northwest intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. Staff is recommending the Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 20, 2010 Planned Unit Development be amended to reference the Industrial Office Park district. Staff is also recommending amending the section pertaining to lighting to allow this site to utilize lamps that are consistent with the City Code. Chanhassen Business Center is located west of Audubon Road and north of Lyman Boulevard. This Planned Unit Development was amended to reference the Industrial Office Park. However the section that pertains to lighting limits it to high pressure sodium lights only. Staff is recommending allowing it to utilize LED. The final two sites are Villages on the Ponds and Eckankar Religious Campus. Villages on the Ponds is located at the southeast intersection of Highway 5 and 101. It is guided mixed use consisting of commercial, institutional office and residential uses. Staff is recommending that the Planned Unit Development agreement be amended to reference the Central Business District. And the lighting section be amended to include LED lights. Final site is Eckankar Religious Campus th which is located at the northwest intersection of West 78 Street and Powers Boulevard. It is guided public/semi-public. To facilitate a religious campus staff is recommending that the Planned Unit Development agreement be amended to reference the Office and Institutional District. Lighting in this Planned Unit Development was not restricted to high pressure sodium. As such this section of the Planned Unit Development does not need to be amended. It is in compliance with the City Code. It will be permitted to use the LED lights. Staff is recommending approval of the amendments and adoption of the Findings of Facts and I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Larson: Okay. Why don’t we start with Mark. Aanenson: Could I just make one other comment? There was an attachment on the Eckankar one so I wanted to make sure that that was clear. I’m not sure Sharmeen mentioned that. There was an attachment that they had some issues with some of our recommendations so they will certainly make that presentation. I’ll let the applicant’s attorneys address those but they, we did make that as an attachment so I just, so I’ll let them go through that for their presentation but I just want to make sure for the record that they had some differences of opinion from the staff. Larson: Okay. Alright. Andrew, have you got any questions? Aller: Not right now, thank you. Larson: Okay. Ellsworth: No Madam Chair. Thomas: Not at the moment, nope. Larson: Denny. Laufenburger: I do. Sharmeen could you just refresh my memory please. We make reference to LED lights but don’t we also define somewhere exactly specifications on LED light? How many? You know how bright or directional things like that. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 20, 2010 Al-Jaff: Correct. They still need to be consistent with City Code. For instance they cannot exceed half a foot candle at a property line. There still cannot be any glare from these light fixtures so none of that has changed. It’s just permitting the individual Planned Unit Developments to utilize that light bulb. Currently the majority of those Planned Unit Developments are restricted to high pressure sodium only. Laufenburger: Right. Al-Jaff: It spells it out. Laufenburger: Okay. And regarding the Eckankar Religious Campus, do you know what lights are used there at this time? Al-Jaff: No I don’t. However they are not restricted to LED lights. Or to high pressure sodium lights. Laufenburger: Okay. Al-Jaff: It’s open as far as what type of light bulb they may use. Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. That’s all I had. Larson: Tom. Doll: I guess why do we restrict yourself to saying LED lights and low sodium. Why don’t we just make a blanket statement that says… That it goes with the ordinance. Al-Jaff: Correct. Then it would need to go, we could definitely do that. We could go into all of the Planned Unit Developments and say you have to be consistent with the City Code. There are some that allow specific types of light that is not specified in the City Code. Doll: Right. Al-Jaff: That’s the reason why I added the word LED. Doll: It seems like it’d be easier in the future if technology changes that you were able to have this all encompassing. Al-Jaff: You are correct. There are some that reference halogen lights so there are different types of PUD’s that have different type of light fixtures permitted in them. Doll: Okay. Larson: Okay and I haven’t got anything so I guess would you gentlemen like to step up to address. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 20, 2010 Bill Griffith: Thank you Planning Commission members. Appreciate the time to address with you this evening and first of all we don’t, we don’t have any problem with the staff recommendations. I want to be clear about that. We think this is a helpful clarification to include regulations that are already allowed by your City Code to make sure that. Larson: Did you say your name? Bill Griffith: I’m sorry. I’ve done this so many times you’d think I’d know how to do that by now. Just jumped right in. My name is Bill Griffith. I’m representing the Eckankar Religious Campus this evening and actually have represented the campus over a number of years so when the PUD was adopted I worked on that project so thank you for reminding me to basically sign in as it were. So to start out, first of all we don’t have any objection to what staff is proposing. We think this is a helpful clarification to tie back to the City Code regulations and so we support that. What we had said when we met with staff to find out what the purpose of the amendment was, is since they were clarifying the various Planned Unit Developments that you see on the screen and others that have gone before you, since they were clarifying that certain things were allowed such as LED lights, we added essentially two comments and they’re at the back of your packet highlighted in black lining I think on page 6 of the additional handout. It’s the PUD dated September 11, 2000 with black lining. I think it’s at the end of the packet. So if you look on page 6 what we have suggested, since the City is going through a hearing process. Larson: Hold on a second. I’m not finding it. Aanenson: It’s the last attachment. Larson: Well no I have the attachment but I’m not seeing what. Aanenson: It’s actually probably page 7. Were you talking about finding it? Oh sorry. Larson: Are we talking bold under the lighting? Bill Griffith: Did the highlighting come through? Aanenson: Yep, it’s on those. Bill Griffith: Great. So you see at the top of the page, on page 6 there’s bolded in that first paragraph. The development may use electronic message center signs as allowed under City Code. We had a discussion with staff and it’s our understanding that that isn’t an allowed use so we were clarifying that it could be allowed within this Planned Unit Development. That was one comment we made. That we thought would be helpful to the, both the visitors to the campus and also the regular members. And then you see the reference to LED lighting. I think staff has clarified that there isn’t that restriction so that could either stay or go. I think it’s pretty clear that LED lighting would be allowed on a campus. And then the final comment is just below it. Lighting in compliance with the City Code may be used to illuminate religious architectural 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 20, 2010 features. You could probably just strike the word religious. I think what we’re really talking about is architectural features. We already have lighting that highlights some of the architectural features on the building closest to Highway 5 so we’d just like to be able to use that throughout the campus. I think that’s a pretty common, common theme on building exteriors to highlight architectural features and so that’s a clarification we’re asking for there. I don’t think in our discussions with staff that any of those things were not allowed and so we’re simply clarifying that they could be allowed within this Planned Unit Development. So those are my comments. Larson: Okay, thank you. Bill Griffith: Thank you. Larson: And now I will go ahead and open this up for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who’d like to comment or speak to the issue? Please step up to the podium. Barbara Klick: Hello. Larson: Hi. Barbara Klick: My name is Barbara Klick at 716 Utica Lane in Chanhassen and I’m here really because I received a postcard and so I have a question around electronic message sign… What street or what entrance could that be on? Bill Griffith: Maybe I’ll wait til… Larson: You can address me and then I’ll. Barbara Klick: Okay. Do you know where it is? And I’m just speaking, I was on the Public Safety Commission when Eckankar came into the city and so I look at the, both sides on Lake Ann and on Powers Boulevard and I see that as you know maybe something where people divert their attention and look and so I’m just wondering on a public safety issue. Aanenson: Madam Chair maybe I could address that issue. At this time all we’re doing is amending the ordinance. To the best of our knowledge they have not told us they’re going forward with electronic message sign. This is just amending that would permit it. We have that on Chapel Hill and a few other. We just put our own sign here on the corner of this intersection so to my knowledge it’s providing them an option. They haven’t come forward to us and say that they’re going to do one so. Barbara Klick: And the architectural lighting, is that something that is within their zoning rights with the buildings that are there? And my question is, again when I was in the Public Safety Commission there was at that time one building and now there’s multiple buildings and because there’s adjacent property I’m just interested about the light and you know if it’s on all night long, etc. If there’s plans for more. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 20, 2010 Aanenson: Madam Chair I can address that issue too. We do monitor uplighting. As a matter of fact the church that just went in on Highway 5, they tried to light the cross. That isn’t allowed. There is uplighting for architectural accents. The only one we’ve given a variance to on lighting is actually in the core of downtown for the movie theater. They have lighting and kind of a cupola up on the top but we do have architectural lighting but it has to be screened again so the spillover, so it doesn’t go into the night. The only other one, I take that back, that we did look at was the new high school. They do have some lighting that goes onto the new school for architectural embellishment for that too and they try to have that cut off after activities but if there’s a play going on or a band concert they want that opportunity too so those things we do regulate and I believe that’s how they state it in the code, that it would follow City Code because we do regulate those things. Barbara Klick: Great. Larson: Does that answer your questions? Barbara Klick: (Yes). Larson: Very good, thank you. Is there anybody else? Seeing that nobody else is stepping up I will close the public hearing. Undestad: No more comments. Looks good to me. Larson: Looks good. Aller: I guess my only question is maybe at this point in time we should leave out the proposed amendment on number 5 for lighting in compliance with the City Code to illuminate their religious architectural features since all their lighting is presumably going to be in line with the City Code. Maybe we don’t need to make that change at all. Larson: Were these changes or were these just highlights? Aanenson: Those were their recommended changes in difference from the staff’s recommendation and that’s why we put it as an attachment so you’d have that ahead of time to see the difference. So that was one additional clarification that the applicant wanted to see. Larson: Well would we want to do that as a, well if we did a recommendation Kate on this, the changes that they recommended or are mentioning in here, is that something that we would have to amend or. Aanenson: Well you can modify your motion as you see fit. You can leave the staff or modify as you see fit and that will be forwarded to the City Council and they’ll see the original motion and the changes. If you were to recommend something by… 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 20, 2010 Larson: So if we were to recommend what they’ve got in their packet, we’d have to mention that specifically, correct? Aanenson: Well typically what you’ve done in the past is if you feel strongly about something, you can make your motion and state a reason why you may want to, why you may want to support it or if you’re neutral on it you may want to state that City Council may want to do some additional investigation I think as Commissioner Aller stated it’s stated. It’s already into the code but they want to make sure that’s clarified so whatever your reason is, and you can state that for the record. Just so the City Council has a better understanding of what you were thinking on that. Larson: Okay. Alright, thanks. Ellsworth: No comments. Larson: Okay. Thomas: I was just looking at it, I was comparing the two for what they are recommending versus what’s already in the recommendation from the city and they don’t have the…plans for City Code must be used to illuminate religious or architectural features so it’s all there as it is so I’ll let somebody should probably propose whether we should or shouldn’t have it. Larson: When we do our motion. Denny. Laufenburger: May I ask a question of staff? Larson: Certainly. Laufenburger: Sharmeen? In reference to the document from Mr. Griffith from Larkin and Hoffman, under paragraph g.1. Mr. Griffith’s wording, the development may use electronic message center signs as allowed under the City Code. That sentence is not in the recommendation. In other words if we use staff recommendation. Is there anything that would prevent Eckankar from applying for electronic message center use? Al-Jaff: No. Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you. Next question. Under paragraph h. Lighting. 1. The wording Mr. Griffith from, is suggesting to add. The development may use LED lighting as allowed under the City Code. If that sentence was not in there would Eckankar be able to use LED lighting according to the City Code? Al-Jaff: Yes. Laufenburger: Thank you. And lastly under h. Lighting. Inserted section 5. Lighting in compliance with the City Code may be used to illuminate religious or even strike the word 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 20, 2010 religious. Architectural features. Is there anything that would prevent Eckankar from making application to light architectural features in the City Code? Al-Jaff: If it complies with City Code, then no. They may do so. Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you Sharmeen. Madam Chair from my perspective these 3 phrases, though it may provide clarity, are absolutely unnecessary. Larson: Okay. Tom. Doll: The only comment I have is that I think, I guess for the future saying that lighting would conform with ordinances you know as far as having LED and having to amend it every time something changes. Larson: Okay. Well you can suggest an amendment to that fact. I actually tend to agree with Denny in that if there’s nothing preventing these additional sentences, that they have recommended on here then why bother with it because I think it’s covered already so other than that I don’t really have anything else. Is anybody prepared to do a motion? Laufenburger: Madam Chair? Larson: Yes. Laufenburger: I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the following motions: 1.The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Business Park, amending Sections a and h.2 as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 2.The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Bluff Creek Corporate Center, amending Sections a and h.2 as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 3.The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Chanhassen West Business Park, amending Sections a and h.2 as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 4.The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Chanhassen Business Center, amending Sections h.2 as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 5.The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Eckankar Religious Campus, amending Sections a as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 6.The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Villages on the Ponds, amending Sections a and h.2 as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 20, 2010 Aller: Madam Chair I would second. Larson: Did we have any friendly amendments? Did you want to add that? Doll: I think it would be good to say something. Larson: How do you want to say it? Doll: Just that lighting conforms with the City Code in the future I guess. Larson: Okay. Doll: I’m not positive how you would say it but. Larson: Okay. Doll: It seems like instead of having to amend it all the time. Thomas: Potentially you might have to amend it. I don’t know, what do you think Kate? Aanenson: Well. Thomas: I mean it seems like something we can… Aanenson: Yeah, Commissioner Laufenburger made the motion so I think he’d have to accept the friendly amendment and that you might want to be more specific. If that’s your desire to say modify the lighting to be current with City Code. Larson: Is that okay with you? Laufenburger: I don’t think that’s necessary. Al-Jaff: As long as it’s in the future, because you’re going to create the situations that become legal non-conforming. Thomas: We don’t really want to do that. Aanenson: So, how about if you attach after you vote, if you wanted to attach something that we could look at when it goes to City Council. Larson: Okay. Al-Jaff: Yeah. Aanenson: Find that language, if there’s something we can do. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 20, 2010 Laufenburger: If you want to do that in the form of an advisory statement of the staff I think that’s… Aanenson: Yeah. I know there’s a motion on the floor but I think in the past what we’ve talked about is we don’t want to create any non-conforming situations which to date we haven’t so we can just clarify that between now and when it goes to City Council. Larson: Got it. Okay. And seconded. Alright. Laufenburger moved, Aller seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the following motions: 1.The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Business Park, amending Sections a and h.2 as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 2.The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Bluff Creek Corporate Center, amending Sections a and h.2 as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 3.The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Chanhassen West Business Park, amending Sections a and h.2 as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 4.The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Chanhassen Business Center, amending Sections h.2 as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 5.The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Eckankar Religious Campus, amending Sections a as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. 6.The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Villages on the Ponds, amending Sections a and h.2 as stated in the attached ordinance; and adopts the Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 6, 2010 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. None. Chairwoman Larson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 10