PC 2010 09 21
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
The Planning Commission met with the City Attorney in a work session prior to the regular
meeting to discuss the Supreme Court Ruling on Variances and Zoning District Uses. Denny
Laufenburger was elected as Chairman and Andrew Aller as Vice Chairman.
Chairman Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Denny Laufenburger, Andrew Aller, Kathleen Thomas, Kevin
Ellsworth, and Tom Doll
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director and Bob Generous,
Senior Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
GEDNEY EXPANSION: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 39,000
SQUARE-FOOT WAREHOUSE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL
OFFICE PARK (IOP) LOCATED AT 2100 STOUGHTON AVENUE, PLANNING CASE
2010-11.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Laufenburger: Before we ask the applicant to step up, are there any questions for staff? Kevin?
Ellsworth: Bob, do you happen to have a picture that shows where the city boundaries are?
Generous: Yes. This one shows the red outline is the city boundary. So it’s in Stoughton
Avenue, Audubon and then that’s that small strip of land between County Road 61 on the north
side of the site.
Ellsworth: Another question regarding the storm water treatment. Is it typical at this point in the
stage of the applicant process that that design’s not done?
Generous: They show a design that works except for the model doesn’t and so we believe that it
will work and it may require that they put in some state wear systems or something in that swale
system. We just need them to provide us with those calculations.
Ellsworth: So when does that fit into the process? To make sure that that happens.
Generous: Well to get it finalized, before we’ll issue the building permit it would need to be
done.
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
Ellsworth: Okay.
Aanenson: Maybe I can address that too. And typically when you do a subdivision we do a
preliminary so it goes to Planning Commission and City Council with a list of conditions of
things that they would need to address before we’d final. In this circumstance we would still do
a site plan agreement that we would initiate but I think it’s prudent you know before it goes to
City Council that we have a little bit more definitive information because there’s not that second
look so it would certainly be a condition that that would have to be demonstrated but I think
having it more clearly demonstrated at time of council would be a good idea.
Ellsworth: Alright, thank you. That’s all.
Laufenburger: Okay, Kathleen.
Thomas: Not at this moment.
Laufenburger: How about Tom?
Doll: No.
Laufenburger: Andrew?
Aller: I’m just in line here with the water treatment. The condition that we’re going to place on
that, is that they meet the requirements in the code and not necessarily that we adopt this
particular mode of meeting that?
Generous: Well if you, they believe that swale system will work. We just need to have the
calculations to confirm that.
Aller: Okay, but the conditions are going to be that we have a water system that works. Not
necessarily that it’s a swale system.
Generous: Right.
Aller: Okay.
Generous: But we believe that’s what they do.
Aanenson: So there’s a broader condition, correct.
Laufenburger: Anything else?
Aller: Nothing, thanks.
Laufenburger: So in fact Bob as I read this there are a number of things that are not correct right
now but if we approve this it means that our staff will make sure that various things, whether it
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
be landscaping, trees or any parking stalls, all of those are met and agreed to by the developer. Is
that correct?
Generous: That’s correct.
Doll: I did have one question.
Laufenburger: Go ahead Tom.
Doll: Now is the number of parking stalls, is that code? Is that ordinance per square footage of
the building?
Generous: It’s several things. Because it’s three different uses, warehouse, manufacturing and
office, we can calculate for the office portion and then for the warehouse portion and then the
manufacturing is based on the largest shift. And so you add them all together and you meet
that…
Doll: Because I was seeing that they you know somebody looked at an area and only counted 73
cars in the parking lot and you’re kind of busting them on 2 parking stalls which…
Aanenson: No, and in that circumstance if I may Mr. Chair, we do allow proof of parking.
Sometimes we have uses that are an anomaly and that may never use those so we’ve actually
done projects where we say well we’ll, if you can show us on site you can put another 15 on
there, we won’t make you put those in now. If it becomes a problem then we’d make you do it
but in this circumstance, like Bob said, we used a different calculations and then that’s part of
when we do the final inspections for the building permit to get occupancy that we would check
to make sure those things are in place.
Doll: Okay.
Laufenburger: Okay. Bob, there’s just one specific question. Top of page 7, 7 of 10 and I’m
quoting from your report. Staff recommends that the applicant verify with the utility company,
I’m assuming the utility company is the people who have the substation, is that correct?
Generous: Or Xcel. We’re not sure if they have an agreement with Xcel I believe.
Laufenburger: So staff recommends that the applicant verify the utility company that the
proposed addition is acceptable, specifically if the addition encroaches on the transmission
easement. If we approve this but the utility company says it’s not acceptable, what’s the
resolution?
Generous: They’ll have to work it out with the utility company.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Generous: The balance of the building is already under that.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
Doll: Yep. There’s a large easement going across the building as it sits.
Generous: This is different.
Laufenburger: Alrighty. There being no further questions of staff, do we have an applicant
present tonight or a developer that would like to speak? I would ask that you step to the podium
and state your name and address.
Phil Johnson: I’m Phil Johnson, the architect on this project. The owner of the property called
me about 10 to and he said he is on his way. Expecting to be here about 10 after.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Phil Johnson: He was in St. Boni. I don’t know how long it takes from St. Boni to get here but I
expect him any minute.
Laufenburger: Well let’s hope he obeys the speed limits.
Phil Johnson: Other than I can sure answer or try to answer any questions that you have. He
was talking about the utility easement. I made contact with Xcel. They talked as if, and they
presented me papers as if that was their easement that went over the top of the building. The
property owner has seen that and the conditions regarding it and he has signed on that paper for
the purposes of Xcel. I don’t know if there’s another utility that also owns a piece of that. The
actual portion that’s in, within this easement is a 10 by 10 triangle in the piece and that is well
away from any wires that are overhead. The wires being within the center 60 feet of 125 foot
wide, plus or minus easement. I’m not sure what the easement is. As far as parking my number
was, my count of numbers was 2 off from what was determined. I think I can find 2 more spots.
I think I presented in my report that there’s about, from the manager of the plant or whatever,
from his comments, there’s about, between 70, 70 and 80 cars that are parked regularly on the
property. That all fits within the, what should I call it? The southwest L of the building area.
And in fact I looked at a aerial photo from sometime, I believe it was 2006 and counted up about
70 or 75 cars and it looked it was 9:00 or 10:00 in the morning on that. In addition to that there’s
a lot of paved area that is not being utilized at all for anything but you know miscellaneous
traffic right now that could be striped and provide for parking places that are asked for. Are
there any other questions?
Laufenburger: Any questions of Mr. Johnson? I just have a couple. Pickle business must be
good.
Phil Johnson: It’s interesting. I found out very little about it but.
Laufenburger: But I mean that they want the expansion. Do you have any experience or any
reports on how storm water travels away from the building at the present time?
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
Phil Johnson: We’ve retained a civil engineer that has experience in the storm water and the site
circulation and everything else. From soil tests that we’ve gotten he has proposed this, at my
request actually, that some storm water detention facility right around the east end of the piece of
property.
Laufenburger: It’d be kind of the north east of the proposed expansion, right?
Phil Johnson: Yes.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Phil Johnson: And he proposed the trench to dispense of the water and he called me and said
you know I’ve done this at your request but the water’s not going to run 100 feet before it’s
gone.
Laufenburger: It’s going to dissipate in the.
Ellsworth: I see sandy soils in the other picture…
Phil Johnson: He has recommended to me that we dissipate this water out on side street from the
building downspouts. Forget the ditch for right now. If there’s further development on the
property things could be handled differently. Additionally more things. Right now we’re
covering, I don’t remember the percentage. 40% of the property in hard surface. As that
increases there’ll be a need possibly for more detention, retention and everything else. The
present use is, this water isn’t going to get anyplace. It’s going to go into this ditch and if it
travels at all it might get 100 feet.
Laufenburger: While I respect his experience on that it’s important that we comply with the
recommendations of the staff to ensure that the calculations are made properly.
Phil Johnson: I don’t know for sure what these are but he did provide 6 pages of this kind of
graphs. I think I sent them over.
Generous: They have that.
Phil Johnson: And if they are what you’re talking about is models and so on he has a 24 hour
one year event on this. 24 hour 10 year event and so on for rainfalls of 4 inches and so on on
that. I can’t read them. Maybe one of you can so.
Laufenburger: This is why we rely on our staff to do these things. Kate, you were going to say
something.
Aanenson: No. Well I’ll just say, and I think this is something that we need to reconcile before.
I think part of the issue here is that, it was built in, what’s being handled for, is the pickle vat as
you go down towards the PCA. There’s not a lot of on site storage so we’re not penalizing them
and saying you have to go back and rectify that but there is, I mean if you have a heavy rain
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
event, you have a lot of hard surface. Plus you’re adding additional hard surface so some of the
treatment plans are for the processing part of it so there’s also the storm water calculations so I
think we’re just, it’s my understanding, the Water Resources Coordinator just wanted to make
sure, as did Chaska. This was also their issue. If any water going off, it’s volume and rate,
would affect their property and they’ve got the mobile home park on the other side of Stoughton
too so we just want to make sure that that’s managed as best we could with the expansion and
again we’re not trying to go back and remedy the other so we’ll work between now and City
Council to make sure that we’ve got a clear understanding of that.
Laufenburger: Just be sure the processing water is handled through that, those areas that are
down by the, down in the lower area.
Aanenson: Right, and that’s what I’m saying. That’s processing but right now on site there is no
storm water collection on site so when you’re adding more hard cover we’re saying at some
point, and that’s what Chaska’s issue is. It’s got to go somewhere and it, the rate increases with
more hard cover so it’s going off the site faster. And yes there is sand there but we need to just
make sure it’s working properly.
Laufenburger: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Johnson? Alright, thank you very much.
Phil Johnson: Thank you.
Laufenburger: Do we have any other, anybody else from the public that would like to speak at
this time? Or any other applicant or developer that would like to speak? Okay, there being not
then at this time I will open the public, open for public hearing. For public input on this item.
There being no public input I will close the public hearing and commissioners, comments.
Andrew, how about you?
Aller: I’m just concerned that we do meet the requirements for the runoff based on the increased
hard surface because my understanding is the City of Chaska, as well as other locations
downstream would be looking to us if there’s a problem with our watershed district as a result of
runoff and so I just want to make sure that we’re taking particular care for those resources. And
then the other thing that I think is in the conditions that I like to see would be the additional
landscaping requirements. That they’re met so that we don’t have an eyesore. I think the
building looks good. I think that the way it’s situated out there now with a tree frontage is good
and I’d like to see that continue on the extension as well.
Laufenburger: Bob, can you speak to both of those? Are you confident that you, the staff have
identified and know what needs to be done to ensure that both the water and the landscaping are
handled properly?
Generous: Yes. Short answer, yes. Terry told me that he, the problem is the model says that
there’s going to be some discharge and then the engineer’s saying water won’t make it and he
just wants to get a model that shows what’s going to happen with it. But yes, we think even the
idea of sheet flowing it across the property would work but we just need him to do the
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
calculations. And for the landscaping, yes as part of the, the approval’s in place. We checked it
with the building permit to make sure that the landscape plan complies with what’s approved.
Laufenburger: Okay. Alright, thank you. Tom, any comment?
Doll: Expand away.
Laufenburger: More pickles huh.
Doll: It’s a Minnesota pickle.
Laufenburger: Minnesota pickle, exactly. Exactly. Pickle on a stick at the State Fair. Kathleen.
Thomas: I’m fine with it, thank you.
Laufenburger: Okay. Kevin, how about you?
Aller: Mr. Chair my concerns with the water were addressed quite well. All that came up in my
review, thank you.
Laufenburger: Alright. Good job staff. Thank you Mr. Johnson for appearing as well and I
think it looks very clear. Yes, there are some things that need to be done but I’m confident that
the approval of this would ensure that those things happen. Would entertain a motion at this
time.
Aller: Mr. Chairman, I’d move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council approve the site plan for a 39,000 square footage, one story warehouse expansion,
plans prepared by Phillip D. Johnson dated May 12, 2010, subject to the conditions in the staff
report and the adoption of Findings of Fact and Recommendations therein.
Laufenburger: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?
Doll: Second.
Aller moved, Doll seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the proposed 39,000 square-foot, one-story warehouse expansion and
adoption of the attached findings of fact and recommendation subject to the following
conditions:
Fire Marshal:
1.The applicant shall provide information of the product commodity per 2007 Minnesota Fire
Code Section 2303 and the proposed storage height in order to determine if fire apparatus
access is required to parts of the building. If apparatus access is required but not practical
due to topography, power lines, railways or similar conditions, the fire code will accept
additional fire protection in lieu of apparatus access. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
additional information.
City of Chaska:
2.A Metropolitan Council SAC determination will still be required and Chaska shall be
reimbursed at a rate of $1,157 per SAC unit for providing trunk service to the building
expansion.
Building Official:
1.The entire facility must have an automatic fire extinguishing system for consideration as an
“unlimited” size building (Ref. 2006 IBC Sec. 507); if any portion of the facility is not
sprinkled, fire-wall separations may be required.
2.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
3.Compliance with Minnesota Accessibility Code (MSBC 1341) is required.
4.The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
5.A demolition permit is required for building removals that take place before the building
permit for the addition is issued.
Environmental Resource Specialist:
1.The applicant shall increase the number of overstory trees by four. The applicant shall
submit a revised landscape plan for City review and approval prior to issuance of a building
permit.
2.The blue spruce and Redbud species shall be replaced from the City’s approved list of
landscape material.
3.All ornamental trees must be at least one inch in diameter.
Planner:
1.Mechanical equipment shall be screened if any is installed. No wooden fences shall be used
on the roof for screening.
2.The developer shall show that 213 parking stalls can be accommodated on site.
3.The developer should investigate the use of clerestory windows around the building
expansion.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
4.The expansion should investigate the use of columns to help break up the building elevations
at approximately 40-foot intervals.
5.The addition encroaches into the electric transmission easement. Staff recommends that the
applicant verify with the utility company that the proposed addition is acceptable.
6.There are wooden bollards around the existing electrical tower. Any bollards damaged or
removed with construction must be replaced.
7.Prior to the development of the vacant property north of the existing building, the City will have
to undertake a feasibility study to determine the cost effectiveness of the extension of utilities to
the property.
Water Resource Coordinator:
1.The developer must provide rate control for an area equal to the addition.
2.The developer must provide water quality treatment for the same area.
3.The developer must comply with any requirements for discharging to an Outstanding
Resource Value water. This can be accomplished through infiltration and discharge through
non-structural BMPs at a relatively low cost.
4.The developer will need to apply for and receive an NPDES Small Site Construction permit
in the event that one acre or more of disturbance results on the entire site.
5.The developer must provide a detailed grading and erosion control plan compliant with City
Code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Laufenburger: Just as a comment, this, Kate can you tell me when this item will come up for
action on the City Council?
th
Aanenson: October 11.
th
Laufenburger: Anybody present may want to follow this action on October 11 at the City
Council.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING CONCERNING
TEMPORARY OUTDOOR SALES.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Laufenburger: Does anybody have any questions of staff first of all? Kevin?
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
Ellsworth: And maybe it’s not germane to the changes that were made. I agree with the changes
but I was looking on page 3 under item 5. Procedure. And it just talks about the Community
Development Director shall review the application. I wonder is there an appeals process if the
applicant disagrees with the conclusion?
Aanenson: Yes. The City Code states anybody aggrieved of administrator officer of the City
Code has the right to appeal, and the place that they would appeal the interpretation would be the
Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustments so.
Ellsworth: So that’s a generic statement somewhere within the code.
Aanenson: Yep, if you go in the first couple chapters that’s where it talks about it so you are
always the person that would make that interpretation of a disagreement
Ellsworth: Okay, thank you.
Laufenburger: Kathleen, any questions?
Thomas: No. I think it’s encompasses what we needed to do and allow for you know those nicer
sales of things for seasonal sales and allow for better access for us to be able to track them under
things so I feel like it’s well put together and very helpful. Thank you.
Laufenburger: Tom?
Doll: I liked it as well. I’m just curious, events. Do they need a permit for an event or?
Aanenson: Yes. You know the reason we like to know who’s in town, and sometimes we like
the sheriff’s office to know if there needs to be any policing or we also ask that they, if they have
the underlying property has permission. For example we had an employee appreciation that used
the movie theaters but we also wanted to make sure that they were advised, because we’re under
construction in the back, the circulation. How they’re monitoring that and then we want a
contact name. If there’s a problem, then we have a contact name. And sometimes they do need
a fire inspection or if there’s any electrical or something like that they might need a building
inspector. If they’re running, heating things or that sort of thing. Just like when we had the
carnival up here, we do inspect those to make sure that everything is meeting code so again to
get a contact name and usually we can process those pretty quickly through the city because we
have the repeat ones that kind of go in the same places but it’s those special events that we want
to make sure that we kind of know who’s in town and who the contact person is if there was a
problem.
Laufenburger: Anything else?
Doll: Nope.
Laufenburger: Andrew, how about you?
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
Aller: My concerns have been answered, thank you.
Laufenburger: I do have just a question. One of the, let me find the exact language. It’s on page
1. Under Purpose. a(i). Sales activities do not create safety hazards by occupying required
parking spaces. So let me just choose a reference. When Target puts in their garden center or
when Byerly’s puts in their garden center, are they not using required parking spaces?
Aanenson: That’s a very good question and you know their peak time is the holidays so between
Thanksgiving and Christmas, that’s when they’re maximizing and then you also have the snow
load that takes up some of their spaces so when we look at this, that’s another reason why they
come in. If it’s somebody that wants to go there, we make sure they have the underlying property
owner has to sign off on the permit. And that would be for any special activity. And then also
we look at to make sure that there’s adequate safety. That they’re not in a place where someone
would not pay attention and drive into it so those are the sort of things. So the ones that have
been permitted for a number of years, we know those are good places but if it’s a new one we
always want to look at that. Again that’s something where maybe engineering might even want
to look at just to make sure it’s in a good spot. And then we also, we try to put them into places
where there’s a controlled curb stop. Before the downtown was built out we had a lot of corn
stands and they would just kind of put them, I’m sure you’ve seen them in neighboring
communities where they’re on unimproved roads and people just kind of pull in and sometimes
they’re a safety problem because you’ve got 100 feet of uncontrolled access points and people
are kind of pulling in and out and it’s, so we think for safety that there’s a controlled access in
and out and that’s where we try to locate them so it’s really, that’s what that’s trying to say right
there and hopefully.
Laufenburger: I have another question. If you go to page 5 under temporary outdoor display.
Maybe you can clarify this for me. Under item number 5, which is Roman Numeral v, maximum
display height shall be 5 feet. That seems limiting to me. Display activities.
Aanenson: I’m not sure I have a good, rational basis for that one. This ordinance has been in
place, this was one of the first ordinances I wrote when I came here so it’s probably 17-18 years
old and I’m not sure the rational basis behind that. If it’s, it’s a good question.
Laufenburger: I just, if we’re going to, go ahead.
Aller: My thought Denny when I read it, I looked at that was we went from 5 to 6 feet to 5 feet
so that drew my attention to it and I consider it a safety factor. You could have people crouching
or hiding behind these and if they should be removed at night so that there’s a visibility there to
the buildings, especially if you’ve got somebody coming in and there’s a major tenant and
you’ve got somebody…
Aanenson: Right and I want to talk about the temporary buildings on that and I think that’s kind
of circling back to it. Now this is what recalling to me. The new firework law does allow
fireworks if they, to go into a temporary, they can go on a site if somebody lets them. Most of
the sales that we have in town now go into where there’s a fire rated building but it used to be
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
that they would try to go so I believe that that was the intent for some of that when you have a
proposed building that you could see into the building. See what’s going on but that would be
something too that, for a temporary building, that you would have something like that for a
fireworks stand because those are allowed. Again we haven’t had one go outside for quite a
while. We do get requests. The Fire Marshal here, we do try to encourage them go into a fire
rated building and there’s also other control points there. Safety. Theft. Those kind of things.
Laufenburger: I’m wondering if.
Aanenson: Maybe it needs to be more clear.
Laufenburger: Either more clear or open for interpretation by the Planning Director. Maximum
display height shall be, I don’t know, maybe you could say 8 feet is reasonable or just, I’m
thinking of all of those, all of those displays that I’ve seen. Even I’m thinking of the Byerly’s
display and do they, I think they have some things that go higher than 5 feet.
Aanenson: Well they do have the greenhouse but there’s open door, yeah. There is an open door
in there so you’re right. That is higher than 5 feet so I think we need to clarify that and if it’s
okay with you then I would kind of research that. Try to find out what the nexus was to the
height of the building and how they came about.
Laufenburger: I don’t want this to be cumbersome for either you or for people, for others but if
somebody comes along and says well wait a minute, why can’t I do something bigger than 5
feet? Or taller than 5 feet.
Aller: I’m just wondering is there a record somewhere where this height requirement has been
set and we know which one is the highest one we’ve approved before?
Aanenson: No. And I’m not sure that there’s a rational basis for even having that in there. You
know except for, you’re right. If there’s certain things that you want to see in, but there are
things over 5 feet.
Ellsworth: You know if you just exclude it in the sentence it says, in addition to other applicable
building and safety code requirements determined by the Planning Director. It almost gives what
Denny was looking for is discretion to the Planning Director so you can.
Aller: Strike v and make vi v.
Aanenson: Right. Now again this is talking about the display so I’m assuming that this may be
some signage or something like that but I agree with you if we struck it out, it probably wouldn’t.
Laufenburger: If we still have the test of reasonableness which lies in your hands.
Aanenson: Correct. Right. Correct. Which would be the building safety issue, correct.
Laufenburger: Okay. That is, we would mark that as.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission - September 21, 2010
Aanenson: Strike through.
Laufenburger: Strike through on 7(c)(v). Any other questions or comments? Okay.
Chairman Laufenburger opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was
closed.
Laufenburger: Can I get a motion?
Aller: I’ll move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve an amendment to Chapter 20 in the Chanhassen City Code pertaining to temporary
outdoor sales. And would I make reference to the change?
Aanenson: The strike out, yeah.
Aller: And the strike out on item 7(c)(v).
Laufenburger: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Thomas: I second that.
Aller moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code
pertaining to Temporary Outdoor Sales amended to delete section 7(c)(v). All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Aller noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 17, 2010 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS.
None.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE.
None.
Aller moved, Ellsworth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
13