Loading...
PC 2011 04 19 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 2011 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Kathleen Thomas, Tom Doll, Mark Undestad, Kevin Ellsworth, Kim Tennyson and Lisa Hokkanen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; Angie Kairies, Planner; and Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC HEARING: TH 41 TRAIL & UNDERPASS PROJECT: REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PAVED 10-FOOT, OFF-ROAD, MULTI-USE TRAIL WITHIN TH 41 RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM LONGACRES DRIVE TO TH 7 AND WITHIN PORTIONS OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK. APPLICANT: CARVER COUNTY PARKS, PLANNING CASE 2011-03. PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Jeffrey W. Olson SRF Consulting Brent and Christen Carron Highover Drive Karen Weathers 2600 Arrowhead Lane Tom Anderson 7075 Highover Drive Dennis Clark 6651 Hazeltine Boulevard Spreiter: Good evening Chairman Aller and members of the Planning Commission. As stated an application has been submitted by Carver County Parks for a wetland alteration permit as part of the trail and underpass project. As a result of the project the applicant is proposing impacts to 5 wetlands totaling 15,028 square feet. Of these proposed., 5 proposed impacts staff believes that the applicant has followed the required procedures set forth in City Code for 3 of the impacts. However in regards to the remaining 2 impacts staff believes that further discussion is required as I will discuss in more detail throughout the presentation. To give some background on the project itself, the City Council approved a letter and resolution supporting the County’s application for federal transportation enhancement grant funds in July of 2007. This application was approved and the grant was awarded to the County. If completed the trail project will provide a significant pedestrian improvement within the community and is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The impacts are to be mitigated for using wetland banking credits. The project is to be located along the east side of 41 from Longacres Drive to Chaska Road. Pedestrian underpass is also to be constructed as part of the project just north of the intersection of Ches Mar Farm Road and 41. This will provide safe pedestrian and recreational access to Lake Minnewashta Park. Then from the proposed underpass the trail will continue through the Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 park terminating at the beach area. The proposed trail project is tentatively scheduled to begin Fall of 2011, however plans for the project have not been finalized at this time. This is a closer view of the proposed trail project in relation to the existing trail system. Existing trails are shown in orange with the proposed trail alignment shown in green. Retaining walls are denoted with a dash line. There are 2 proposed retaining walls. One to be installed on the west shore of Brenden Pond, as well as along a smaller wetland just to the south. Both were included as a means to minimize or avoid wetland impacts in these areas. The main objective of the project is to provide a link to the existing regional trail system and provide safe travel for both pedestrians and recreationalists between residential areas, business and commercial areas, schools as well as to Lake Minnewashta Park. You can see that the proposed trail provides a key link between northern and southern trail routes as well as linking the City’s trail system to the east with the parks trail system on the west side of 41 and within the park. Now for the proposed impact locations which are denoted in red. Wetland 20 is located on the shore of Lake Minnewashta near the beach area. Wetland 22 just south of the lake access. Wetland 8 and Wetland 2 are located on either side of the proposed underpass and Wetland 5 is located on the west shore of Brenden Pond. I mentioned earlier that 3 of the 5 wetland impacts did not require further discussion so I’m going to begin with those. Wetland 20, again along the shore of Lake Minnewashta. This impact is proposed at 5,663 square feet. Wetland 5 is located along the west shore of Brenden Pond. A retaining wall is to be constructed between the trail and the ordinary high water level for Brenden Pond in order to eliminate impacts below this elevation. The impact here is 3,049 square feet. Wetland 2 is located just east of the proposed impact, or I’m sorry the proposed underpass and the impact would total 218 square feet. City Code requires compliance with the Wetland Conservation, or I’m sorry. City Code requires that the applicant must comply with the Wetland Conservation Act. The Wetland Conservation Act requires that the applicant must first avoid impacts. Second minimize these impacts and finally replace the impacts. City staff and the Technical Evaluation Panel believe that the submitted WCA application should include further discussion on the impacts to Wetlands 8 and 22. Staff and the TEP have submitted comments to the applicant requesting either alternate to these impacts or an explanation as to why the impacts cannot be avoided. For the reasons discussed staff cannot recommend approval of impacts to Wetlands 8 and 22 based on the information that we have at this time. However a condition of approval allows for these additional impacts provided the applicant complies with the WCA process and either avoids these impacts or the arguments that are presented have, prove adequate to the satisfaction of the TEP. Since the time of the staff report the applicant has submitted a memorandum. This will serve as a supplement to the application in response to these comments. City staff and the TEP are actively reviewing the response at this time. I have provided a copy of the memorandum as well as the amended condition number 3 which reflect these changes. The wetland impacts in question. The first is Wetland 8 located just west of the proposed underpass. You can see that the current alignment bisects the wetland. It is agreed by both the applicant and the staff that this will likely result in secondary impacts. The applicant has increased the proposed impacts to include the entire wetland area as reflected in the memo provided bringing the impact amount to 5,662 square feet. Staff still believes an alternate alignment should be discussed under the WCA requirements as well as under the requirements of the City’s wetland alteration permit process. Wetland 22 is located just south of the boat launch. It’s a perch flow through wetland. The wetland receives hydrology through ground water which then flows to Wetland 11 below. Staff believes that this may cause additional downstream impacts to Wetland 11 and a boardwalk or realignment option 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 should be presented in the WCA application. The proposed impact here is 436 square feet. In conclusion I would like to point out that the applicant has provided full cooperation throughout the application process and staff is confident that the applicant will make every effort to minimize impacts wherever possible, as well as comply with the application requirement. Thus staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. The motion can be found on page 13. This concludes my presentation. At this time I would also like to respectfully reiterate to residents that may be in attendance for the public hearing that the hearing tonight is only for the wetland alteration permit. If there are questions on the trail project in general, those could be directed towards Carver County Parks or the representative Jeff Olson who is here tonight and I’ve included the contact information listed here for the Carver County Parks Director as well as their website. Thank you and I would be happy to take any questions at this time. Aller: Thank you. Any questions from any commissioners at this point? Ellsworth: Yes Andrew. More on process just because I don’t understand the whole process. Spreiter: Sure. Ellsworth: Four questions I guess. And maybe I can just read them off. The role of the Water Resources Coordinator. In the beginning it talks about and authorizes the Water Resources Coordinator to sign a joint notification and so on. I don’t know what that role, that person is. And then the role of the Technical Evaluation Panel and have they met and, is this some of the responses from the TEP that was on our, when we got here? And then what do they do and who are they and how are they appointed? Maybe I should know all this. Spreiter: No. Ellsworth: And then sequencing, what? In the context of this analysis that was put together, I couldn’t quite interpret what that meant. It’s probably very simple and I’ll go duh when you tell me. And then maybe later a question for Carver Parks. Why is it paved and not gravel? Everything in that park is gravel except a small section of road. It just seems to really change the character and add to the load and maybe that’s not a pertinent question for tonight. We’re just talking about the wetlands. Spreiter: Okay, I will try to address those the best I can. The Wetland Resources Coordinator is the authorized representative for the City so the City is actually the LGU. They hold, they can approve or deny the application. Terry, our Wetland Resources Coordinator is just the one who is appointed to sign it so he has to have approval from the council first. Or authorization. Aanenson: I was just going to point out too, you know we are the LGU but in some instances it’s the watershed district. We have the local control here so that’s the part that they play in it. Spreiter: And then, I believe your next question was on. Ellsworth: The TEP. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Spreiter: The Technical Evaluation Panel and who they are. They’re basically a panel of representatives from applicable agencies that provide interpretations of the WCA process, laws, rules as well as provide technical data. Their role in this case as well would be to make a ruling on sequencing and I know that’s a term that not everybody has heard but they help the LGU come to a determination or make a recommendation. They don’t make the determination themselves. As far as sequencing goes, to my understanding it’s just the process that the applicant has to follow in the application process for the Wetland Conservation Act. The response, the memorandum that you have in front of you, that’s the applicant’s response to the Technical Evaluation Panel’s comments so I believe the original comments that were sent to the applicant are included in your packet but they also address them in that chart. I know the font is very small but they list the cities as well as the evaluation panel’s comments on the left and then their response to each of those comments on the right. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could just add to that. I think what’s important, Krista said that there’s a TEP panel but if you look at what she just said on who the commenters are, that would tell you who’s on the TEP panel. It’s someone from the DNR. Ellsworth: Exactly. Aanenson: Someone from the, a different conservation watershed district. So that gives you, BWSR who’s over the, so you’ve had a lot of different input and that’s kind of steering those comments. I know it’s a little hard to read that font but. Ellsworth: And it’s advisory in nature and then the recommendations are given to whom? Spreiter: To the LGU, so us. Ellsworth: Alright, thank you. Very helpful. Thomas: Actually I do have a question. I’m just kind of trying to read through the memorandum that we got today and I was just trying to, just kind of verify. Does the applicant believe that our recommendations for Wetland 8 and 22, that they should be able to meet like what we’re kind of asking before next, the council meeting on Monday? Do we feel like they’ll be able to, oh okay. Maybe I will save for the applicant. Spreiter: Sure, the applicant can, they have addressed each of our. Thomas: Concerns and issues? Spreiter: Concerns. We’re still getting comments from some TEP members and so, and Terry’s still kind of deciding what his position is on it as a member of the TEP so I guess. Thomas: I can wait. I’ll wait til everybody else. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Aller: I guess the big question is if we have that in the conditions though. If we make this motion this evening to move forward and present it to the council as approved it would contain the conditions that 8 and 22 be dealt with appropriately and under the code prior to their making a determination and final decision. Spreiter: Correct. Aller: Tom, anything? Doll: Basically this is 3/10 of an acre wetland that’s going to be disturbed. Spreiter: Yeah. Doll: For the whole project. Spreiter: Yep, it is under an acre total even with the increased impacts so it’s not a lot of impact. However the applicant still has to follow the process so. Doll: Okay. Aller: Mark. And then just to confirm, because we’re using a bank that’s in the same county we’re going to be able to get a benefit from that? It’s going to be a lower exchange rate? Spreiter: I’m sorry, would you repeat that last part. Aller: On the wetland bank that we’re using, if we’re going to be purchasing or the applicant’s going to be purchasing, they’re getting a benefit because it’s within the same county. Spreiter: Yeah, they have to meet, in order to get the, yeah I guess the 2 to 1 replacement ratio. They have to follow a certain priority as well. The City has it’s own priority but through the Wetland Conservation Act, that kind of has a separate priority so we can request that they follow our priority but at a minimum they need to follow the Wetland Conservation Act priority which basically just says in the same county, which they’ve done and provided. The applicant, go ahead. Jeff Olson: I’m sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt. We. Aller: Why don’t we go ahead and come on up unless anybody has any other questions. And if you please, go ahead. The applicant’s going to be represented by Mr. Olson. Jeff Olson: Sure, thank you. Members of the Planning Commission, it’s a pleasure to talk to you tonight. One comment on mitigation. Typically whichever rules you look at, whether it’s local rules or WCA rules, they prefer that you find mitigation that are as close to the impacts as possible so there’s not a net kind of ushering away of the functions and services of those wetlands. We’ve looked for mitigation credits within Chanhassen and then we’ve looked at, we weren’t able to find any. Then we looked within the major watershed, which is watershed 20, 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 which is a fairly large watershed and there were 2 viable opportunities. Banking opportunities in those. You’ll see in the memo that, in one the comments in our response to the comments, we explain that the 2 banks, approved banks that we found in watershed, major watershed 20 are actually in Hennepin County but in the same watershed as here and they’re located in the city of Medina and we did, because it’s in the same major watershed we did get a 2 to 1 ratio. If you go further afield sometimes it goes up to 2.25 or 2.5 to 1. We were able to get the 2 to 1 so we, in the memorandum that we submitted we asked for you know, if you would consider those banking opportunities within major watershed 20 to be a possibility for us. We’re not aware of, there are opportunities that would be closer but not within the same watershed so. I don’t know if this is an appropriate time to talk about a little additional information about Wetlands 8 and 22? Aller: That would be great. Jeff Olson: Wonderful. I’ll roll out a map here and it’ll I guess be projected right up there. If I do this correctly here. Maybe we could talk about Wetland 20 first. That’s right where my finger is. Okay so right in the middle there. Aller: Mr. Olson, just not to rearrange your whole presentation but it might be helpful to us if we hear you go through the 3 requirements. Jeff Olson: Oh the sequencing? Aller: The sequencing so. Jeff Olson: Oh absolutely, sure. The 3 sequencing requirements are wetland impact avoidance, and if you can’t completely avoid it’s minimization and for what you can’t avoid with proper minimization, then you move on to mitigation. Aller: And then how that applies to 8 and 22. Jeff Olson: Okay. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Wetland 22 is a seep wetland that water kind of flows out of the hill to the, across the gravel road. Flows out of the hill and actually probably flows underneath the gravel road. Forms a seep so what we’ve done for Wetland 22 for minimization is, there’s a, that’s a section of the trail that has essentially almost no fill and no cut. The only fill would be the 6 inch gravel base and the bituminous cover but it’s about as narrow, it’s got the 10 foot trail with 2 foot clear zones on either side of the trail which is about as narrow as we can make it. Also the, so the profile’s very low. That tends to keep the footprint very narrow. We also are impacting the skinniest portion of Wetland 22. There’s kind of a thick part right up here and then it’s got kind of a skinny tail that points down toward Lake Minnewashta. And so those are 2 examples of minimization. The third example of minimization is right where the trail goes currently, across that wetland, it’s currently actually a dirt, a little dirt road that kind of cuts through the wetland right now. There’s kind of two ruts that go through it and that’s exactly what, there’s essentially no vegetation right in that little part of the wetland where the trail crosses it so there’s, that’s 3 examples of minimization there. Let me talk about some of the difficulties of totally avoiding wetland impacts to that one. Back up a 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 little bit. Okay so you might think that you can move the trail a little closer toward Lake Minnewashta. Up this way. The problem with that is when you get to the very end of Wetland 22, that skinny portion, it’s already, it goes down a very steep hill into that lobe of Lake Minnewashta and it’s already at the very end of Wetland 22, it’s already kind of starting a little V cut. A little bit of gully erosion is already starting going down there so it would be, it would not be a good idea to minimize impacts by moving the trail closer to where that V cut is starting down the hill. So that option wouldn’t work out so well. Now also, if we move the trail onto the gravel road that would present some real safety issues because that happens to be a very tight curve in the gravel road. Motorist sight distances are not good right there and it’s not a good idea to put the trail right on a portion of the gravel road that has such poor, mostly horizontal sight distances there. As a matter of fact if you’ll, if you look where the trail currently crosses the gravel road right here, it’s, we chose a straight away to cross so there would be adequate sight distance for motorists to react to recreationists crossing the trail. In a previous version of the trail it actually crossed here but then we thought better of it and, because that had the same sight distance issues here, don’t want recreationists crossing when motorists don’t have really good horizontal sight distances. So the same thing is true here. If we move the trail onto this piece of gravel road, it would be the same thing. You’d have recreationists, it would be a safety issue with motorists not being able to see them as well as they should so that’s, that kind of talks about how we’ve minimized and how we can’t further avoid wetland impacts to Wetland 22. Ellsworth: Mr. Chair. Aller: Yes, Commissioner Ellsworth. Ellsworth: Mr. Olson. Jeff Olson: Yes. Ellsworth: That must be a seasonal seep. It’s dry in the summer isn’t it? Jeff Olson: Yeah. It, there’s not a lot of hydrology in it. There’s not a lot of water in it but as you kind of hike through it you can kind of see mix of sedges and vegetation which, yeah. It is probably wetter right now and not so wet late in summer. Ellsworth: Thank you. Jeff Olson: Maybe I could briefly talk about Wetland 8. Aller: Please. Jeff Olson: It is close to the, where the underpass is. This is Wetland 8 right here. Here’s where the underpass is and then this trail goes through this ravine between Ches Mar Drive and TH 41. We actually early on, you’ll I think see in Figure 5 of your memo that you have in front of you, you’ll see the 2 alternatives that we explored early on for this one. There’s another, the current alternative goes, current alternative goes like this. And then the other alternative that we explored actually went like this and then cut up through these woods and then met up with this, 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 with the trail again here. There were 2 problems with the other alternative. There’s a severe erosion problem in this valley between Ches Mar and 41 right now. There’s a little bit of surface water that kind of flows down a ravine here and then about right at this point it goes over about a, maybe a 10 foot cliff or so and it carries sediment with it. It’s pretty severe and it flows in a culvert I think underneath Ches Mar and then this white area right here is actually the sediment delta in this wetland right here that has eroded out of this valley right here. So it’s all kind of depositing right in here. So for that reason we didn’t want to disturb those highly erodible soils further down in the valley because as this, as this issue keeps cutting back up the valley it could, it might ultimately affect the trail so we didn’t want to disturb that. Another thing, we did not want to cut a 30 foot wide swath through this forest right here, which is composed of fairly mature trees. The 30 feet would be the 10 foot trail, 2 foot clear zones on either side and then whatever side slopes would be necessary to tie into existing elevations. So those are kind of the reasons why we chose to go where we did go. This wetland is, it’s almost completely reed canary grass, which is an invasion wetland plant species, so it’s not floristically very rich in there. It is still a wetland impact. We understand that and we did agree with members of the TEP that if you go right through the middle of the wetland there would be probably an additional .06 acres of wetland impact that aren’t actually within the footprint but are immediately adjacent to it and so we agree that that would be a total take of that wetland. That’s why on the first page of the memo we adjusted the impacts up from the original. Doll: Did MnDOT tell you this is where the crossing is going? I’m kind of wondering why it’s not up closer to the entrance of the park where you wouldn’t. Jeff Olson: I really can’t answer that. I don’t know that we had a directive from MnDOT to put it there. You know I’ll just say having hiked the whole area and having done the delineations out there, I can tell you topographically this is probably about one of the only places that would support an underpass because they’re, the road at that point where the underpass is proposed is on a lot of embankment and there’s just not that amount of embankment if you go up closer to the entrance. There’d be, you’d have to tunnel a long way I think. But you know probably Mike McGarvey in our landscape architecture section, trail design section in our company would probably have some more information about that. Are there any other questions that I can help answer? Aller: Anyone? Commissioner Ellsworth. Ellsworth: Why is it asphalt instead of a Class V? Jeff Olson: You know I guess I’m not prepared to answer that and I can get an answer to you. Ellsworth: Just curious more than anything. Jeff Olson: Yeah, absolutely. I can get that into you. I guess I would recommend given what I’ve mentioned about Wetland 8 and Wetland 22 and perhaps an answer to your question about why it’s asphalt. Maybe if it would be okay with the Planning Commission and members of the TEP, if we can maybe just incorporate some of those comments and amend this supplement and answer those questions for you. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Ellsworth: That’d be great. Aller: Anything else? Thank you. With that we’ll open the public hearing so anyone that would like to speak on the matter from the public that’s here can step forward. State your name and let us know why you’re here sir. Dennis Clark: My name’s Dennis Clark and I live at 6651 Hazeltine which is across from the park. Aanenson: Can you put the map up there Krista? Spreiter: Sure. Dennis Clark: And I think I can answer a couple of your questions about the blacktop and a lot of those things. Aller: Great. Dennis Clark: I’m fairly involved with some of the things that go around the park. Let me see here so I can kind of. Aanenson: Do you have a better overview of just the neighborhood? Dennis Clark: The whole Highway 7 and probably page, Figure 4 would probably help and I can just point out… Okay. This is my property right here. This section, it’s about 7 acres and the trail’s going to run up in the, it looks like it’s going to go to the school entrance and come down across the front, down in the park there. Now you asked a question why isn’t the trail going across at the entrance. There was no public hearing on that so this is the first time I’ve heard about it. But the fact is, is that the trail is actually on the other side of the road already. The trail that goes around the rest of the lake and west of the metro area crosses right here where you see the L and I think that, you said it was in orange before on another map where the bike trail is and I guess is what I’m questioning is why didn’t the trail come along on the other side of Highway 41 where there’s already a public trail. There’s a snowmobile trail there. It goes right past the dog part up to the entrance. Then you wouldn’t have this disruption here and you can cross here at the school crossing which the traffic is slower because you’ve got a stop light down there and school crossing and what have you. Minnetonka School just spent $200,000 putting in a holding pond which you can barely see right there and a very extensive drainage system for all this blacktop coming off of this hill down into this pond. DNR made them dig up a lot of the silt and things like that that you’re talking about that is over in this pond and put in a very sophisticated, what would I say? Ditch system for that runoff. So I’m questioning how they’re going to even build this trail now on top of that. Now the other thing is all your utilities which this is all, by the way my property only goes to the middle of 41 so this is. Aller: Mr. Clark, we can’t pick you up on the microphones so the public can’t hear you. If you could step over to the podium that would be great. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Dennis Clark. Sorry. Aller: That’s okay. Dennis Clark: Now the question is, I know we’ve got a little impact down there and by the way I’ve got to say this is a great deal. This bike trail. I bike all over Chanhassen so I like it. Love the park. The park is probably going to get paved. The roads. If they’d just move some of that money off of the other parks and that’s coming back probably this year or next year because those clay roads in there are terrible. But the bike trails is basically this is going to be a bike trail, you want to be on pavement so that’s good that it’s on pavement. I think the impact on that one water area, I’d have to agree with you is minimal. Down by the boat ramps but you actually got people crossing the road 3 times down there. You’ve got to cross the road one way. Then you’ve got to cross the road the other way. Then you’ve got to cross 3 different places where you’ve got boats coming in. People going into the trails and then you’ve got to cross the road where people are coming down that road fairly fast. So again, I never heard of any input on this, this trail. Seems like putting a tunnel underneath Highway 7 can’t be a cheap deal when again the trail’s already on the other side of Highway 7. You’re just going under and then going back across again. I cross roads all the time. I’ll love the tunnel. Won’t bother me. Just seems like it’s an awful lot of money being spent to get under Highway 7 and then you’re going back along Highway 7. Aller: Mr. Clark, is that 41? Dennis Clark: 41. What am I saying? 7. 41. I live on 41 and I’m calling it 7. You’re going along Highway 41, and I know we’re only here to talk about these 2 wetlands but I’m using that as an excuse. You basically just put a 300 foot public pier along that pond because that’s what it’s going to be, that’s what that’s going to become is because now the public right-of-way is going to be closer to the pond, which just means you can have 10 people fish that pond out, which everyone that lives around that pond has been stocking that pond because it’s frankly a private pond at this particular point. You’ve now just made that, like I said, a 300 foot public pier for people that eat fish and have been known to take over their limits. But back to the wetland impact which is what the meeting’s about, that trail does cross, the trail going into the park, 3 times so I just don’t understand why it didn’t come in on the west side of 41. Down the hill. Along the road. Was it ever, I guess the question would be, was that ever thought about? Aller: Why don’t we wait for the questions. Why don’t you finish, if you have additional questions then we’ll take those and then we’ll ask Mr. Olson to come back up and answer them. Dennis Clark: Okay, that’d be fine. That was pretty much my only curiousity in the meeting here of why aren’t they just coming in at a different spot. Or making the road cross at the place where traffic has to slow down already for the entrance and, of the park and you’re coming up the hill. The further you’ve got the crossing towards the stop light, the slower the traffic is and then maybe some day we can get the speed limit on 41 lowered to 50 like the rest of everyone else from here all the way through Chaska has done. I mean Bud Olson would recommend it. We’ve had I don’t know, 3 or 4 near misses out there with bus accidents. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Aller: Okay, thank you for your presentation Mr. Clark. Aanenson: Mr. Chair before we, the, Mr. Olson’s here to talk about the wetlands so you know I just want to say that Carver County Parks and our City Parks and Rec Department, Park and Rec Director Todd Hoffman have been working on this project so we can’t comment on the decisions that they’ve made based on their location, geometrics, all that stuff. I can’t comment on that and if we can get that information out, we’d be happy to do that but what you recommend here would not go forward unless the project was to go forward. What we’re looking for is the wetland. If your review of that and input to the City Council and obviously nothing would change out there if the project didn’t go through, or they made some changes. Then it would have to come back through. Significant changes. I think the way that the wetland alteration permit is structured that there is some flexibility in there so some minor tweaking based on those comments so. What we’re here tonight to decide is if it’s appropriate based on the location that’s been sited by others. If that makes sense so and again if the project does go forward. Aller: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to testify or ask questions? Then I just have one quick question of Mr. Olson, if you would. Would changing the crossing or coming up on the other side have any impact at all on the amelioration that we’re requesting tonight? Jeff Olson: Would there be different wetland impacts? Aller: Yeah, would that change the request that we’d be making tonight? Jeff Olson: Well I think yeah. I think if the trail along the 41 section of the trail, if it did go along the west side of 41, I’m assuming the wetland impacts would be slightly different. There wouldn’t be I believe 0.07 acres of impact at Brenden Pond. Trying to think. Is there one other one along 41? Aanenson: The question is if there’s more impacts on the other side of the street or not, correct? Aller: Right. Aanenson: We don’t have that information. Aller: Okay. Aanenson: I don’t know if Krista knows off the top of her head. If there’s more wetlands on the county side or not. Spreiter: I don’t know. I can say that you know there has been other routes explored by the County. However this is the preferred route that they’ve come up with because of issues with alternate routes. Just you know I can’t speak for, again I can’t speak for the Carver County Parks Director. He would probably be the best one to contact regarding any of that information. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Aller: In looking at the request for Wetlands 8 and 22, some of those issues would be best left to the amendment of the application so that you could put that in as an alternate route and make those discussions so that the City Council can review that and look at that and I think that would make the application that much more complete and I think that’s what we’re requesting in our conditions. Jeff Olson: Sure, sure. Okay. Absolutely. Yeah, we can beef up the discussion of alternatives as to why. You know why we’ve selected the preferred alternative. Aller: Thank you. Karen Weathers: Can I make a comment or is it too late? Aller: I haven’t closed it. You can step forward. State your name and. Karen Weathers: Real quick. Karen Weathers. I live in Highcrest and have been here 20 years. I remember some of the early conversations. The reason it is there is because of the embankment as I recall. You can verify but that’s the only place feasible. The second thing, I think if you move it to the other side it doesn’t feed where all the residents are. You know you’d only have one place. You have to go up by 7 to cross over and there’s not much for residential feed the way the one flows now. So those are probably some of the considerations. Aller: Thank you. Okay, no one else stepping forward. I’m going to close the public hearing. Discussion by the commissioners. Commissioner Tennyson, what do you think? Tennyson: I’m a little concerned just being dropped into the middle of this, not having heard how it happened before. Just reading TEP panel recommendations tonight. I don’t think I have any specific questions at this time. I guess I’d like to see what the rest of the commissioners think on this. Aller: Great, thanks. Commissioner Ellsworth: Ellsworth: Yes Mr. Chair. I think that staff has done a very good job addressing the concerns that were raised and meeting the requirements for the various agencies and different rules and it appears to be well thought out and well put together. It is a park that I frequent probably twice a week. It’s an awesome park and it’s neat to see more access to it and I know the pavement issue’s not a topic for tonight but I was surprised to hear that all the roads would be paved too. It is sloppy to drive in there sometimes but it’s part of the character of the park for me but that’s neither here nor there for tonight’s conversation but, so I think it’s well put together and all the issues that I had were, again were process related than necessarily the outcome. Aller: Commissioner Thomas. Thomas: Yeah I too, I don’t think I really have any, I didn’t have any real questions for it. I just kind of, nice to see the updated motion for the additional stuff. That was really helpful and feel 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 like just looking at seeing what we can do for 8 and 22. Looks like it’s well put together. We should be good. Aller: Commissioner Doll. Doll: I have nothing. Undestad: No. Aller: Commissioner Hokkanen. Hokkanen: No, looks good. Aller: No further questions, okay. Then I’ll entertain a motion if there is any. Undestad: I’ll make a motion here. I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown on plans dated received February 22, 2011 and based upon the included Findings of Fact and subject to conditions 1 through 4. Thomas: I second that motion. Aller: Okay, having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2011-03 to impact 8,931 square feet of wetland for the purpose of the construction of the proposed trail and underpass and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown on plans dated received February 22, 2011 and based upon the included Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City’s approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 2. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wetland Protection Rule, effective September 1, 2010. 3. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 8 (5,662 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as described in the supplement to the application dated April 15, 2011, prepared by SRF. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 4. Impact to Wetland 22 shall be avoided through use of boardwalk or other approved avoidance method. If the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Evaluation Panel that impact to Wetland 22 (436 square feet) cannot be avoided, then the additional square feet may be impacted as shown in Figure 4C in the Joint Notification Application prepared by SRF dated January 31, 2011. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 7. The applicant must obtain, and the City must have received copy of, an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. 8. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of activity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Aanenson: Thank you. Mr. Chair just want to remind you that this does go to the City Council th on the 25. Aller: Yes, so those individuals who wish to follow this should, because it’s fast tracked, it’ll be th next Monday the 25. Before the City Council in these chambers. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN BP: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REDEVELOP THE EXISTING CHANHASSEN BP CONVENIENCE STORE, CAR WASH AND GAS PUMP/CANOPY ON PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES (BH) AND LOCATED AT 7905 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: KHALED ALOUL, PLANNING CASE 2011-04. Aller: Before we get going on that I just wanted to state the following. That conflicts of interest questions are part of a larger due process scenario with the Planning Commission and every party before us is entitled to a fair hearing and decision free from any bias or favor and having a conflict of interest can threaten that impartiality. Therefore it’s critical that we disclose conflicts. That they be identified and dealt with in an appropriate manner. Commissioner Ellsworth has indicated that his neighbor’s the applicant in the next matter before the Planning Commission. They are neighbors and had social dealings together. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Ellsworth: Mr. Chair, the adjoining property owner is the neighbor and friend. Aller: Okay, the adjoining property owners is a neighbor and friend. Ellsworth: Similar business and similar car wash. Aller: So basically they’re friends and in fact I don’t believe there exists an actual conflict here and even prior business dealings don’t necessarily cause a conflict to arise. You have to look at the individual and independent facts. More troublesome however is that someone might attempt to undermine the recommendations by claiming there was such a conflict and in an effort to free the hearing of any appearance of a conflict or impropriety Commissioner Ellsworth is recusing himself and will not take part in the discussion or the voting and we thank him for his candor and service. Continued service. So with that he will be excused. Ellsworth: Thank you. Aller: Okay moving on to the BP motion. Kairies: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The item before you tonight is for the BP gas station located at 7905 Great Plains Boulevard. It’s zoned Highway and Business Services District (BH). This is planning case 11-04. If I could just explain really quickly. There is currently the BP gas station located there at this time and this is a redevelopment of the site. The neighboring uses surrounding the property are also within the BH district on the north side of Highway 5 which include other auto related services such as Master Collision, Brown’s Auto and Tire, Valvoline, an independent car wash. There are also some retail operations, a veterinary clinic, the Holiday gas station which is located just to the west of this site and then south of Highway 5 is Neighborhood Business and those are offices and the American Legion. The request before you tonight is for a conditional use permit to permit gas pumps as part of the convenience store as well to permit multiple buildings on a single lot. And it’s multiple principle buildings and uses. The applicant is also requesting site plan approval for 3,915 square foot retail building, a 1,503 square foot double car wash and a 32 foot by 74 foot 8 inch canopy over the 6 gas pumps. The existing conditions were approved in 1988 and they were for a just over 1,000 square foot convenience store which is located under a gas canopy that was 30 feet by 101 feet, 6 gas pumps, 2 of which are located outside of the gas canopy and a single car wash bay. In 2001 the Holiday gas station was redeveloped and as part of that application the Holiday requested a variance, which was approved to allow 213 feet of separation between the 2 closest gas pumps between the two sites. City Code requires 250 feet. The gas pump, the 2 closest gas will not be relocating so that distance will remain the same as part of this application. To focus on the conditional use. In 1990 the City Code adopted an ordinance that required a conditional use permit for convenience stores with gas pumps so when the original site plan went through there was not a conditional use permit required as part of a site plan. We need to make sure that we, make sure all requirements are being abided by. A car wash in the BH district is a permitted use by itself and the convenience store is also a permitted use by itself, therefore they’re each principle structures, principle uses, so that’s why we’re, why the applicant’s requesting 2 principle structures on a single lot. Again the applicant is requesting to redevelop the current site and in doing so this is just a look at the current conditions on the top 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 and the proposed conditions on the bottom. What they’re requesting is to remove the existing convenience store, relocate the 2 pumps that are outside of the gas canopy. They’re going to reduce the size of the canopy. Build the new convenience store over on the east side of the property. Add a second car wash bay. The first car wash bay will be staying in the same location and then they’ll also be adding mechanical and storage room which is located in an easement and will require an encroachment agreement through the city’s engineering department. The main access into the site is gained off of Great Plains Boulevard and the main drive aisle will be between the car wash and the canopy. Currently as the application was submitted it did not meet the 26 foot minimum requirement drive aisle. Staff is recommending that the applicant increase that width to 26 feet. There’s also a non-conforming drive aisle on the south side of the canopy of 14 feet. The applicant will be maintaining that and City Code does state that a non-conforming use can remain. Can be replaced and can remain. The applicant is also proposing to add a trail connection or sidewalk connection from the trail that’s currently located along Highway 5. And that will act as a patio which is located on the south side of the new convenience store. As part of the stacking for the car wash the drive aisle and trash enclosure accessibility will be around the convenience store. Currently there’s no two way access and staff’s been, the city’s engineering department has made the applicant aware of this situation and they will address it how they see fit. Here’s just a perspective of how the new site will look over the current conditions. As you can see where the trees are now will be the new drive aisle. There’s also a retention pond proposed. The elevations between the proposed building and the buildings to the north is about a 10 foot rise so the Valvoline is 10 feet taller than the proposed building. For the height, roof design and articulation of the building there is a step back on the south side of the building which is 6 feet from the southwest corner so it goes back 6 feet and then it goes back another 11 feet. And then the rooftop equipment will be completely screened. The materials for the building consist of brick, block and EFIS materials. The store fronts or the main elevations will be the west elevation and the south elevation which contain patron entrances and those will contain store front windows bordered with aluminum frames, muted tan limestone and wine colored cultured stone columns and above that will be an accent fabric awning and just above that is a medium tan EFIS accent band. The parapet and cornice are a light beige and a darker tan EFIS top with a pre-finished metal tan cap. And then on the east and north elevations, which are less visible, contain the cultured stone columns and then continue the EFIS bands around the rest of the building. The building signage on the convenience store consists of the BP logo and then also advertising some of their products. And those will only be on the south and west elevations. The façade transparency on the south and west elevations meet the minimum requirements which are 50% transparency. And then the elevation on the north will be, I’ll show you that one. On the north is cut into the wall and will be heavily landscaped so façade transparency can be reduced on that side. But if we look at the east elevation and you see the trees on the photo in the upper right, those trees will be removed. There is additional landscaping proposed. However they’re mostly overstory trees and so staff is recommending that the transparency on the east elevation be increased to at least include the sections A and B shown on the photograph. The car wash and canopy will also be constructed of similar materials. The only signage on the car wash will be for the entrance and exit doors. The signage, or the columns on the car wash will also be constructed of the cultured stone and to touch more on the signage, originally it was believed that the logo was a part, was a non- conforming logo. Signage is not permitted on canopies. Therefore as a non-conforming item it could be continued. However reading back into the 1988 staff report one of the conditions stated 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 that there may be no signage on the canopy. Therefore staff is recommending that that is consistent. That there will not be any signage permitted on the canopy. No additional lighting. Just a single, one dimensional stripe. They will also be utilizing the existing monument sign which is located on the corner of Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard. And then the site will consist of pole lighting as well as lighting attached to the building. The loading areas will be again on the stacking drive aisle that’s around the side of the building, towards the back. The trash enclosure will be constructed of similar materials to the building and the car wash. Circulation drive aisle again is around the building and there’s an access door or service door located on the east side. And they will also be screened with landscaping. Parking for the site, there were 20 stalls required by ordinance. The applicant is proposing 23 parking stalls which consist of 5 stalls along the south and west property lines, 6 stalls in front of the convenience store and it will also include 12 spaces at the gas pumps. And then again the car wash stacking will be around the building. Landscaping for the site meets minimum requirements. However in one area along Great Plains Boulevard they are short I believe 2 understory trees and therefore staff’s recommending that they increase that to meet the minimum requirement but overall they’ve met or exceeded the landscape requirements. Staff is recommending approval of the application as specified on pages 18 and 21 of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and recommendation and at this time I’d be happy to take any questions. Aller: Let’s start to the left. Commissioner Doll. Doll: How does the encroachment agreement work for the mechanics? I mean is that easy to get? Isn’t that a structure that’s going to be. Kairies: Correct. It’s a structure that would be located, I’ll pull it up for you. Actually I can zoom in on this one. It’s a structure that’s located within that area and provided that it does not interfere with any utilities. It’s up to the engineering department to approve that and if Alyson would like to talk further. Fauske: Just to bring the Planning Commission up to date. On the north side of the property there’s an existing sanitary sewer line and that’s what the easement, the encroachment would be into. At this, what the encroachment agreement does, it’s recorded against the property so that the current owner and any subsequent owner would be aware of the encroachment and it basically absolves the City of any responsibility for replacement or damage to equipment that’s within the easement but allows them to put items within the easement. Doll: So there’s no setback issue with that. It’s just an encroaching into the utility easement? Fauske: Correct. Correct. Doll: Okay. And I missed the 28 foot road, or drive. I was kind of curious as to, I was looking for the cursor and I was confused. Kairies: Between the car wash and the canopy there must be a 26 foot drive aisle and can not include anything underneath the canopy so. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Doll: And it’s currently a 14? Kairies: The one on the south is currently 14 feet and that will be maintained. Doll: Okay. Kairies: But it’s the drive aisle on the north side of the canopy that must be 26. Doll: Okay. And have you heard anything, is Valvoline unhappy? Is it going to block their signage or does that hurt them in any manner? Kairies: We did hear that they did have some concerns about their visibility, and I’m not sure if they’re here today to touch on that. Staff did take a look at that and you will be able to see portions of it. However we also looked at current conditions and the visibility. Aanenson: Yeah I would also add, they came in and put a new sign up. They had a non- conforming sign for height. Right now our sign ordinance says only if you have frontage can you have a pylon sign because it was in place and they were actually reducing the non- conformity so they do have a new sign which you’ll still be able to see. We did spend some time, Angie went back and forth, going up and down Highway 5 and different perspectives which we have here. They do not have highway 5 frontage. You will be able to still see some of the top, which Angie can show you here. They do have a pylon sign which in today’s ordinance they wouldn’t be able too have so I think that helps increase the visibility. But while we’re on that subject, talking about this, there was also concern about the car wash behind. The existing car wash that Mr. Brown has and he did meet with Angie also. Same sort of an issue. Visibility. Doesn’t have the frontage but this, the configuration of this shouldn’t change as much because the convenience store is moving to the back side. Additional landscaping would provide some buffer. Maybe some visibility issues but Angie took some pictures I think might be helpful just to kind of. Kairies: I went up and down Highway 5 just to try and get a good feel for what impact this would have so the following pictures are going to be as we’re looking east, or I’m sorry, westbound on Highway 5. So as you’re coming from 101 the visibility towards Valvoline or the car wash is very minimal. Whoops, sorry. Wrong direction. Again as you come closer, the trees right in front of you. Those will be the trees that are removed and then in the very corner you can see the Valvoline. And then it’s not until you are right next to it looking out your window that you can see the Valvoline and the convenience store will be, this will be the drive aisle and then the convenience store will be right about in this location here. And again there’s a 10 foot elevation change between the two sites. As you’re traveling eastbound on Highway 5, the visibility for the property behind the BP gas station, you can see them now but once the trees, once the leaves appear you won’t be able to see much of them. As you continue to go further, right about in this location will be the convenience store. And then as we were talking, as Kate mentioned, the car wash had some concerns. There will be overstory trees that are proposed to be planted in this area which do comply with the City’s landscape requirements. But again the car washes are different in the fact that the car washes for the BP site are automatic car washes. You pull in. You go around. You drive out whereas the car wash on the north side is a self 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 service car wash so it’s more of a destination. You intend to go there so people will know that it’s there. The perspective as you’re traveling north on Great Plains is again very similar. Just to give you an idea the store should be right about in this area here. And the car wash. This is a th view from the Holiday gas station from West 79 Street. More of a broad view. So again you currently. Aanenson: Which I think would probably be about the same perspective you get with the new building. You’re just going to see that snapshot. There’s a small window when you’re driving down there in one direction that you’re going to see it. Kairies: And the new convenience store will be over on this direction. Hokkanen: Can I ask a question? About the trees. So these, in this view those 3 larger evergreens, that’s where the convenience store is going to be? Kairies: That’s where the road will be. Hokkanen: The road will be. Kairies: That service road that goes around the back. Hokkanen: So there won’t, the buffering of the trees behind the convenience store, you’ll have better visibility coming westbound. Can you go to the westbound picture for a second? Kairies: Sure. And I can also show you the landscape plan as well. So there’s that one and those are the trees that will be removed. Doll: I had one more question regarding the visibility of glass work…fancy term is. Kairies: Fenestration? Doll: Yes. New word for me. On the east side, is that code or is that just something the City would like to see? Kairies: The code requires, City Code requires 50% fenestration on elevations that are viewed by the public. There’s also a stipulation in there that allows the fenestration to be reduced based on the function of that. In this area will be some of the storage and the restroom facilities. Doll: That’s kind of what I was thinking that. Kairies: But it can be achieved through span row glass so it has the appearance of windows but you can’t see into them and it will really bring out that elevation of the building because it will be visible. Thomas: Angie can you go back to the west photo for just a second? Keep going. Yeah. Keep going. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Kairies: That’s about it. Thomas: Oh go the other way then. Other direction, yes. Kairies: You want to go east? Thomas: Yes please. Sorry. Kairies: That’s alright. Tell me when. Thomas: Okay. That’s good. I just kind of wanted to see it. I just out of curiousity, maybe because I can’t remember. Holiday’s canopy is, it doesn’t have a logo on it either, right? It’s just red and white. Kairies: It’s white with a blue and a red stripe. Thomas: Right, so it’s just their logo so we’re going to kind of do the same thing for BP’s, right? Kairies: Right. Thomas: Their logo is white and green, right? Okay. Do we know what kind of lights they’re going to use? Do they move to the sodium or are they doing LED’s? Do you know? Kairies: I can find out. Thomas: I saw them both that was in there is like it’s an option but I was just kind of personally curious as to what they were going to use on the site. Kairies: Okay we can ask the applicant when he comes up to give you specific information on that. Thomas: Okay. Then one more thing. I know, could you go to the site plan where it’s the overlay of the new plan over the, I’ll just say currently looks like. Okay. So currently, because you know we’ve got the drive to go into the car wash but not a ton of people use it, I mean unless it’s very busy. People don’t want to drive in a circle to get into the car wash and they just go cutting in. Is that possible? I mean it looks fairly tight and that looks like those are the you know, the things you use to punch in your code and get in, it’s probably a concrete post and what not. Is there any possibility, I mean I don’t want to point on my screen but that little space inbetween, where the, yeah. Right in there. Is there anyway that people can make that turn, do you know? Because I just feel like people will do that. You know what I mean? If possible. Like you currently watch it, if you buy gas there, people love not going you know they just, you know so. What you think Alyson? 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Fauske: It would be a tight turn to go in there. The intent is to have the car wash traffic go around the building and we certainly looked at the turning template to make sure, and they adjusted their site plan to accommodate those turning movements so I agree. I think that would be an awkward turning movement. I don’t anticipate, particularly with the size of vehicles that a lot of people drive these days, that they would be able to make that turn and it would be a one time attempt and then you’d learn your lesson. Thomas: …vehicle all on the pylon there, yeah. I would assume too but I just you know, knowing what you see people. Fauske: People want to take the short cut in front. Thomas: Yeah. People don’t want to have to go all the way around the building you know and it’s like as silly as that is, I just kind of not to make it, well anybody can you know, I just feel like I saw it and it was like oh that will be tight. You know someone’s going to scrap the vehicle. Okay, that’s all my questions at the moment. Aller: Commissioner Tennyson. Tennyson: Just one question on the signage again. Because it sounds like there’s a provision. He could have talked about it. You’re recommending that it be one dimensional and it’s showing a logo, something kind of three dimensional now. Kairies: Right. This is what they proposed and so it’d had the three dimensional. It was a neon band and then the logo. Tennyson: And the logo in the middle is. Kairies: Right, and the logo, neither of these are permitted and that’s a condition of approval that the canopy cannot have signage. Tennyson: Alright, thank you. Aller: Okay. With that we’ll open the public hearing. Or the applicant. Is the applicant here? Russ Rosa: Good evening commission members. My name’s Russ Rosa. I’m the architect working for the applicant. He could not be here this evening. We’ve, I’ve discussed the staff report with the applicant and I believe that he’s prepared to make the adjustments as recommended in the report. Just a comment on the canopy. The intention was that that was, the stripe and the logo were going to remain on there as they are today so that portion of the canopy wasn’t going to be rebuilt but I’m not, I don’t think that the applicant really like the look much either. It’s a BP symbol and he did state that he wasn’t sure if his franchise with BP would require that to be on there or not though. I think she’s prepared to remove it if you know, if he can so. Aller: Great. Any questions? The lights? Type of lights? 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Thomas: Thank you. Russ Rosa: The site lighting is intended to be a metal halide type light. Not a high pressure sodium so it’s more of the white light. Thomas: Okay. That’s just what I wanted to know. Aller: Great. Any other questions? Undestad: That drive aisle width, is that going to be an issue with your canopy and that in there? Are you going to slide things around? Russ Rosa: Well currently on the south side, that’s the existing condition so that’s been not problematic you know since it’s been there. On the north side, you know I think we’re a foot short of what the City ordinance says so you know we’ll shorten that. We’ll lengthen that so we’ve got the 26 feet. That won’t be a problem. Aanenson: I was just going to comment too. Again the difference is that now you’re having people going into the convenience store and backing so you have two way traffic which you probably didn’t have as much of before so. Aller: And then there was some question as to the handicap parking and the location of that. Russ Rosa: Yes. Yes, in the report and they’re right. The State Building Code requires a handicap parking stall be located as reasonably close to the front entrance as possible. We thought you know it worked well there but we can certainly move it up to the other end. Aller: Okay. Thank you. Anything further? Alright. Well thank you. Russ Rosa: Thank you. Aller: And with that we’ll open the public hearing. Anyone like to come forward and testify and/or comment? Seeing no one coming forward we’ll close the public hearing. Comments. Hokkanen: Nothing. Undestad: Looks good. Yeah, I like it. Doll: Nice looking building. Thomas: Yeah I’m definitely excited to have this building. You know the BP store be upgraded and it’s so much a, you know it’s going to make such a big difference on that corner block that it’s going to just really, really kind of fit you know the path of Chanhassen. You know just really attractive. Very pretty looking and I think you’re going to get a lot of people visiting the 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 c-store. I mean convenience store you know and just, and really enjoying you know. Enjoying what it has to offer so I’m excited for it. Tennyson: I think it’s very nice. Well put together. Aller: Just a comment that I noticed that you actually use the drive to use the car wash you’re going to get that much more exposure to businesses up on the back so I believe that will resolve some of the concern there so that would be a nice thing for them to do is look up and say oh maybe I should do my oil. Great. Okay, I’d entertain any motions. Thomas: Alright, I’ll make a motion. Aller: Okay. Thomas: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for convenience store with gas pumps, to permit multiple buildings on a single lot, plans prepared by Rosa Architects dated and received 3/21/2011 for property zoned Highway and Business Services District (BH) located at 7905 Great Plains Boulevard subject to conditions 1 through 6. Also the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a Site Plan for a 3,915 square foot, one-story convenience store, a 1,503 square foot double car wash and a 32 foot by 74 foot 8 inch glass canopy. Plans prepared by Rosa Architects dated and received 3/21/2011. For property zoned Highway and Business Services District (BH) located at 7905 Great Plains Boulevard subject to conditions 1 through 4. And an adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: We have a big motion. Anybody have a second? Doll: Second. Aller: Seconded by Commissioner Doll. Thomas moved, Doll seconded that theChanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for a convenience store with gas pumps and to permit multiple buildings on a single lot, plans prepared by Rosa Architects dated received 3/21/2011, for property zoned Highway and Business Services District (BH), located at 7905 Great Plains Boulevard subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises. 2.No repair, assembly, disassembly of vehicles. 3.No outside speaker system shall be allowed without approval from the City Council. 4.No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles, or all-terrain vehicles shall be permitted. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 5.Facilities for the collection of waste oil must be provided. 6.A minimum separation of 213 feet is required between the nearest gas pumps on the subject site and Holiday Station located across Great Plains Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Thomas moved, Doll seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Site Plan for a 3,915 square-foot, one-story convenience store, 1,503 square-foot double car wash, and a 32-foot by 74-foot 8-inch gas canopy, plans prepared by Rosa Architects dated received 3/21/2011, for property located at 7905 Great Plains Boulevard subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.Building Official a.The proposed structures (if area exceeds 2000 square feet) are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems (MN Rule 1306). b.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Geotechnical (soil evaluation) report required. c.The canopy over the pumps must be constructed of non-combustible materials or materials equivalent to one-hour fire-resistive construction. d.Detailed building code related requirements have not been reviewed; this will take place when complete structural/architectural plans are submitted. e.The proposed accessible parking space must be relocated to be “on the shortest accessible route of travel” (MSBC 1341.1106.6) to an accessible building entrance (suggested alternative would be parking space 10 or 11 with adjacent 8-foot access aisle). f.A separate demolition permit will be required if demolition is intended prior to building permit issuance. g.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 2.Forester a.Applicant shall increase bufferyard plantings to meet minimum requirements for the west property line. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior to building permit issuance. 3.Engineering and Water Resources 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 a.The main drive aisle to the convenience store must be revised so that it is minimum 26 feet wide. The area under the canopy cannot be included in the drive aisle width. b.The developer must obtain a MnDOT permit for the sidewalk connection to the Highway 5 trail on the south side of the site. c.The developer must ensure that the sidewalk connection does not create a localized low point on the west side of the sidewalk connection. d.The grading near the northeast corner of the proposed building must be revised so that it is minimum 3:1. e.If a retaining wall is installed near the northeast corner of the building, the owner must obtain an encroachment agreement since the wall would be located within the sanitary sewer easement. f.Any encroachment into a drainage and utility easement must be approved by the Engineering Department and an encroachment agreement must be obtained. g.The sanitary sewer line must be televised before and after construction to ensure that the grading equipment does not damage the sanitary sewer. h.The new water service must be wet tapped. i.Contact Kevin Crooks at 952-227-1311 a minimum of three working days before the water service and sewer service connection. j.A $7,600 cash escrow must be submitted to ensure that the street is properly patched after the water service connection is made. This escrow will be released if the street patch is in good condition after one freeze-thaw cycle has passed. k.A $500 cash escrow must be submitted to ensure that proper erosion and sediment control is employed. This escrow will be released once final stabilization is achieved per MPCA rules. l.The 6-inch private watermain north of the building must be minimum of 10 feet from the existing 10-inch trunk sanitary sewer. m.City standard detail plate 5300 shall be used on C3. n.Indicate on plan set how filtration area is to be protected from sedimentation and compaction due to heavy equipment traffic. o.Sheet C1 shows the minimum anticipated sediment and erosion control measures. These will need to change if they prove inadequate or if site and/or climatic 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 conditions change. This needs to be indicated on sheet C1 or otherwise communicated with the selected contractor. p.All disturbed soils must be stabilized with 14 days after cessation of grading activities. q.An operations and maintenance manual shall be completed and provided to the city for the infiltration feature. 4.General a.One additional fire hydrant is required to be located northwest of the building between the car wash service road and the proposed building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal Mark Littfin at 952-227-1151 for the exact location. b.All sidewalk connections shall comply with ADA requirements. c.The fenestration on the east elevation shall be increased to meet city code requirements. d.The canopy may contain a one-dimensional stripe only; no other signage or exterior lighting may be on the canopy. e.The lighting within the canopy shall be recessed; no external lighting on the canopy is permitted. f.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 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commission work session dated April 5, 2011 as presented. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Aanenson: Just for the City Council update would be I did give you a copy of the, kind of the talking points for our joint meeting. 6:30. I hope it says that on there. Next Monday night and we haven’t had many items going forward yet so we have some items going forward now to the rd City Council. And we will have a meeting on May 3, which is our normal meeting. We’ll be doing some code amendments. And at this time I do not have anything scheduled for the second meeting in May so we’ll see how that, the deadline for that application, for those applications would have been last week so as of now we do not have anything on for that agenda. We are reviewing or working on a couple different projects but none of them have actually submitted yet so. Just seeing a few here yet first part of the summer. Aller: Great, thank you. Anything further from anyone? Do I have a motion to adjourn? 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission - April 19, 2011 Thomas moved, Undestad seconded to adjourn. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 27