Loading...
PC 2011 08 16 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16, 2011 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Tom Doll, Mark Undestad, Kevin Ellsworth, Kim Tennyson and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathleen Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE DRIVE BUSINESS CENTER: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 155 STALL PARKING LOT EXPANSION ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP) AND LOCATED AT 950 LAKE DRIVE. APPLICANT: CSM CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE 2011-08. Public Present: Name Address John Ferrier, CSM Corporation 500 Washington Avenue So, Minneapolis Mark Kronbeck, Alliant Engineering 233 Park Avenue So, Minneapolis Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a public hearing to review proposed parking lot expansion. The applicant made this application because they wanted additional flexibility and marketability on the property. Currently the site is mostly, mainly vacant. The building is and so they’re looking for tenants to accommodate them in the future. The site plan review request is for 155 stall parking lot expansion. They’re proposing it in three locations on the site and that would mostly occur in three phases. They’re going through the site plan review process because the grading on, for the proposal is a little more than staff could approve administratively. Additionally we’re reviewing the grading, the lighting, a sign relocation and the landscaping in conjunction with the parking lot. This property is zoned industrial office park. It’s located on the northeast corner of Lake Drive and Powers Boulevard. To the east of it is Robert’s Automatic. To the south is Lake Susan or Lake Susan Park. It’s a community park. To the west is a vacant industrial office park site and I did hand out an email I received yesterday. The property owners have concern that when they develop their site, coming down their driveway they will see a parking lot in the corner. However I did respond to them and advised them that the parking lot is a permitted accessory use in the IOP district. That their proposal complies with all the zoning requirements and that we will as part of our review require that they provide landscaping around it so I haven’t heard anything back from him but I told him that I’d give it to the Planning Commission and put it on the record. Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 16, 2011 Aller: Okay just for the record we have received that and it should be made part of the Minutes so thank you. Generous: And then finally on the north side of this is the railroad tracks and it’s very high above this site so you can’t actually see it from the north. As I said there’s three locations that they’re proposing parking expansion. On the southwest corner of the site, which is this area down here, they’re proposing a total of 48 parking spaces. The southeast corner they’re proposing 41 spaces and on the east side there is a total of 66 spaces. Again they’re, they would develop this in phases with the first phase being the southwest parking area. However if they did have a big user come in I’m sure they’d put all the improvements in at one time. The applicant is here and he can expand on that. Basically this is a review of the grading plan. It should be pointed out their extensive retaining wall systems on that. The smallest one is located in the southwest parking area and it’s highest point is 2 ½ feet tall. The second one is around the southeast side of the building and it’s tallest point is 6.8 feet. On the east side, along this edge of the property they’re proposing an 8 foot 8 foot tall retaining wall and then the final one in this truck turnaround area would be 17 ½ feet. The issues that we have with their proposal would be that on the east side of the property there’s a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement. That contains a large stormwater pipe and so we would require that they keep all the retaining wall improvements out of that easement. What this will force them to do is either push all the parking to the west adjacent to the building, if that’s possible, or we looked at an alternative where they could get a row of parallel parking on this east side and that would reduce, because they’re 8 foot wide stalls instead of the 18 foot deep so they could pick up 10 feet. Or they could just eliminate that parking in that area and leave it up to the applicant to figure out and their engineer what’s their best alternative. The other issue that we talked about within the report is that depending on the usage of the building there may be some exiting requirements along the south side, specifically if they have office occupancy in the warehouse area they would need to provide additional egress from the building and that, we believe that they could handle that through the use of a stairway system down into the parking area but it would again it depends on the occupancy in the future so we just wanted to advise them upfront that that may become an issue depending on who they get for a tenant. And finally the landscaping plan, they are deficient in the number of landscape peninsulas that they have as part of their parking requirements. City code requires islands or peninsulas for every 6,000 square feet of vehicular use area. This was intended to help break up the large expanses of parking lot and so they will need to provide us with a revised plan showing how they’re going to locate that, and then there was one other issue in this northeast corner of the parking lot. This last stall is not protected by the landscape island and so we would have them extend that out farther so vehicles coming around that corner won’t clip the back of a vehicle parked in that stall. And then as far as landscaping, right now there’s significant trees in this area of the site that will be reviewed once these, if this parking area goes in and so they need to provide additional landscaping, screening along that drive. With that staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of the staff report. And I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Okay we’ll start, Kevin if you have any. Ellsworth: Ah Mr. Chair yes, I do. On page 4 and 5, Bob we talk about stormwater management and down at the bottom, the first full paragraph on page 5. While this system is generally 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 16, 2011 acceptable it is undetermined at this time how it will be maintained. And so it, looking for an agreement on how it will be provided. I did not see that in the recommendation on the conditions and maybe I missed that and I guess I’m curious as to what that would encompass. Jeffery: Chairman Aller, Commissioner Ellsworth. I have had discussion with the applicant and with the applicant’s engineer. Their standard maintenance and operation, operations and maintenance manuals that would go with it. It is a little tricky with the underground system as to how you get the sediment out of the void spaces. That will be, will need to be looked at as we move forward. At this time it was left fairly open ended so that we could have that discussion and decide how best to handle it. We do within our surface water management plan have generalized form that we, for private stormwater maintenance or private stormwater system maintenance and that would be provided to the applicant for, at a minimum a template of the minimum information that would be required. Ellsworth: So you’re confident that there’s enough capability in this system and adequate maintenance would be provided, that this would not turn into a go, no go situation? Jeffery: Yeah, that’s correct. That is correct because at this time what we are really looking for is a more rate control with this system than treating. We do have the Lake Susan pond that will be providing the water quality treatment we’re looking for. It’s really because of the large watershed that goes through this system we need to make sure that we slow the water down leaving the site and don’t increase rates on the site. Ellsworth: Who owns that Lake Susan pond and who’s responsible for it’s maintenance and dredging it when it fills up and so on? Jeffery: That is owned by the City of Chanhassen and we are responsible under MS4 permit for the maintenance of that, and I did bring it up in the report that perhaps in future phases there might be a more efficient way to spend their stormwater dollars over on that pond itself rather than trying to install another one of these system with future phases. That would be to be determined and if we had enough lead time to try and come up with a way to do that but really at this time we’re primarily concerned with maintaining rates coming off of that site. Ellsworth: Okay, thanks Terry. That’s all Mr. Chair. Hokkanen: No questions. Not yet. Aller: Commissioner Doll. Doll: Just is there a view issue with that vacant lot? I’m just confused as to how that would affect their view of the park. Generous: Is there a view issue? Doll: With this email here about the. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 16, 2011 Undestad: The Pauls property. Doll: The Pauls property. Aanenson: Can you go back to that trail. Doll: The view corridor, is that really an issue? Aanenson: When you look at that driveway coming up off of Powers Boulevard, it’s actually fairly steep going up so really the view shed is on Powers Boulevard I think getting to and from the site and I think that’s what Mr. Generous was saying. Is that we look at landscaping that or trying to replace that or put additional landscaping there but it does meet city code. The city code does say that you should land, screen parking in front of buildings so that’s one of the conditions of approval is so, but they do have a right to do that just as long as they follow code, which will be the screening but yeah from the top of the site, no. It’d be very difficult to see that. Doll: I thought that site was higher on the other side. Aanenson: Significantly, yeah. It’s just, I think it’s just a view perspective coming in. Doll: Okay. That’s it. Undestad: No questions. Aller: Ms. Tennyson? Tennyson: No questions. Aller: Okay, nothing from me at this point. We have an application that wants to come forward and make a presentation? John Ferrier: Good evening Chair and Commissioners. I’m John Ferrier with CSM Corporation. Also with me tonight is Mark Kronbeck. He is with Alliant Engineering and put together the engineering plans. We reviewed the staff report and we agree with his findings. You know this parking lot expansion is largely market driven. On the southwest portion of the site we have a dismissed office area that’s 100% office. It is adjacent to some warehouse, however there’s very little parking in front of that office area. We’ve had several tenants go through the space and say well we need more parking in the front of the, you know kind of the entry part of the office, so Phase I is definitely that kind of V shaped area that he’s pointing to right there. The other areas that we’re proposing parking will be dictated by the kind of tenants we have come through there. We didn’t want to be encumbered by the fact that they say oh, we need more parking and then we say it’ll require city approval. We wanted to get it approved all at once so we can at least show them an exhibit that shows all this parking. This building has been largely vacant since we purchased it so we’re looking for all kinds of creative ideas to get it leased up which in turn helps us and in turn helps you as well so we think that it’s a great project. We appreciate the help from 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 16, 2011 staff and we’ll work with staff to work through some of these issues as part of the recommendation so, if you have any other questions I’m here to answer any questions. Aller: I just want to confirm that what I’m hearing from you is you’ve read the report. You agree with all the conditions that are in the report? John Ferrier: Yes. Aller: And you understand that the, that primarily that easement in that area has to stay pretty much clear based on the conditions here concerning that water flow. John Ferrier: Correct. And I was talking with our engineer prior to the meeting. He has some ideas to keep some of that parking and adhere to the easement so. Aller: And then there were other conditions in here regarding the pollution discharge permits and things like that. John Ferrier: Right. Aller: You understand that we want those before Phase I. John Ferrier: Absolutely, yep. Aller: Okay. Any other questions? Great, thank you very much Mr. Ferrier. Okay we’ll open the public hearing. Anyone that wants to speak on the matter, please come forward. State your name, address for the record. Seeing no one come forward, I’m going to close the public hearing. Comments from commissioners. Tom, anything? Doll: No. Undestad: No, looks good. Ellsworth: Looks like a good project. Aller: I think it’s a good project. I like the fact that you looked at the entire plan even though it may be done in phases. That we get a foreshadowing of what’s coming forward so, and the conditions are certainly reasonable. I think it’s a good plan. Do I hear a motion? Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Thank you Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan for parking lot expansion located at 950 Lake Drive, plans prepared by Alliant Engineering dated July 19, 2011, subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 16, 2011 Aller: Can I have a second? Doll: I’ll second. Aller: Commissioner Doll seconds. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Doll seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan for parking lot expansion located at 950 Lake Drive, plans prepared by Alliant Engineering dated July 19, 2011, subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Planning Department Conditions 1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the security required by it. 2.This relocated sign shall require a separate building permit and sign permit. 3.The landscape island on the north end of the parking adjacent to the east side of the building shall be extended further out to provide full protection of the parking stall. Environmental Resource Specialist Conditions 1.The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the minimum number of landscape islands/peninsulas (16) and trees (50). 2.The applicant shall provide adequate screening for the new parking areas along Lake Drive. Shrubs shall reach a mature height of at least two feet. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions 1.Rates of surface water runoff must not be increased from existing conditions. Where practicable to do so, rates should be decreased. 2.The applicant and city shall work together on future phases to look for potential cooperative surface water management opportunities. 3.These approvals for future phases are contingent upon City code and other jurisdictional agency rules remaining the same. In the event that any of these changes, the applicant will need to resubmit to assure that the plans meet any new rules germane to this project. 4.Include a note on the Grading and Erosion Control plan indicating that the proposed best management practices is the minimum controls anticipated, but that as unanticipated site and climatic conditions present themselves, it will be to modify the best management practices to meet these new conditions. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 16, 2011 5.All 3:1 slopes shall be covered with erosion control blanket or sod. This needs to be indicated within the plan set on sheet C-2: Grading and Erosion Control. 6.An escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $2,450.00 shall be provided to the City before commencement of the first phase. This escrow is only for the first phase. Subsequent phases will require additional assurance funds. 7.Applicant must apply for and receive approvals from other jurisdictional agencies as necessary. 8.The applicant must show that the total disturbed area for all phases is less than one acre or they must apply for and receive an NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit from the MPCA. If this is the case, a full Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment. 9.All exposed soils must be stabilized within 14 days of cessation of earth work activities. 10.Lake Drive must be swept clean of soils and debris tracked onto it from the site as needed but no less than once per week until final stabilization is achieved. 11.The applicant or their designee must maintain the best management practices in good working order until final stabilization is achieved. Engineering Department Conditions 1.Grass area maximum slope must not exceed 3:1. 2.The applicant must submit revised plans (redlines) which meet the requirements of the City. 3.Drainage plans must be revised so that the plans match the drainage calculations. The applicant must also follow City standards for water quality volume. Also, the proposed drainage rates must be maintained for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year rain events. 4.The storm sewer provided for treatment will be privately owned and maintained. 5.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 6.Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. A fence must be placed at the top of the wall for safety. 7.The exits in front of Wall 2 may be inadequate for some uses of the building under the proposed parking scenario. Exterior exit discharge must accommodate exits served. The parking stalls in this area should be constructed at the time when a final end user is determined so that the exits will not limit the occupancy. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 16, 2011 8.The wall and wall supports (not including soil) in drainage area three on the east side of the site must be removed from the drainage and utility easement. 9.Details must be provided for all proposed storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain crossings. Actual elevations of existing utilities shall be verified for accuracy. A minimum vertical separation of 18” is required at all storm, sanitary, and watermain crossings. 10.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to provide the City with the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee the installation of the storm sewer, erosion control, and seeding. This amount will be determined prior to start of construction due to the possible phasing of the project and not knowing the amount to be installed and disturbed. 11.The applicant must also notify the City after installation of the erosion control and 48 hours prior to the commencement of grading. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required. 12.The plans and drainage calculations must be signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Ellsworth noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 19, 2011 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: thth Aanenson: Yes, on Monday, August 8 the City Council approved the Bluff Creek 4 Addition, and you don’t usually see the final plats. You see the preliminary so some of you may not be aware but that would be 19 additional lots with that so, that area is actually pulling a lot of permits. Hokkanen: And they’re selling. Aanenson: Yes they’re selling out there and the old Pioneer Pass yep, so they’re doing well up there. And then I just wanted to note too that the City Council did table the paintball shooting courses but we’ve addressed some of their issues so actually the shooting range will be back on next Monday. There’s a couple other action items they had to take so most of that meeting will be dedicated to budget but they will hear, we separated the paintball and shooting and actually it was helpful because the City Attorney also just recently, in Lakeville they had a Gaylan’s that has shooting range so we had some of our specific questions addressed and added some additional comments so you, anything that would be requested would come back before you under a conditional use permit so we felt comfortable, the staff did with those changes and just 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 16, 2011 wanted to make sure we didn’t have any unintended consequences of making that recommendation so that will be going forward. Ellsworth: Kate was the reason they tabled it was to get more information or what? Aanenson: Yeah, I think as we were going through we decided, myself specifically had a couple questions regarding, you know to separated kind of the building code issues. I think we feel comfortable about that. There’s certainly a lot of air exchange requirements. Lead requirements. Just other surrounding uses and you know kind of the zoning and kind of reviewed that again with the city attorney and I think we feel comfortable under the conditional use. No matter what’s next you want to make sure that that use is protected and I think that’s actually a little bit more addressed actually in the building codes so we feel comfortable with that and we’ll look at those with the conditional use stands a thing we want to maybe hours of operation when those specific ones come in that we may want to make sure we attach to that use. Ellsworth: I was just seeing if it was a learning event for us if there was something we missed that the council wanted to see. Aanenson: No, I think the Community Development Director just wanted to make sure everything was. Aller: I was watching the meeting and I think they went through the same process that we did. We just had several meetings on it and were able to absorb things and conditions and information and from what I was seeing the council members wanted just to absorb a little bit more of the impact that it would have on the community and any potential unintended consequences. Aanenson: And I think too once someone makes that kind of a financial commitment it’s pretty significant. The use isn’t going to go away so you want to make sure that you know it’s a good neighbor, not only for the surrounding uses but for the community too so I think we’ve got that addressed. Aller: Thank you. Great. Let’s see, what else do we have here? Aanenson: I did have one other thing that I just wanted to point out. Aller: Yes. Aanenson: Just pass out a note from the mayor. Hopefully all of you are aware that CNN Money Magazine named Chanhassen one of the top 10 places to live. We’re actually number 10 so I wanted to just pass along a note from the mayor. He sent it to all city staff but also wanted to include notes to the Planning Commission and send along thanks and congratulations to the Planning Commission and all the other advisory committees for all the significant role they play in Chanhassen’s success and development so it’s I guess not something that we seek out but the city was recognized as a great place. Thank you for all that you do from the mayor. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission - August 16, 2011 Aller: Alright. And thank you to you and to staff because you make it easy for us up here with these great reports, which are very thorough and you get us the information that we need as citizen gate keepers so thank you. Aanenson: If I may chairman, I have just a couple other things. I did put in your packet just a couple items. I’m trying to do a better job of just including some things that maybe you probably saw but just make sure that you’re aware of kind of what’s going on in the community. We’re actually experiencing a little boomlet there for residential permits so we’re already at 97 units right now to date and we actually have probably another 14 in right now. Aller: Ahead of schedule. Aanenson: So we’re ahead of schedule and doing well, and so we’re working on the sales trailer’s going out at the Reflections at Lake Riley. That’s the Lennar neighborhood over in Springfield so that’s a good sign. It’s keeping people working and there’s just another area about pockets of recovery that I just wanted to share with you too. And then one final note then on future Planning Commission items before we go to work session and that would be we’re still planning on our tour and I think what Terry Jeffery’s going to talk to you about tonight, you’ll actually will be able to actually kind of field check that when we go out that. We’re going to concentrate that you talked about some water resources and I think if we may, Bob did check our sunset time, which is about 7:15 so we’re going to see if we can start a little bit earlier and we’ll do a picnic dinner with that too and so we can drive around and look at some things as we’ve done in the past and so we’ll see if we can start a little earlier. If we started obviously at 7:00 that would give us roughly 15 minutes so maybe we can start you know maybe by 6:00 that would be great and kind of hit a few other spots so I’ll put that in your packet next time and if you let me know if you can or can’t make it at that time so with that that’s kind of all I had for the regular order. th Aller: And it looks like we have on calendar a variance for September 6. Aanenson: Yes you do, yeah and we may put some other just kind of work items on that meeting too but there is one public hearing, correct. Aller: Great. Alright. Anything further? Motion to adjourn. Doll moved, Ellsworth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 10