PC 2012 02 07
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 7, 2012
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Tom Doll, Kathleen Thomas, Kim Tennyson,
and Lisa Hokkanen
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kevin Ellsworth
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner;
and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Mary Rabai 7340 Frontier Trail
Vicki Bomben 9260 Talis Circle
Kyle Rose 17352 Frondell Court
PUBLIC HEARING:
TH
80 WEST 78 STREET: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 20,600 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES
TH
DISTRICT (BH) AND LOCATED AT 80 WEST 78 STREET. APPLICANT: CENTER
COMPANIES, LLC., PLANNING CASE 2012-03.
th
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. The first item is 80 West 78 Street. It’s a
request for site plan review for a 20,600 square foot commercial building on property zoned Highway and
Business Services District. The property is zoned, is guided for commercial use. The applicant is Center
Companies LLC and it’s Planning Case #12-03. The site plan, the 20,600 square foot building is one
story. It replaces an existing two story office building on this site. As you can see the property’s located
thth
north of West 78 Street, which is just north of Highway 5 and east of 101. It’s the first site on West 78
Street. The City owns the property immediately to the west of that. It contains a stormwater pond. To
the north of the site are the railroad tracks and they’re approximately 8 feet above the proposed finished
floor elevation for this building. To the east of the property is the garden center and then east of that is
the Haskell’s store that was just recently, two years ago was approved and developed on it. This is the
entranceway to, the property is 2.79 acres in size and the floor area ratio for the development is 0.17. The
existing two story building that’s on the property was built in 1973 and that will be demolished as part of
the redevelopment of this site. This is the commercial entrance to the community. To the east of it are
some office industrial developments and then this property and the two to the east of it and those south of
Highway 5 are really where the commercial development starts in the city of Chanhassen and continues in
to our downtown area. Okay, the 20,600 square foot one story commercial office building is proposed for
one tenant right now. Goodwill is going to be the tenant in the development. The property is zoned
Highway Business and so it permits all kinds of commercial retail uses, service uses, office uses. The
proposed use is consistent with both the zoning and the land use for the property. The proposed
development complies with all the district regulations relative to setback, building height and site
coverage. The proposed building, finish floor elevation is approximately 3 1/2 feet higher than the
existing building finished floor elevation on the site so it will be a little bit higher up but the total building
is only 20 feet tall to the principle parapet area. Should note on the plans they show a wetland buffer on
the north edge of the property. However that’s a stormwater pond so there are no wetland buffer
requirements. The wetland is actually on the property immediately to the east of this and so north of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2012
garden center site. The main entrance is located on the east side of the building. They do on the south
side have a full entrance area that they have extensive glass systems in. Above both elevations they have
a canopy. A metal canopy. Building materials consist of face brick, scored block, EIFS, which is
Exterior Insulating Finishing System, and store front windows. There are column like elements included
at the entrances and at the corners and along the side of the building. Staff is recommending that these
elements be projected out slightly from the building to provide an additional articulation to those
frontages, or the building elevations. The EIFS is by code is required to be no more than 15% of the
building material. In this instance we’ve calculated it and it’s approximately 40% so one of the
conditions is that they reduce the amount of EIFS that they include on the building. The vertical
articulation is provided through this step parapet height. It starts at 20 feet and then it goes to 23 feet 4
inches and then up to 26 feet 8 inches at the very top, right over the entrance. The east and south
elevations exceed the minimum façade transparency requirements under city code so they have more than
enough windows. The west elevation we believe needs a little more additional architectural details. Due
to the use of this area of the building, it’s a warehouse portion of the building, we do not require that they
use transparent windows. However we do recommend that they provide additional detailing. We
provided some alternatives that they can use. They could have upper level windows to provide lighting
into that area but not direct use in the storage area. The spanrow glass, glass block or they could even
use, do some architectural detailing with the material work going up and down and projecting out. Staff
has suggested that they may look at a roof element over the entrance on the north side of the building.
Over the stairway and additionally the, in the southwest corner over that door may be also a good place to
provide some type of covering, especially if that’s right inside of that is the employee break room and
some office space so people may be using that that work there. The parking is divided into two parts.
Approximately 68% of the parking or 69 spaces are located on the east side of the building and 32 spaces
are located south of the building. There is a drop off area on the northwest side of the building and this is
a, has an enclosed canopy area that they drive through to drop off area. The loading docks are located on
the north side of the building so it’s free from all public views. All the drive aisles are two way except for
the drop off which will be a one way around the side of the building. We are recommending that this area
in the northeast corner of the site, in the future when the property to the east redevelops that that be made
a vehicular connection so that people don’t have to leave the commercial sites, go out on our public street
and then go to another commercial site so, but that won’t be until the garden center redevelops. As part of
the review they need to provide additional landscape islands on the east, in the eastern parking lot and at
least 2 trees and then an additional tree on the southwest corner of the building in that landscape peninsula
th
that sticks out from the building. That’s just his view of West 78 Street so, which is a public street. It’s
a little tough. They are providing area lighting in the parking area and adjacent to the building. Wall
light. All the lighting complies with city code. Maximum height is 30 feet. They’ll be less. They’ll be
at 28 feet for their lighting standard. All of the lighting is shielded and has a 90 degree cutoff angle so it
won’t be glowing up into the sky. Under the canopies they also have lighting that will be recessed into
that. As part of the signage they’re proposing signs on the south and east elevations of the building. That
is permitted by code. We haven’t reviewed those because we don’t have sufficient detail to see if they
comply with the ordinance but if they meet the BH District regulations they will get signing. They do
show on the plans a 30 foot pylon. Our ordinance doesn’t permit that. They are allowed to have one
th
monument sign on West 78 Street. Maximum height is 8 feet with the sign display area of 64 square
feet. Again the grading plan shows that they are raising the finished floor elevation of the building. One
of the conditions on this is that the applicant provide the drainage area plans to show where all the water
is going and that they provide the drainage calculations. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan
for a 20,600 square foot one story retail building and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation subject to the conditions in the staff report. With that I’d be happy to answer any
questions.
Aller: Any questions?
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2012
Doll: I have one.
Aller: Tom.
Doll: On the west side elevation, can you show me where the drop off area is. I’m confused by that.
Generous: It’s this area right here. This actually projects out from the rest of that face.
Doll: Okay. I was just kind of looking for more of a door there.
Generous: Yeah, you can see it here. This is the doorway into it that you’d see from the south side.
Doll: Okay.
Hokkanen: So do you drive into that gray area there?
Generous: Yes.
Doll: Drive under a canopy. And are there areas for garbage disposal and recycling type?
Generous: The applicant has advised us that they will be having that inside and it will be rolled out of
their loading dock doors. However should in the future another tenant come in and they wanted to have
outdoor trash, then they would have to put an enclosure up on the sides.
Doll: Okay. That’s all I have.
Hokkanen: That was my same question.
Aller: Okay. Has there been any input or reaction from the business community? I mean it looks pretty.
Generous: No, it’s been pretty quiet.
Aller: Complimentary to what’s down there so, okay. I have no other questions. Would the developer
like to come up and make a presentation? If so at this time please step forward and state your name and
address for the record and who you represent.
Ben Merriman: Good evening. My name is Ben Merriman. I’m with Center Companies and address of
the company is 2025 Coulter Boulevard here in Chanhassen. I guess I’ll just go over a couple things on
the staff recommendations. Perhaps we’ll start on the west. We can leave the site plan up I guess at this
point. The west elevation, they’re asking that we add some windows and articulation to that west side.
There is a long line of trees on a City property, which actually you can kind of see on this site plan now,
and those trees run the entire length I think further north, if I’m not mistaken and if those trees were
removed that side of the building will be quite visible to the public. If they’re not removed, that side of
the building really won’t be visible to the public hardly at all so I guess my thought is, we can add some
articulation to that side of the building and we would be willing to add more, especially if those trees were
removed for whatever reason. If not, I don’t see a lot of rationale for it. And then on the north elevation,
which is where the loading docks are, there is a couple of emergency exits and then there’s an entrance
for a truck driver to come up and enter in, but other than that it’s a service entrance and it faces north.
There’s a wetlands and then there’s a railroad track and then beyond the railroad track would be an
apartment building and that has the back sides of garages. So it’s the back side of a long string of garages
so I don’t see a lot of rationale behind making a lot of architectural changes to a side of a building that
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2012
faces a railroad track but we’re willing to work with staff and come up with compromises that work. I
think we have more trees than we need, at least understory trees I think we’re over and I think shrubs
we’re over and there’s some recommendations that we move some shrubs and add an island and move
some trees around and we’re perfectly fine with that. Well I don’t see any issues with that. We’ll
decrease the amount of EIFS that is on the project and increase either with columns and/or different types
of material to meet the code as far as EIFS goes. Don’t see an issue there at all. Other than that I’m open
to any questions you might have.
Aller: I guess I’m getting the sense that, from if I just look at the report itself, you don’t have a problem
with the conditions as placed and working with staff and making sure that those get accomplished.
Ben Merriman: I don’t at all.
Aller: Okay. Kathleen?
Thomas: No.
Aller: Tom?
Doll: Nope.
Hokkanen: Nothing.
Aller: No questions thank you sir. Would anyone from the public like to come up and speak on this
particular subject? Seeing no one’s coming forward I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, open
for comment.
Undestad: Pretty straight forward. Nice looking project.
Thomas: Very nice.
Aller: I think as the report, it looks like they’re in compliance with the zoning requirements and the
setbacks are there and been willing to work with staff on making sure the conditions get met so it looks
like a good project.
Thomas: I agree.
Aller: They’ve done other work before and it’s come out great so with that I’ll entertain a motion.
Thomas: I’ll make a motion.
Aller: Okay.
Thomas: Okay. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site
plan as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1 through 5 and adoption of the Findings of Fact
and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Doll: Second.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2012
Thomas moved, Doll seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve the Site Plan for a 20,600 square-foot, one-story retail building, plans prepared
th
by MFRA dated 1/4/2012, for property located at 80West 78 Street, and adopt the findings of fact
and recommendation, subject to the following conditions:
Building Official
1. A demolition permit is required for the removal of any existing structures.
2. Complete construction plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4. Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are
submitted.
5. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Forester
1. The line of shrubs along the parking lot on the south property line shall be extended to provide a
buffer for the length of the parking area. The plantings can be incorporated into the rain garden.
2. The applicant shall add an island in the east parking lot containing two overstory trees, minimum
inside width of 10 feet.
3. The applicant shall add one overstory tree to the peninsula in the south parking lot at the
southwest corner of the building.
Water Resources
1.
No final approval of the proposal may be given without the review and approval of the drainage
plans and calculations.
2.
The curb cuts must be increased to a minimum width of five (5) feet to avoid concentrated flow
and resulting scour.
3.
Additional topographic information is required in the area between the two existing ponds in
order to determine the emergency overflow (EOF) elevation of the pond to the west.
4.
The lowest floor elevation of the building must be minimum 18 inches above the established EOF
elevation. A berm may be required on the northwest corner of the drop-off drive in order to
properly divert the EOF water.
5.
Correct the elevations on the filtration basin cross section on page C4.01.
6.
The filtration basin will be privately owned and maintained. A maintenance agreement will be
required by the City.
Engineering
1. Erosion control phasing Gantt chart will need to be completed prior to earth-disturbing activities.
2. The swale along the western property boundary will need to be stabilized per Part IV. B.3 of the
NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. (Ex. Stabilization of the last 200 lineal feet with 24
hours of connection to a surface water.)
3. Grading should be phased so that the filtration basin is constructed last and is protected from
construction traffic. The streets shall be swept clean nightly or as needed.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2012
Planning
1. The property owner shall combine RLS 59, Tracts A and B into a Zoning Lot. The combination
must be recorded at Carver County prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall provide future circulation information to the easterly properties prior to
council approval. When the parcel to the east redevelops, then the vehicular accesses shall be
constructed.
3. The articulation of the building shall be further enhanced through the use of additional projecting
columns in those areas where the face brick is extended above the windows.
4. The elevations shall be revised to meet City Code requirements for the percentage allowed for
accent material.
5. The fenestration and architectural detailing on the west elevation shall be increased.
6. The architectural detailing and columns shall be continued along the north elevation.
7. Should an exterior trash enclosure be necessary in the future, it shall be screened and constructed
with similar materials to the building.
8. All signage shall comply with City Code and requires a separate sign permit application.
9. The applicant shall provide a bike rack.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CITY CODE AMENDMENT: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING
CONCERNING STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITY LIGHT HEIGHT.
Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Our last meeting we went through there were like
six potential planning, or changes to the city code. We got direction to bring at least 2 of them back right
now and there’s some additional work required on the other ones. The first one is the storage of
recreational vehicles, Section 20-910, Subsection 6. As we stated before currently our ordinance says you
can have a recreational vehicle parked in your yard or be occupied for 7 days, but it doesn’t have a limit
on the amount of 7 days you could have in the year and so we looked at the existing camping ordinance
that the City has and used the same language and are proposing that that be included in the proposed code
amendments and adoption of the ordinance. The second item is regarding recreational light heights. The
recreational field light heights. Currently our ordinance limits the height to 65 feet for the lights. The one
existing lights at Lake Ann Park are at 75 feet already so they’re nonconforming. The parks director
recommended that we adopt that standard for recreational facilities for not only the City but other
recreational facilities that are developed in the future so we’re recommending that Section 20-913(c)(2)
be amended to raise the light pole heights to, from 65 feet to 75 feet. Staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance amending these two sections of the city
code. With that I’d be happy to answer your questions.
Aller: Bob, on the fixture lights going to 75 feet. The light itself is going to be on top of that so it’ll be
actually some additional height.
Generous: Right.
Aller: But this really doesn’t change the lighting that much because of the 90 degree cap correct?
Generous: Right. They have to.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2012
Aller: So as long as it’s capped and coming down it’s not going to be a big impact even though it’s above
the 75.
Generous: Correct. And they do a lot, we get a lot of photometrics when they do those type of facilities
to make sure they have sufficient lighting on the ballfield but then it dies away when they hit the property
line.
Aller: And because they’re non-conforming we’ve already seen the actual impact.
Generous: So yeah, people know what it looks like.
Aller: Any questions from anyone else?
Doll: Is there, what caused this to come about?
Generous: Well we just, we found out that they have a non-conformity and there was discussions with
the school. I believe they had to get a variance to do their lighting for their fields and so rather than make
people do that in the future. We want to make it as efficient as possible for either our park facilities or
school facilities to be lighted that we would amend the ordinance.
Doll: Alright.
Aller: Okay. Open the public hearing. If anyone wants to come forward, please do so. State your name
and address for the record. Seeing no one coming forward I will close the public hearing. Comments.
Questions.
Thomas: I think we talked about it.
Aller: In the work session.
Thomas: Yeah.
Aller: At length so with that I’ll entertain a motion. Anyone?
Undestad: I’ll make a motion then.
Aller: Thank you.
Undestad: I’m going to make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City
Council adopt the attached ordinance amendment amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code
regulating the storage of recreational vehicles and recreational facility lights.
Aller: Having a motion, do I have a second?
Thomas: Second.
Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City
Council adopt the attached ordinance amendment amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City
Code regulating the storage of recreational vehicles and recreational facility lights. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2012
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Thomas noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated January 3, 2012 and summary minutes of the Work Session meeting on
January 17, 2012 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE.
th
Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Chair. On their meeting on January 9 the City Council approved the
nd
Reflections at Lake Riley. That was the 2 Addition there so that will get underway. I talked to someone
from there today and they’re doing very well out there. Looking for other sites. The other thing is on the
rd
January 23 I did present to the City Council a process for the area wide review which is that area
between Lyman and Pioneer, Audubon and Powers Boulevard. As you know we, during the
comprehensive plan we re-guided that to either commercial or regional commercial or office. In doing
that we have to update the AUAR so I kind of laid out a process. This is going to be a big work project
for you so actually it will be on your next work session but it’s going to be exciting to talk about kind of
the potentials there. What that could be and we need to have a threshold of what that use, what the
maximum can be there in order so we can do the trip generation and remodel some of that so that project
can go forward so we’ll be spending a few months on that, and that’s all I had for the council update.
Aller: Great. Were we able to discuss that idea on having a student?
Aanenson: I think we’ll do that at our, when we have our joint meeting. Yep, and that’s coming up in
March. Yep, I already spoke to the City Manager about that and that will be on the agenda.
Aller: Great. Okay. Any other presentations or business?
Aanenson: I was going to mention for the future Planning Commission real quick.
Aller: Okay.
Aanenson: So we talked about for next time will be a work session. We do have Primrose coming in.
th
There was a few issues there so that will actually be on for the March 6 so I know work sessions aren’t
you know may be received as important but for the staff is really is for us. We took to heart the
comments on the PUD and I think we’re going to come back with some really good discussion points for
you to talk about. How we apply it. When we should use it and when we shouldn’t and hopefully that
will kind of give us the direction to come back with the amendment. Then I just mentioned the, well I’ll
put together and show you what we’re going to do for the AUAR, the development scenarios. I think that
will be really exciting. Kind of looking at some other projects of comparable size in the metro areas and
maybe even do a field trip and kind of get some good feedback for the council on that. And then we do
have a couple other code amendments and then potential Planning Commission interviews. Just to
remind you again, in the past we haven’t interviewed the incumbents. The council will interview the
incumbents but this commission will just interview potential new candidates and then just give the
council a ranking order, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want you to not to come to the work session so
just kind of…so don’t take that as a pass because we definitely want your input on the AUAR and the
PUD process so, with that Mr. Chair that’s all I had on that.
Aller: So we’ll have a work session on the 21st?
Aanenson: Correct.
Aller: Okay.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 7, 2012
Aanenson: Yeah, I did have one other item though, and I put in there again the Chanhassen Rotary Club,
th
Distinguished Service Award so we were to get by the 17.
Aller: Nominations, okay.
Aanenson: And nobody had come up with but if you wanted to maybe collectively email and put
something together and nominate somebody then we can, if somebody wants to send it to me, an idea and
then I’ll make sure everybody else distributes it so.
Thomas: I have an idea.
Aanenson: Okay, great. Shoot it off and then I’ll make sure everybody else on the commission gets a
copy of that and you can kind of, then we’ll submit it. Alright, thank you.
Aller: Any other business? Motion to adjourn?
Thomas moved, Tennyson 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
7:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
9