Loading...
PC Minutes 07-17-2012 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Bill Colopoulos, and Kelsey Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Joe Shamla, Project Engineer; and Ashley Mellgren, Planning Intern PUBLIC PRESENT: th Josh Koller, Southview Design 1875 East 50 Street, Inver Grove Heights Steve Wanek 6615 Horseshoe Curve Jim Knutson 1551 Lyman PUBLIC HEARING: 80 WEST 78TH STREET (GOODWILL): REQUEST FOR A PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT TH (BH). APPLICANT: 80 WEST 78 STREET, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2012-03. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a request for a variance for th 80 West 78 Street. The request is to permit parking. The parking lot to be at the right-of-way easement line. City Code requires that setbacks be horizontal distance between either the property line or the right- th of-way and in this case the property line and the easement line were different. Location is on West 78 Street just east of Highway 101. That’s north of Highway 5. It’s a frontage road in front of. Back in th February the City approved the site plan for the building at 80 West 78 Street. It was about a 20,000 square foot building. At that as part of our review we reviewed it based on the property line rather than the easement line. What that led to when we were reviewing the building permit application is that there’s a small area of the parking lot that encroaches into the required setback. City Code requires that our parking lots be 62 foot wide when they have 90 degree parking and two way travel aisles. In this case that, and because of the angle of the front property line it forced the corner of the parking lot into that parking setback. As I stated they’re requesting a 10 foot parking lot setback variance to permit parking at the right-of-way easement. They would still be all on their property and they can, it’s just a small portion of it. The request is just for the plan as submitted. It’s not for any other variances so everything else complies with city ordinance. The granting of the variance is in keeping with the ordinance. The construction of a parking lot is a normal accessory use for commercial buildings. The difficulty for meeting the ordinance is the shape of the lot and the city requirement for the parking design. The purpose of the variance is not for economic consideration but just for site layout and meeting city requirements and again the trapezoidous shape of the property limited where they could put the building and all the drive aisles and the parking lot and so staff is recommending approval of the variance request subject to the, I believe there’s 3 conditions of approval and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: One of the options was to vacate the easement and that was not selected? Generous: Right. We looked at that and the engineering department would like to maintain the right-of- th way in case the City has to reconstruct West 78 Street in the future or do any other improvements. Also we had, there’s additional utility easements in that area so they wanted to keep city control and not allow them to go further. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012 Aller: Any questions? Hearing none, would the applicant like to step forward if they choose to do so. Ben Merriman: Good evening commissioners. My name is Ben Merriman. I’m with Center Companies. My business is located at 2025 Coulter Boulevard in Chanhassen. Bob did a great job of explaining it this evening and also putting it down on paper as to what happened. We goofed up. We didn’t see the right- of-way. We used the property line. Designed our parking lot and then when we went into permit the City caught it and we realized what we had done so we changed the building permit plan so that it was correct and now we’re asking for a variance to go back to the original design. You probably haven’t experienced a lot of redevelopment in Chanhassen. You probably will as time goes on but these sites are difficult to work with. As Bob pointed out it’s a trapezoid site. We had to tear down an old office building and with these complexities comes these types of issues. I think this project along with the Haskell’s project has really made quite a difference in that corner and the way it looks as you’re coming into Chanhassen. I think it’s had a real positive effect and I appreciate your help with this. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Okay we’re going to open up the public hearing portion of the meeting. Would anybody like to step forward? Discuss anything with regard to the variance requested. Seeing no one step forward I close the hearing. Comments. Questions. I think it’s in line with what we had originally approved. It’s back to the original plans and we’re not giving up anything based on the fact that we’re not vacating the right-of-way so, and I do agree that the work that’s been done down on that corner is both aesthetically pleasing and it’s been good for the community so I’ll entertain a motion. Thomas: Alright, I will propose a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves Planning Case #2012-07 for a 10 foot parking lot setback variance to permit parking at the right-of-way easement as shown on the plans prepared by MFRA dated July 6, 2012 subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: Having a motion, do I have a second? Colopoulos: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any discussion? Thomas moved, Colopoulos seconded that theChanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves Planning Case #2012-07 for a 10 foot parking lot setback variance to permit parking at the right-of-way easement as shown on the plans prepared by MFRA dated July 6, 2012 subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 1. The monument sign must comply with City Code and the required setback and may not encroach into any easements. 2. The applicant shall update the plans to show the proposed parking stalls and make changes to plans according to staff redlines. 3. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment agreement with the City to construct the parking lot within the City watermain easement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 2