PC Minutes 08-21-2012
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 21, 2012
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, and Bill
Colopoulos
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kathleen Thomas and Kelsey Nelson
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner,
and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
CANINE CLUB & SPA EXPANSION (SUPERDOG II): REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A 5,281 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING EXPANSION TO THE APPROVED 21,020 SQUARE
FOOT BUILDING AREA ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
NDRD
LOCATED AT 2910 82 STREET (LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 3
ADDITION. APPLICANT/OWNER: KAREN JACKSON, PLANNING CASE 2012-06.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated the item before us is a site plan
review for Canine Club and Spa, also known as Superdog II. It’s Planning Case 2012-06. The approval
is for a 5,281 square foot expansion to the approved site plan for a total of 26,301 square feet. Back in
2008 approximately 21,000 square foot building complex was approved for this site. City code only
allows a 10% expansion on what’s approved to be done administratively. The proposed expansion
they’re proposing is approximately 25% of the building area so we need to come back through the public
nd
hearing process. The property is located at 2910 82 Street. It’s in the Arboretum Business Park. It’s on
nd
just east of Highway 41 and 82 Street. Just to the south of it is the city of Chaska and city of Chaska
provides sewer and water service to the site so they’re connections will actually be into their system and
they’ll have to pay their fees to connecting to the unit. The City does provide stormwater services for this
nd
and there’s a regional pond at the corner of Century Boulevard and 82 Street that their storm water is
being sent to. To the north of this site is the City’s water tower, Arboretum Business Park. That site is
approximately 23 feet above the base elevation for these buildings on this site and it’s significant due to
the noise implications that we’ve discovered as part of reviewing this project. The new building itself is
proposed for 8,410 square feet and there’s a 11,180 square foot of garage that’s adjacent to that. The
existing building is 16,711 square feet. As you can see they’re building this one story building to the west
of the existing kennel. As part of it there’s a portion that’s proposed for a veterinary clinic and the rest of
it would be additional kennel spaces, and I’m sure the applicant will explain that a little more the
operation of this. In the center of this is a complex would be a plaza area where they take dogs outside.
There’s also an area to the east of the building. The site plan is pretty straight forward. There are
significant retaining walls on the west, north and east side of this new building. The tallest one being on
the north side of that new kennel/vet building which would be approximately 8 feet tall at it’s highest
point. The building materials are similar to the existing building on site. They have rock face or they
have veneer rock and then also brick veneer on the front of the buildings. Store front windows, it does
have an attractive presentation. The main entrance is on the west side of the building because of the
length of it. It complies with all the requirements of the PUD standards as well as city code. The
building is one story in height and there’s a 2 foot step in the parapet to accentuate the building entrances.
Again the grading of the site, they will match into the existing hill slope to the north. They’re digging
out, currently they have a grading permit to remove some of the fill that was put in as part of the original
development. With the rest of this project they will be adding retaining walls and connecting the two
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012
halves of the property together. The landscaping plan, they don’t meet the minimum requirements for our
buffer yard. They are proposing relocating some existing trees on site. However the forester went out
and the trees weren’t in very good condition so we, while we let them shift them on site we won’t count
them towards their buffer yard, or their planting requirements. Additionally we’re looking at providing
additional, some landscaping to the north of the court yard area or the dog outdoor play area. As we tried
to research different ways that we could address some of the noise issues that came up and while it’s not
the most effective means of noise attenuation, it does provide an ability to diffuse it and we’ll watch this
over time as the evergreens that we’re proposing be installed there, if they can diffuse the barking enough
to remove the noise from the neighboring property. We have received complaints about the dogs barking.
We undertook a study over several days to go out to the site 3 or 4 times a day to see, hear or see what we
could find out. I provided you with a copy of, a summary of that and the actual log sheets from what we
saw.
Aller: If I can just interrupt here for a second. We have received an addition to the packet which is on the
website. The City website and one is the report that you’re just discussing dated 8-21-2012 and the
second is a letter from Mike Schlangen, the owner of the Audubon Tire and Auto regarding noise, both of
which were received by all the commissioners and are a part of the package and have been reviewed and
we’ll continue to discuss so thank you.
Generous: Thank you and we’ve also provided a copy over for the public if anyone would like to look at
that. What we did discover is that the noise, the dog barking is not heard directly from the dogs but
actually it’s from reflective of the sound off the water tower. Because you can stand just to the north of
the berm on the water tower site and you can’t hear anything. If you walk over a little farther you hear it
and it sounds like the dogs are behind you. We believe that diffusing the barking by putting the
landscaping close to the problem area right at the top of the retaining wall in this area will help to diffuse
it. We want to try to make it thick enough so that we’re recommending that 15 evergreens be provided in
that area and that that be staggered so in either 2 or 3 rows so that they can fill in over time and give you a
more complete coverage on the property. And additionally we will continue to monitor this issue and see
if there’s any other thing with the, that the city can do as a part of our water tower maintenance to help
reduce the off site impacts of the dog barking. Also we have contacted the applicant and advise them that
this is a concern with the running of the dog care. The proposed site plan is consistent with city code and
the planned unit development standards for Arboretum Business Park. The design of the project subject
to the recommendations, conditions of approval we believe creates a functional and harmonious design
for structures and site features and staff is recommending approval of the site plan amendment if you will
subject to the conditions of the staff report. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Does anybody have any questions at this point?
Colopoulos: I’m not familiar with the facility here. Are the dogs behind a chain link fence in the
enclosure?
Karen Jackson: Yeah, do you want me to stand up and kind of help out with the questions Bob?
Generous: Well this one, there is a chain link fence around the enclosure area for the dogs. There’s a
retaining wall on the north side and chain link on top. On the south of this area is a privacy fence so it’s a
solid wood one. And we believe that the site location is great. It’s done everything we want it to. It
forces the noise up. However it doesn’t continue to go up. It starts to come down once it hits that water
tower so we’re looking at a means to mitigate that.
Colopoulos: Yeah I was just wondering if there was, if dogs can see out of the enclosure they’re in, they
see movement or anything outside of their enclosure, that does increase their tendency to bark.
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012
Generous: Right. What we saw, observed when we were out there is that the, most of the barking was
the dogs in the kennel wanting to come out and play with the dogs that are out in the open area and so,
and it was very, it wasn’t constant. It was, there’s a lot of it. It wasn’t real loud but it was continuous at
times and so.
Hokkanen: And all this observation was done from outside, not inside the buildings.
Generous: Right.
Aller: Have we discussed with the applicant the possibility that there might be different materials that
could be used to sound proof or is the exterior noise problem really what we’re dealing with and it’s
going to be resolved with some form of outside buffer?
Generous: From what we heard there was only outside noises that generated the problem. We didn’t hear
anything directly coming out of the building so.
Aanenson: Chairman, if I may. Just maybe after we take the testimony circle back to two issues. One is
that while you received additional information regarding noise, there’s not a condition in the staff report
to address that. And also in the Findings of Fact number 6, I think if you do choose to do something else
you’d probably want to modify the Findings of Fact for number 6 that states if these things would happen
the proposed site plan would protect so I think what we’re saying right now we’ve received letters to the
contrary so I just want to make sure that those are reconciled so maybe after the testimony you might
want to circle back to those two points.
Aller: Okay. Any further questions at this point? Would the applicant like to step forward and perhaps
give us a better picture of what you’re intending on doing and please state your name and address for the
record.
Karen Jackson: Okay my name is Karen Jackson. My home residence is 10104 Indigo Drive. The
Superdog Country Club is the business and then the Canine Club is doing business and spa at 2982, is it
2982?
nd
Generous: 2910 82.
nd
Karen Jackson: 29 82 Street so that’s where the proposed building is to be going up. We’d like to
present that this is going to be, you know we’ve studied for the last 2 years and what the community and
what we really think would be of not only a fun but mostly a very important part of Chanhassen in the
developing areas because nobody has really brought this type of facility to the immediate area. We’re
looking to put in a multi-tenant office building with a veterinarian and the primary tenant will be an
animal hospital. Very little boarding will be done there. It’s more on a wellness schedule meaning that
we’re not going to be in taking the quantity of dogs that we have at the pet hotel. That will continue the
way it is and of course you know if we can have buffers and help out with the noise situation we
definitely will. The new facility will not be anything like the current facility. It’s, everything is basically
maintained indoors where the outdoor pet boarding is you know in and out. The newest facility will
mostly be indoors and taking care of older pets, diabetic animals, etc. There’ll be two tenants. One is
ourselves and the other one we’re looking for an affiliated medicine of veterinarian group that is qualified
to meet the specifications of the current standards. Let’s see there’ll be you know enclosures for the gas
that’s being used and those will all be met up to inspection and we would also like to present that we also
have a general contractor on board as well who has built many facilities and award winning as well and
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012
this is Rick Scott so I’d like to introduce you to him because he can also help you out with any further
detailed questions you may have.
Aller: Great. Before we let you go, has anybody brought these noise complaints to your attention
before? Is this the first you’re hearing of it?
Karen Jackson: No, Bob Generous did mention that we had a complaint. I guess I was, we try, you know
being summertime too the pets are going to be out a little bit more. They’re excited and knowing where
the noise is coming from and how it’s being objected you know throughout the hill, we certainly can
resolve that problem by you know keeping the most animals inside. It’s the gorgeous weather so we feel
that you know everybody wants to be outside as much as possible and get the fresh air. If we’re getting
complaints we’ll certainly abide by any complaints and we don’t want to have anything you know
obstructing or even you know causing other businesses around us not to enjoy what we have to offer so
we’ll definitely look into that and now we have a specific area so we can really kind of you know
concentrate on that.
Aller: Thank you.
Karen Jackson: You’re welcome.
Aller: Mr. Scott, were you going to come forward?
Rick Scott: I would be delighted to come forward.
Aller: State your name and address.
Rick Scott: Rick Scott. I am from Buffalo, Minnesota. Scott Builders is the name of the company. We
are out of Buffalo, Minnesota as well. We were just recently selected as the general contractor for the
project. It’s been rather intense the last 24 hours kind of coming up on speed where they are in document
development. We’re well on our way. Final architectural meeting was today. I’m glad to hear what the
Planning Commission and staff have to offer here as we go into final document development. There are
some existing concerns with barking. My firm has done approximately 17 veterinary kennel facilities
over the last 10 years. Barking dogs is nothing new to us. There are other ways of dealing with it as well
and I actually mentioned to Molly earlier today in our design meeting that there are some things that can
be done electronically to help control sounds so there are some ultrasound things that can be done that
when barking is heard it emits an ultrasonic sound that causes the dogs to stop barking and we’ve had
success with that in other kennels as well so there’s some alternatives that I think that we can bring to the
table and certainly go over with Karen and Molly and I see absolutely no reason why we can’t resolve
what might be the issues. It could even be some attenuation panels off the top of the solid fence so.
Aller: And you’ve had a chance to review the report?
Rick Scott: No I haven’t. I haven’t seen the report yet. I didn’t know I was coming here until 3:00
yesterday afternoon so.
Aller: Congratulations on surprise.
Rick Scott: Well no, that’s fine. That’s what we’re here to help the flow so.
Aller: From what you’re hearing do you think there would be any difficulty in meeting requirements of
putting in trees? More under and over story trees on the lot?
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012
Rick Scott: No I don’t think that that’s an issue. Again while that was being read by Bob I go, well what
size because you know when people talk about trees and somebody thinks they’re 4 feet high. Somebody
thinks they’re 14 feet high so I think that’s going to depend on what you’re trying to achieve and how fast
you’re trying to achieve it because if you, if you have a year like this year the trees are not gaining greatly
in height. They’re gaining a little caliper but they’re not going very high with the lack of water we’ve had
so I think we’d like to be able to work with staff to determine what the height of those trees has to be and
without having seen exactly now where this situation is, it might be critical. I mean I don’t know if 15
trees is enough or not. I would certainly recommend to my client that if it takes 17, do 17. Don’t do 15
because that’s what staff said. Let’s eliminate the problem and be the good neighbor that I know she
wants to be so.
Aller: Great. Questions for Mr. Scott while he’s available? Okay. Thank you very much Mr. Scott.
Rick Scott: You bet.
Aller: Okay with that I’ll open the public hearing portion. Anyone wishing to come forward to speak for
or against may do so at this time. Sir. Come, state your name and address for the record please.
Mike Schlangen: I’m Mike Schlangen and we have the Tire and Auto right up on top of the hill from the
Canine Club and we hear the barking pretty much all day long. I mean it’s a constant thing and my
concern is a couple fold. Number one is I don’t know if the trees are going to really help because what’s
happening, what was stated earlier is that the sound is going up and it’s bouncing off the water tower and
then coming down and we have a retaining wall in our building and you just hear that barking all day
long. But the second issue is, if that barking noise would stay there, what would be, what could we do
about it long term I guess?
Aller: Bob, you have an answer to that?
Generous: …Mr. Scott recommended some alternatives that could be used. The electronic ultrasound to
get the dogs to stop barking. Karen mentioned not having as many dogs out at a time or reducing the
amount of times out there so this is something that yes, we will need to continue to monitor and if it
remains a problem work with them to see if they can alter their operations to make it work.
Mike Schlangen: Okay, I guess my question is a year down the road or whatever if it would stay or
maintain at this level or get worst, is there anything that can be done?
Aanenson: Yes, I guess that’s why I wanted to tighten up on the Findings of Fact and what the
expectations were because I think clearly the Findings of Fact should be that they have to be a good
neighbor and not provide that and if that means the dogs can’t go out or you just let one out, they have to
make it operational so I think we need to establish you know between now and when this goes to council
clearly what the expectations are and how we’re going to get there and it might be something that the
commission directs the staff to work out but the council needs to have something more quantifiable and
what the expectations are so I think we do between now and the City Council need to kind of have a little
clearer understanding what that would be. And I think that goes back to how it’s being operated too.
Aller: And as I understand it, even if we were to deny the variance today, you’re having a problem with
noise which has just been brought to her attention and she’s indicated she wants to work with you and the
community to be a good neighbor so regardless of what happens here, whether it’s granted or denied,
that’s an issue that you want addressed and that’s what I’m hearing and I think that if you work with staff
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012
and with the applicant that you should be able to come to sold resolution on those noise levels and some
way to resolve the issue so they don’t get escalated like most things do with neighbors.
Aanenson: Yeah, let me just clarify. We understand what the issue is. I think Mr. Schlangen has made
that clear. I think we need to make sure we communicate that and put that in writing what the so the
expectations are because the site plan is a little more difficult to rescind so I think we need to put the
expectation out there. There are other ordinances which include the nuisance ordinance and the like so I
think we want to clearly state you know what are, what we’re going to try to achieve to make that and
then like maybe it’s a sequencing thing. If that doesn’t work then the next step and kind of work our way
through that.
Colopoulos: Yeah and I think that’s the important thing to stress here. Irrespective of the outcome of
this hearing relevant to the application, as Chairman Aller, this is an issue that needs to be pursued to
solve the problem. A dog kennel is going to produce a certain amount of noise.
Mike Schlangen: I guess I understand that and that’s why.
Colopoulos: It exists there so regardless of whether it’s added onto or not this is you know, is 20 dogs
much different than 30 dogs? Well I don’t know you know.
Mike Schlangen: No I guess I understand that. That’s why I haven’t said anything the last how many
years. I understand it’s a challenge running a small business but.
Aller: And that’s why the zoning area is for that purpose. Keep the noisy businesses in the same area so.
Colopoulos: Hadn’t thought of the ultrasound thing though. That sounds like a good. I wish I had
thought about that one with my two hooligans.
Aller: Anything further?
Mike Schlangen: No, thank you.
Aller: Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Close the public hearing.
Comments from commissioners, and I’ll just state that I misspoke. This is not a request for a variance.
It’s a site plan approval so the requirements are different. Comments. I think we do need to address item
6. I think we need to put a condition on indicating that there’ll be some reasonable noise, either
abatement and/or level cap that can be placed on as a condition.
Aanenson: Yeah, that’s a Findings of Fact so if I may Chairman, if we go back to the Planning
Commission conditions which is on page 11 of your staff report. The planning conditions. You’d
probably want to add number 5 that addresses that the staff work with the applicant to provide, you know
before it goes to City Council a buffering or noise attenuation plan. Whatever that may be. It might be a
series of a couple different things so that would be a condition for that. And then what I did want to
address was the Findings of Fact and that was number 6 and the Findings of Fact I think should be the
proposed site plan would meet the buffering if a mitigation plan was put in place. Something to that
effect. If that makes sense. So that would be in the last page of your report. What you’re saying is,
what it’s saying is that it’s protecting and what we’ve heard from the testimony that it’s not without some
mitigation.
Aller: So I would take out sound. Strike that and then add that to the proposed site plan.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012
Hokkanen: And include noise abatement.
Aanenson: What you could say is with an adequate noise plan.
Hokkanen: Noise abatement plan.
Aanenson: Exactly. Then it would protect. Without that plan it’s.
Hokkanen: Who determines if this business where it’s a nuisance? The noise. I mean it’s a kennel. It’s
zoned for.
Aanenson: Right. Right.
Hokkanen: I mean I get my car fixed over there. I sit outside. I mean I’m not there all day but who
determines that level and?
Aanenson: There isn’t a noise ordinance for frequency and duration.
Hokkanen: Right, right.
Aanenson: So we did.
Hokkanen: I know you did.
Aanenson: Yeah, right so it is. It’s, what’s an acceptable level based on the nuisance ordinance but there
are going to be some.
Hokkanen: But it’s a kennel.
Aanenson: Yeah and there are going to be some peak times where it’s going to be more than others but
you try to keep it to as good a neighbor as you can.
Hokkanen: Right, okay.
Colopoulos: And I think there is a neighbor to neighbor issue here. I mean Mike’s crews work there with
open bays in the summer too and it’s like all day long. They’re going to hear the sound.
Aanenson: And the dogs are going to be louder in the summer.
Hokkanen: In the winter it’s different.
Aanenson: So those are the things that you just need to as a management try to work through those issues
to say in the summer we’re going to be more vigilant, those sort of things so that’s what we’re asking.
Some how we.
Aller: So then we would amend the Finding number 6 to start with a with. I hate to start things with a
preposition. With an additional noise abatement plan the proposed site plan protects adjacent
neighborhood properties for drainage, sound.
Hokkanen: Or we could add sound too.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012
Aanenson: Noise.
Aller: Because I don’t want to lose it in the sauce. And then on our conditions, under.
Aanenson: Number 5 on page 11.
Aller: Page 11, number 5. Planning conditions. An additional noise abatement plan.
Hokkanen: Number 5. Noise buffering.
Aanenson: And if you’d like to just say something like staff to work with the applicant between now and
the City Council meeting to prepare a noise, yeah noise abatement plan.
Tennyson: Is it strictly abatement or is it mitigation as well?
Aanenson: Abatement/mitigation.
Aller: You know because we don’t know what can reasonably be done yet.
Aanenson: I’ll leave that to the attorneys to decide.
Aller: Then we’ll be here all night. Okay so then we’ll just do the additional noise abatement/mitigation
plan as required.
Hokkanen: Well I do want to say to the applicant thank you for bringing this because, although I don’t
bring my dog there my friends and neighbors do and they talk very highly of it and you know it’s nice to
see another veterinary clinic come into town too so thank you.
Karen Jackson: Thank you.
Aller: So is that all we need to do paperwork wise? And are there any other additions, comments,
deletions? Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion? We’ll do the same motion as the Findings of
Fact and the conditions have been changed.
Hokkanen: I’ll make a motion. I move the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve a 5,281 square foot expansion to the approved site plan for a total of 26,301 square feet
of building area subject to the conditions and subject to the changes of conditions.
Generous: Revised conditions.
Hokkanen: Revised conditions of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation. Now should we state these changes now?
Generous: As revised.
Aanenson: As recorded.
Hokkanen: As recorded, okay.
Colopoulos: Okay, I’ll second that motion.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012
Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Hokkanen moved, Colopoulos seconded that the Planning Commission approve a 5,281 square-foot
expansion to the approved site plan for a total of 26,301 square feet of building area subject to the
following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Building Official Conditions:
1. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
3. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be
obtained prior to construction.
4. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to
discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
5. Any work on existing utilities on site will have to be coordinated carefully with the affected utility to
insure there is no interruption of customer service.
Engineering Conditions:
1. Additional information and calculations must be submitted to determine if the regional pond can
accommodate the proposed additional impervious areas. The applicant shall work with staff on
revised calculations.
2. 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.
3. The developer will need to work with staff to minimize the height of the retaining wall on the west
side of the proposed parking lot. Currently, the finished wall is outside the drainage and utility
easement, but the structural support will likely be located within the drainage and utility easement.
All structural support for the wall must be located outside of the drainage and utility easement.
4. 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. Due to the height of the retaining wall, a
fence must be placed on the top for safety at any location that the vertical separation of the ground is
greater than four feet.
5. The City of Chaska will be providing sewer and water service to this site. Approvals, permits, and
fees for sewer and water will be with the City of Chaska.
6. The sanitary sewer along the west property line, storm sewer along the east property line, and storm
sewer along the south property line shall be publicly owned and maintained. All other utilities within
the property boundary will be privately owned and maintained.
7. 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 inches is required at all storm, sanitary, and watermain crossings. Contact Gordy Stauff at 952-
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012
227-1166 with the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department 48 hours prior to connecting to the
storm.
8. Each new building is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. Sanitary sewer and water
hookup fees are unknown at this time, but will be need to be paid to the City of Chaska.
9. 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 in the amount
of $9,000.00 to guarantee the installation of the storm sewer, erosion control, and seeding. 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,
including the MPCA and the Dept. of Health.
10. Encroachment agreements will be needed for the fence in the drainage and utility easements.
11. The applicant shall work with staff to make changes to plans according to staff redlines.
Environmental Resource Specialist Conditions:
1. Increase plantings for bufferyard areas in order to meet ordinance requirements.
2. Transplanted trees will not be accepted as quantities to meet minimum landscape requirements.
3. At least 15 spruce trees shall be planted in staggered line groupings within the northern area of
property. Final planting sites will be field located by applicant with city approval.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
1. A three-foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of the fire hydrant per MSFC
Section 508.5.5.
2. Nothing shall be placed in a manner that would prevent operation of the fire hydrant by firefighters.
MSFC Section 508.5.4.
Planning Conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to
guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. Mechanical equipment shall be screened through the placement on the roof, the use of parapet walls
and the use of low-profile equipment.
3. The applicant shall extend the sidewalk on the west side of the building to the south to connect to the
sidewalk across the south side of the buildings, and to the north to the sidewalk along the north side
of the building.
4. A separate sign permit is required for each sign.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 21, 2012
5. The applicant shall prepare and implement an additional noise abatement/mitigation plan.
Water Resource Coordinator Conditions:
Surface Water Drainage and Treatment
1.While it does not appear that the site will exceed the maximum 70% hardcover as
allowed by §20-505, calculations must be provided. These calculations shall include the
artificial turf areas.
2.The submittal shall indicate if there is an underdrain system for the artificial turf areas. If
there is, show how this is connected to the public conveyance system. The applicant
must also describe how this system prevents animal wastes from entering the storm sewer
system.
3.The landscape plan calls out non-woven weed mat. This should be changed to reflect that
-1
the fabric must have a minimum permittivity of 0.7 sec as described in ASTMD -4491
and an apparent opening size maximum of 0.25 mm. If this is not acceptable for the
landscaping purposes, this area shall be calculated as hardcover for both planning and
stormwater modeling purposes.
Erosion and Sediment Control
1.The applicant shall provide the NPDES Permit number prior to commencement of earth
disturbing activities.
2.The SWPPP shall be amended such that under Project Contacts, the City contact is Terry
Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator 952-227-1168 and Chip Hentges, Carver County
SWCD, 952-393-1146 shall be added.
3.That portion of the SWPPP with the heading “Responsibility Requirements” shall be
completed in full and submitted to the City and included in the on-site SWPPP prior to
the commencement of earth disturbing activities.
4.Per Part III. A. 3 of the NPDES permit, a narrative describing the timing and placement
of all erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs must be included in the SWPPP.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD-R) AND REZONING
FROM RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD-R) TO SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RSF): REQUEST TO AMEND THE SUNNYSLOPE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) TO INCORPORATE UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND REFERENCE THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT;
THND
AND REZONE SUNRISE HILLS 4 ADDITION, WALDRIPS 2 ADDITION, FOX CHASE,
ORCHARD HILLS AND WHITETAIL RIDGE FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-
11