Loading...
PC 2013 11 05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 2013 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam Yusuf, Stephen Withrow, and Steven Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Doug Allen 2250 Lukewood Drive Mike Hodges 8101 Pinewood Circle Chuck Sohn 2351 Lukewood Drive John Noller 2381 Timberwood Drive J.B. Ryan 8121 Pinewood Circle PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN PIONEER CEMETERY: REVIEW OF CITY CEMETERY PROPERTY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8151 GALPIN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 2013-24. Commissioner Withrow was not present to vote on this item. Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This item is before you today to gather input for the level of discretion is really you’re acting as an advisory capacity to the City Council and so whatever, whether it’s not similar. It’s different than what you would do as a variance application or subdivision where you have to have a certain percentage to move forward so really all you’re doing is just giving your input to the City Council. Again acting as advisory. I did include that chapter under your powers and duties so some of this, whatever you recommend forward will then also be taken under advisement as the City Council reviews their application. So this is scheduled, for anybody th following this item, it is scheduled to go forward to the City Council on November 25. So the subject site is located on 8151 Galpin Boulevard. There’s actually two parcels and I’ll go into a little bit more detail on the parcels and the description and the history in a moment but as we sent this notice out, again with this process we put a notice out, as our typical process, and to everyone within 500 feet but we also put a sign out there. We did receive a number of calls because the sign was out there, concerned that we were moving the cemetery. No we’re not moving the cemetery so of the 25 plus calls most of them were just general information. Wanted to know what the City was doing. I explained to them what was identified in the staff report as far as proposals. Again nobody objected to that part of it and we also did receive a number of inquiries about additional plots that may be available. So with that I’ll go through a little bit of the history of the cemetery itself. As stated in the staff report it was established in 1861 by the early pioneers of Chanhassen and in 1987 the private cemetery association requested that the City take over ownership and maintenance of the cemetery. The membership was aging and was not capable of doing it any longer so they asked the City to take it over and turned over what they had left in their treasury which was about $16,000. So the City’s responsible for marking the graves and monument placement, mowing and maintaining of the site, and working with funeral directors for record keeping and Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 the like. So the oldest grave was from 1855 and that was actually in this area right here and so that was originally was outside of actually the boundaries of the cemetery because this part was established in 1961. 1861, excuse me. So when the Timberwood Estates plat came in, the City worked, so that would be this exception right here was the original 1861 establishment so when Timberwood came in it was discussed whether or not they could make the cemetery bigger. At that time the 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size was required and the developer didn’t want to lose an additional lot so in working through that, because this property already had graves on it, the legal opinion by the city attorney at that time was that that was eminent domain and they took, worked with the developer and go this piece of property added to the cemetery in 1988 simultaneously really with the Timberwood Estates subdivision so this comprises, these two parcels comprise then the 1.75 acres of the cemetery itself. I did attach the city ordinance as part of the staff report. That’s Chapter 8 that guides the rules of the city cemetery. Again this is unique in the fact that specific rules regarding this specific cemetery. As you may or may not be aware, we do have the St. Hubert’s cemetery which is a conditional use and is governed by a different set of rules but this is what was put in place for the cemetery and has not been changed since it was adopted in 1988. So just for your edification I did include that how it’s being operated and maintained and if anybody has questions on that, I will answer that. So in looking at the cemetery itself and the boundaries of the property the City did a tree survey on the property and the trees shown in red are some were some of the significant trees that wanted to be saved. There’s a lot of buckthorn that’s in the area that’s creating some conflict with trees that are already platted in the area. Certainly there’s trees that are there right now that have been, plots have not been used because significant trees are in the area and that would continue to be in place but as the City moves forward it is determined that there’s 32 trees on the eastern property line and only 8 of them are desirable species so those are the ones shown in red. And many of the box elders or the poplars or the ash trees are either small or not structurally sound so, and also there’s thick buckthorn in the area. I did pass out to you some comments from the neighbors regarding the buffer treatment itself and as you know when we do subdivisions it comes up often that the neighboring properties wants to make sure that no trees are cut down on someone else’s property and I think that’s a conflict we work through all the time and that was the goal with this process is to try to find a way to create that buffer along the property line of the adjoining properties to make sure that there’s adequate buffer and provide some screening in that location. In looking at. Aller: Can I ask a question? With regard to the buffer, even though you’re suggesting that there’s an adequate buffer, the code doesn’t seem to require a buffer for this property. Aanenson: That’s correct. You have low density, low density. You’re looking at grave stones which are pretty low profile. In looking at the elevation it’s dropping from the property immediately to the east down towards Galpin Boulevard, about 10 feet as you go towards Galpin so it’s sloping down. So the goal would be to put landscaping along this perimeter so what the City’s desires are, we do have this property corner marked is to identify this property corner. Get that surveyed. Survey the additional available plots in that area. Again there is a demand for additional grave sites. This is about 60 feet, which is approximately what this line to right here is. So the whole depth of that site is about 250 feet. The whole depth of that property so that’s an additional 60 feet. By planting, by cleaning up the site now and getting those trees planted it provides for a greater buffer into the future as that, to get the maturity going as that would move forward. So that would be the goal. Again because there is low density, low density we want to be a good neighbor and create that buffer and as you recall when we’ve done low density subdivisions we’ve always asked the neighboring property to take that into consideration too so that would be the recommendation. So the goal is that there’s currently 720 plotted graves on the site and there’s, so you can see of the yellow ones are already platted. The green ones are in a tree line so to clean that up would allow those, they’re platted but there’s trees in the way. The buckthorn and the like that would need to be cleaned up to move and then the additional one shown in red which is another 216 would be the ones that would be surveyed at the time that we would survey this line and create those additional plots. Again I did pass out to you an email I did receive and if you have questions on that I’d 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 be happy to address some of the issues in there so I’ll leave that up to you Mr. Chair how you’d like me to do that but I’d be happy to go through some of the points in that. Aller: I would just note that for the record we did receive the email dated Tuesday, November 5, 2013, time stamped at 7:10 a.m. and it will be part of the record. It has been received. It has been read and if you’d like to address anything you feel is particularly important or, does anybody have any questions? Aanenson: Well, yeah. I mean if anybody has any questions I guess I’ll take it from there. If somebody wants me to address something specifically that was in there. Aller: Having read it I don’t but. Yusuf: I have just one question. Aanenson: Sure. Yusuf: On this email the question is asked whether an economic study, economic impact study was performed or conducted. Was there one? Aanenson: No. The City has had the property for a number of years. They’re in the business. If someone would request that I don’t think the Planning Commission would do that. If you want to make that a request to the City Council that they would do that and figure out the price of, that they want, if they want to do something for that. You can make that, certainly that can be one of your recommendations that they do that. But whether or not we were to move forward the City is always going to have to maintain their entire property. Aller: Right. Aanenson: Is there any other questions on that per se? Weick: I do. Is the plan for buffering just to keep the trees that are in red? Aanenson: No. The ones in red would be future graves. About 216. Weick: No, no, no, no. Aller: On the tree survey. Weick: On the tree survey. Aanenson: On the tree survey, I’m survey. No, no, no. That would just, I’m sorry. Go back to this. Aller: Those are the. Aanenson: Desirable trees that we try to save that are on the site so the additional buffering would be you know what’s kind of in place right here. Put this with entire evergreens along this border here and then in looking at this area here, I’m not sure we would need evergreens in talking to the forester. Maybe something lower profile. Maybe not quite as tall that would be in this area here along the Lukewood Drive site and that’s something that we could certainly work with the neighborhood on to show them some different iterations of that buffer and how that would work and get their input on that. So with that Mr. Chairman we are recommending that you know, that the City staff would like to pursue then 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 surveying the site. Going ahead and moving with the tree removal and platting these extra grave stones and then working with the neighborhoods again to get the adequate buffer and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Aller: You’ve answered mine. Undestad: I just had one question. Do you know what the depth is from the red? I mean what the buffer area, how wide is that? Aanenson: Between the red here? Undestad: Do we know yet? Aanenson: Well this whole, right through here is about 60 feet so between the last grave stone and maybe 10 feet. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Anything? Alright, having no further questions from the members what I’ll do is open the public hearing. Anyone from the audience wishing to come forward to speak for or against the motion before the board. Yes sir, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Doug Allen: My name’s Doug Allen. I live at 2250 Lukewood Drive, which is not shown on here. Had a question then a comment. The question is, go back to the so you can see I’m to the east. The cemetery doesn’t border my property but if we could go back to the slide that showed the, that shows the different grave sites. The ones that are in green currently, are those plots currently, they’re in the tree line. Are they currently owned by anyone other than the City? Are they sold? Why are they not in use? Aanenson: There’s trees there right now and so I think now that all the other plots have been sold, they have… Doug Allen: Okay, so those are. Aanenson: But they are platted. Doug Allen: They’re platted but they’re currently not sold. Aanenson: Correct. Doug Allen: Okay. Aanenson: I don’t know if that’s true or not. I do not know if they’re sold or not. I know they’re platted. Doug Allen: Okay. What’s, and then the other question I have, and I haven’t looked at the budget. Currently what does the City spend to maintain the cemetery. Aanenson: I do not have that information. Doug Allen: Okay, and we don’t know then with the additional grave sites what the additional cost for maintenance would be? 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 Aanenson: No. Doug Allen: What would the cost of the grave sites be if an individual wanted to purchase them? Aanenson: That information I do not have. I can have that for when we go to the City Council or provide that on our website. Doug Allen: Okay, it just seems pretty clear to me, I don’t want the City you know selling these grave sites for one and then having the ongoing cost to maintain what I really do consider a resource to the city. I mean it’s part of our culture and our heritage and that will lead into my second comment but I don’t want to see that cost us additional dollars. Taxpayer dollars if you sell it once and you’ve got to maintain it forever so I think the economics have to be worked out. Aanenson: Sure. Well I guess I would say on that, the City’s already the majority of it right now. Doug Allen: I know but once you expand it what’s the additional cost to maintain that additional property? I mean it’s a significant increase so you’re going to have more time and labor involved in maintaining that property. Then the other thought that I have is, I’m opposed to expanding. I think that culturally it is part of our heritage here in this city and very few places are going to have a culturally significant, you know this is civil war era cemetery. It’s really nice to go there. It’s very peaceful. I think by expanding it and modernizing it, it loses some of it’s heritage and it’s cultural appeal to our area so I think by just making it another cemetery, we as a city stand to lose something. Also I think great care does need to be taken on the buffer zones and I would hope that the City, before making any decisions would work with the property owners in both the, along Lukewood and in Timberwood so that we have a better understanding of what that would look like because while we all knew that the cemetery was part of the landscape when we moved in, you know I think the hope is that we maintain some of it’s character and we have to be very, very careful with what that buffer zone is going to look like, if anything is done. Even if it’s not an expansion but it’s just maintenance of the property because I certainly know the buckthorn problem that we have in Chanhassen and it would be great to take care of that but, but those trees are going to be maintained. That area. The Oaks neighborhood has a lot of beautiful trees. As a property owner you know I’ve spent thousands and thousands of dollars to take care of my elm trees. You know that’s part of Chanhassen. Part of our symbol of our city so that’s also something to keep in mind in terms of the economic cost of maintaining this property. Those trees are going to have to be maintained and cared for as well so we’ll want to know what that plan looks like. Overall I think I would say just leave it like it is. I don’t think we need to do anything to the property. Thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Any additional comments from anyone? Speaking either for or against. Yes sir. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Mike Hodges: Sure. Good evening, my name is Mike Hodges. I live at 8101 Pinewood Circle. I’m here to oppose not only the expansion but also the removal of trees from the cemetery. I think as the previous gentleman spoke, that is part of our neighborhood that character of the cemetery is quite unique and what makes that cemetery character be what it is, is actually the tree canopy and I think to disturb that would remove that character from it’s existence as we know it today. And it’s interesting, it was shared earlier, that people drove by and called in. I think that’s pretty telling that to drive by and they must have physically had to have stopped to get the telephone number off the sign that was posted there because that meant something to them and I heard you say, I didn’t hear the voicemails of course but one of the things you stated was, they were concerned. Maybe you didn’t use the word concerned, they were wondering if it was going to be moved. Why would they say that? Why would they ask that? Because that cemetery is part of Chanhassen, excuse me. Again it goes back to the character. And my last thought is this, whoever’s running the technology, if you could do me a favor. If you could put that screen saver back up. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 I noticed something when I walked in the room earlier. Your Chanhassen screen saver. Take a good look at that picture up there. What I noticed in the top left corner is a beautiful scenery. What makes it beautiful? It’s the trees. Take a look at your very own bottom left corner. Once again a picture of trees and foliage. Take a look at the bottom right corner. Once again there is a reason the City has picked these three pictures. The foliage. The trees and the beauty that come with them. I don’t think the City would have selected any of those three pictures to depict the city if those were cut down. Also quite ironic, look at the center of the screen saver. Above the City of Chanhassen, my eyes are a little blurry. What is that figure? I actually see it on the wall behind us a lot clearer. It’s rather large. Looks like a leaf to me. Once again part of the city. Part of who Chanhassen and what we want Chanhassen to represent so for those reasons I’m opposed of not only the expansion but the removal of any of the trees. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Aanenson: Can I just clarify the comments that were regarding the phone calls? Aller: Sure. Aanenson: I don’t think anybody was, the majority of the comments were making sure that that cemetery continues to be, it’s not just people that were buried there in the past. There are people continue to be buried there, and people were concerned that they can continue, that that continues so that wasn’t that we don’t do anything or that we’re going to move it. That wasn’t the majority of the comments. I just want to make sure that’s clear. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments? Your name and address for the record please. Chuck Sohn: My name is Chuck Sohn. I live at 2351 Lukewood Drive which is just south of the cemetery. Aller: Welcome. Chuck Sohn: I just want to go on the record as opposing the expansion. It just seems like there must be a better place to bury people than in a cemetery that is in such a small space where you have to remove a lot of trees and invest a lot of money in squeezing in more grave sites on such a small piece of land. The other thing I wanted to ask was, I read that the southeast pin has not been located. Is that still the case? Aanenson: That’s correct. Chuck Sohn: So what would happen if you could not locate it? Would you just assume that the property line goes straight down? Aanenson: No, you can tie it back to other survey markers so you have the surveyor do it and then find it. Put a new survey pin in. That’s what a survey does. It happens all the time on people’s property that the pin may get moved and we just resurvey and put the new pin in. Chuck Sohn: Okay. Aanenson: Yep. Chuck Sohn: But who determines where that pin goes? 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 Aanenson: The surveyor. Chuck Sohn: The surveyor. Aanenson: A qualified surveyor. The same thing as anybody else in the city would use to survey their property. Chuck Sohn: Thank you. Aller: Thank you. And again for those at home, these reports in total are on the website so if you’re interested in taking a look at them they’re on the City of Chanhassen website under the Planning Commission and under the documents there. Any other statements? Comments? I have another individual coming forward. If you could state your name and address for the record sir. John Noller: John Noller, 2381 Timberwood Drive. I’m just to the north. The bordering property to the north of the cemetery. Aller: Okay. John Noller: I have a few questions. So how many additional graves total, red, green are going to be proposed to be added? Aanenson: 108 are in the green and then the 216 in the red. John Noller: What is the entire proposed project cost? Aanenson: Don’t have that. John Noller: Ballpark figure? Aanenson: Don’t have that. John Noller: And where will the money come from to pay for the proposed project? Aanenson: It’d be part of the cemetery operations. John Noller: And when I spoke with Karen earlier, before the sign was put up, she said the plot would cost $200 and that that cost would be maintained moving forward. Is that still going to be the case? Aanenson: That would be a decision made by the City Council. John Noller: And then when will the City work with the community about the buffer? Aanenson: Would be our recommendation, whatever this group recommends to the City Council that the City Council would then direct staff to work with the neighborhood to create that buffer. So then we would report back to the City Council what that direction would be and they would approve that plan. John Noller: And proposed start date for the project is? Aanenson: Whenever the City Council determines that to be. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 John Noller: Okay. I would just like to go on the record saying that my family and, we oppose the project and expansion. To kind of talk about or to echo some of the things that my neighbors have said is that the City Council once referred to Timberwood Estates particularly as a quote, rural lifestyle community and an expanded cemetery would really sully the quaintness and country feel of our neighborhood and the surrounding communities. Again I’m the top house there. I look, when I sit on my deck every night and I watch people walk through that cemetery. People are walking their dogs. They’re taking their kids through there. When you guys talk about low density, from what I could figure out and read, you’re talking about population, yes? People moving through the cemetery. Aanenson: Well that’s what it’s zoned for and there’s, yeah. I mean I’m assuming that it’s someone in the neighborhood walking through. John Noller: It’s a lot of people. Aanenson: Right. John Noller: I’m out there on my deck a lot and work in the yard a lot. I’ve got 2 1/2 acres that I’ve got to deal with. I’ve got a lot of leaves that I’ve got to deal with. There are a lot of people in that cemetery and I think it’s a really, really cool thing that people are going and checking those things, the grave stones out because there is a lot of history and I think that to sometimes bigger is not better. I think that it really removes the quaintness and country feel of the area and I think would not be a positive thing for our community. I also feel that the additional non-natural barrier will significantly impact the property values of all homes that border the cemetery and in turn will lower the values in each neighborhood. Property values aren’t, you know I don’t need any help going that direction and also if it’s going to come out of my tax dollars I don’t really want to pay for my property values to go down either. Question. If you remove the rear barrier where will the grounds crew deposit their waste that they pick up in, on the grounds? Aanenson: That would be a condition that we’d ask them to accommodate the waste. I’m assuming they’re hauling some of that out now. John Noller: Because currently it goes into the buffer area both on the east side and then on the north side on my property and again I have to look at that. People who have family buried there, I respect that and I think that’s great but they’re not there every day. I’m there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So are my neighbors and so we have to look at this stuff every day and so what I’m concerned about is that if particularly the east side gets taken and kind of opened up into graves, then my north side will become the dumping ground and I just would like some concern to be paid to that. Aanenson: Can I just get a clarification on what you’re talking about? Are you talking about people that would visit graves and pick up like… John Noller: No, like the grounds crew when the, particularly well to give you a good example. When the fence, or when the tree fell on my fence from the graveyard, picked up the phone. Called the City. Great. You know awesome response. They came out. They asked if they needed to fix it but when they cut up the tree they just left the tree there so you know when they pick up sticks or when they pick up brush or when they cut things down, that just gets deposited on the periphery. It doesn’t get hauled away so I have to look at the pile of sticks and at times I’ve gone over and tried to tidy it up myself just because I don’t want to look at it so again I’m just trying to be a good neighbor here with the cemetery next door. Okay, foot traffic is kind of a critical thing as well as just traffic alone. The addition of the high school has made Galpin a pretty busy place. I think that you now start adding a bunch of graves and start making this a really active graveyard, you’re going to add more traffic into the area. Also top on that the apartment complex that’s going up on 5 and Galpin and we’re just, you’re adding more and more traffic 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 to an already very, very busy street. And include in that foot traffic that again we the neighborhood have to kind of sit there and look at. It’s already a lot and we don’t need 300 and some odd more folks. And then my last comment is that, if the project is recommended forward, our family would like to see additional barrier to the north side of the cemetery for the reasons I’ve stated above. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Welcome. J.B. Ryan: My name is J.B. Ryan. I live on the property just east of the bordering property there, 8121 Pinewood. My question is, with the new road we’ve got an everything, where is the parking now for Memorial Day service and stuff like that? With the wide yellow lines painted they took away any parking at all in front of that cemetery and you want to put in hundred and some more grave sites. Memorial Day when everybody wants to go and visit, where do they park? There is now zero parking where there was at least a lane there they could park and it was the right turn lane to go into Timberwood but that is all gone now with this stupid yellow paint job they put all over the road that steers us off into traffic and shoots us back across traffic. One lanes goes to two in the middle. It’s ridiculous so I’m just asking with the expansion that you’re looking for, where does even 4 cars park? There’s nowhere allowed at all. Aller: Anyone else? Seeing no one come forward I’m going to close the public hearing and open for commissioners discussion. Again this is not a vote up or down. We’re going to be passing these comments to the council for decision. Undestad: Well, it’s a cemetery. It’s been there what, the mid 1800’s. Have all these sites, the plots all been kind of set up in there or have we been kind of looking at this like 10 years ago we said let’s add another row and 10 years ago another row. Aanenson: That’s correct. So now we’ve got people requesting additional sites. While there are pioneers there, there’s people being there and so what we’re requesting now is to move into the area of the red zone. Instead of trying to do one row at a time, it makes sense to get the buffer going. To work with the neighborhood now. To get it surveyed. Get it prepared. Get all the lots, the plots surveyed and then some people buy the plots and they may not need them for a number of years so you know while they’re sold that doesn’t mean they’re all being used at the time so it’s, some people want to make those decisions for their parents today and so. Undestad: And I guess that’s my point is, we do have old people in Chanhassen and there may be people that have been waiting or looking at these places for years and to now to say well let’s you know cut that off. We won’t do that. People might already be knowing this is where I’m going to be someday and now we say oh you know I don’t know if you can do that so, I think if it’s been a cemetery the whole time. Everybody knows what’s going on in there. The only issue I see is the parking comment. You know when the lane changes and that is a problem out there now. How do you handle the traffic on Memorial Day out there? I think that needs to be looked at but I think as far as the cemetery goes, people in Chanhassen know it’s out there. They’ve been, people want it. People are going to use that and how do you just say no? How do you shut it off now and just say, go find another place? Aller: Additional comments? Hokkanen: Well I had some comments about the trees, or questions. I know Jill probably looked through this very well. I mean I understand the comments from the property owners about the buffer and the City can work with them on all sides, north, east, and south side. I think that’s really important. There’s a couple of burr oak trees that look fairly large that are in the black, could they be saved? I mean those look like, it’s kind of nice in a cemetery to have some big old trees. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 Aanenson: Yeah, right. We can revisit, as the one neighbor stated, we’ve had trees fall so I think it’s not only the age but the health and the quality of the tree. Hokkanen: Okay. Aanenson: Because if we try to save it and in 2 years you know she believes it may come down so we can certainly revisit some of those larger trees. That was her recommendation but I can make that note to… Hokkanen: Well those two, yeah and because some of them she has labeled here poor. I mean I can see that in the box elder but maybe if we can just try to save some. Aanenson: Yeah, if you’ve been out there? There is one that’s in pretty poor shape. Hokkanen: Yeah, right. And then parking. Is, you know as we open up, I mean I think it’s nice. It’s been a cemetery. It’s nice. I’ve walked through there and walked my dog through there. It’s historic but parking since they have restriped Galpin is an issue that I think needs to be looked at. If someone was to have a funeral there, where do you park 40 cars? You know so I think those are my two. I can, would like to look into that a little bit more. Aller: Comments, questions? Weick: Yeah I would comment that I think the plan, with the added greens and reds does a great job of maximizing the space that’s available. In hearing the comments that have been made today, potentially there’s a way, I’m not sure it has to be all or nothing in my opinion so I’m not sure we have to maximize it and I’m not sure maybe we have to do nothing and maybe there’s a plan that could, you know work more closely with some of the clear objections to the tree situation that maybe does a more beautiful job of incorporating some number of increased sites to satisfy that need for the City as well as maintain you know some of the beauty of the existing space for the neighbors as well so, I would just propose potentially that maybe it’s not an all or nothing type of plan. Hokkanen: I think for the City Council if we could have the costs available that would have been helpful as well. Cost to purchase. The cost to maintain. Aanenson: And that’s true but that’s not to say that the City Council. Aller: Although that’s not our purview as planners. Aanenson: Yeah, that’s true. Aller: We talk about use, not cost… Aanenson: …and the council may take that under advisement to want to relook at that so I tried to just kind of keep it to kind of the. Hokkanen: Use. Aanenson: What’s in your purview, correct. Aller: I think there are many times that things come before the commission that never get followed through on by the homeowner because of changing circumstances. Change in costs so they could do 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 something. They’ve come and asked for permission. They’ve gotten it granted and then they decide not to do it so again anything we do today is advisory. The City Council’s going to make that decision. They’re going to take a look at the costs. The expense as they move forward which is why they haven’t done it in the past in my estimation so. Hokkanen: Okay. Aller: Comments. Yusuf: No further questions. Aller: Yeah, I agree with the comments. I think it’s important that we take a look at the parking situation. Whether or not there’s a permit scenario or a special permit for purposes of funerals or for those holidays like Memorial Day or Veterans Day where people will be visiting those graves. The buffer aspect again, I think the City’s been a good neighbor since the cemetery was there to begin with, has been a good neighbor in allowing what has been termed as a buffer to remain. Basically it’s trees. There is no buffer requirement so when I look at it I say well by leaving it there they’ve allowed for a cloaking of the cemetery on those sides and there certainly is nothing to stop anyone on the northeast or south from putting up their own barriers and putting up their own trees. Putting up their own fences if they are at the right height and all those requirements but there’s nothing to stop them from creating their own barriers and creating their own buffer on their own property so I would encourage, and my comments would follow along with the report. I would encourage them to continue in that vein. To work with them to truly create a buffer to the extent that it doesn’t require the City not to do and not to fully utilize it’s property. Audience: Can I interject something? I could not put up my own buffer on the south side. That’s not mine. I don’t own the property on the other side of the street. That’s the cemetery’s so I’m sorry to interrupt. Aller: No that’s fine. I mean what we want to do is have a conversation so that the City Council will get the information it needs to make an appropriate decision. Okay, so with those comments we’ll ask that those comments be passed along to the City Council. Aanenson: That’s correct and then just again a reminder. This is currently scheduled to go to the City th Council on November 25. We do not send a notice out again but if you want to check the City’s web pages with any updates then we’ll certainly have those in the project file. Aller: Correct and there’ll be an updated package for the City Council people to look at so. Aanenson: That’s correct. Aller: Any of those numbers or things that are provided will be on the website. Okay, let’s move along to item number 2. Commissioner Withrow returned to the commission for the rest of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-615 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 6780 LOTUS TRAIL. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 APPLICANT: PETER ROCHFORD/LISA THOMPSON. OWNER: LISA THOMPSON, PLANNING CASE 2013-22. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Planning Case 2013-22, Peter Rocheford and Lisa Thompson. They’re requesting a setback variance for the construction of a detached garage on their property. It’s a 12 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement to construct a 27 by 24 foot, 648 square foot detached garage 18 feet from the front property line. The property’s located at 6780 Lotus Trail. It’s in the Carver Beach neighborhood which is made up of multiple platted lots. This property came in last year for a variance request to construct a second driveway to the property. It’s rather steep on the existing driveway up to the house and they were having problems with people parking there and so they wanted to have a safer location for people to park so they did get the variance and they installed a gravel cut right now. In the future when they were going to build the garage then they would have to improve that to either concrete or pavement. The proposal is to construct this garage on the southern part of their property 18 feet from the south property line and 18 feet from the street right-of- way. This would give them a 30 foot setback on the rear of the property. However city code permits an exception for construction of accessory structures if they’re less than 399 square feet. Then they would be able to have a 10 foot rear yard setback. That would give them approximately a 34 foot building envelope and still meet the 30 foot front yard setback. We believe that they have the opportunity to construct this accessory structure without having a variance approved for their property. They could, like I stated, they could construct a smaller accessory garage on the property eliminating the variance. If they did receive the variance they would be shortening the parking area that they would have within their driveway to park vehicles that was part of the reason that they came in for the variance last year. And additionally they do have an existing garage on site so this would be for additional storage for the property. 400 square foot building provides adequate space for that. Staff is recommending that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request for the setback and adopt the Findings of Fact and Decision in the packet. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Can you just refresh our memories, if you can, on the first variance. The reasoning for that. If I remember it was a safety situation with cars and parking. Generous: Yes, they were saying because of the steepness of this driveway, people were sliding down that in the wintertime and so they were looking to provide a secondary driveway that didn’t have quite the slope in it and with the approval of the second driveway they were able to do something, I think it was 9% but then it dropped down to 4%. The way he’s actually constructed it, it’s almost level with the street right-of-way because he dug into the hill and his proposal for the detached structure would be to have an in-ground building. Aller: So they continue to dig in. Generous: Yeah. Continue to dig in. The back wall would be the retaining wall and the side walls and then the hill would come down on the side of the garage. However by shortening that he loses a lot of that parking space and so we believe by granting a variance he then encroaches his parking area into the city right-of-way and losing at least 2 parking spaces. Aller: And then he’s also requesting a garage rooftop? Generous: Well they would put, as part of their construction plan they’re showing a flat roof and on top of that they would put a deck area that they could, that they would use as a deck. Aller: And that deck would need a variance typically? 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 Generous: No because the structure itself would be receiving the variance so it would be in conjunction with that. Aller: So he would piggyback then onto the variance that would be granted, if the request is granted. Generous: Yes. They are getting additional relief from the City Code to have a deck. Aller: Because if it was a stand alone deck it would need a variance to be there. Generous: Right, because they’d have to have a 25 foot setback so they’re receiving a 7 foot variance in essence. Aller: And the present garage, how large is that? Generous: I believe it’s a 2 car but I don’t know the dimensions. Aller: Okay. And the community, are they typically one car, two car, three car garages? Generous: They’re all over the place. This is Carver Beach. Some don’t even have garages. Aller: Any other questions of staff? Yusuf: This one seems pretty straight forward. Withrow: Can you point out where the garage typically is to go? Generous: It would be on the southern part of the property. Withrow: Oh so it’s quite a ways from the. Aanenson: From the driveway. Generous: Yeah, here’s the existing driveway. If you’ve been out there the curb, the cut that he’s created currently starts about at the corner of this catch basin and then comes back in and then comes over this way so they would be shifting it down further to the south. And they’re showing it at 18 feet from the south property line. A side setback is 10 feet. Withrow: In terms of the traffic driving through. I mean that’s right on the street kind of isn’t it? Is that an issue? Generous: Carver Beach is a local street so I don’t know if there’s really a lot of traffic down there. Withrow: No, okay. Generous: But the City does have a park across the street from this so you get some outside traffic. Withrow: Nothing else. Aller: Anything else? Alright. Would the applicant like to step forward and make a presentation of any sort? Is the applicant present? 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 Generous: I don’t see him. Aller: Okay. Then what I’ll do is open the public hearing. If any individual present would like to speak either for or against the requested variance, come forward. State your name and address and let us know what you think. German Sugura: My name is German Sugura and I live at 750 Carver Beach Road. Aller: Welcome. German Sugura: And I’m opposed to it. One of the reasons being is because my property is the one that is being directly, they have impact. I purchase this property 12 years ago. I close the day after 9-11 and so it was a big day for everybody. I didn’t think I was going to close. That was September. I move a month later to this place and when the leaves started falling from the trees this amazing view just open up. I can see downtown Minneapolis from my house. Well in the last 2 years there’s been a lot of changes. There’s been trees coming left and right and even in my property. Well where they are proposing, where they put that driveway, I didn’t even know because I was out of town. There was one tree that they…that they cut down. I don’t know if it was before or after. That tree disappeared. Aller: And I guess my question is with the cutting of trees. German Sugura: He’s talking on his property. Aller: It’s on this, on your property or this property? German Sugura: On his property. Aller: Oh okay, thank you. German Sugura: There’s one but there’s going to be more trees that have to be cut down and they are big trees so although I love the view, because it is unbelievable but also the trees kind of keep the noise away in the summertime and it’s, they are just gone. There are trees gone everywhere. These property has changed in the last 2 years and this is going to effect me more too so I’m then, most people, I’m about this property because I live on a cliff so I get to see everything that happens right there. I love my privacy so more is less room. Aller: Okay, thank you. German Sugura: So thank you. Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing. Open it for comment. Discussion. Anyone? I think the report is a good report. I concur with the findings. I will note that we did receive an email dated November 4, 2013 at 11:17 a.m. which has been read and will become part of the record and that was objecting to the grant as well. And that will be th on the website in the future and this item will be before the City Council on November 25. Aanenson: If it’s appealed. Aller: If it is appealed. So I guess the question becomes, how do you feel about it? 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 Weick: I don’t think it meets any of the variance, if you look at any of the bullet points. Stipulations of a variance. I couldn’t find one that it met in my opinion so. Yusuf: It seems as though the City has done a fair job of assessing all the criteria and even offering options that would meet the City’s regulations. Aller: I would again state that I think it’s important to note that there has been an indication that the desired end can be met without the need for a variance. Weick: Absolutely. Aller: So I’ll entertain a motion if anyone would like to make one. Hokkanen: I’ll propose a motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to construct a 27 foot by 24 foot detached accessory structure 18 feet from the front property line and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Any discussion? Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Now any discussion. Hearing none. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to construct a 27 foot by 24 foot detached accessory structure 18 feet from the front property line and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: The requested variance is denied. All interested parties are reminded that a variance decision must be appealed in writing and that must be done in a short timeframe. Typically 4 days. Moving forward. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE LAKESIDE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERIMETER SETBACK STANDARDS TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-UNIT TOWNHOME ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) AND LOCATED ON LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, LAKESIDE SECOND ADDITION. APPLICANT: JOHN ARTHUR HOMES. OWNER: LAND HOLD CO., INC., PLANNING CASE 2013-21. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Planning Case 2013-21, John Arthur Homes is requesting a variance for the Lakeside Development from the eastern perimeter setback requirement. The request, specific request is a 5.7 foot variance from the 50 foot perimeter setback requirement for a main floor cantilever to construct a building at 44.3 feet from the perimeter property line. The location of this development is 8711, 8719 and 8727 Lake Riley Drive. It’s within Lakeside Second Addition. These are actually the last housing sites on the east side of this development. The PUD standards permits the, all the twinhomes that are south of this to be within 30 feet of the property line. However because this is a 3 unit structure there’s a 50 foot requirement. These design standards were originally adopted when the PUD standards specified a 50 foot perimeter setback for any type of planned unit development, no matter what the development was nor what the adjacent properties were. Since that time the City has amended the PUD standards to permit the setback requirements to be determined as a function of the proposed development and in the interim the PUD standards for this were amended several times to change the 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 setback requirements for the twinhomes in the project. The footprint of this building is slightly longer than what was originally envisioned for this site. Cudd Homes was the original proposed developer for these townhouses in this location. As you can see the 50 foot setback would cut into the, just a small portion of each of these townhouses so 5.7 feet seems reasonable considering that had this been divided into twinhomes they could have gone within 30 feet of the eastern property line. I did provide a sample of the Cudd Homes. You can see that the unit is a little squatter in design. It doesn’t have as much of a rear area. Even with this large setback there is a, it would be larger than the rest of the setbacks along the eastern perimeter of this property and really we’ve discovered that to the east of this is a trail system within Eden Prairie and then one of the greens or the drives for the Bearpath Golf Course so there’s no homes immediately adjacent to this development that would have any impact by, they wouldn’t even realize there’s a change in this from the distance so. Large separations are not necessary to provide screening or buffering for this project. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request to permit the 5.7 foot encroachment into the 50 foot side yard setback and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision. And with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Any questions? Withrow: Yeah Bob, why is the setback requirement different for a two house structure versus a three house structure? Generous: Because at the last amendment that was done to this was the developer who’s doing the two house developments and not the three house developments. It was, from the original beginning we had that 50 foot perimeter setback requirement that was prescribed as part of the PUD ordinance. However in the interim the City’s gone through numerous iterations at looking at the intent and the function of the development so we’re learning. Withrow: Okay, so materially it’s not going to make a difference in any way. Generous: No. Aanenson: Wouldn’t you say too Bob it was probably more of an omission. We used the word twinhome as opposed to saying a three-home. Generous: Yes. Aanenson: So it was really just an omission in the type of product so it should have said the setback as opposed to specifying a type of home. Weick: Is that why we’re here is because it was specified as a twinhome setback? Generous: Right. Aanenson: That’s correct. Weick: And that’s why this is a variance… Aller: The PUD is the actual zoning. Aanenson: The literal interpretation, yes. Weick: Okay, thank you. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 Aller: Any other questions for staff? I think the report is very complete. Thank you very much and I don’t have any questions so I’ll ask the applicant to step forward if he’d like to make a presentation at this time. You can state your name for the record. Art Plante: Good evening, Art Plante from John Arthur Homes. I’m the owner. Aller: Welcome. Art Plante: I think staff’s done a good job of summarizing the facts. I don’t really have anything that I could add but I’m here to answer any questions. Aller: We always like to say, tell us about your project. What’s going on? Art Plante: Well the good news is the project was you know quite stalled a couple of years ago and we’ve come in and bought the remaining 14 lots and 10 of those are sold and we’re trying to build it out. Aller: And the materials that you’re using in general? Materials. Colors. Art Plante: Hard board siding. Paver driveway. Cedar garage doors. 8 foot wood doors for entries. 30 year shingles. Hard board siding is the best. Aller: And of course price point. Art Plante: These particular home sites are $600,000 to $700,000. First one that we sold was $650,000. Aller: Great. Any additional questions? Thank you very much. Art Plante: Thank you. Aller: At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the requested variance can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward, closing the public hearing. Comments. Concerns. Questions. I think it looks like a good project so I’m glad it’s hopefully going to get completed. So with that I’ll entertain a motion. Withrow: I’ll do it. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance, I move that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance to the perimeter setback requirement to construct a three-unit townhouse subject to the conditions of this staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Withrow moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance to the perimeter setback requirement to construct a three-unit townhouse subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision: 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 1. The minimum setback from the eastern perimeter property line shall be 44.3 feet for building, decks, patios, porches and stoops. 2. The applicant must apply for a separate building permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN GREAT PLAINS CENTER: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 10,443 SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-LEVEL RETAILCENTER ON 1.13 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT (BH) AND LOCATED AT 7905 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD (BP GAS STATION SITE). APPLICANT: NHH CHANHASSEN PARTNERS, LLC. OWNER: CAMELOT CONV. QUALITY FUEL & FOOD, PLANNING CASE 2013-23. Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The request before you is for a site plan. The site is located northeast, at the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard. Currently there is a convenience store with an area of 1,030 square feet. There’s a gas canopy as well as 6 gas pumps and along the northern portion there is an existing single bay automatic car wash. Access to the site is gained off of Great Plains Boulevard. Currently there is full access to this location off of Great Plains. The current land use on the property, the 2030 Land Use Plan shows the area guided for commercial. The entire surrounding area is also commercial. The zoning is Highway Business. With this request the applicant is proposing to remove the existing structures on the site and replace them with a retail office building which is permitted under the Highway Business district zoning. The site plan request is for the construction of a 10,443 square foot multi-tenant building. It’s a single level building. The maximum permitted site coverage in this district is 65%. The proposed development has a total hard surface coverage of 67.2%. That exceeds the minimum. The maximum permitted in that district. The applicant is fully aware of this and will be able to correct the situation. As part of this application the applicant is also proposing to extend sidewalks along the westerly portion of the site as well as around the building. This will allow the site to connect with surrounding areas. It will also separate pedestrian from vehicular traffic. Parking is located north of the site and it’s mainly screened by the proposed building. However the easterly portion can be viewed from Highway 5. The applicant will need to improve screening of that section to meet ordinance requirements. City Code requires that all parking be screened. Again we had conversations with the applicant and they are fully aware that will need to be done and they are, they will be able to accommodate it. The trash enclosure is located north of the building and again that is completely screened by the building itself. As part of this request the applicant is proposing to add a turn lane, a right in turn lane into this site. Access is still being maintained in the same location off of Great Plains Boulevard but it will be improved. The architecture of the building is, the design of the building is very attractive in the opinion of staff. It is being constructed of very high quality materials. There is a sample of the materials which includes stone, stucco, glass and metal panels. Aanenson: Just set it down. Aller: Because there will be people at home that are interested as well. Dean Dovolis: I have it upside down. I hope no one. Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That’s alright. That still does it. All elevations that can be viewed from the public, even those that are hidden have been given equal attention. The building is, meets ordinance from every single elevation. Entrances into the building are pronounced. They utilize durable exterior materials. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 There is a lot of articulation on the design of the building. We regard the project as a well designed development. The overall design is sensitive to the surrounding area and we are recommending approval of this application. The one thing I would like to add is that the applicant has been very good to work with and has cooperated throughout the process. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Chairman may I? The one thing that I needed to point out, we received a phone call from one of the neighbors and they are very excited about the development. Their only concern dealt with the snow removal. There is a limited area for the snow and their concern is if it was stored in sight triangles or areas that might cause problems with the passing traffic. We are requesting that we add one condition on page 17. It’s under the planning conditions, number 7 and the condition would read, snow storage shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Aller: Thank you. Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Thank you. Aller: Questions of staff. Yusuf: Could you please tell us more about this biofiltration pond or area? Fauske: Certainly, I’d be happy to answer that question. In Chanhassen there’s a number of alternative methods versus a traditional stormwater pond so the applicant has proposed filtration area and essentially it’s an engineered system where the water that enters into the ponding area filters down through there. They have some under drains. They have some vegetation that can absorb some of the water, and it slows down the water. It provides some treatment before it’s discharged downstream. Yusuf: Thank you. Fauske: You’re welcome. Aller: Any additional questions? Hokkanen: No, I think it looks great. Aller: Wonderful. Okay. Would the applicant like to step forward and state your name? Dean Dovolis: Yes. Dean Dovolis, DJR Architecture, 333 Washington North, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Aller: Welcome. Why don’t you tell us about your project. Dean Dovolis: Thank you. Pardon me? Aller: Tell us about your project. Dean Dovolis: Oh I will. I will. I was going to introduce Adam Seraphine and Mark Kroll. They’re part of the development team also. This is sort of a critical site in Chanhassen because it’s sort of considered a gateway site, meaning it’s one of the major ways people enter the city and so we looked at the building like how to treat and emphasize the corner and really sort of set up that entrance into Chanhassen. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 Hopefully sort of create a precedent for other development that may follow that starts to define the street and define the edges so you’ll start to evolve a community that you know can also handle cars but also a future pedestrian environment and this being one of the first move. We completed a project in Edina, and th I don’t know if you want to put this on the camera. Thank you. That’s built on 70 and France that did the first thing. That was the same idea of addressing the corner and creating parking behind the building and in front creating pedestrian access coming from both sides to help create that movement. We were sort of fortunate that Byerly’s made the same move and others started to look at this as sort of a precedence so we sort of see these buildings are acting the same way that we define the corner which may start to work and what we’ve discovered in putting these projects together is that the tenants do appreciate it so it’s not that we’ve created a disadvantage for leasing a building. Actually an advantage and we’ve had very good interest in the building and a good variety of tenants that want to come in, even with the idea of the parking behind and so we thought in terms of materials, the looks, the quality, that this sort of sets that good precedent for the corner that as other corners follow suit and really start to fill in what I sort of call the original vision of Chanhassen. Sort of creating this downtown. This being one piece of it so we’re sort of excited to put this project together and we’ve had a great time working with staff so really appreciate your allowing us the opportunity to work here and put this project together. Aller: Alright, thank you. Questions? Withrow: Yeah I have a question. Is there an entrance on the south side of the building as well or is it all on the north side? Dean Dovolis: There can be entrances on both sides. It will vary by tenants. You know like the one in Edina have entrances on both ends. For example this is designed to have entrances on the south and the north depending how the tenants situate so it’s designed to work, basically two sided retail. Meaning it can work both front and back. This is a building in which there is no back side. All facades are considered basically a front to the building. Some being a front via, if you come via pedestrian some being a front if you come via automobile. Withrow: And how many tenants do you anticipate? Dean Dovolis: I’m guessing we’re going to end up with 3 to 5 is what we’re looking at. Between 2,000 and 3,000 square feet apiece. Withrow: Thank you. Aller: Any additional questions or comments? Thank you sir. Dean Dovolis: Thank you. Aller: Okay we’ll open up the public hearing at this time. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the matter before us. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing. Comments amongst ourselves. Aller: It’s a beautiful project. Hokkanen: It’s going to be nice. Withrow: I’m surprised we don’t have the people across the street in the other gas station here in favor. It’s got to be a good point for them. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 Aller: Well the absence of opposition is probably construed as favorable. I’ll entertain a motion. Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve a site plan for the construction of a 10,443 square foot single level retail center on 1.13 acres of property zoned Highway and Business Services District and located at 7905 Great Plains Boulevard. The BP gas station site. And adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: Including item number 7. Yusuf: Including item number 7. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve a Site Plan for the construction of a 10,443 square foot single level retail center on 1.13 acres of property zoned Highway and Business Services District (BH) located at 7905 Great Plains Boulevard (BP gas station site) as shown in plans dated Received October 4, 2013; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resource Conditions: 1.The applicant shall install a total of two peninsulas in the parking lot. 2.The south side of the parking lot along Highway 5 must be screened. The applicant shall add shrubs with a minimum mature height of three feet along the south parking lot perimeter. 3.The applicant shall install the required bufferyard plantings along the south property line. 4.The applicant shall install two evergreens on the eastern corner of the property. 5.The applicant shall remove the existing ash tree along Great Plains Boulevard and replace it with an overstory tree species from the Approved Tree List. Building Official Conditions: 1.The proposed structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system (MN Rule 1306). 2.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A geotechnical (soil evaluation) report required. 3.Detailed building code-related requirements have not been reviewed; this will take place when complete structural/architectural plans are submitted. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 4.Demolition permit required (contact MPCA regarding underground, fuel storage tanks removal requirements). 5.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Fire Marshal Conditions: 1.An additional on-site fire hydrant will be required. Location to be on the north/west corner of the building. If necessary contact Fire Marshal for exact location. 2.Yellow painted curbing will be required. Areas include but not limited to are the curbing north of the building. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location. Also “ No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required where yellow cubing is present. 3.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrant. Engineering Conditions: 1.The sidewalk must be minimum five feet from the edge Great Plains Boulevard and the right turn lane. 2.A sidewalk easement is required over any portion of the sidewalk that does not lie within public right-of-way. 3.The sidewalk easement shall extend five feet beyond the edge of the sidewalk. 4.The developer must obtain a MnDOT permit for the portions of the sidewalks that will be within MnDOT right-of-way. 5.Prior to construction of the trash enclosure an encroachment agreement must be recorded to allow for the portion of the trash enclosure that will lie within the sanitary sewer easement. 6.A $7,600 security must be submitted to ensure that Great Plains Boulevard is properly restored after the utility work. This escrow will be released if the street patch is in good condition after one freeze-thaw cycle has passed. 7.The sanitary sewer line must be televised before and after construction to ensure that the grading equipment does not damage the sanitary sewer. 8.Before the city signs the site plan agreement a $7,500 security must be submitted in case of damage to the existing sanitary sewer. 9.The existing sanitary sewer manhole in the northeast corner must be reconstructed due to the proposed grade changes in the area. 10.City water and sanitary sewer hook-up fees and the Met Council SAC fee will be due with the building permit and will be based on additional SAC units, if any. 11.Before site grading can commence the grading plan must be revised as follows: 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 a.Label the existing contours. b.Label the Emergency Overflow (EOF) elevation. c.Ensure that the lowest opening of the building is minimum one foot above the EOF elevation. d.Ensure that all proposed contours tie into existing (for example, the proposed 954 contour south of the EOF does not tie in). a.Revise the grading on the northeast corner of the site so that the proposed grades do not exceed 3H:1V. 12.Storm water runoff rates must not increase under the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year return interval storms at any point where water leaves the site. 13.A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment must be performed on this site and made available to the city to determine the likelihood of encountering contaminated soils at the proposed biofiltration location. 14.The hydraulic calculations for the storm sewer shall be provided and approved prior to the city signing the site plan agreement. 15.The SWPPP must include all required elements under the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. 16.Rock construction entrance shall be measured from the bituminous saw cut. 17.The biofiltration area shall not be constructed until after the site is substantially completed. At a minimum, the base course shall be installed prior to construction of the biofiltration area. 18.The biofiltration area shall be protected from construction-related activities throughout site development. The SWPPP and Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan must indicate how this will be accomplished. 19.Before the City signs the site plan agreement a $5,000 security must be submitted to insure compliance with the erosion prevention and sediment control plan. This will be released once a minimum of 75% of the site has been permanently stabilized and the sediment control BMPs have been removed. 20.The owner shall be responsible for the operations and maintenance of the rain garden facility. The applicant shall develop an operations and maintenance manual and provide a copy to the city prior to the City signing the site plan agreement. 21.The owner shall prepare and submit an annual report indicating that the biofiltration is functioning properly or, in the event it is not, what steps area planned to restore the functionality of the biofiltration feature. Planning Conditions: 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 1.The applicant shall work with staff to improve the screening of the parking lot through the use of berming and landscaping. Parking setbacks will be adjusted based on the screening plan. 2.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 3.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. Signs shall be limited to the north and south elevations. 4.The exterior material for the trash enclosure must be of the same exterior material as the building. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. 5.A photometrics plan shall be prepared for the site. Light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. All fixtures must be shielded. 6.The proposed development has a total hard coverage area of 67.2%. The applicant shall revise the plan to meet hard surface coverage ordinance requirements not to exceed 65%. 7.Snow storage shall not create a hazard to the safe, efficient movement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Good luck. Thank you. This matter will be before the City Council on November 25, 2013 so those of you at home who are wishing to take a look at the incoming documents, they’re on the website or come down and be present at the City Council meeting that will be on November 25, 2013. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I may. I just want to thank Sharmeen for all the good work that she does. This is an example of her putting in extra time and effort into it and she got some comments from the Kraus- Anderson project I just want to share with you. Some of the neighbors that were concerned about it called her and told her that they were so impressed at how that was designed. We actually had another architect call in and said they’d never seen a McDonald’s quite place like that and that’s Sharmeen thinking outside the box and pushing it. You know there’s some other signage issues out there right now that she’s working on but I think the overall design, the effort that she puts into it comes back and we got some really positive feedback for the work that was done so I just want to thank Sharmeen for all the work that she does. Aller: As do we and for the great reports that we get because they reduce the need for questions from us and it develops a greater understanding with the commission and obviously there is a good rapport you’ve created with the different developers that come in. They’re espousing how nice it is to work with you so thank you. Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 15, 2013 as presented. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 5, 2013 COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE AND FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS. Aanenson: So they repealed the Conditional Use Permit for the stables that was, we know there’s a project trying to proceed up there. We did look at it. Made some changes. Engineering had some issues on that as did the planning staff and that’s on that old Boulder Cove site so we believe someone will be coming forward with that probably after the first of the year with a residential development on that. Then we also had to change the name of a street up in Camden Ridge. Power Pointe was supposed to be on the last City Council meeting. We’re still working through some issues on that. As the developer told you, the stormwater ended up being quite a bit more expensive than they originally put in the budget so we’re still trying to fine tooth that and working on the development contract. We’re trying to keep that on for th the 12 meeting. We’ll see. Working through those issues there but that’s all I had for the update. If I th may Mr. Chairman I’ll go right into the items coming up for your November 19. Aller: Please. Aanenson: We have a few items on for that meeting. Right now we did not have anything come in for rd your December 3 meeting so right now we’re not planning on that meeting. We usually have one in December because we get too close to the holidays there so right now we’re not planning on a meeting so th your last meeting of the year would be then the 19 of November. So with that, that’s all I had. Aller: Great. Aanenson: Unless anybody else had anything to follow up on. Aller: Any additional comments, questions? I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Hokkanen 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 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 25