Loading...
PC Minutes 9-7-04 ot..f-2CJ Planning Commission Summary - September 7,2004 2. Less than or equal to 60 degrees from horizontal of the beam. 3. Less than or equal to 60-watt incandescent light. 4. Aimed at a spot less than or equal to 10 feet from the ground. All voted in favor, except LilIehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-SEASON PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R), LOCATED AT 7200 LODGEPOLE POINT, JAMES & KRISTIN RUELLE- PLANNING CASE NO. 04-28. Public Present: Name Address Jim Ruelle 7200 Lodgepole Point Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked about the elevation difference between the subject house and the neighboring house. Commissioner Lillehaug asked if the City had a potential need for a full 9-foot side yard easement. Chairman Sacchet asked about the patio door, the angle the house was constructed on the lot, and the specifics of two previous variance requests in the neighborhood. Commissioner Keefe asked about the design of the porch and deck, and comparison of a similar variance. The applicant, Jim Ruelle, addressed the Planning Commission and answered questions from the Commission. After discussion, the following motion was made: Papke moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance 04-28 for a 6.75-foot setback as shown on the plans stamped "Received August 5, 2004" with the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or it shall become void. 2. The proposed addition must be built per plans stamped "Received August 05, 2004." 3. The proposed addition must not encroach into the existing 5 foot drainage and utility easement. All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK PUD DESIGN STANDARDS TO PERMIT RETAIL USES ON BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 4TH ADDITION, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD 2 Planning Commission Summary - Scptember 7,2004 AND NORTH OF CORPORATE PLACE. HELSENE PARTNERS. LLC - PLANNING CASE NO. 04-29. Public Present: Name Address Chris Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Brenda M. Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Gene Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Robert Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Tjornhom asked if any other exceptions have been made for a retail store in the area. Commissioner Papke asked what the response would be from the existing floral shops in downtown Chanhassen who are paying retail property taxes. Commissioner Keefe asked about the existing personal service businesses on the site. Chairman Sacchet asked about the existing "borderline" retail stores located nearby (All About Lights, Buck's Unpainted Furniture, Sherwin-Williams, etc.). Commissioner Lillehaug asked what other types of retail would be allowed if approved. The applicant, Chris, Brcnda and Gene Helscne of Helscne Partners, LLC, addressed the Planning Commission and answered questions from the Commission. After discussion, the following motion was made: LilIehaug moved, Papke(?) seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD #92-6) development design standards to permit retail uses based on the fmdings of fact and recommendation attached to the staff report dated September 7, 2004. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 17,2004 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Kim Meuwissen 3 6Y' 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 2004 2. The proposed addition must be built per plans stamped "Received August 05, 2004." 3. The proposed addition must not encroach into the existing 5 foot drainage and utility easement. All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Sacchet: Looks like that is our ratio for tonight. Thank you very much. Good luck with your porch. With that, we get up to our third item. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK PUD DESIGN STANDARDS TO PERMIT RETAIL USES ON BLOCK 1. ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 4TH ADDITION. LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF CORPORATE PLACE. HELSENE PARTNERS, LLC - PLANNING CASE NO. 04-29. Public Present: Name Address Chris Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Brenda M. Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Gene Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Robert Generous presented the staff report on this item. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Again, this is an amendment to an existing Planned Unit Development. It was designed to be a light industrial park. There are some commercials in the development. A hotel is going up across the street from this site. They do have a restaurant pad. However, retail uses were never anticipated as part of this project with one exception of the C-store on 82nd Street and Highway 41. Sacchet: The convenience store there? Generous: The convenience store, yes. Citgo. Arboretum Citgo. The design standards were very specific in that there would be the only one retail site within the development street and it would be on 82nd Street. That was intentionally put in there to provide for the large industrial base in Chaska just to the south of there and as a convenience retail opportunity for the rest of this development. The City has other areas that are currently guided and zoned for commercial uses just to the north of Highway 5 on Century there's a commercial center going in. That's where we believe retail operations should be located. There is an advantage to this site because it wasn't zoned commercial for retail uses. There is a different valuation type down there so we would put the other commercial sites at a disadvantage if we permit it in there. Staff is 23 Planning Commission Meeting ~ September 7,2004 recommending denial of the amendment to the PUD. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions. Sacchet: Thanks, Bob. Questions for staff? Bethany, go ahead. Tjornhom: I want to have my standard question to you, Bob. Have you made other exceptions in this area for any retail store? Generous: Not within the PUD. There is, to the north of it, within the shopping center, the Century Plaza Development. Sacchet: Is that an exception? Generous: No, but that's really located in commercial for this area. The City, over time we've allowed commercial to creep out of our downtown because our downtown area has been planned for our primary commercial uses; however, we do allow some support commercial out within planned developments and they're out in other areas within the City but within the PUD, no. We have allowed personal services which are more oftìce-type uses, but no retail with people coming in and buying an item and leaving. Tjomhom: And convince me why that's bad, or why is that what we don't want there. Generous: Because this is an area that was intended for more officelindustrial-type uses and once you start going away from that then, retail is a lot easier to get people in, especially if you have the price advantage that there is the potential for an industrial park to do. Land values in industrial parks are much less than in a straight commercial retail zoning category. Papke: I guess I do have a question. What do you think the response would be of the.. .1 guess this is intended to be a floral shop? Generous: A floral shop. Papke: What do you think the response would be of the existing floral shops in downtown Chanhassen who are paying retail property taxes and so on to this request? Generous: Of course they may be opposed to it but that... Sacchet: Steve? Dan? Do you have more questions, Bethany? Tjomhom: No. I don't think so. Sacchet: More questions? Steve? Dan? Keefe: The use that's in there, it looks like there's some, it's not really retail. You've got a restaurant, right? Subway. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 2004 Generous: Yes. Keefe: Styles, that's a hair salon? Generous: Personal services. Keefe: Okay. That's personal services and karate is? Generous: It's on the personal services side... Keefe: Okay. So there is some sort of breadth of uses which you actually can go in there, personal services that are not specitìcally retail? Generous: Yes. Keefe: Okay. Sacchet: There are two parts of this building where you can, do we know what part the t10ral shop want? The big one on the south or the little one on the northwest? Generous: I believe it's the big one on the south part. Sacchet: Part of it? Now, we touched on what's in there currently. Subway is not considered retail? I mean, people come to buy something to go. Generous: Yes, but it we were looking at that as a commercial support, almost like a service. This was approved for up to 1.2 million square feet of oftìce/industrial development and we wanted people to have an opportunity to get. . . Sacchet: Eat a sub but we don't want them to buy flowers? Generous: Well, then you turn it all into retail. Sacchet: I'm not trying to make a joke here but we have like borderline retail with the lighting store, with the furniture store and the paint shop over on the west side. That's not retail? Generous: Those were primarily geared toward supplying the builders and so they contract with like Lundgren Bros. and they'll outfit a whole house and then the contractor actually gets the stuff from there; however, it is open for people to come in, yes. Sacchet: So it is sort of retail. Keefe(?): A combination wholesale & retail. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 Sacchet: So it's kind of neither bird nor fish. I've used that before. People don't understand it in this country. Now there is an allowance of, what is it? Twenty percent or something that can be showroom or what? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Where stuff that is manufactured on-site or assembled or.. .now with furniture and lighting, the assembly probably goes as far as taking it out of the box? Does that fall into that category? Generous: That went under the direction of Council. Council interpreted that that is an appropriate use in that location. Sacchet: So, could we possibly argue that a flower bouquet is assembled in a store? Generous: When they first came in they were arguing that they were providing a consulting service and most of their operation would be actually someplace else. Someone comes in and orders the arrangements for a wedding for instance; however, when we looked at it, we saw a flower shop. Sacchet: What I'm trying to hammer on here is, this is such a gray area. You rolled out big guns here saying it's contrary to code, to the comprehensive plan. It's hard to argue with that and then the property value aspect is very significant. Do we have more questions? Lillehaug: I have one quick one. Bob, can you give me. . . we keep talking f10wer shop. What does this actually open up the door for? Are we specifically requesting for a flower shop or is it all retail? Generous: Any retail. Lillehaug: So what does that open the door for? What other types of retail do you see that changes the character? Generous: A convenience store would be able to go in there. Anything that sells on a retail basis.. . Lillehaug: So it wouldn't necessarily remain a flower shop? Generous: No. Lillehaug: So it could turn over to be a record store, whatever? Generous: Specialty retaiL.. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 Sacchet: Alright. I think we are ready to hear from the applicant. If you please want to come forward, state your name and address and see what you can tell us to try to convince us that this is appropriate. Chris Helsene: My name is Chris Helsene from the Century Boulevard Court, Gene Helsene and Brenda Helsene. Sacchet: A family venture, I can tell. Welcome. Helsene: As far as we think, the way the corner is developing, not only the southwest corner but the northeast corner, it seems to be that there is retail on the north side just the way it's going with the hotel. I don't know if hotels fall under office and light industry, but we're trying to get that small portion as you can see, maybe possibly rezoned. Trying to head off maybe future problems. We are working with a florist. We hope that hasn't gone away because this process does take some time. I have been in communication with them and they seem to be still eager. We tried to go with just getting a florist in but evidently it doesn't fall under the appropriate term, so the only other alternative that we know of is to try to change the whole corner unless there are other alternatives. Sacchet: Just to clarify: you said the florist's specific request was not... Helsene: As far as? We're working with a florist. We've come to terms. Sacchet: Why did you not come in specifically asking for florist? That's my question. Helsene: Why were we specifically? Sacchet: Why were you not specifically asking for florist? Helsene: Well, we did when we first went to the City. We tried to get a permit to get the florist 111. Generous: Administratively. Sacchet: Okay. Helsene: But staff, we weren't going to get the permit because they don't fàll under personal service, they fall under the category of, I can't name it offhand, but it fàlls under retail. Sacchet: Okay. I didn't mean to interrupt. Helsene: No, that's fine. So that's why we're doing what we are doing is to hopefully still get the florist in. Sacchet: Alright. Questions for the applicant? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 Keefe: I've got to believe that this particular corner is really going to improve, particularly with Life Time coming in. You're going to have additional companies that are going to want to locate on your particular corner that are even beyond what the florist would want to do. I assume you're probably starting to see some of that activity already. I'm kind oflooking at it, I've got to believe there's going to be other potential beyond just a florist that may not be just retail. I mean you've already got current uses in there, so I'm kind of scratching my head a little bit going, well as this corner improves, I think you're going to get more visibility, there's going to be more traffic going by, there's going to be more people coming there with Life Time corporate coming in. I just keep thinking that you're going to have other... Helsene: And we hope potentially to see that come. There are other alternatives that we wouldn't have to go this route. To kind of clarify, as far as the CB Styles and the It Fif,'11res, that is our own.. .that's what we've always done and we've always rented from others so we decided to go out and do this ourselves. So we ourselves are trying to make a living off of a third of it and we're not filling the other portion as of yet... we've come to terms on a lease we think should be drying as we speak, but of eourse they didn't fit into the plans. ..It's not that we're asking for medium markets to come in or anything like that. It's not that big of a building.. .It's so a convenience-type retailer can go that way.. .or a specialty destination. That's what I would think of it. As a smallcr eompany, I know they don't fall under the category of say, personal services but, kind of when you think about it, a lot of their business does, a majority of their business doesn't actually go out the door, cash-in out the door with the pro duet, its a lot of funeral arrangements, people order up and they deliver later. Sacchet: I remember when you came in for your building there and I'm trying to remember. When I went looking at it I seem to recall that you would have actually have used a large part of the building. Did that change in the process? Helsene: That we, ourselves? Sacchet: Yes, yourself for the hair place. Helsene: We use over a third of the building ourselves for our. . . Sacchet: Which part are you actually using? Helsene: We're using the middle section. Saechet: You're using the middle for... Helsene: We felt the middle section would be the least desirable so we took it ourselves. Saechet: So you have it on both sides, the middle part? Straight across. Okay. That's what eon fused me because it looked like, I remember you wanted a third of it. Helsene: We have this section straight through... 28 Planning Commission Meeting ~ September 7,2004 Sacchet: So you got the Subway in one corner and then the other comer on the north side is vacant and the third on the south is vaeant? Helsene: Yes. We have a small seetion on the northwest comer that is vaeant and we have a much larger section on the south side. Sacchet: And you haven't seen much interest in that? Helsene: .. .and our rates are very good for whoever's listening. Sacchet: And staff said in order to get a flower shop in there you would need to ask for this to be commercial across the board. Helsenc: That's our understanding. Sacchet: Okay. Go ahead, Bethany. Tjornhom: Maybe this is an inappropriate question again, Bob, but do you ever see this area changing so it's not office industrial park anymore? Sacchet: Unpredictable. Tjornhom: Well, with all the changes that are happening in the City. Generous: I don't, I never say never but we have Life Time Fitness going in but then they're having their corporate oftìces coming in and then they have two vacant lots within the development and I don't anticipate those changing.. .Could it be convenience? That's a policy decision that would be ultimately up to the City Council. Tjornhom: Okay. Sacchet: You were clear about that restriction on that site when you went in there that it was not retail. The PUD specifically lists the things of what is acceptable and that list has been amended a couple of times. Helsene: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. If anybody wants to speak up about this, this is your time. Since we don't have too many people here, I close the public hearing and bring it baek to the Commission. Keefe: Do you ever permit an interim use for a partieular. . . Saechet: That's a question for Bob. Do we have an interim use permit for something that is? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 Generous: Well, we do in this development for the ehurch. It's permitted in one of the buildings and there are some standards that once they exceed that pressure of the need to develop. Keefe: So have we ever seen anything like where we would tie an interim use to a lease, potentially? Generous: No, we generally try not to get into that lease arrangement. We look at the size of the operation.. .once it hits a certain threshold is where we say no, it's no longer appropriate there. Generally, like for ehurches, once they get a certain membership they can afford to go out and get their own operation and fàcilities. Tjornhom: I have one more question. I'm sorry; I have one more question for the applicant. What percentage of your business is walk-in to buy a pot of flowers and walk out versus weddings or someone ordering flowers to be delivered? Helsene: I can't say about the flowers. Sacchet: He's not the flowers. They're the haircutters. Helsene: In talking to the florist I gather that it tends to be the main focus. I don't know anything about running a florist but I've ordered flowers. I've never aetually gone into a store. either called for a fùneral or have them sent to my wife. .. .I'm just generalizing...I think a smaller portion of their business is actually retail in the sense of what retail as the scope is as far as walk in and walk out with a product. Tjornhom: Right. Because like All About Lights... Sacchet: The furniture store next door. Keefe: .. . Sherwin-Williams. .. Tjornhom: It is where you can walk in. You can buy a sofa or you could just order through your builder. To me, and I'm making a comment now, but it just seems to be on the same line... Sacchet: Weare on comments. You're right on target, Bethany. Tjomhom: We are? Okay. To me it just seems like it's the same thing in my mind. It's the same thing if I'm going to order some flowers or order some lighting. I'm not necessarily shopping in a floral store. Keefe: About an interim use on a perccntage basis, are we looking at, I mean does the use within the PUD that is currently retail is just limited to the location of the PUD which is that C- store.. .What we are looking to be approved here is retail for the entire PUD? Generous: No, just for that 4th Addition. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 2004 Keefe: Okay. Sacchet: So it would include the bank and the childcare place? Generous: Right. Helsene: And then our location. Sacchet: And then your place. Generous: Block I of the 4th Addition. Sacchet: Is that going to track off their property taxes? Generous: I think that the assessor looks at it more by the actual uses there so if they got a lot retail in, it may. I don't know exactly how they calculate all that. Look at income potential of the property? Lillehaug: I respect the comments everybody's making about the precedent already set by All About Lights and Buck's Unpainted Furniture and all that kind of stuff, but if! understand where you're going Bob, the intent here is to prevent the sprawl, if you will, of retail out into a eommereiallindustrial area and, at this point, with Life Time just starting to move dirt, I would be reluetant to say that there is a financial hardship in this ease. The applicants came into this with their eyes wide open knowing that this was commerciallindustrial, not retail, and we're just breaking ground on Life Time. I think it's a little early to know what the needs are going to be in that part of the City right now to change the plan for this property so, even though I think as a couple people have pointed out that there is some quasi-retail in the area already, that doesn't mean we want to encourage more of that kind of thing. Sacchet: That's a question, just a second Steve. Bob, we have empty retail space available in the City in downtown and north of Highway 5? Generous: Yes. That new building that's going in isn't fùlly leased. I think they only have one tenant. Sacchet: Alright. Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: I guess my comment, I don't have any questions. Sacchet: Yes, were on comments. That's fine. Lillehaug: The main thing in my mind is changing the character of the development. Does a flower shop change the character of that development? Probably not, but that's not what's in front of us here. We're asking to change the PUD standard to retail for that entire lot and I don't support doing that. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 Sacchet: That's clear. Bethany, Dan, anything more to add? Keefe: I have a tendency to agree with Steve on that. The question I have is, is there any way to do something interim but I just don't know. Sacchet: I think that's a good point, Dan. When you bring in the concept of a possible interim use permit, specifically to flower shops to kind of bridge the gap, but then the timeline of Life Time Fitness is obviously very aecelerated and I think Kurt had a very good point about that. Where I stand with this, I mean to make that whole area, which is not a big area, but make that available for retail, we'd really be modifying the eomprehensive plan and that's not our role as the Planning Commission. That would definitely have to be the City Couneil in my opinion. That's where I do have to draw the line. You could say well, we've had these other variances earlier tonight where we decided was sort of in the realm of triviality. To change the comprehensive plan is certainly not trivial and it is very clearly not within our reach of authority to deal with and, unfortunately, the way this proposal has come in front of us, it is asking for this to make it flat-out retail and I don't think that is within our reach. It simply is not within our reach of authority, the way I understand what our role is. It isn't compatible with the complete set plan of the City, as such, and I have to agree with staff on that and I can't really argue with that even if it were within our reach of authority to deal with. Now, would it be within our reach to add florists to the list of allowed uses in the PUD? There, I would feel more comfortable deciding and discussing it, but I'm sure whether I would want to add it in there because then where do we end? You already have a sort of a lighting store, a sort of a furniture store. Is Subway going to be considered retail? Ifwe would apply, was it 20% or 25%, showroom aspect that can be sort-of retail, we could probably argue away why there is a lighting store, why there is a furniture store, paint shop, and we could apply it to this particular development. We could argue well, is Subway a retail-oriented thing or not, that would certainly fit within that 20% to 25% of the space, but does it still fit in the 20% to 25% if we add a florist store. That would be a totally different discussion at that point. Lillehaug: If I could interject. That would come back to my rhetorical question before of would that be equitable to the existing two floral businesses here in Market Square and just down the street here and from a competitive standpoint we would be placing the existing businesses at a financial disadvantage by doing that to them. Sacchet: Which is definitely a thing we have to be conscious and careful about, too. As much as we'd like to help the applicant get over filling the vacancy, I do think it is a very promising situation there with Life Time Fitness going... (The tape was changed at this point) Sacchet: .. .It's way out of our reach to make a decision about the comprehensive plan here. So with that, unless there are more comments, I'm willing to take a motion. Lillehaug: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7,2004 LilIehaug moved, Papke(?) seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD #92-6) development design standards to permit retail uses based on the findings of fact and recommendation attached to the staff report dated September 7, 2004. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Sacchet: I would like to recommend to the applicant, if you want to pursue this further to appeal it to the City Council. That would be the right body to look at this but I would actually more encourage you to try to be more specific in your request and try to make a blanket change. I think it would be very hard to justify that at this point in the circumstances you have because really what this request in front of us asks is something very different from just having a flower shop there. Helsene: Is there any way... Sacchet: I would have to direct you to work with staff with this, and apparently staff directed you to take this approach. Maybe that could be revisited. I don't know. But that's something you would have to discuss with staff, with Bob and I don't know where he worked with any of the other planners. Whether it is a possibility to consider maybe an amendment to the list of allowed uses, rather than a rezoning of this to be retail. It may be that this is so clearly retail that it would need the bigger change and that would be hard. From that angle, I think that Life Time Fitness is going to put a lot of attention to this place. That is not far away. That's always the fallback which is not all that bad in the end. But I'm not in a position to really counsel you, I'm just making a few comments to give you a framework and you will have to work with staff in particular. So, with that, I thank you very much. Does somebody want to note the minutes from last time, please? APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 17, 2004 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Kim Meuwissen 33