Loading...
PC 2014 05 20 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam Yusuh, and Steve Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Dan Campion 340 Trappers Pass PUBLIC HEARING: NEXT STEPS LEARNING CENTER: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING EXPANSION ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP) AND LOCATED AT 1430 PARK COURT (LOT 1, BLOCK 2, ROME PARK). APPLICANT: JEREMY SPAUDE, PLANNING CASE 2014-15. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Brief correction to the staff report. th Initially we said that this will appear before the City Council on May 20. We’re actually, I’m sorry th June. It was said that in the staff report that this would appear before the City Council on June 9. We’re th actually moving it to May 27 so just minor correction. Aller: Okay so for the record that will be May 27, 2014 and for those individuals at home or present that are watching this item, the reports are found on the Chanhassen website as well so please go ahead and take a look at those before the meetings. Al-Jaff: The site is located at 1430 Park Road. It is bordered by Highway 5 to the north and Park Court to the east. Riley Creek runs to the west of the subject site. The site is zoned Industrial Office Park. It is accessed off of Park Court and there is a daycare center on the site as well as a, a daycare on the site as well as a play area to the north of the daycare center. Just a brief background on this site. Back in October of 1988 the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a daycare center. There was also a variance that was granted and the variance is for the parking lot. The parking area that is located immediately to the southeast corner, portion of the site. City code requires that it maintains a 10 foot setback and in this case it was at zero and it was to provide parking for the site that’s immediately to the west of the subject site. Or to the east, I’m sorry. The proposal before you today looks at adding a 3,000 square foot addition to the site. The addition will be located southwest of the existing building and the total area for both the addition as well as the existing building is going to be approximately 10,000 square feet. They, the building meets all ordinance requirements. Bluff Creek is located to the west of the subject site. City Code requires that it maintain, all structures maintain a minimum of 50 feet from the center line of the creek. In this case it exceeds 70 feet at the closest point. In addition to that there are trees throughout this area and they will remain undisturbed so all of these requirements are met. As far as parking goes, the city code requires 1 parking space per 6 children. They will have a capacity of 119 kids within this building. That translates to 20 parking spaces. They are providing 28 parking spaces. As far as the building itself and the architecture, this is the area that will be Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 20, 2014 added. This is what any individual that will be approaching the building, that would be the façade that they will see. They are introducing an entrance and it is pronounced. You will be able to see it and locate the entrance into the building. Fenestration as well as transparency meets ordinance requirements. Keep in mind that this is an existing building so we’re just trying to meet the exact same standards as the existing. Materials are shown, there we go. Okay, materials again they match the existing building. Face block as well as EFIS. And then the frames of the building will also, frames for the windows will also match the existing building. Staff is recommending approval of this site plan for the construction of 3,000 square feet of daycare expansion subject to conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Aller: Any questions? Weick: Is there? Aller: Mr. Weick. Weick: Yeah. Is there, it looks like there was, is there water? Some kind of runoff or something added? Is that new? Or what is that feature I guess? The blue. Aller: Retention pond? Al-Jaff: Correct. It’s a retention pond and it’s a day. Go ahead Alyson. Fauske: I’d be happy to answer your question. The proposal before you and the area outlined in blue and shaded in blue is intended to be a dry pond and what a dry pond is, is it collects water after a rainfall event and slowly and eventually that, the entire amount of water that’s in that basin will dissipate and discharge down the slope so the intent is to try to mediate, mediate an erosion issue that exists on the site. Aller: And then to follow up with that, the addition of the 28 parking spots, is that going to be a problem with the erosion or runoff? Fauske: That was factored into the design so the applicant’s engineer worked with staff in order to accommodate the additional discharge rates and with the proposed pond in the existing in place system they meet the requirements. Aller: Great. Again any questions? Alright, thank you. If the applicant wishes to step forward and make a presentation they can do so. They don’t have to but if they’d like to that’s fine. Or just introduce yourself would be great. Jeremy Spaude: Sure, Jeremy Spaude, 1430 Park Court. I think Sharmeen covered it well. We’re just looking to add a gym and really make our entrance and our parking lot flow really well for what we have now. Aller: Welcome sir. And you’ve had a copy of the report and you’ve reviewed all the conditions. Jeremy Spaude: Correct. Aller: And you’re willing to do anything with the City or at least work with the City to make sure that the requirements are met. Jeremy Spaude: Correct. Yep, Sharmeen’s been a great partner. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 20, 2014 Aller: Wonderful. Any other questions or anything you’d like to say? Jeremy Spaude: Nope, I think we’re good. Aller: Perfect, thank you. At this point we’ll open the public hearing portion of this matter. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the item can step forward at this time and do so. Seeing no one coming forward I’m going to close the public hearing portion and open it for discussion then if any. It’s an addition to an existing building. It meets the hard cover requirements and they’ve taken into account the impact in creating the dry pond so it looks pretty straight forward. Weick: There were only minor additions, yeah. Aller: Anyone wish to make a motion? Yusuf: I’ll make the motion. Aller: Okay. Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a site plan for construction of a 3,000 square foot daycare expansion subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: I have a motion by Commissioner Yusuf, seconded by Commissioner Weick. All those or any discussion? Further discussion. Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the for construction of a 3,000 square-foot daycare addition as City Council approve a Site Plan shown in plans dated received April 18, 2014, subject to the following conditions of approval; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Environmental Resources Conditions 1.The applicant shall install a total of three trees around and/or within the parking lot. Engineering Conditions 1.The applicant and their engineer shall explore alternate EOF to reduce pooling depth and area. 2.A soils report indicating soil conditions, permeability and slope is required. 3.The scale on the grading plans must be corrected. 4.The existing and proposed elevations must be shown at the corners of the proposed structure. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 20, 2014 5.The plan shall be revised to show locations of proposed stockpile areas. 6.The proposed grades shall be no steeper than 3:1. 7.Staff recommends the use of minimum parking dimensions to reduce hard surface cover and aid in the stormwater management of the property per City Code §20-1118. 8.The erosion prevention and sediment control plan must be compliant with Chapter 19 of Chanhassen City Code. 9.The applicant must procure and comply with all required approvals from applicable jurisdictional agencies. 10.The rip rap slope must be shown on the plans and erosion prevention and sediment control practices shall be modified to accommodate this disturbance. Building Official Conditions 1.The building addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 2.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3.Detailed occupancy and building area-related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. 4.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Planning Conditions 1.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 2.Any new signs must comply with the sign ordinance requirements. 3.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. Light fixtures shall be downcast and the light shall be cut off at a 90-degree angle as required by the city code. All fixtures shall be shielded. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 1601 & 1701 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE: REQUEST FOR AN “AFTER-THE-FACT” INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR APPROXIMATELY 18,050 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL THAT WAS PLACED ND ON LOT 7, BLOCK 1, THE HESSE FARM 2 ADDITION (1701 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE) BETWEEN MAY AND OCTOBER, 2013; AND A REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR APPROXIMATELY 6,990 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL ON LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 1, THE ND HESSE FARM 2 ADDITION (1601 & 1701 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE). THE PROPERTIES ARE 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 20, 2014 ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL. APPLICANT: EUREKA CONSTRUCTION. OWNER: BRAD MOE, PLANNING CASE 2014-16. Fauske: Thank you Chairperson Aller and members of the Planning Commission. Before you this item is the Interim Use Permit application which actually is in two parts. The first part being for some fill that’s already taken place and the second part requesting permission for some additional fill upon the site. This th is scheduled for the June 9 council meeting. The project proposer is Eureka Construction and the property owner is Mr. Brad Moe. The site is located south of Highway 212 and west of Bluff Creek Drive. It’s in a rural residential area. Access to the site was gained from Bluff Creek Drive. The interim use permit process is required when grading operations are in excess of 1,000 cubic yards. The threshold for a grading permit is 50 cubic yards and that’s to allow staff an opportunity to take a look at drainage patterns. Make sure that erosion control devices are in place so when we get up to 1,000 cubic yards it’s enough of a change where it warrants looking at a public hearing and making sure that residents around the area are aware of the proposed project. In this case as I had mentioned there is some fill that had already been taken place so they’re requesting an after the fact Interim Use Permit. Fill was placed on the site between May and October, 2013. We don’t have the exact dates. The contractor working on the site was notified and at that point when the grading, the fill operation ceased the site was seeded to get some stabilization and they began to have conversations with staff to get the Interim Use Permit application in. In this instance because we did not have accurate pre-grading information the application was directed to use the 2011 contour data provided by Carver County in order to determine the approximate amount of fill. The contractor calculated that to be 18,050 cubic yards is the amount of fill that was placed between May and October of 2013. This unfortunately doesn’t show very well on the screens. It’s also included in the packet as an attachment. It shows the 2011 condition per the Carver County grades and then the current condition which is represented by topographic information that was collected by the contractor’s surveying company. For the after the fact Interim Use Permit we did receive some comments from MnDOT because MnDOT, their right-of-way exists to the north of the site. MnDOT had mentioned some access control to the property that had been negotiated with the property owner. Staff wasn’t necessarily included in all those conversations. The applicant has been in contact with MnDOT to get clarification on what all requirements need to be met. As of Friday hadn’t heard back from MnDOT so we’ll continue to work with the applicant and MnDOT to make sure that all of MnDOT’s concerns are addressed with the after the fact Interim Use Permit. MnDOT comments also included a note that they believe that there could potentially have been fill within the MnDOT right-of-way. Looking at the grading plan, that didn’t stick out to me but again we want to have that conversation with MnDOT and make sure that all of their concerns are addressed. And then the third comment with regards to the after the fact Interim Use Permit is whether or not a drainage permit is required. In this scenario when, if the discharge rates for runoff to the MnDOT right-of-way are increased, that’s when they start looking at requiring a drainage permit so those are calculations that the contractor and his engineer have been having discussions and getting those prepared so that we can have a conversation with MnDOT as far as what permits need to be required. Any kind of on site mitigation to slow down that runoff entering the MnDOT right-of-way. And then staff had a comment with the after the fact Interim Use Permit with regard to site stabilization. There are still some areas that haven’t fully been established so we’d like to get an escrow in order to make sure that those concerns are addressed and everything was revegetated. Aller: Okay, any questions? I think the escrow is a great idea personally. Fauske: Okay. Aller: When you’re looking at activity prior to and now asking basically for forgiveness on something that could have been prevented and maybe we wouldn’t need it in the first place so to protect the residents here is a great idea. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 20, 2014 Fauske: The other part of the application is for some additional fill. Included in the packet and shown here is some proposed additional fill on the site. The drainage patterns remain essentially the same but again we would be looking to the applicant and the applicant’s engineer to provide some information as far as the peak discharge rates off of the site based on the current condition and the proposed condition. Aller: Will that fill impact other than the MnDOT right-of-way? Fauske: As far as? Aller: You did the additional fill. Does it look like it would impact? Fauske: No. It does not indicate any additional fill. Aller: So most of those discussions will be between the applicant and MnDOT at this time. Fauske: Correct. Aller: Okay. Fauske: Correct. With the proposed additional fill we would request that a haul route be provided. That’s a standard request for the interim use permit so that staff can be aware of where trucks are hauling to. Make sure that they’re on a road that’s built for those size of vehicles. Again the MnDOT’s comments were similar, were the same as the after the fact request regarding access control, fill within the MnDOT right-of-way. To clarify MnDOT didn’t specify whether the fill in MnDOT right-of-way was based on the current condition or the proposed so those are questions that we’re trying to get answers from MnDOT for and we’ll continue working with them. And again a drainage permit may be required based on what we see for peak discharge rates. The staff report also includes some erosion control measures that would have to be in place in order for the additional fill to take place, including an NPDES permit. That’s a permit through the PCA because of the amount of fill involved and the amount, the area being disturbed. And again an escrow to ensure that the erosion control is in compliance and the site stabilization is done according to plan and that stabilization takes place. Based on staff’s review, staff has provided a recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Interim Use Permits for site grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact to the staff report. With that I would be happy to answer any questions that the commission may have at this time. Aller: Any questions? Mr. Weick. Weick: Is the site being, is it being worked on for a future use? Not that it’s relevant necessarily to this permit but. Fauske: Not that we’ve, that we’ve been told. It was, I’m not aware of the conversations between the property owner and the contractor. Weick: Okay. Aller: Okay. Hearing no other questions, if the applicant wishes to come forward and make a presentation they can do so at this time. They don’t have to. Seeing no one come forward I’ll open the public hearing portion of the hearing on this item. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the item can come forward and do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward, close the public hearing. Open it for discussion. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 20, 2014 Yusuf: Alyson? Fauske: Yes. Yusuf: So the applicant isn’t here but are we, or are you comfortable with the level of cooperation between the staff and the applicant? Fauske: I am. I’ve been working, I haven’t been working with the property owner. I’ve been working with the contractor that’s done the work and he did mention at this point he’s not certain if he will proceed with the additional fill on the site. Some of the comments from MnDOT were, he wasn’t really necessarily comfortable with. I did explain to him that he’s now, that these conditions were based on the fill that’s already taken place so I indicated to the applicant that before this goes before the City Council, he needs to make that final determination if he would like to place the additional fill so he and I have been in discussion with that as far as a final deadline. Yusuf: Okay, thank you. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Yeah if I could, simplify this for me because this is sort of new to me. Fauske: Okay. Weick: Basically what we have is someone’s working on their land and they’re moving more dirt than is allowed and so we need to, we need a permit in place so that they can move that much dirt. I mean is that kind of what we’re? Fauske: That’s correct. And also to make sure that, that the fill that was placed doesn’t adversely affect a condition that exists around where the fill was place. Weick: Yep, okay. Perfect. Thank you. Aller: Okay. I’ll entertain a motion if there is one. Undestad: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Interim Use Permits for site grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: I have a motion by Commissioner Undestad, a second by Commissioner Yusuf. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Interim Use Permits for site grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards subject to the following conditions; and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 20, 2014 After-the-Fact Interim Use Permit for 1701 Bluff Creek Drive 1.The applicant must comply with the conditions stated in MnDOT’s May 7, 2014 letter. 2.A $2,000 escrow must be submitted to ensure that the site is revegetated and the access area is stabilized. 6,990 cubic yards of fill on 1601 and 1701 Bluff Creek Drive 1.The applicant must provide the proposed haul route to the Engineering Department for review. 2.The applicant must comply with the conditions stated in MnDOT’s May 7, 2014 letter. 3.Perimeter control must be installed on all down-gradient perimeters of the site. The current extent and location of perimeter control shown on the plan does not sufficiently reflect this requirement. 4.Ditch/swale bottoms must be stabilized 200 feet back from the property edge or from the point of discharge to surface waters (this includes stormwater inlets and catch basins). This is not reflected on the current plan. 5.Inlet control (catch basin inserts) must be installed on all down-gradient inlets, including along the curb on Bluff Creek Drive. 6.A NPDES Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity must be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The applicant must submit, and the City must receive, a copy of the permit, as well as the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 7.Before additional fill can be placed an escrow totaling 110% of the estimated erosion control costs must be submitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 6, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Aller: City Council action update. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. There’s just one item that appeared before the Planning Commission and that was the code amendments that have been approved. So that was it. And I also did include in your packet the two items that were presented to the City Council last Monday that you were also in attendance on so just for your edification and then just a reminder too that this Thursday night from 4:00 to 6:00 is an open house and if you can make it, that’d be great. Just kind of see what the traffic level is on that and we will be having a second one in July so if you can’t make that one, there’s another opportunity. We also have put this information, the boards have 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 20, 2014 been updated. We call them board because that’s what will be at the meeting but the slides so those are on the City’s home page so you can look at them that way too. They’ve been slightly updated since our meeting and that, so residents that can’t attend the meeting we can direct them to that and take their comments too and so we’ll put together the comments that have been received to date and be sharing that with you and the City Council. Aller: Great. So those of you listening or present in the audience that want to attend the upcoming reconstruction project which affects Highway 101, the river crossing and the County Road 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) corridor, that’s at the library here on Thursday at 4:00. rd Aanenson: And then just one other item Chair, members of the commission. For our June 3 meeting we th do not have items in so we do not have a meeting in 2 weeks but we do have one on June 17. We actually have two items. We have another interim use for a grading permit and that’s kind of in conjunction with the Lyman Boulevard project and then also we have the Bentz property has come in with a subdivision. Just came in last Friday so you’ll be seeing that one. Aller: Great. Aanenson: And anticipate, there’s a little bit more complexity with those. There’ll probably be more st neighborhood input on that one and then as typically we do not have a meeting then on July 1, which is kind of over the holiday so. With that, that’s all I had Chair. Aller: Great. So before we adjourn, because of the upcoming weekend I’d like to say thank you to all those men and women who have been serving our country. Thank you for giving us hope for today and the future and for fighting for the freedom of our rights so many of us enjoy here in Chanhassen so let’s not forget to have a little toast remembering them and their families this weekend while we’re enjoying our family time. Weick: Thank you. Aller: A motion to adjourn? Aanenson: Just before you adjourn. Just wanted to, just put on the record too then that you’ll be going into an open discussion meeting in the Fountain Conference Room to interview. Aller: To interview candidates. Aanenson: Interview candidates for Planning Commission, yep. Just want that on the record. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Now a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 9