Loading...
PC Minutes 08-19-2014 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuf, Steve Weick and Dan Campion STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician; and Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern PUBLIC PRESENT: Gary Disch 1401 Park Road Chris & Barb King 960 Carver Beach Road PUBLIC HEARING: VILLAGE SHOPPES OF CHANHASSEN-460 LAKE DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A TH SUBDIVISION TO REPLAT VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 8 ADDITION, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 13,100 SQUARE-FOOT RETAIL BUILDING WITH A VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE ON 1.45 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ON TH THE PONDS 8 ADDITION, PLANNING CASE 2014-24. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. The item before you, Planning Case 2014-24 is Village Shoppes of Chanhassen. There’s a two part review. The first part is a thth subdivision request. They’re replatting the 8 Addition into the 10 Addition. They’re just shifting lot lines within the development so not a whole lot as part of the subdivision. The second part is, they’re proposing to do site plan review for approximately 13,500 square foot building. Or two buildings on the property. The location is 460 Lake Drive. It’s the northeast corner of Main Street and Lake Drive in Village on the Ponds. It’s just to the west of the Community Bank building so if anyone’s familiar with that area. Again they’re replatting thth Villages on the Ponds 8 Addition and they’re going to call this the 10 Addition. They’re just th adding a little bit of lot area to Lot 2 of the 8 Addition so, and the site plan review is for one story, two buildings, 13,654 square foot retail center. I’ve tried to highlight the area that’s highlighted in red or pink is the area that’s being transferred from one lot to the other and becoming part of the bank building site. It’s part of their agreement to eliminate the underground parking requirement. One of the conditions of approval was that we get verification that that had taken place. That the bank no longer is interested in that and I did receive that this week so we have one condition that’s already been completed. The subdivision, there are no public improvements. We will approve this through a resolution process and then they would just pay their standard utility connection charges when they go to the building permit process and then they pay the GIS fees with the plat. The site plan review, again it’s a two building structure. It’s hard to tell on this but it actually between the two buildings there’s a break in elevation so the southerly building or the building that’s on the right on the picture is a little bit lower than the building on the left. They both are multi-tenant buildings. Materials are Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 brick faced block. Concrete masonry units. Some cultured stone materials and then I have the board I’ll put up after I get to the material board on here. It’s sort of nice, they labeled all these if you can pan out on that. The cultured stone on the back. So we have all the metal materials. They have a brown roof. Standing seam roof material that they’re using. Dark sconces. Metal trim at the parapet edges and then around the window shade would be silver color. This lighter colored building is below the windows. These decorative …units are on the side and then they have brick material. Finally they have EIFS. As part of our review the City Code permits only 15% EIFS as an accent material and they’re slightly higher. We are working with the developer to come up with some alterations in the elevations to get it down to 15%. They can, there’s a lot of different things they can do to make it compliant with ordinance and not a whole lot of change will be visible. You know it’s hard for people to tell 28% from 15% unless you’re looking at a plan set so. Again these could be multi-tenant units. I’ll have the developer go over what they’re proposing to put in here but on the north end there is a restaurant site and then they have multi-tenants throughout the two buildings. The majority of the parking is to the east of the site. They access off of Lake Drive East. It’s a joint access with the bank building. That’s their only driveway in there and then there’s a little one farther to the east, closer to the Lakewinds development so there’s a little circulation. This plan shows the trash enclosure immediately as you come in. We’ve requested that they flip that and turn it on the north side of that parking area. They actually have shown me plans where they can do that and so we’ll see that back of that enclosure there and they’re looking at a roof on their trash enclosure. The one thing is they need to widen that landscape island. It has to be the interior dimension must be 10 feet for landscaping and so we looked at some of the designs that will make that work for them and it will be revisioned before they come in for their building permit. Utility services. Sewer and water are available to the site. This is all served by a stormwater system. They are providing a stormwater connection through their parking lot and for their roof into the stormwater systems so. Landscaping, they’re providing that. It should look down in the southeast corner of the building they’ve added a patio area for a restaurant. We probably are looking at some revisions for pedestrian access to go around the outside of that so that it can be an enclosed area. If a restaurant comes in with a liquor license, then they can have their fencing up and comply with city ordinance. We believe the proposed development complies with city ordinance and so we are recommending approval of the, both the subdivision and the site plan review subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendations. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: How are we doing on traffic with the one entrance? Is there a proposed impact or has that been looked at? Generous: Only originally we looked at it. We don’t anticipate that it will be an issue. There could be peak times but. Aller: And then stormwater drainage with the hard coverage. Does it meet the hard cover requirements? Generous: Well the hard cover, within Villages on the Ponds they averaged it over the entire development. In totality they’re probably, if they did the rest of the interior of the project completely hard cover they’d still be only at about 50% so. Aller: Okay and we allow with PUD’s 70%. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Generous: Well no, they can go higher. In this instance it’s up to 90% on their specific site. Aller: Okay, so they’re well under it. Generous: But the overall PUD it’s about 50%. Aller: Anyone else? Questions? Undestad: Yeah, just a quick question. The land that went over to Community Bank, was that just to keep the green areas together on there or what was that going on there, do we know? Generous: It’s, well potentially the bank would like in the future to expand and that would be an expansion area for them, and also they’re losing the access to their underground parking so as part of their agreement with VOP. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Any other questions at this point? Campion: There are some comments about minor alterations for flood protection. Do we know what those are? Fauske: Chairman Aller, if I may answer that question. Aller: Please. Fauske: On page 8 of the staff report under the stormwater management section, as Bob indicated that there’s certain regulations requiring the PUD as a whole as far as impervious surface coverage. Since the PUD was originally approved there have been some additional requirements set forth through the State and the PCA and their permitting process so we worked with applicants in order to try to provide some rate control, meaning that even though you’ll have the same volume of water leaving the site as currently, if not more, you try to at least dissipate that drainage off the site so it slowly leaves the site. So the applicant has submitted some calculations and through staff’s review there are a couple of items that came through as some questions in how they ran their model being with the type of soils and it’s simply a matter of getting that, that information ironed out and making sure that they have, as indicated in the staff report, they have an underground filtration system to provide some stormwater treatment and rate control. Aller: Does that answer your question commissioner? Campion: Yes it does. Aller: Thank you. Any other additional? Okay. Would the applicant like to step forward and make a presentation at this time or answer any questions? Give us some information. You can step forward and state your name and address and who you represent. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Steve Johnson: Good evening. My name is Steve Johnson. I’m a partner with Solomon Real Estate Group. Address is 1508 Welland Avenue, Minnetonka. Aller: Welcome Mr. Johnson. Steve Johnson: Thank you. Good evening guys. Want to thank you very much for seeing us. This project has been in the works for quite some time with our group and we’re happy to see that it’s finally coming to fruition. As Bob had indicated, and we’ve been working with Bob and Kate to comply with city codes and do that and that’s in the works. I apologize we don’t have those drawings available today. This has been kind of an ebb and flow process up til the last minute here and we are in the process right now of having a redesign on the, to get to the 70% slope roof requirement as well as the 15% EIFS requirement and then as the landscaping plans evolve here too, we’ll work with staff and design that so everything is appropriate. Aller: Great, thank you. Questions. Comments. Great, thank you. Steve Johnson: Thank you. Aller: Okay at this time we’re going to open the public hearing. Does anyone wish to come forward to speak either for or against the item before us? Seeing no one come forward I’m going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Open it up for discussion from the commissioners. Comments. Discussion. Once again it’s a very good report. Very complete. Answered a lot of the questions so we didn’t have any so thank you Bob. And for those of you at home or in the audience, these reports can be found on the Chanhassen website under the Minutes and reports in the planning section so feel free to go ahead and take a look at those either before or after these meetings. I’ll entertain a motion if there’s no other. Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City th Council approve the subdivision replatting Villages on the Ponds 8 Addition and site plan review for a one story, two building, 13,654 square foot retail center subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Campion: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Questions, comments. Undestad moved, Campion seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the subdivision re-platting Villages on the th Ponds 8 Addition; and Site Plan Review for a one-story, two-building, 13,654 square-foot retail center subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Subdivision 1.Before the final plat is recorded the $45 GIS fee must be paid. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Site Plan Building 1.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 2.The building(s) are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. Water supply for the fire suppression system must comply with NFPA 13 (specifically, see restriction/requirements for pipes under buildings). 3.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 4.Structure proximity to property lines and other buildings will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size, protected openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when complete building and site plans are submitted. 5.Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 6.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss building proximity issues as well as plan review and permit procedures Engineering 1.The applicant must obtain the necessary agreement for the shared access between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Villages on the Pond Tenth Addition. 2.Some of the sidewalk adjacent to the site is damaged and shall be replaced with the site improvements. 3.The proposed 8” ductile iron watermain on the east side of the building shall be privately owned and maintained. 4.The developer shall work with the small utility companies to ensure that any conflicts are resolved. 5.The grading plan must be revised to include proposed spot elevations on the patio on the northeast corner of the building on Lot 1 and the green area on the west side of Lot 2. Fire Marshal 1.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs and yellow painted curb will be required. The builder shall contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for specific areas. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 2.There are specific codes relating to the installation of underground water mains under buildings. The builder will need to submit specific plans to the Chanhassen Building Department and Fire Department for review and approval. 3.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. Planning 1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2.The developer shall provide the city with an acknowledgement from Community Bank waiving their right to access for their underground garage area. 3.The material for the trash enclosure should reflect the building design and building materials. The trash enclosure shall be shifted to the north with the gates facing north. 4.The building elevation must be revised to reduce the amount of E.I.F.S. to 15 percent. 5.Sloped roof elements shall be a minimum 70 percent of roof area. Revise the building elevations to incorporate additional sloped roof features. 6.The developer should verify the placement of the light poles along Main Street to allow pedestrian passage. 7.Additional benches should be provided as well as a bike rack. 8.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the treed parking lot island with a minimum inner width of 10 feet. Water Resources 1.Prior to issuing a building permit, the hydrologic model shall be amended to include hydrologic soils group B unless adequate evidence can be provided showing that the USDA soil survey information is incorrect. 2.An operations and maintenance manual, stating anticipated inspections and maintenance and including the responsible party, the schedule of these activities and the methodology of reporting to the city, shall be prepared and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to issuing a building permit. 3.The applicant shall discuss potential opportunities for infiltration or volume reduction and incorporate where practicable to do so or provide reasons deemed satisfactory to city staff why these practices are not being proposed. 4.A detail sheet showing all proposed erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices shall be included with the final plan set. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 5.Inlet protection on all existing catch basins downstream of the disturbance area and adjacent to traffic routing. This includes the catch basin which the system is intended to tie into as well as the four (4) catch basins near the entrance. 6.All turf areas shall have a minimum of 6 inches of topsoil placed prior to seeding or sodding. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK: REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON 10.37 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) AND LOCATED AT 6900 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: CARVER COUNTY, PLANNING CASE 2014- 23. Spreiter: Good evening Chairman Aller and commissioners. As stated the Carver County Parks Department has submitted an application for the proposed Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Improvements Project Wetland Alteration Permit. I’ll be giving a short overview of the project tonight and then we’ll go over the proposed impacts and the associated requirements set forth by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and the City’s Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditional Use criteria. The project is located entirely within Lake Minnewashta Regional Park located in Chanhassen. The project includes paving the current gravel surface access roads within the park. Expanding one of the existing boat launches and constructing a bypass lane and turn around at the park entrance. The park is currently experiencing unsafe conditions and erosion due to the park’s gravel surface access roads. The park also occasionally experiences back up’s onto Highway 41 at the park entrance creating unsafe conditions for motorists and users. The goal of the project is to improve safety and accessibility for users as well as to decrease the erosion that is being caused by runoff from the existing gravel roadway surface. The project is expected to begin in September of 2014 with substantial completion by October of 2015. Wetland impacts are proposed for Wetlands G and H shown in orange to accommodate the improvements and expansion of the existing boat launch and resulting trail realignment. Wetland G would be eliminated with the current proposal as it lies entirely within the proposed boat launch area. Proposed wetland impacts to both wetland basins total five hundredths of an acre or approximately 2,000 square feet. Wetland G is located within the proposed boat launch and just south and east of the existing boat launch. It is classified as a type 2 fresh wet meadow wetland and has not been classified under the City’s classification system. Wetland H is located just south of the existing boat launch area and is also classified as a type 2 wetland. It is not currently classified under the City’s classification system. As previously stated Wetland G would be eliminated as part of the proposed project. The current trail alignment intersects Wetland H and as part of the proposed project this portion of the trail would be removed and the area would be restored to wetland. The trail would be realigned to skirt the southern edge of this wetland resulting in 1,212 square feet of impact. The applicant is not seeking credit for the restored area but would like this effort to be recognized as a minimization measure. The applicant has chosen to meet the watershed district’s Wetland Protection Rule. This rule requires that a buffer be provided for all wetlands adjacent to the project area for that part of the wetland edge that is down-gradient from the project. The District’s rule is more stringent than the City’s Wetland Protection Ordinance which resulted in buffer creation for 5 wetlands. This table looks 7