Loading...
PC 2014 09 16 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 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; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Jerry & Karon Story 6281 Teton Lane Marcus Zbinden 6460 Bretton Way Dan Feller 6430 Bretton Way Naomi Carlson 6411 Bretton Way Marty Campion Campion Engineering Chris Solie Johnson 6421 Bretton Way Robert Rabe 6305 Teton Lane Aller: Tonight we have three items before us. I’m going to move the second item on the agenda up to the front. Item number 2, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard request has been made to table that. Is there any opposition to that by anyone? We have received the 60 day waiver so with that, make a motion to table. Hokkanen: I’ll move to table. Aller: Thank you. Any discussion on that? Second? Campion: Second. Aller: No discussion. Weick: No sir. Aller: Okay. Hokkanen moved, Campion seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission table the request for variances to exceed the impervious surface limitation and the shoreland setback limitation to construct a patio on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. Applicant/Owner: Rosemary Kelly, Planning Case 2014-27. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING: SHOPS AT CHANHASSEN: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 4,450 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/RESTAURANT BUILDING ON APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED ON OUTLOT A, CHANHASSEN RETAIL ADDITION AND A PORTION OF THE TARGET PARKING LOT. APPLICANT: HALIFAX DEVELOPMENT, LLC. OWNER: TARGET CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE 2014-28. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This item will appear th before the City Council on October 13. The applicant is Halifax Development, LLC. The actions before you tonight are two. One is a subdivision and the second is a site plan review. th This property is located just south of West 78 Street and east of Powers Boulevard, surrounding nd what is called the Target PUD. It is an outlot called Chanhassen Retail 2 Addition. There’s 3 other restaurants in that site. If you recall the City went through a process of up-zoning some of the downtown core in order to encourage intensification of development and actually we had met with Target and then said that there’s an opportunity, based on their parking, that they could put th additional parking on some of the City’s property and then put a restaurant maybe on West 78. As it turned out the applicant is actually looking at putting the restaurant on the City’s property and working through the parking with Target Corporation. So again access is gained via what’s called Target Lane, which is a public street right here. So in order to assemble the property to make it fit on the site and work through the access to the site, Target Lane comes in and takes a sharp U-turn to go to the 3 restaurants and then also then you can coming south you could take a left going into Target. So through this subdivision you’re actually reconvening the parking between Target and the proposed use. So property being sold to the, from the City is about 26,370 square feet and then property is being assembled from Target so there will be a subdivision of our parcel and then the Target parcel will be administratively added to that to create the lot so it’ll be a total of .79 acres. So the original survey that was in the staff report shows the property plus there’s a little piece that was added to it in order to put the utility, storm water into an easement. Not just an easement but property owned by the City so there’d be a little bit larger piece than what’s shown on the survey but that will be corrected and recorded when we get to that phase. Just wanted to clarify that. So that’s the subdivision on that. So the second part of it then would be, the site plan itself. So this is a little bit more detail on the, showing how the parking will be reconfigured and actually better access going into when you come down off of Target Lane, coming into the site. Reconfiguring those, that turning movement there. So you have Perkins that would be right in front of it so this building then would be right behind the, kind of behind the Perkins area there and the building itself as you can see right in this area here showing that parking and then in more detail here. So the building itself is, has two users in it and is 4,412 square feet so right now they have the one user that they know which will be Noodles and the second one is undetermined yet as tenant. So in order for the parking to work, there’s enough for both Target and this user to be whole and requirement even for a restaurant with both, for the Target to maintain their’s they will have a cross access easement across the Noodles property but both of them do meet the required standards of the ordinance of the parking standards. The other issue then would be the signs. They have submitted a sign plan. They can have signs on 3 elevations because it does Highway 5 and the change in grade. You’ll get good visibility from the wall signs. We just want to make sure that, how we do channel letters are required. There’s a little bit of, in the illustrations that they presented, again just illustrative of what they would do. We are confident that they would meet city ordinance as far as how they’re put on the building itself and then they do have a, are 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 allowed a monument sign and that sign is off of Target Lane, kind of when you come in before you get to Perkins. The applicant may provide an opportunity for the other users in there to go on that too which is fine in the PUD and they would eliminate one of those if they, if that worked out and they could eliminate one of the other signs. If it doesn’t then they would just continue to maintain their own sign on their property. They have submitted a landscaping plan. Again there is outdoor seating in this area here which is adjacent to Highway 5 so we wanted to make sure that that was landscaped well again because of the change in grades from Highway 5. Highway 5 is actually a little bit higher there. You have a berm that’s going to the west so there is adequate screening for that outdoor seating. Again we encourage those sort of things on sites. They have submitted building material samples. I’ll put that up but I’ve got that on the screen here too. Let’s see. So the materials itself, the stucco and the brick. Lighter than when it originally came in. It originally came in, it was a little bit darker and so now they’ve lighten up the materials which we think looks a little bit better. Kind of what’s within the surrounding areas. Again the Noodles has kind of their trademark, the red awning on the building itself which I think is a little bit kind of characteristic of what we saw on the BP site when we came on that kind of similar view. Perspective. So again this shows the two uses in a little bit more detail. So this would be the Noodles site and then potential other restaurant or retail site on that property and then the outdoor seating here too. And the dumpster which we have a condition again that it meets the same material as the building itself. And then we did ask for some illustrations again because of the views from Highway 5 and what you see on the top. The roof does have a parapet wall which is screening the rooftop equipment so again we think that it meets all the standards of the city ordinance. So with that we are recommending approval. Again the motion states for the preliminary plat and for the site plan so with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Aller: I think the report was well done. Straight forward. I don’t have any questions. Does anybody else have? And for those again that are present or at home, all these materials are found on the Chanhassen website on a regular basis. You can go check out what’s been done. What is being done and what has been done in the past. So with that would the applicant like to come forward and make a presentation? Hans Kuhlman: My name is Hans Kuhlman with Halifax Development. Aller: Welcome Mr. Kuhlman. Hans Kuhlman: Thank you. I’m more than happy to come forward but I think from a presentation standpoint I really don’t have anything to add. Kate did a marvelous job so I’ll be more than happy to answer any questions you have. I don’t think I can really add anything that she did not cover. Aller: Do you foresee any problems with for instance snow removal or any of those other things that would be? Hans Kuhlman: No, we’re going to have an agreement with, we’ve got to work a lot of things out with Target with a number of easements we need with Target as well as maintenance. We’re going to share maintenance of that roadway costs. That drive that we’re recreating so I’m sure we’ll be able to work the snow plowing and snow stacking in that as well. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 Aller: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Hans Kuhlman: Alright, thank you. Aller: That’s it, thank you so much. With that we’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to come forward and speak either for or against this item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing and open it for discussion. Hokkanen: I’m excited it’s coming. Aller: I think the color changes are nice but I think it comes closer to what we’ve been doing downtown. I like the fact that we’re bringing new development into the downtown area and making that vibrant and keeping it vibrant. I think that’s what we’re looking to do. Weick: For sure. Aller: It’s a good project. Any other comments? If not I’ll entertain a motion. Hokkanen: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat to replat .79 plus acres into one lot and one outlot. Planning Case 2014-28 as shown in plans dated received August 13, 2014 and approve the site plan consisting of a 4,412 square foot multi- tenant building as shown in plans dated received August 15, 2014, subject to the conditions in the staff report including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Motioned by Commissioner Hokkanen and seconded by Commissioner Weick. Any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Weick seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat to replat .79+ acres into one lot and one outlot, Planning Case 2014-28 as shown in plans dated received August 13, 2014, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Engineering 1.Before the final plat is recorded the Surface Water Management fees, Park Dedication fees, and GIS fees must be paid as well as any recording fees not collected with the final plat application. Park and Trail 1.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Shops at Chanhassen. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 Planning 1.The applicant work with staff on minor subdivision modifications. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Hokkanen moved, Weick seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan consisting of a 4,412 square-foot multi-tenant building, Planning Case 2014-28 as shown in plans dated received August 15, 2014, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resource 1.The applicant shall provide Rational Method calculations for proposed pipe design. The applicant shall work with City staff to assure downstream system has adequate capacity to handle the additional volume directed from the new impervious surface. 2.The applicant shall submit $25,000 in lieu of constructing stormwater best management practices. This shall be due at time of final plat to be put into an account to be used exclusively for the improvement of water quality downstream of the site. 3.The erosion prevention and sediment control plan must be consistent with Section 19-145 of Chanhassen City Code. 4.The Storm Water Utility fee is estimated to be $22,345.40 and shall be due at final plat. Building Official 1.The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 4.Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 5.The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Engineering 1.The developer must work with the neighboring property owners, including the City, to acquire temporary construction easement for all off-site grading and construction. 2.The developer must acquire a permanent easement over all improvements the developer shall own and be responsible for maintaining, such as the storm sewer. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 3.The developer must obtain an access agreement from the City for construction and maintenance of the sanitary sewer and water main within the right of way of Target Lane. 4.The developer’s engineer shall include the Perkin’s parking lot islands in the topographic plan. Current plans do not show all islands within the survey area. 5.Final plans shall include existing and proposed elevations at the property corners and structure corners. 6.The grading plan shall include drainage arrows to indicate the direction of water flow. 7.The developer shall submit an accurate soils report indicating soil conditions and permeability. 8.The grading plan shall identify proposed stockpile areas. 9.The grading plan shall show the top and bottom elevation of the retaining wall near the Target sign. 10.The parking spaces shall be adjusted so that minimum dimensions are measured from the gutter flow line. 11.The developer must pay the partial payment of the SAC fees and the WAC fees with the final plat. Planning 1.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 2.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. Wall signs shall be limited to the north, east and south elevations. Wall and monument signage shall comply with the sign ordinance. All signs require a sign permit. 3.The applicant may share a monument sign within the same PUD contingent upon the removal of the existing monument sign. 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.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. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING: TH FRETHAM 19 ADDITION: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR A FOUR-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES FOR HARD COVER AND SETBACK ON 1.51 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 6397 AND 6411 BRETTON WAY. APPLICANT: LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC. OWNER: NAOMI CARLSON, PLANNING CASE 2014-08. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a preliminary plat with a variance for hard cover and setback incorporated as part of this. The developer is Lakewest Development. Property is located on the corner of Bretton Way and Teton Lane. Access to the property will be from, for the most westerly lot will be from Teton Lane and for the other three lots it would be off of Bretton Way. The property is zoned Single Family Residential. There’s an existing non-conforming uses on the property as well as a single family home. The property actually consists of four separate parcels and so it was consolidated over time. There’s a lot of interesting things going on with this project. It’s the preliminary plat review for a four lot subdivision. The variance for hard cover would be Lots 1 and 3 and the setback variance would be for Lot 1. Again they’re trying to create four lots out of this property. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements under the RSF district. They all have nd sewer and water were provided as part of the Curry Farms 2 Addition so they are available to each of the lots. One of the issues, and this is there’s an existing driveway on the northern part of the property that serves the homes to the north and the northeast. As part of the grading plan they are proposing to put in some stormwater ponds along Bretton Way. The current calculations show that they’re slightly under sized and they’ll need to increase that for the final plat review. We’ve reviewed it. There’s adequate area for them to do these improvements and so we’ll just need a refined plan for them to go forward. The second thing is there’s a retaining wall proposed just to the south of the existing driveway along the northern property line. Part of staff’s concern and review of that is to make sure that that is far enough away from that existing driveway which has a sewer line and gas line within it that maintains the stability of that because when you put in retaining walls they have to put fabric behind it to hold it in place and so they’re going to have to look at the engineering of that to make sure that they don’t compromise the existing driveway system. They are providing erosion control around the entire site and outlet protections around the, or inlet protections around any of the catch basins in the area. We are looking at, there’s a possibility, they’re showing this plan connecting to an existing stormwater pipe that discharges off of the southeast corner of the property. However we have had discussions of seeing if they’d want to go under the road and connect directly to the City’s system. Landscaping, as part of this development they’ll be providing 18 trees between the four lots. That’s a minimum requirements under our city ordinances. They do meet that standard. The hard cover variance is to increase from 25 percent to 32.4 percent for Lot 1 and from 25 percent to 28.2 percent for Lot 3. And part of the reason or the primary reason for that is they were maintaining the existing driveway to serve the properties to the north and they represent 16 percent of the permitted hard cover for Lot 1 and 9 percent of the permitted hard cover on Lot 3. The request that the applicant is doing is less than half of that increase and so we believe that is a reasonable request given the constraints of this. The only way that that driveway could go away is if the entire neighborhood to the north would redevelop and a new roadway system be provided to provide access to those properties. The front setback variance on Lot 1 is to allow the house to be pushed away. The problem on that lot is again, with the existing driveway on the property we want to make sure that any house that’s put in there is sufficient, far enough away from that so that the existing driveway would have room for snow storage as well as 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 maintenance to take place on the existing driveway. The easement is 14 feet wide. The required setback in that area would only have been 10 feet so they’re losing part of the property just to the easement. And by pushing it slightly down that hill we can get that. We believe we can get that separation given their house plans. We did look briefly at trying to shift the house on the property to see if we could avoid the variance but the issues are still the same. They couldn’t get enough separation on the back side from the existing driveway. This property has multiple easement issues on it. The first one is the access easement serving the two properties to the north. There are two separate easements that are recorded against that. Those properties. One to serve the easterly property and the other is to serve the westerly property. One of the conditions of approval would be that they revise and consolidate all the easement documents, specifically to allow Lot 2 to have access to the rear of their property. This is a perfect storage area for Lot 2. It’s in the rear yard where all our ordinance requires for people to store trailers or put up sheds or anything like that. On the south side of the property there are two additional access easements that as a condition of the plat we want to have the developer, property owner extinguish them so they go away. They don’t partially go into City right-of-way. They’re not necessary for access to any of the lots since they all have frontage on public streets. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat to create four lots as well as the hard cover variance and the setback variance. And adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Anyone at this point? Questions? Weick: I do. Aller: Okay. Commissioner Weick. Weick: I’d like to get clarification on the hard cover variance. Generous: Yes. Weick: The way I read it, we’re requiring the variance because of the existing driveway, which is gravel right? Generous: Right. Weick: So I didn’t think gravel was added into hard cover. Generous: The City calculates compacted gravel as impervious. Weick: It is? Generous: Yes because it doesn’t allow water to percolate through. It all runs off. Weick: Okay. That’s my misunderstanding then, thank you. That’s all I had. Aller: Okay. Okay with that, hearing no other questions coming from the commissioners we’ll have the applicant step forward and make his presentation. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 Ben Wickstrom: Chair Aller and members of the commission, thank you. I’m Ben Wickstrom with Lakewest Development. Aller: Welcome Mr. Wickstrom. Ben Wickstrom: We’re at 14525 Highway 7 in Minnetonka. Thank you Bob for that staff report. I think he covered everything very well. I will say that the variances are a result of that easement from, that was granted in 1969 and has been used I don’t know since when but it takes up a lot of that hard surface and then pinches us at the corner there so we do feel that’s a legitimate practical difficulty and we did, we did have visions of trying to develop the property, including the property to the north and maybe further but it’s just not something we could reach an agreement on and it didn’t make sense for us at this time. I think it, that ultimately a lot of that problem will be solved if a road punches through across from Ashton Court I think it is. But at this time we’re requesting those variances. We had a neighborhood meeting last Thursday and between that meeting and some other correspondence we’ve spoken to about 20 neighbors. I think in general we received positive feedback. Everyone would like to see different things on that site I believe and we’re proposing those 4 single family homes. We got a lot of questions about what types, what type of home. Maybe what price point. Things like that. Though maybe not germane to this application I can tell you the builders we work with are usually of similar style and we think they’ll be homes 20 years newer than what you see in the neighborhood now. Two story, 3 car garages. Some of our existing neighborhoods that are under development right now. We worked with a few builders that build homes in the upper $400,000 to $700,000 dollar price range and we think this neighborhood and Chanhassen in general is an attractive market so we hope to have some similar product here. Ultimately it’s not up to us. We will sell the lots but the builders we work with are typically that so. There were some concerns at the neighborhood meeting or some questions at least about the grading and the stormwater and things like that and I think I saw a letter that showed maybe a more desirable location for that house on Lot 1 further to the east. We did consider that. It doesn’t help with the setback, as Bob said. Maybe a little shorter stretch of it but there’s kind of a point in the road that it comes to and it might even be a little bit tighter at that point but the other thing is that, the grading is more severe on the east end of that lot so it would be more of a front lookout type house whereas up on the top of the hill we could have something a little more traditional so it’s not something we would walk away from the project if we had to move it down there but for a house style, grading and some of that stormwater management we think it would be better served up on the, up on the west side of that lot. But if you do have questions about grading and stormwater and things like that, Marty Campion our project engineer is here and he could answer any of those things but I will try to answer any other questions you have. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Questions from anyone at this point? Anyone? I’d love to hear from the engineer on the water. Ben Wickstrom: Great, thank you. Marty Campion: Good evening. Marty Campion, Campion Engineering. Project engineer. Aller: Welcome sir. Can you give us an idea of the condition of the stormwater management that’s up there now as opposed to what you’re going to do with the properties? 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 Marty Campion: Currently there is no stormwater management on the site. There’s a, we’re replacing roughly equal amount of impervious surface for what’s out there. If you’re familiar with the site, there’s a couple of large buildings. A lot of gravel. A lot of hard surface out there so our additional impervious is relatively minor. What we’re proposing is a couple of rain gardens. You can see along Bretton Way kind of down in the south and east portion of the site, those rain gardens are tied together with a culvert and then proposing to discharge the rain gardens to the east under, or through an existing culvert and then to an existing pond there and the staff report identifies that the existing culvert isn’t within a public drainage and utility easement so that’s one of the challenges that we’ll have is to try and obtain an easement for that or as was suggested empty the storm, those ponds into. Aller: The watermain. Marty Campion: Yeah, into the public system that exists now. Aller: Great. And then at this point what’s your opinion on moving the location of the house on, I believe it’s Lot 1 and its impact on the stormwater? Marty Campion: The impact on stormwater is relatively minor. It’s more of a grading issue and depending on grading issue, ideally the house should be served off of Teton just because of the elevation and if we pushed the house to the east we increase the hard cover by increasing the driveway length. If we did serve it off of Bretton as Ben had mentioned, the grade on Bretton gets lower as we go to the east and yet we still have the wall, or excuse me, have the existing drive to the north that’s higher so we’re fighting grade as we go down. As we go to the east on Bretton and the wall or the drive stays high so we’re, I think we’re fighting a losing battle grade wise by going to the east. Aller: Okay. So would I be correct in stating if we moved to the east and the location, that house goes to the east, because we’re talking an increased grade there’s the possibility of erosion and volume going down the hill as well as the hard cover creating that volume? Marty Campion: Yeah that’s, anytime we do more cuts and steeper grades we increase the potential for erosion. Aller: Okay. I don’t have any further questions at this point. Anyone? Undestad: Question for you on the retaining wall up there for the existing driveway on there. Do you have any concerns on the, you know where you have to cut back into the hillside into the road there? Marty Campion: I’ll qualify that by, I’m not a structural engineer. The wall before it’s presented to the City will be designed by a structural engineer. I anticipate given some of the concerns that we’ll move it south some away from the driveway so we can get some of the tie backs but that will all come out as part of the design. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Great. Anything else? 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 Campion: I’ll let you know that I have no known relationship to him. Marty Campion: I was thinking. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Okay with that we’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. At this point anyone wishing to step forward and state your name and address and you can speak either for or against any item. Gerald Story: Okay. I’m Gerald Story and I’d like to address you know all you council people. Ladies and gentlemen and Kate and Bob. I do have a short statement and then I have four points I would like to make. Aller: Welcome Mr. Story and just for the record you’re at 6281 Teton? Gerald Story: Yes. And my property and the Planning Commission has described as the northeast property. Aller: Thank you. Gerald Story: And my statement is according to state law my property is designated as land locked. However we have a 14 foot road easement which allows us to get to a county road. We have solely maintained and used this easement for 23 years. This road easement is also a utility easement housing water, sewer, and gas lines. I have 4 points that some are already addressed in the planning report but I would like to reiterate them. Number one, we are requesting a minimum 10 foot setback of all structures, whether homes or retaining walls from the 14 foot easement. Number two, we request to have the developer build three houses instead of four to better suit the neighborhood. However if the fourth house is allowed, it should be moved to the wider part of Lot number 1 which I believe would make it more desirable for the neighborhood. As far as grade, I live there. There might only be a 5 foot difference in grade from putting that house on Teton. I’m just guessing but I’m guessing about that amount. I do have a diagram. Can you see that? Where I’ve actually drawn in the house farther east where you can see. To me it would look, it might help even the four, the other three houses look better if that house was setting there. Point number 3. I have a fear that, in fact I was told by someone that they might allow the house to be built on that vacant part of the lot before the other buildings are tore down. I think there is a provision in the planning report for that but we would request that no permits be given to build anything until the other structures are removed. And the fourth point is, our deeded easement is a forever easement and cannot be changed or altered so that’s it. Aller: Great. Gerald Story: Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward at this time to speak either for or against. Come up to the microphone. State your name and address. Welcome. Chris Solie Johnson: My name is Chris Solie Johnson and we are 6421 so we are the property to the east of the development plan and my, we sit back quite a bit. If you see our property, you can 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 kind of see it on the edge of this. Oh. Either way. If you see, we sit way back, far back and so we’ve got quite a bit of privacy right now and I know in that area we’ll have to lose some trees kind of out front and my request would be, is that we could look at the landscaping on that. I think there’s three spruce right now and the developer and my husband and I have talked about seeing if we could keep some on the property line that are of a certain size. Of a certain quality of tree but that would be my only concern on that side. Aller: Thank you. Just real quick. I think I read that there’s going to be 18 overstories. Generous: 18 trees total. Aller: And is placement up to the developer then at this point? Generous: They have a plan. They’ll work with the City Forester to make that final determination. Aller: Okay. Anyone else wishing to speak either for or against? Please come up and state your name and address for the record sir. Thank you. Marcus Zbinden: Yeah my name is Marcus Zbinden. I live at 6460 Bretton Way. I just have a, actually two questions for clarification. One is maybe the City, Bob or maybe the developer could talk about the demolition plan for the existing structures. I didn’t really see much detail in there. I want to make sure that that’s done properly and I’m sure the developer’s done quite a bit of this work before. I just want to know from his perspective what he plans on doing on the, you know demolishing these buildings. And secondly, get some more detail on the rain gardens. It does say in here that the applicant shall provide detailed planting schedule. I know he showed a picture of the rain garden there, where they were located but if you could provide more detail on the, what it’s going to look like and how it’s being put together so I’d appreciate that. Aller: Thank you. I think I read in the report Bob they’re going to, as a requirement that they’re going to take down all the structures prior to. Generous: Recording the final plat, yes. Aller: Recording the plat. And then. Generous: And they were. Aller: In your presentation you talk about the water and rain gardens needing work in the future anyway. Generous: Yes they’ll have to design it. They will have to apply for a demolition permit and all the environmental questions come up that they have to do, investigate the site. The building to make sure there’s not asbestos and things like that so as part of the demolition permit that will be required for any demolition of the property. Rain gardens, usually they don’t have the final design until they have the construction plans for final plat. They will be working with our engineering department to come up with acceptable plans for that. We’re going to evaluate their numbers to make sure they’re adequate for stormwater protection because as part of the variance 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 recommendation for approval we want to make sure they’re treating all that extra water that comes off the site. Aller: Right, especially if we’re going to increase the hard cover. And from what we see now the plans as they exist now it’s our understanding that those rain gardens will be larger for volume purposes. Is that a fair statement? Fauske: The applicant will work with city staff to ensure that the rain gardens are sized adequately. That we have adequate stormwater capacities within those systems. Aller: Great. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Please do so at this time. Please state your name and address. Welcome. Dan Feller: Dan Feller, 6430 Bretton Way. So I live directly across the street from the lots in question. My wife and I have lived there for 15 or 16 years now and we’re totally for this addition. This change here. I know there’s been a lot of talk about the whole you know rain water and waste water that comes off the property now and versus in the future. When you look at it, any time it rains that whole road, Bretton Way is mud and rock that ends up in the cul-de- sac which is just, and it never gets cleaned up because it then rains again and it keeps happening so anything that’s going to be done on this lot is going to be a huge improvement that I think a lot of people are excited to see. Thanks. Aller: Great. Thank you. Dan Feller: Thank you. Aller: Thanks for the input. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Welcome sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Robert Rabe: Sure. Howdy. Robert Rabe, 6305 Teton. I’m at that property right to the north there. Aller: Welcome. Robert Rabe: And I’ve lived there since 1992 and I’ve owned it since 2000 and generally I’m in favor of what Jerry has recommended regarding setbacks and so forth and I tend to agree with the observation about the house on the east, or on the west being moved to the east. It seems that access onto Teton just looks inconsistent with the general layout, and I understand the grade is a bit of a problem but it just seems that would naturally flow onto Bretton. And then there are some mature trees in that area so that might be of interest to some. And I guess in general that house on the east, or on the west that’s close to the easement just looks like it’s crowding that easement too tightly so I haven’t had a chance really to look at it in any detail. I wasn’t aware of the neighborhood meeting but I’ll take a look. Aller: Okay, thank you. Robert Rabe: Thank you. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 Aller: Any other additional comments? Anyone wishing to come forward speaking either for or against? Seeing no one come forward, I’m going to close the public hearing portion of the meeting and entertain comments from the commissioners. Discussions on what’s there and what’s been requested for further discussion. Campion: I am interested in some clarification from the applicant on why it makes most sense for the site 1 to have the driveway go onto Teton besides you know the length of the driveway if it were redirected to go onto Bretton. Marty Campion: The grading plan please. If you look at the grading plan you can see as the house is long and linear in the east/west direction and if you look from west to east you can see the grades dropping as you go from west to east. It makes for a, it makes for a nice, nicer location for the house. It fits relative to trying to construct a walkout or something that’s more desirable for that lot just naturally. If you move that house the other way, move it to the east, you can picture it dropping down to fit the street. The west side of the house then grade is, it essentially grade is somewhere near the, what might be a second story because you can look. Each of those are 2 foot contours so from the southeast corner of the house to the southwest corner we’re rising about 8 or 9 feet. So if that house is moved to the east, in order not to have that entry level under ground as you go to the west, it might require another retaining wall west of that to hold back, hold back grade so you’re walking out at that first level. So it’s as much a grade issue as it is anything else. There just isn’t, there’s a lot of grade as you go from west to east on Bretton Way. And this also makes, if you come in that west side it makes a, in my opinion a more desirable yard. Having some open space and some more room to play where you can make it flatter on that west, or excuse me. On that east side. Campion: Okay, thank you. Marty Campion: Thank you. Aller: Thank you. And Bob, either way that house is located, either the suggested or the one in the lot, they both meet the requirements for purposes of lot size and having that house physically on the property. Generous: The only thing is we believe that either way they need that 10 foot variance for the setback off of Bretton Way to make it separation from the existing driveway to the north work. Aller: And a lot of those setbacks are then, because we’re honoring the easement in the rear. Generous: Correct. Aller: And that’s causing the requirements. Any other comments? Discussion amongst. Weick: Since we’re talking about the location of that house I would put it in my opinion we’re already asking for a hard cover variance on that Lot 1. I would not be in favor of moving the house and increasing that hard cover variance and that would be my opinion on that. Gerald Story: I think there’d be less hard cover if you move the house. The driveway would be shorter. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 Aller: Any additional comments or discussion? Alright. I’ll entertain a motion if someone has a motion. Yusuf: I’ll make the motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat creating four lots, approve the hard cover variances for Lots 1 and 3 of 7.4 percent, 32.4 hard cover and 33.2 percent, 28.2 percent hard cover respectively as well as the front setback variance for Lot number 1 of 10 feet, 20 foot front setback on Bretton Way, subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Yusuf. Do I have a second? Tennyson: I’ll second. Aller: Seconded by Commissioner Tennyson. Any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Tennyson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the preliminary plat creating four lots, approve the hard cover variances for Lots 1 and 3 of 7.4 percent (32.4 % hardcover) and 3.2 percent (28.2% hard cover), respectively, as well as the front setback variance for Lot 1 of 10 feet (20-foot front setback on Bretton Way) subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Subdivision with setback and hardcover variances: Building: 1. Appropriate permit(s) required for the demolition or moving of any existing structures. 2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits can be issued. 3. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 4. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. Engineering: 1.The easements per Documents T15149 and T17882 must be extinguished prior to final plat approval. 2.Prior to final plat submittal the developer shall coordinate with the gas company to verify the location of the gas line. If the gas line is not within an existing easement the developer must provide and dedicate the necessary easement or relocate the gas line to lie within an easement area in accordance to CenterPoint Energy’s specifications. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 3.The drainage and utility easements on the north side of Lots 1 and 3 can be reduced to 10 feet. 4.Any portion of the gravel surface on the north side of the property that is disturbed with this development shall be paved. 5.It is the developer’s responsibility to coordinate access to the gravel surface with the affected residents during construction. 6.The proposed retaining wall shall comply with the following: a)A building permit is required, b)The design shall comply with the Minnesota Department of Transportation standards for retaining walls, c)The drainage design for the wall shall consider the surface runoff that will sheet drain towards the wall, d)The wall crosses over property lines and therefore it shall be built in conjunction with the subdivision and a homeowners association must be formed to own and maintain the wall, e)An encroachment agreement will be required before the retaining wall building permit is issued if the retaining wall is to be installed within the platted drainage and utility easement. f)The developer shall ensure that the wall construction does not compromise the private sanitary sewer service or the gas line in the area. g)The developer shall install a barrier (fence, berm, landscaping or other barrier) between the private gravel street and the top of the retaining wall. 7.All driveways within the development shall meet the 10% maximum driveway slope. The developer is encouraged to consider a driveway design that many homeowners desire which includes a landing (typically 3%) at each end of the driveway (at the street and at the garage). 8.Sewer and water services to each of the proposed four lots were installed by the Curry Farms nd 2 Addition developer; therefore, the sewer and water lateral fees do not apply. 9.Prior to final plat approval the developer shall identify which of the four lots will receive the City SAC and City WAC credit. 10.The remaining three lots shall be subject to the City SAC and WAC, 30% of which will be collected with the final plat at the rate in effect at the time of final plat approval. 11.All lots are subject to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sanitary Access Charge (MCES SAC), which is paid with the building permit. 12.A portion of the private sanitary sewer service to the home located on 6281 Teton Lane will encroach into the platted drainage and utility easement; therefore, an encroachment agreement is required. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 Natural Resources: 1.Tree protection fencing will be required at the edge of grading limits near any preserved trees. It shall be installed prior to grading. 2.Trees required to be planted are as follows: Lot 1 – 5 trees, Lot 2 – 2 trees, Lot 3 – 4 trees, Lot 4 – 7 trees. Planning: 1.The developer shall perform a phase I environmental audit on the property surrounding the commercial building prior to recording the final plat. 2.The existing buildings on the property, including sheds, house and the long building must be demolished prior to recording of the final plat. 3.A ten-foot building setback from the access easement (Doc. No. 14111 and 14055) is required. 4.The developer shall work with the neighboring property owners to clarify the use, permitted users and maintenance responsibility of the easement. Specifically, the easement must assure that the property owner for Lot 2 may access the rear of their property via this easement. The developer shall ensure that the necessary easement is in place so that the future property owner of Lot 2 can access the northern tip of the property. A revised easement document shall be recorded with the plat. Water Resources: 1.The applicant shall either procure a drainage and utility easement over the entirety of the culvert or they shall install a catch basin manhole in Bretton Way just west of the driveway for Lot 4 and tie this into the existing public storm sewer system. In either event, the applicant shall model the conveyance choice to assure adequate capacity and provide a safe and stable emergency overflow. 2.The applicant must provide clarification to resolve the disparate impervious surface calculations and assure adequate volume reduction. 3.The applicant shall provide infiltration/water quality volume adequate to address the volume reduction requirements for the runoff from all impervious surfaces in the development. 4.The applicant must provide a detail of the rain gardens which is consistent with the recommendations and requirements of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual before final plat approval. 5.The applicant shall provide a detailed planting schedule for the rain garden areas. 6.The applicant shall provide a hydrograph showing the duration of ponding is less than 48 hours and shall reduce the ponding depth so the bounce does not exceed MN Storm Water 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 Manual guidance or correct the soils and demonstrate that they are commensurate with HSG A or B soils. 7.The side slopes into the rain gardens shall not exceed three horizontal feet for every one vertical foot. 8.Discharge velocities into the rain gardens shall not exceed four cubic feet per second or the applicant shall provide scour calculations and adequate energy dissipation to assure erosion will not be an issue. 9.Pre-treatment shall be provided to minimize sediment deposition into the rain gardens. 10.Drain tile services must be provided to all properties that will flow from the back to the front of the lot. 11.Erosion Control plan /SWPPP must include all elements required under Chapter 19 of City Code. 12.Engineer estimate of quantities for erosion control and sediment prevention, including those necessary for final site stabilization, shall be provided and used to calculate escrow amount. 13.A Storm Water Management Utility fee estimated to be $9,168.00 shall be paid with final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 2, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: th Aanenson: Thank you. The Bluff Creek Preserve at the 6 was tabled. That’s going onto the next City Council meeting. We’re just trying to work out, that’s the last addition at the Preserve which is up adjacent to Lyman Boulevard. We’re just trying to work through construction access off of Lyman instead of coming through that entire neighborhood. We were kind of up that way on our tour. The other one is the Village Shoppes which you saw so City Council did approve that so they’re working through their site plan agreement and get that underway. For that project. Aller: Great. And just again a quick reminder for those of you watching who are not present and may not have heard before, the items before us are set for City Council on 9-22-14 so if you want to follow those. Generous: That was a misprint on there. It goes to the first meeting in October. th Aanenson: So it will be October 7. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 16, 2014 th Generous: October 13. Aller: October 13. So that correction. Generous: No for Council. Aanenson: Okay. th Aller: City Council meeting will be October 13 because that will be the first meeting that they have in October so if you’d like to follow these items to their conclusion before the City Council, you can do so at that time. Aanenson: Okay so then I’ll give you future items. So we do have a meeting in 2 weeks. We’re having a site plan review of a specialty grocery store at Villages on the Ponds. That will take up one of the last spaces out there and then the variance that was tabled tonight will be on for that meeting too. We do anticipate another project coming in on the 7 and 41 so this Friday would be an application deadline. We do anticipate, we talked about their at the 7 and 41 center. Some sort of drive thru there. More than likely coffee related and another space there. We’re also th talking to a couple other people on some projects so we might see, not for the 7 but yet either st the 21 or in November. Potentially another daycare. They had a neighborhood meeting and we’re talking to somebody else on an industrial site and apartment site so things are in the works. Aller: Yeah. Anything else? Aanenson: That’s all I had Chairman. Aller: Great. And just a quick thank you to the Environment and Park and Rec Commissions for meeting with us this past week and thank you for taking us around. Aanenson: Yeah. Aller: It was a good and educational experience. With that entertain a motion. Campion moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 19