Loading...
PC 2014 10 21 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Steve Weick and Dan Campion MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: TWIN CITIES SELF STORAGE: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1987-02 TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF STORAGE BUILDINGS; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL STORAGE BUILDINGS ON APPROXIMATELY 16.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BUSINESS FRINGE (BF) AND LOCATED AT 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE AND 1875 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE (CR 61). APPLICANT/OWNER: BRUCE LAMO, TWIN CITIES SELF STORAGE, CHASKA LLC, PLANNING CASE 2014-31. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Planning Case 2014-31 is an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit for a storage facilities down on Stoughton Avenue and site plan review for the expansion. They’re proposing 4 additional, or 5 additional buildings. Each one 14,250 square feet. Tonight’s a public hearing. This is scheduled for City th Council on November 10. The applicant is Bruce Lamo who is also the property owner. Again this is located in southern Chanhassen. It borders on Chaska to the northwest and then Chanhassen is to the east of it. It’s currently composed of two parcels. One of the conditions of approval would be that they recombine these parcels as a zoning lot and so that’s what they’re, there are existing 6 buildings on the site. There’s a storage, outdoor storage area that’s gravel on the northwest corner of the existing storage facility. The expansion would be all to the west along the south property line and an additional building in that area. Once the final building is built the outdoor storage would go away. This amendment increases a number of storage buildings on the property and the site plan review is actually for the details on the site. Development and redevelopment. Twin Cities Self Storage is the name of the project. Again there are 6 storage buildings located in the southeast corner of the property. There’s a gravel area located in this area and as well as on the west side of the property. This is where the expansion would take place. There’s a stormwater pond that as part of this development would need to be expanded to accommodate the additional stormwater runoff that would be generated from the hard surfaces. The property is zoned Fringe Business District. This district accommodates limited commercial uses that are considered temporary in nature. When urban services are eventually brought down to this area we think all the area will intensify it’s uses. Cold storage and warehousing are conditional uses in the BF District and the BF District is limited in that only 40% of the site may be developed under the current zoning category so with, even with the expansion 60% of the site would be available for future development. The property is guided for office industrial uses and the City is in the process of looking at the 61 corridor for land use potential amendments or urban services extension to this area. I believe it’s Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 a project that we’ll be bringing over the winter and next spring for adoption. As part of the current study this land would be continue to be guided for office industrial uses. Again the storage facilities are cold storage and warehousing are conditional uses in the BF District. They’re increasing the number of buildings and so that’s what the amendment is. The previous approval had 8 buildings total and this one will bring it up to 11. As part of the conditional use permit there’s not any specific findings for storage or warehouse facilities so we used the general findings under the conditional use permits. And the conditions of approval would be that they comply with the site plan approval criteria conditions. A site plan, their proposed expansion would be phased over time. The first two buildings would be developed would be P-1’s. They would be immediately west of the existing buildings and then as those are leased out they would build the next building and then the next one and then finally the fifth building if that take place. We did look at this briefly to make sure that this could accommodate future access potential from the northwest, which would be an extension of, possible extension of Engler Boulevard which would serve this property as well as the ones to the north and west of here. And again as part of this development they will be expanding the stormwater area to accommodate the additional runoff from the hard surfaces. The building materials consist of block and a stucco finish on the metal. They’re low profile buildings. It will be a tan stucco and it’s a reddish brown brick. It’s very traditional in color and design. The brick would only be on the end but these are the ends that would be visible. Potentially visible from the public. However we doubt that that will happen because there’s several rows of trees that are between that and Stoughton Boulevard. All the doors are angled towards each other interior wise so you won’t see those elevations and they would have the stucco metal finish between the doors. They would continue the colors within the, earth tone colors that are within the rest of the development. Again these are very low profile. Shallow roof angles and it will be difficult to see from on site. The grading plan. They’re proposing to grade the area that is proposed for the expansion. Provide a drainage swale from that area down to the stormwater pond and again expand the stormwater area to accommodate the additional runoff from the site. Landscaping. There are some revisions that they’ll need to make. They’ve currently shown all the trees along the south property line. However there are additional buffer yard requirements from the north and west and what staff is proposing is that be limited or pulled in around, immediately around these building areas so that it can provide potentially future buffering between a future use to the north within the property. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit to allow the 11 storage buildings for cold storage and warehousing and site plan review for 5 additional 14,250 square foot one story storage buildings and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer the questions. Aller: Any questions? It looks like Bob that they’re going to phase this in building by building. Generous: Yes. Aller: So as the use actually increases that’s when they’ll undertake to do the building of the buildings themselves or construction of the buildings. Generous: Mr. Chairman, the intention is to build the first two buildings and then as those fill up they would come in and start the next process so it’d be just a building permit process as we go forward. Aller: Okay and then. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 Aanenson: If I may Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. We did talk to the applicant too about that as we look at municipal services down there and timing and just kind of keeping that in mind as those buildings. Even if we go to office industrial, these would still be a permitted use within the district but then looking at higher and better uses as a possibility in the future, just to keep that in mind so I think they’re just, he’s taking you know just kind of a wait and see. You know he’s got an option to go forward but if the market changes he can adapt to that too. Aller: Great. And then the grading will be done all at the same time or as these buildings are constructed? Generous: It would all be done at one time because they have to provide that stormwater system. Aller: And that was my question. The stormwater will be for the entire site regardless of the future use so we’re protecting and preserving that area from the runoff. How does it look down there? Fauske: As indicated in the staff report there’s still some minor revisions to the plans that the staff has requested. Since the report went out staff has been in contact with the engineer and feels very comfortable with the way this plan is progressing and that they can meet all the conditions stated in the staff report. Aller: Okay. Campion: I have one question. Aller: Commissioner Campion. Campion: The environmental resources, the trees they had none planned right? No trees, shrubs or what not that I saw in the staff report. That we were asking them to make up for some of that so in total are we requiring that they would meet you know the total requirements? Generous: Yes. They would have to meet those minimum standards and I believe he’s actually beyond on that southern property line so it’s more reallocation on site and working with Jill. The City Forester to come up with an acceptable plan. Campion: Okay. Aller: Any additional questions? Okay, if the applicant would like to come forward and make a presentation they may do so at this time. If not, that’s fine too. Seeing no one. Okay. He doesn’t have to come forward if he doesn’t want to. Bruce Lamo: Sure I can. Aller: Great. If you could just state your name and representation. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 Bruce Lamo: I’m Bruce Lamo. I’m the owner of Twin Cities Self Storage and appreciate your time and attention. Just to clarify, I did propose putting in a lot of trees to begin with because I knew with the homeowners that are on Stoughton, I didn’t want them to be, even though I think my buildings, I think they’re relatively attractive. That’s my personal taste. I didn’t think it was something that they wanted to look at so I knew from the very start that I’d be, I would be coming in with a, what I think is an attractive row of trees to separate my property from them so that was always the intention and you know I want this to look good because it reflects me and my business and it’s, I’m part of the city so I want it to look good for everybody. As far as the phased building, you know I don’t know if I will fill all the buildings and she was correct that my plan is, if I can, if there’s a better use that comes along 5, 10, 15 years down the road, if I haven’t built out the buildings. If someone else has a better use for that land you know I certainly will be interested, particularly if you bring more utilities down there so it does give me the flexibility and I purchased 9 ½ acres and I’m only able to use about a hundred and some thousand square feet now but that will all change if and when that development changes, and that could change you know everything in the neighborhood so I don’t want to get ahead of myself and build a bunch of empty buildings now and have them sit there so I think everyone is looking at this the same way. Hopefully it’s acceptable to everyone. Aller: Nor do we which is why I was asking the question. I think it looks like a prudent thing to do. Bruce Lamo: Yeah. Aller: And at the highest best use of the property is what we always want for our homeowners so we’re glad to see that happen. Bruce Lamo: Right. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman if I could just make one clarification. Just clarify what Mr. Lamo was talking about. There’s a few homes right on Stoughton that are going to be abutting the expansion. You’ve got the cemetery that’s actually in Chaska that Bob’s pointing to right now and then there’s a couple homes right in there and that’s what Mr. Lamo was talking about planting that landscaping because you do have homes closer there and then we did receive some calls from those homeowners and also the ones across the street for their visibility so that was the intent with the additional screening of the landscaping to provide that. Aller: And it sounds like there’s no opposition to doing that. Bruce Lamo: No. I want them to be comfortable and happy with what they look at when they look out the windows or drive by so. Aller: Great. Any additional questions? Comments. Thank you sir. Appreciate it. Bruce Lamo: Thank you. Aller: With that I’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting on this item. Anyone wishing to come forward speaking either for or against that item can do so at this time. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 Welcome sir. If you could come forward and step to the podium and state your name and address. James Kavorian: Yeah my name is James Kavorian. My address is 1905 Stoughton. Aller: Welcome. James Kavorian: Right across the street from my good neighbor and we’re buddies and I was just kind of concerned about you know some of the lighting and things like that because we like our dark neighborhood and Bruce has been really good with us when he moved in to at least turn some of the lights that he had put in before and get them out from lighting up our yard because we’re really right across the street. So I’m kind of concerned about you know that. You know lighting and then I don’t know or I am concerned about whether there’s going to be another entrance to that property because there is, basically it’s right across from my driveway practically and I’m just kind of concerned about congestion there or more traffic right in front of our house so. And that’s all. I’m just asking those questions. Aller: Thank you. No, we appreciate your concerns and we’ll see whether we can have a discussion about those items. James Kavorian: Alright. Aller: So if we could, if you could address those that would be great. Generous: As far as lighting, we did look at that. He’s only proposed wall pack units on the building. No aerial lighting so it will be minimal. The hours of operation are very limited. I believe he locks it up by 10:00 at night. There is only, currently there will be only the one access point but this isn’t a peak trip generation place so, and then in the future provided that roadway extension takes place, that would relieve for future development to the west. Aanenson: Just to clarify that. So there’s no additional entrances being proposed. Yep. Aller: Right. Bruce Lamo: Well if I. Aller: Please go ahead. Bruce Lamo: From a storage facility perspective I wouldn’t want another entrance. I have one entrance now and it’s much easier just to control with one gate and I had no intention of moving it so the gate will stay where it is. All the traffic that comes and go will stay at the same place. There is a, the neighbors driveway, which the former owner used to use to service that property, I think there might have been some concerns with some people that that might become my new business driveway. That was never the intention. That is the neighbor’s property. I don’t plan on using that driveway. I’ll just use the driveway that I have with the gate system that I have. Aller: Okay. And then the use of the property because you’re building two extra buildings, you don’t foresee any major increase in traffic then which would be the other concern. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 Bruce Lamo: No. I mean there will be some. We’ll have more customers but self storage is a fairly low traffic volume business. You know on any given day it could be anywhere from, in the winter it’s very slow. It could be 2 to 3 customers a day or sometimes less and sometimes on the weekend in the summer it could be 15 or 20 cars in a day. You know it does peak, you know holidays sometimes people coming and go but it’s on a day to day basis it doesn’t change all that much. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions in light of what’s been said? Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to come forward speaking either for or against an item. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing portion of the meeting on this particular item and entertain discussion or seems pretty straight forward. Hokkanen: Looks good, yeah. Aller: I’m glad that we went with, or the applicant’s going with a stucco instead of steel. Hokkanen: It looks nice. Aller: I think the traffic won’t be too bad if we’re looking at just the 2 additional buildings based on the history of the buildings themselves and the standard that is there so. Does anyone wish to make a motion at this time? Hokkanen: Okay, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow 11 storage buildings for cold storage and warehousing and site plan review for five 14,250 square foot one-story storage buildings subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Campion: Second. Aller: I have a motion from Commissioner Hokkanen, second from Commissioner Campion. Any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Campion seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow 11 storage buildings for cold storage and warehousing; and site plan review for five 14,250 square foot one-story storage buildings subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit 1.The 60 parking stalls for vehicle storage shall be confined to the area labeled Building P4. 2.The development shall comply with site plan 2014-31, plans prepared by Carlson McCain dated September 5, 2014. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 Site Plan Building: 1.The buildings are 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 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. Engineering: 1.The applicant must provide adequate evidence that there is no area on the subject property suitable for infiltration. The discussion must include the practicality of altering the site layout. 2.The hydrologic modeling must be completed with accepted literature values for the soil type present or the applicant must provide evidence that the infiltration rates are equal to the 3.97 inches per hour assumed for the model. The applicant must provide water quality modeling, acceptable under Section 19-144(a)(1)c. of Chanhassen City Code, showing that the water quality treatment conditions are met for the required water quality volume from all new impervious surfaces. 3.A comprehensive, standalone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the NPDES construction permit, the provided checklist and Section 19-145 of city code shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment before any earth-disturbing activities, including but not limited to removal of any existing surfaces or structures, and removal of vegetation will be allowed or any grading permit will be issued. 4.The conveyance must be stabilized along the entire length and energy dissipation and erosion prevention practices must be designed and implemented to protect the infiltration basin from unnecessary sediment deposition. 5.The applicant shall include a materials list and engineers opinion of cost for all items necessary to meet the SWPPP requirements for erosion prevention and sediment control including the materials necessary for six (6) inches of topsoil and final stabilization. This amount shall be collected as escrow for erosion control. 6.The applicant shall prepare an operations and maintenance manual for the channel. 7.Assurances shall be provided for the conveyance channel consistent with the MS4 permit requirements for systems not owned and maintained by the MS4 permittee. Specifically: 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 a.It must allow for the city to conduct inspections, perform maintenance and assess costs when the permittee determines that the owner and/or operator of the structural stormwater BMP has not conducted maintenance. b.It must include conditions that are designed to preserve the permittee’s right to ensure maintenance responsibility...when those responsibilities are legally transferred to another party. c.It must include conditions that are designed to protect/preserve structural stormwater BMPs and site features that are implemented to comply with Part III.D.5.a(2). If site configurations or structural stormwater BMPs change, causing decreased structural stormwater BMP effectiveness, new or improved structural stormwater BMPs must be implemented to ensure the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in Part III.D.5.a(2) continue to be met 8.The applicant must procure and comply with the requirements of all other jurisdictional agencies with authority over the project area. 9.The plan shall be redrawn to 50-scale or larger, and must show the location of the benchmark used in the survey. 10.The first floor elevation and corner elevations of the nearby buildings must be labeled to confirm that the grading will allow water to flow away from all structures onsite. 11.The pond’s Emergency Overflow Elevation and location must be shown on the plans. 12.Due to the location of the open channel drainage, the developer’s engineer shall submit phased grading and erosion control plans. The plan phasing shall illustrate the erosion control that will be in place as the different buildings are constructed in Phase 1 through Phase 4. 13.The plan sheets must identify any proposed stockpile locations and the erosion control measures to contain them. 14.The aisles around the perimeter of the buildings must meet a minimum of width of 30 feet to allow 8-foot parking on one side and a 22-foot driving aisle. 15.The corners of the parking lot shall be modified to provide adequate aisle width. Environmental Resources Specialist: 1.The applicant shall provide landscape buffers to the north of buildings P2, P3 and P4 and the west of P3. The required number of trees for the vehicular use area shall be incorporated into the buffer landscaping. 2.The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing the additional buffers as well as an alternate selection to blue spruce. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 Fire: 1.The new buildings will be required to have an approved fire sprinkler suppression system installed. Plans shall be drawn by a sprinkler design professional and submitted to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 2.Twelve-inch building address numbers must be installed on each end of the building. Numbers must be of contrasting color. Contact Fire Marshal for additional information. 3.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for specific areas to be signed. 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 applicant shall create a zoning lot and recombine the two properties as one parcel. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 7015 SANDY HOOK CIRCLE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 7015 SANDY HOOK CIRCLE. APPLICANT/OWNER: RICK KOLBOW, PLANNING CASE 2014-32. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Again this is a hard surface coverage variance request. Planning commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments can make a final determination provided they have a 75 percent vote on it. The applicants are Rick and Julie Kolbow. The property’s located at 7015 Sandy Hook Circle. This is in, what was it? Colonial nd Grove 2 Addition is the name of the plat. It was platted in 1980. The Colonial Grove was actually originally platted in 1956 so it’s an older subdivision within the community. Oh I should point out that I did hand out tonight two emails that we received after the packets went out and also we have an alternative findings for the commission if they so desire. Aller: Thank you and for the record we have received the two email items and the additional Findings of Fact and Decision as an alternative. Generous: The property owners as part of their request to get a 4.8 percent hard surface coverage variance to expand their garage and to create a parking area next to their, to the garage. In the future they intend to use this parking area to build an additional stall on the garage and so they would not be increasing any of the hard surface coverage at that time. It would be currently. They’d also like to use gravel for that parking area on the side of the garage as an interim cover. However city code does require that a driveway be an improved surface. Asphalt, bituminous pavers, things like that. Staff in reviewing this we determined that they actually over calculated the hard surface coverage on the property because they included the driveway portion within the 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 public right-of-way which we do not credit or take debit against the property itself. And also they squared up the actual driveway area on their property and so they were a little bit high. So basically it reduces their variance request by 2.1 percent so they’d be at a total of 27.7 percent hard cover if they went forward with the plan that they’re proposing. Here’s the survey we colored in. This pic area represents the driveway extension and this brown area is their parking stall that they’d use. This is the area also that would be, could be covered up as part of a third stall. They exceed the side setback requirements. There’s currently 26 feet to the side property line and they’re only proposing to go out 12 feet with this expansion so we still have the 14 feet setback, and it’s only a 10 foot side yard setback that’s required under city ordinance. The applicant has also stated that they’re willing to do some type of a rain garden to help mitigate any stormwater runoff that may be generated from this expansion. They are currently under construction with an addition in the back of the property. So a pretty busy site. Oh we did look at properties within the neighborhood to see which had 3 cars or 3 stall areas in it and we found that within the immediate area there’s 9 different properties that have larger driveways than the standard 2 car, 2 stall driveway area. They also noted that within this development there are several properties that are under the 15,000 square foot minimum under the RSF district regulations. There are 5 between 10,000 and 12,600 square feet and then 6 that were between 13,000 and 15,000 square feet. The subject property is 12,632 square feet and it’s located right in the middle of this. There are 21 other properties that meet or exceed the minimum requirements in the RSF district. Part of the issue with this area is Sandy Hook was installed in 1980. Their stormwater improvements and a direct, the stormwater goes right into Lotus Lake. We overlaid the area in 2013 and this is fully developed area so it was, the City could not provide additional stormwater treatment facilities. Again the applicant has proposed a rain garden system to address the additional runoff that would be generated by going over the 25 percent hard cover. We wanted to point out that such systems must be engineered, designed and constructed and be properly maintained to actually serve the function that they’re intended to, especially in Chanhassen where we have significant soil issues. Unfortunately while we empathize with the property owners, to be consistent we are recommending denial of the hard surface variance request and the request for the gravel parking area and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: If the, if the lot was a regular lot size and not sub-standard lot size then we wouldn’t even need the variance correct? Generous: That’s correct. They would be within the 25 percent. Aller: Is their setback requirements for their plan would meet the, it would exceed the setback requirements so they would be fine there. Generous: That’s correct. They would comply with the ordinance for setback location issues. Even for the driveway requirements. Aller: With the potential for a rain garden, can it be engineered to allow for the amount that would have, that would be the amount for the 30 percent hard cover requirement or? Fauske: We haven’t seen any design calculations to this point Chairman Aller. Certainly the idea of a rain garden is typically to allow for infiltration of the stormwater runoff into the soil. However generally speaking in this area of Chanhassen, infiltration isn’t typically found in the 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 soils there. They’re typically a more tight soil that’s not capable of a lot of infiltration and so rain gardens in that instance can be utilized to provide a temporary holding area for some stormwater before it discharges to the storm sewer system so it can provide some rate control but it may not be able to infiltrate some of the water, but we don’t have any of that information at this time. Aller: If this were to be allowed subject to the rain garden, could we foreseeably have a better situation than we currently, currently have? In other words if we allow for some hard cover use but we obtain the rain gutter, could we actually pick up that rate flow reduction and the infiltration? Fauske: I don’t have any information to be able to tell for certain at this time. A rain garden can be sized for a number of different impervious surfaces. It would depend if the, I think what they were proposing was to size it based on the additional impervious surface above the 25 percent allowable but I haven’t taken a look to see if there’s enough space to accommodate in addition to that 2.7 percent. Aller: So foreseeable we could approve it with a rain garden and then it would be left up to the engineering to and the homeowner to decide whether it was actually feasible? Fauske: Correct. Aller: Any other questions commissioners? Commissioner. Campion: Are there any materials that can be used for the extra, the addition that would decrease the additional hard surface? Fauske: There’s certainly certain materials like a porous pavement or porous concrete, porous pavers, that sort of thing. City code does not allow for that installation to offset the additional impervious surface. The reason, we’ve had some discussions regarding that on a staff level and the challenge is, is the long term maintenance of that facility and likewise with a rain garden is, they’re installed with the intention of providing that rate control and sometimes infiltration if the soils allow for that. However in a period of time after that if the homeowner wished to go and change that out for a traditional concrete paver or bituminous surface, we typically don’t, we don’t have the authority to go in and, go in after the fact and make them put it back in. That’s been the challenge that we’ve had on a staff level. Campion: Okay. Aller: Is there anything stopping us from requiring that they maintain it or? Aanenson: We always put those requirements but the challenge is, is you’re relying on staff to be out there checking it and homeowners change over time and someone might have a different expectation. The new buyer might have a different expectation of not wanting to maintain it but it’s there and pull it out make something simpler and it’s always the challenge. That’s why I think we’ve been, and especially in those areas as Alyson has mentioned where we’ve got more compact soils, it’s just puts a lot more burden on everybody else so. Keeping a rain garden or 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 something that’s more visible to see hopefully. Even that you can still have problems with and they change hands. Aller: Okay, thank you. Any additional questions? Weick: Is the addition that’s being built now factored into the part that is hard cover? Generous: Yes it is. Weick: It is. And then I guess in your opinion we’ve seen situations like this before and sometimes you guys have ideas to cut corners or make it a little bit smaller or I mean is it squeezed as much as you think? Generous: Well to make it a functioning driveway and parking area, yes. Weick: It is, okay. Generous: Especially if their intention is to turn it into a third staff sometime in the future. Weick: Okay, thank you. Aller: And that would be consistent with at least 9 other third stall garages in that immediate vicinity right? Generous: Yes. Aller: Okay. Okay. No other questions we’ll hear from the applicant if you want to come forward and perhaps answer some additional questions. We’ll need to state your name and address for the record. Julie Kolbow: We’re Rick and Julie Kolbow. We’re at 7015 Sandy Hook Circle. Aller: Welcome. And then why don’t you tell us a little bit about why you want the improvement and the variance. Julie Kolbow: Well we’ve been in the neighborhood for 16 years and we now have two teenagers. Four vehicles and we feel like our driveway just isn’t big enough to handle those vehicles so then they’re invariably every day out into the street and we feel like that’s creating a problem for neighbors and a safety issue with the kids driving around and especially teenage drivers and we felt like it would be safer and neater in the community to have this extra little spot to tuck that vehicle away so that it wasn’t obstructing the road on a daily basis. Aller: Okay. And if I can ask you now but snow removal. With the cars on that street, are there problems with snow removal or has it created problems having alternate cars parking? Julie Kolbow: Well we haven’t had the vehicles that long so. I mean obviously we can’t park overnight on the, we don’t park the cars overnight on the street. We pull them in the driveway every night but with people coming and going and their various activities it’s in and out. In and 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 out and on both sides of the driveway. Of course everything looks terrible right now because we have a dumpster and you know pick-up trucks and luckily it’s going very quickly but you know we’re just, we’re trying to figure out a way to make it good for our situation but then everyone involved because we don’t feel like it’s a good situation for other people. Aller: If the variance goes through and it looks like you put out a call to the neighbors to see whether there were any problems and it looks like you have several individuals that sent in emails in support and a neighbor that was not so pleased with the potential for a view. Had you thought about the view and how to deal with that situation if we were to move forward and allow for the variance? Julie Kolbow: Well there’s two things on that. We’ve had an email communication with that neighbor and they asked that we install kind of a buffer of shrubbery next to that and we absolutely we would do that and we told them that we would do that but they submitted the letter after that so I, maybe that’s not enough but we, I guess that we were surprised with the view issue because on that side of their house there are no windows on their house so they can’t really see from there. I suppose if they were in, you know out in the street or from the driveway they could certainly see but I’m not sure, the cars are still there whether they’re in the driveway or one’s parked next to the garage, they’re all, the cars are still there. Aller: And then with regard to the potential for a rain gutter, you understand that if it was to be granted that there’s a big concern on maintaining it and moving forward into the future and what would your plans be with that? Julie Kolbow: Well we would do whatever the City, we would work with the City engineers. Rick Kolbow: Look for their ideas, right. I mean we’re no expert on exactly what needed to be done but I think somebody Julie talked to, maybe had some ideas or couldn’t give us. Julie Kolbow: I stopped in with Bob early on to talk about… There were technical difficulties at this point in the meeting and a portion of the audio recording was lost. Rick Kolbow: We have construction going on at our house with the addition and there’s just too many things to undertake that as well at the same time so. Tennyson: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: I just want to clarify too for the code. Our city code does allow for parking on your side. That’s where people sometimes put a boat. Aller: Or trailer. Aanenson: Snowmobile trailers so it’s not uncommon that people would park. It’s different when you’re looking at hard cover and kind of a more permanency thing and that’s how we looked at that but that is where we, the code does allow for that to occur. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 Julie Kolbow: Does the code allow just for recreational vehicles and boats or is that for vehicles as well? Generous: Mr. Chairman, it does allow for those and actually in those instances you would not have to have a hard surface. Rick Kolbow: Recreational vehicles and/or trailers. Aanenson: Yeah, and those are more permanent type of things that are going to sit there for the not coming and going kind of thing. Rick Kolbow: Well and we have a boat and that’s certainly something as an option. You know I know I parked the trailer before there because we’re right next to Lotus Lake so we have a boat on so we have that scenario but I’ve thought that it would sure be nice to have a nice clean paved or surface there to park it because it just seems like that would be nice for us and our neighbors. It would look better. It’s just like a trailer sitting in the grass. Campion: Bob was the hard cover, the 2.7 percent addition assuming the gravel section is paved? Generous: We include gravel as hard cover anyway because once it’s compacted it doesn’t allow percolation. Campion: Okay. So if they did and they left that as grass and parked a boat there instead, what would the hard cover total be? Generous: We didn’t calculate that separately because their intention would be to cover this area eventually with a garage stall. Campion: Right. Generous: But it looks like it’s 12 by 26. That’s my math. Aller: Okay. Do you have any additional questions for the applicant? Rick Kolbow: I mean ultimately we’re trying to. Julie Kolbow: So that spot would be 312. So it’s very close to how much. I think it’s, is it 341 square feet that we’re over? 341.4. So we’re not trying to go crazy with what we’re doing. We’re just trying to be reasonable. Rick Kolbow: We didn’t realize we had this, we were that tight until we started pursuing it. I mean we’re adding on to our kitchen and our home but then when you start looking at this and we’re like oh, as long as the guys are out there maybe we can make this spot we’ve been talking about and all of a sudden our lot is, there’s a lot of room over there but our lot is smaller than what we realized because our whole neighborhood is filled with these circle driveways and kind of get this. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 Julie Kolbow: And here we didn’t know how good we had it with lawn mowing for so long. Aller: Okay, thank you. With that I’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting so anyone coming forward can speak either for or against this item before us. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing and open it up for comments. Undestad: I’ve got a question too. I mean in the rain garden issue your comment about you know how do you protect it and maintain it. Who keeps an eye on it? I know we can’t do it from a staff level and keep policing all the rain gardens but is there a way to put some sort of a permanent easement or something into it? Where once it’s defined that it will work, assuming it works. They get the variance that then you can put that on to the parcel of land and it stays there? Fauske: There are mechanisms that do allow for that. However the challenge, as Kate had mentioned is that you have future property owners that perhaps don’t want that amenity associated with the property and so it becomes a balance of trying to find some accommodations to accomplish what they want to do with the property today while still being cognizant of potential future homeowners that may not want that feature. Hokkanen: But if it’s an easement or if it’s attached to the property it would be then disclosed and carried to the next homeowner. Fauske: Correct. Correct it would be. It’s just, it’s a challenge from a staff perspective and I, just going in and having you know somewhat of the heavy hand of government so to speak, that’s typically viewed upon very positively so that’s been the challenge that we’ve been faced with. Aller: Well I hate to see somebody not be able to use their property in the way that they want to when it’s smaller than everybody else’s and everybody else has 3 car garages. Everybody else has the ability to use their property in that fashion. It’s, this wouldn’t alter the conditions. I think the neighbors are obviously in tune because they’ve contacted us, most of them in favor. The one sounds like that one neighbor would be very keen on letting us know if the rain garden was not working or was replaced or terminated by subsequent homeowners so based on the number and the amount and the fact that it sounds like that would, if we make it conditioned it would have to be dealt with before, before this gets done and it kind of puts it in the hands of the engineers and the homeowner to see whether they can accomplish it and then it’s to me a better result because then they can make that decision and it’s not the heavy hand of government telling them they can’t use their property in a reasonable fashion for this particular area. Undestad: Well I agree with this platted back in the 50’s like that and you kind of look at the neighborhood when you buy it and assume you can do certain things and a couple thousand feet of green area makes a big difference on a lot size. Weick: I would say though the current driveway serves the current purpose. If you had 2 extra cars you could park them in the driveway without parking them on the side of the garage. So that’s one other way to look at it. The other is, and I mean we hear this more and more and it starts to get me thinking about these rain gardens. It feels to me like we should stop considering them as offsets to hard cover because there just isn’t a permanence to them. And although 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 they’re nice as a to do, there is no guarantee that they’re going to be there in the future so it feels like we shouldn’t continue using them as offsets. And it’s fine, I don’t necessarily mean that I oppose this but it feels good to say we’re going to put a rain garden in and it might work for a few years but there’s, that feels like sort of a hollow offset to me so those are the only two things I would note about the current situation. Campion: Is there an alternative to rain gardens that you know would be something like gravel or rock bed that serves a similar function of the rain garden but doesn’t require such maintenance? Aller: With the pavers or? Fauske: I mean certainly there’s, there’s porous pavements and porous pavers that are out there. That’s a technology that’s available. There’s a higher, we’ve seen higher bid costs for those types of technologies because of the, there’s not as many contractors that are available to do that work so it’s a little bit of a specialty. That certainly is a technology though that it would be available to provide that. Again the idea being there is some engineering involved with that because you have to have a certain layer of material underneath that surface in order for the water to go in and soak through there and then infiltrate if it can or else get to a storm sewer system and discharge. So the challenge with the porous pavement or porous asphalt is that you have to have a storm sewer discharge, a storm sewer to discharge that to versus a rain garden that you can just, it can just flow through it from, through the street. Aller: And I guess I’m not approaching it as an alternative per se because I see this coming in as a use issue for the third car garage in the future and that we’re going to see this come back so whether or not we use a gravel or an alternative or re-engineered to go somewhere else. I look at this as a stop gap measure if we just say we’re going to use those materials as opposed to allowing for the variance. If we’re going to allow for the variance so that they can get where they want to get in a couple years which is to have that third car garage without coming back to ask for even more which would be the request maybe if they re-think their design. Campion: Right and what I was throwing out was just if there’s an alternative to a rain garden where the rain garden would go that could perform the same function and not, not be subject to maintenance of homeowners and future homeowners. Weick: To me it feels like there’s a difference between an enclosed, like the third stall garage and an open, just place to park a car and so to me it’s, I think it’s a different consideration if they’re actually enclosing it right now so I would actually oppose approving it on the basis that someday it’s going to be enclosed. Well let’s cross that bridge when it happens. That would be, that’s my opinion. Because it’s not going to be enclosed today and it doesn’t have to be if we were to pass this variance today. It could stay like this forever. Aller: That’s correct. Weick: So those are just things to consider. I would propose waiting until it actually gets enclosed and then dealing with the variance at that point but, because I think it is a different story as a structure instead of just a driveway. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 Tennyson: When you need the third car, when you need the third stall then it would be more appropriate as a variance. Weick: Right. Tennyson: At that point. Weick: That’s my opinion, yeah. Aller: But I see the, when we look at the science behind what’s been presented to us and the facts that are presented to us, it’s a difference without a distinction really or distinction without a difference because the variance would be for the same amount. And right now we’re making sure that it’s limited to what is actually being used. Weick: But I think there’s a visual difference between the uses. Aller: Sure. Tennyson: I do too. Weick: So and I, yeah. It’s too bad the other neighbors aren’t here. It’d be interesting to ask if the next door neighbor if there’s an issue with an extension of the current garage or a car sitting there because I think there is a visual difference. Aller: Okay, anything else? Julie Kolbow: Can I comment? Aller: Further comments. Julie Kolbow: We’ve talked about that visual difference. However the question here is really a variance for hard cover. It’s not a question of a variance for visual or aesthetics in the end. I mean the 4 cars are in the driveway somewhere regardless of whether or not we have the variance or not and we’re just trying to you know, use our property. Aller: Okay. Julie Kolbow: Thanks. Rick Kolbow: The other comment about the visual, sorry. Is we have other neighbors and they’ve written letters. If our cars are parked over the side of the garage, they’re not in the street. And if they’re in the street then they’re an issue for the other neighbors across the street. Then there’s an issue so it becomes a whole other issue so I think the point that Julie made is, it’s really an issue of hard cover. And the other issue is, it’s the same hard cover whether it be a structure or cement slab. Bituminous. Gravel. It’s still 2.7 percent over. I mean that’s really, I guess that’s a point because otherwise if you bring in the visual there’s too many factors because it’s in our opinion we’re trying to do the right thing by all the neighbors as a whole. And it’s a 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 safety hazard if we’ve got cars out there and kids running out behind a car and there’s a lot of little kids in our neighborhood too. Aller: Okay, thank you. Based on the comments any. Undestad: You know I mean I still think it just comes back to the old platting. You know old school. Old 50’s and things don’t work today. That’s my opinion. Aller: Alright. And that went to my question about originally if the size of the lot was a standard size lot we wouldn’t be here and other people that have standard size lots have 3 car garages and 9 of them in that vicinity do and I just think for the amount of hard cover we’re looking at the ability to grant them a reasonable use which is what I think we should be looking for. Under these particular circumstances so, any other comments? Questions? Anyone wishing to make a motion either for or against the item? Undestad: I’ll make a motion but on this do we have the, yeah the alternative but the one that adds the language for the, if the rain garden or the pond or whatever they end up doing, if it works do we want to put it in there or are we looking at the variance… Aller: Well that goes back to Commissioner Weick’s comments. Are we using it as a stop gap or are we just going to grant them the variance. Undestad: Yeah I don’t think it’s a stop gap. I think even if they just put a pond there that you know, dug a hole in there is going to take some rain water before it runs off so rate. Aller: Yeah. Undestad: Anything is better than nothing and I think maintaining a rain garden, yeah. Who’s going to police that but. Aller: So you can just go ahead and add a condition that it’s subject to the rain garden meeting the standards to allow for the 2.7. To offset the 2.7 percent right? Fauske: Certainly or if your comfort level is to mitigate for the additional hard surface coverage to the maximum extent possible. If that gives your concern some, so that we’re trying to mitigate the 2.7. If I’m understanding the commissioners’ concerns here with, is there ability to size that rain garden for the additional impervious surface. Undestad: I’m just thinking. Aller: Or do you want to leave it as is? Undestad: Yeah. Yeah I mean we can leave it as is. I’ll make a motion. I make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve Planning Case 2014-32 for a 2.7 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow parking area and driveway expansion on property zoned Single Family Residential District. Aanenson: Do you want to add subject to the Findings? 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 Aller: Subject to the Findings of Fact and Decision. Aanenson: We say revised. Generous: Or alternate. Aanenson: Alternate. Undestad: Subject to the alternate Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Campion: Second. Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Undestad and a second by Commissioner Campion. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Campion seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve Planning Case 2014-32 for a 2.7 percent hard surface coverage variance to allow parking area and driveway expansion on property zoned Single Family Residential District subject to the alternate Findings of Fact and Decision.Undestad, Campion and Aller voted in favor. Weick, Hokkanen and Tennyson voted against the motion. The motion was tied with a 3 to 3 vote. Aller: So it goes to the City Council and that would be, for those of you that want to follow this item would be November 10, 2014 not having passed by a super majority. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 7, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. th Aanenson: On Monday, October 13 the Shops at Chanhassen, which you looked at which included the Noodles and another restaurant was approved so that will proceed with final plat and some other things that need to occur with the site plan agreement in closing so hopefully that will all be closed. Their goal is to have that done in December. That also includes Target being th at the closing so we’re on track with that. And then the Fretham 19 Addition was also approved and so now we’re working through all the issues on that to go for final plat so that will be. Aller: And those are all the easements. Aanenson: Yeah, a little bit more challenging on that. Hopefully they can, lot of discussion on that at the council. I think about an hour’s worth of discussion if anybody was following that so I think we, council worked their way through the weeds on that one so. That’s all I had for updates. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 21, 2014 Aller: Great. Any future items? Aanenson: Future planning commission, yep. We do have a couple applications in for, we do th not have a meeting on November 4 because of general election so you’ll all be out voting. On th the 18 though we do have the variance request for the shoreland setback. That went back so you’ll see that one again. We also got a site plan in for 7 and 41 for a drive thru up at that location. We’re restauranting up here. There’s also another variance request and then a sign package amendment so we’ve got 4 items actually scheduled for that meeting. And then we just nd have one more meeting after that for December 2. We’re working on a couple of projects. I’m not sure if they’ll come to fruition or not. They may be in the first part of January but we’ll see th how that goes but you will have four items on then for the 18 so it will be a month from today. Aller: Great. Okay, having concluded all the business I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 20