PC 2014 11 18
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 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; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
7/41 CROSSING: REQUEST TO REZONE 5.01 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD);
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 4,000 SQUARE-FOOT RETAIL
BUILDING WITH A DRIVE-THRU LOCATED AT 2401 HIGHWAY 7.
APPLICANT/OWNER: SCP PE CHAN, LLC (PASTER ENTERPRISES, LLC),
PLANNING CASE 2014-35:
Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The site is located southwest
of the intersection of Highway 7 and 41. Briefly some background on this application. Back in
1988 the City Council approved the first reading to rezone this property from office institutional
to neighborhood business. At that same meeting the City Council approved the subdivision of
the property into three commercial lots. Lot 1 contains, today it contains the Walgreens building
which is located at the northwest corner of the site. Lot 2 contains the 7 and 41 shopping center
which is a multi-tenant retail building. And Lot 3 contains SuperAmerica which is located at the
northeast corner of the site. In 2008 the City Council approved a site plan for the construction of
Walgreens. They also approved, basically re-facing this multi-tenant building and upgrading it.
They also approved a site plan for a multi-tenant building located where the proposed building is
intended to go. That building was never built. The applicant today met with us and requested
that they put a multi-tenant building again but with a drive thru. In order to accomplish this the
applicant, the City would need to rezone the site to a planned unit development since under the
neighborhood business district drive thru’s are not permitted. They also wish to construct a
3,915 square foot single level retail building. In order to rezone the site to a planned unit
development one of the things that we would need to look at is what is the site guided for under
the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan guides it commercial. Under that type of
use, commercial uses are permitted as well as different types of commercial zoning on the site.
That would make it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which is a requirement in order to
rezone a property. One of the things that we also need to point out, we have run into very similar
situations as this one with several establishments within Chanhassen. The corner of Century
Boulevard and Highway 5. There is a planned unit development with a neighborhood business
underlying district. The owner of the property requested that they put in an establishment with a
drive thru and under the planned unit development they were permitted to do so. The drive thru
faces the highway and it’s removed from the adjoining neighborhood. With Crossroads of
Chanhassen we, again we have a very similar situation. McDonald’s came in probably about a
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
year ago and we were able to again amend the planned unit development. With specific
locations and under the planned unit development we’re able to create specific conditions that
would allow something such as a drive thru to work and through the planned unit development
ordinance we’re able to regulate these types of uses. So staff prepared an ordinance and the site
plan that you will see before you is completely based on the ordinance that was written for this
development and approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the planned unit
development ordinance. So the proposed building is located along the easterly portion of the site
and it will back up to Highway 41. The building is a one story building. It is proposed to have
potentially two tenants. The first tenant would occupy about 2,500 square feet. The second one
1,415. There is a, under the planned unit development ordinance the development is allowed to
have up to 70 percent hard surface coverage and what the applicant is proposing is below that.
67.9 percent. One of the things that we are able to accomplish with this development is, to
continue the sidewalk connections within this development this is going to allow for a separation
of pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic. Access to the site is off of Highway 41. You have
full access off of 41 and then a right in only off of Highway 7. One of the other things that needs
to be pointed out is the location of the trash enclosure. It is located southeast of the building but
what is also good about this location, there is approximately 6 foot drop between Highway 41
and this location. As such it won’t be visible as people are passing by it. Materials on the trash
enclosure will be identical to the building. There will be a retaining wall along the easterly side
of the site which is intended to be around 4 feet in height. That will help screen the drive thru.
Also the parking lot is located west of the building and the building will help screen the parking
lot as well. So the building elevations that you see before you, it has pronounced entrances. It
utilizes durable exterior materials. It exhibits articulation. There will be a tower along the
northerly portion of the site. It’s also where the drive thru pick-up window is located. The
proposed materials on the building are what you see along, on the left hand of the site. What we
did was we also pulled up the materials from the 7 and 41 Crossings retail building just to show
you a comparison. So majority of the materials are the same. However there is the introduction
of the cast stone on the tower so there will be materials that will compliment what is out there
but there will also be the addition of other materials that will allow this building to stand alone
and be different. Signage is permitted on two sides of the building only. The west and the east
elevations. A monument sign is also proposed along Highway 41. 6 feet in height. It will utilize
the same materials as the building. Roof top equipment will be screened via parapet walls. One
of the other things that we are gaining with this a patio. Outdoor seating area north of the site
and it will contain some bike racks and benches. We believe that this is a good development. It
will add a nice element to this development and we are recommending approval with conditions
outlined in the staff report and I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Anybody have any questions at this point? I guess what I would like to know is, have we
done a traffic study with regard to the potential number of expected visitors or customers for that
size of development?
Fauske: Chairman Aller, a traffic study was not included with this proposal since the zoning, the
land use didn’t really change with what was originally, what was originally approved. In
particular, one thing that did come up during the staff review and you’ll note in the conditions of
approval was the location of the pedestrian crossing across the entrance. Upon review staff and
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
the applicant’s engineering consultant have been in discussions as far as where that should be
placed so that we can try to provide the safest crossing possible for pedestrians.
Aller: Anything else? Everybody familiar with the reports and the material so we hear from the
applicant at this point if the applicant wants to come forward. Welcome sir. If you could state
your name and address and representation.
Ken Henk: Good evening. My name is Ken Henk. I’m with Paster Properties. Up until 2
weeks ago we were Paster Enterprises and we recently changed our name. I reside in Eden
Prairie. 15386 Village Woods Drive. Paster Properties, Paster Enterprises started in 1948.
We’ve been in business for more than 65 years. We own, manage and develop retail shopping
centers primarily. Some of our projects that were built in 1950’s are still in the portfolio so
we’re glad to be a part of the Chanhassen community. We take pride in being a good corporate
citizen in the communities where we have shopping centers. We purchased this property in July
of this year. The Walgreens building itself was purchased by another party in I believe in April
of this year and like I said we’re glad now to be a part of Chanhassen. We’re looking at adding a
building similar to the one that was approved in 2008 with the addition of the drive thru. Brady
Bosselman with Sambatek, our engineering consultant is also with me this evening. We’ve both
reviewed all of the comments from the staff report. We’re in agreement with it. There’s a
couple things that need to be worked out and we know we can accomplish that and we stand both
of us for any questions you may have. Thank you.
Aller: Great, thank you. Anything? The report’s fairly complete. I guess the, the big concern I
have in reading the report is there’s the school right next door. It’s kind of a good thing and a
bad thing at the same time because you have a lot of traffic there. You have the possibility then
for parents to bring their kids over and eat or shop or do whatever while there’s soccer going on
and tennis going on and those things or before and after school but at the same time I want to
make sure that the kids are safe so, what kind of thoughts have you given to that?
Ken Henk: That’s a very good question. I’m trying to think if we have a similar situation at any
of our other properties. I’m sure we do. It’s something we’re going to have to look into. Look
into further. Two of the people that work for the company, their kids play at those soccer fields
down there on 41 and they’re well aware of those as well and we’ll certainly address those
issues.
Aller: Great, thank you. Based on the responses or presentation, any other questions? None?
Okay, thank you sir. Anyone wishing to come up and make a comment either for or against the
item can do so at this time. I’ll open the public hearing portion of the presentation. Seeing no
one come forward I’ll close the public hearing portion of the item and we’ll go to commissioner
comments and discussion.
Tennyson: Looks very nice.
Hokkanen: Very familiar with the property so.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
Aller: Yep. The materials and it looks like they’re taking, due attention to traffic and safety and
snow removal and those issues and the nice thing about this is we have a PUD so it does give us
the ability to control some of those items to what we want so, rather than just taking something
that fits the commercial zoning in and of itself. So with that any other discussion? Or I’ll
entertain a motion if someone wants to make a motion.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion.
Aller: Mr. Undestad.
Undestad: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve a
rezoning of 5.02 acres from Neighborhood Business District to Planned Unit Development and a
site plan review for the construction of a 3,915 square foot single level retail building with a
drive thru serving a restaurant on 5.2 acres of property located at 2401 Highway 7 and the
adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Tennyson: I’ll second.
Aller: And I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Take to a vote.
Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends the City Council approve a rezoning of 5.02 acres from Neighborhood
Business District (BN) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), and a site plan review for the
construction of a 3,915 square foot single level retail building with a drive thru serving a
restaurant on 5.02 acres of property located at 2401 Highway 7, Planning Case 2014-35 as
shown in plans dated received October 17, 2014 and subject to the following conditions
and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
A. Site Plan.
Environmental Resource Conditions:
1.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the existing tree and shrubs in the north
landscape peninsula removed and replaced with an overstory tree and shrubs. A revised
landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval.
Building Official Conditions:
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 greater than four feet high require a building permit and must be designed by
a professional engineer registered in the state of Minnesota.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
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 Conditions:
1.Topographic plans must be revised to show the benchmark used for the survey.
2.The plans shall show locations proposed for stockpile areas.
3.A soils report shall be submitted to staff indicating soil conditions and permeability.
4.The distance between the southern building corners and the back of curb must be a minimum
of five feet for two-way pedestrian traffic.
5.The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured-
in-place concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties and timber.
6.The plan must be revised to meet Chanhassen Code for standard parking spaces: 9 feet wide
and 18 feet long.
7.The plan must show a single-unit truck turning movements on the drive-thru and a passenger
vehicle using the exit bump-out.
8.The developer’s engineer will work with staff on the locations, markings and signage for
pedestrian crossings.
9.Painted crosswalks shall be installed per the MN Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices.
10.ADA pedestrian ramps must be constructed on both sides of all crosswalks shown in the site
plan.
11.The applicant must demonstrate that the biofiltration feature is functioning per design and, in
the event it is not, must provide a plan for restoring the designed functions and implement the
necessary changes.
12.The applicant must provide an operations and maintenance (O&M) plan for the biofiltration
feature. This O&M shall include a schedule of inspections, inspection forms and a method of
communicating the findings and required maintenance to the city.
Planning Conditions:
1.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views.
2.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. Signs shall be limited to the east
and west elevations.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
3.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.
4.A photometrics plan shall be prepared for the site. 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.
5.Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of rezoning the property to Planned
Unit Development.
A.Rezoning
1.Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and
design standards.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
TH
610 WEST 96 STREET: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES IN EXCESS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON APPROXIMATELY 4.5
ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) AND LOCATED AT
TH
610 WEST 96 STREET. APPLICANT/OWNER: ROBERT AND CHRISTIN
BOECKER, PLANNING CASE 2014-33.
Aanenson: Before he starts I did want to point out that we did receive some additional
information that was handed out to all the commissioners so, the applicant may address it but
otherwise if there’s questions to staff we’d be happy to answer that at the end of the presentation.
Aller: Great and for those watching at home I did look at the update and it’s been on the website
since this afternoon as well so it’s there for your use and your perusal.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. That was my first material we did hand
out the material that was included today. It contains a petition, a letter and an alternative design
for this project. I would point out that I showed our stable person the alternative design and they
said that that would not work because it’s, for a stable you need to have an enclosed structure so
just for informational purposes. The applicant are Robert and Christin Boecker. The property is
th
located at 610 West 96 Street. This is just north of Pioneer Trail and west of the Great Plains
th
Boulevard, Highway 101. It’s the second property on the south side of West 96 Street as you
come into this development. This property is guided in the city’s Comprehensive Plan for
residential low density uses. That means densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre or in suburban
standards about third acre lots. Currently it’s, depending on the number, 4.28 to 4.49 acres in
size. The property is in the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Service Area so it could receive urban
services at any time. However it is dependent on the development of the property to the
northwest to serve this with additional sewer and water services. The property is zoned A2,
Agricultural Estate District. In this City’s parlance that’s really a holding category. It preserves
rural character but it doesn’t, it limits the types of uses that can be there and the minimum lot
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
size is at 2 ½ acres per lot. The City’s Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate preserving
agricultural uses within the community in the long term. However we do support in greater
Carver County the preservation of agricultural uses in western Carver County. The south half of
this property is in an existing wetland. The property owner’s requesting a variance to construct a
38.5 foot by 48 foot horse shelter adjacent, expansion on an existing building as well as a 11 by
24 foot day shelter to the south of the second existing building on the property. This would be a
total of 14,818 square feet of accessory structures on the property. I should point out on the first
page the property, the 13,818 square feet is the variance request from the 1,000 square foot
accessory structure so. Section 20-904 of the City Code limits accessory structures to 1,000
square feet in the A2, RR, RSF, RLM and R-4 Districts. This ordinance was adopted in May,
2007. The City amended the accessory structures to limit the 1,000 square foot city wide so it
applies to all these properties throughout the community, not to just this area. This was, an
amendment was in response to contractor’s purchasing these large lots with accessory structures
or large lots and building accessory structures to run contracting businesses out of them and
turning the accessory structures into business operations. However city code does not permit the
use of accessory structures for a business use. It’s for personal and private uses only.
Agricultural buildings existing on property that are about 12,760 square foot of accessory
buildings. Agricultural buildings and uses are limited to those uses directly related to
agricultural businesses. Under State Statute agricultural buildings are designed, constructed and
used to house farm implements, livestock or agricultural produce or products. They’re not for
any other use so if you want an Ag designation you have to meet that criteria. Additionally you
have to have at least 10 acres of contiguous land use for agricultural purposes which is
cultivation, raising of livestock, things, a fruit farm, things like that. And finally if you have less
than 10 acres it has to be used exclusively for agricultural purposes and intensely used for
agricultural purposes so it should be cultivated. And that’s the only way that you’re able to
maintain or receive the agricultural exemption for agricultural buildings. On this property there
are 4 existing accessory buildings. The first one permitted in 1986 was a 24 by 40 square foot
garage next to the building. That shows up on this map as 1. Number 2 is a 48 by 72 foot
building that the applicant is proposing to expand as part of this application. The third one is a
48 by 100 square foot steel arch building. That’s on the south end of the property. And the
fourth building is a building that was constructed and we cannot find a building permit on file for
that structure. This area has had a history of properties coming in for requests to variances to the
1,000 square foot requirement. The existing property, the property immediately to the west
received a variance for a 2,560 square foot accessory structure and then there’s 1,800 square foot
a little way down the road from that. There was a small one off of Homestead Lane approved
and then there was one that was denied and then the property owner actually withdrew his
th
request for the variance at the end of West 96 Street. Part of staff’s concern with approval of
this variance application is with the kind, the character of the neighborhood that would be
created and maintained out here. While this property is guided for redevelopment in the future at
suburban densities, the continuation of these large buildings would provide an impetus to not
make that change possible or feasible in the future. The concern originates from the possibility
that large accessory structures are used in conjunction with home occupations. Home
occupations are intended to be conducted out of a residence and maintain a residential
appearance. When the operations are moved into accessory structures they become common
causes of complaints by neighbors. They often create excess parking, traffic and noise. Staff is
concerned that the property would be sold in the future. It may be purchased by a person with
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
the intentions of operating a home occupation out of the accessory structure. Staff further
believes that the use is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. And
then basically the architecture would continue the use of the materials that are on the existing
structure. Here’s a picture, they did begin the building of this expansion in the future. The City
issued a stop work order and told them they needed to come in through the variance process to
construct that building. Here’s a close up on the expansion area. And this is the existing storage
building on the south end of the property. This is the quote, agricultural building that was built
without a permit. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request and directing to the
applicant to demolish the expansion area and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Aller: Anyone have any questions at this point?
Weick: I do.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: Thanks. Just a clarification on this 20-904. The accessory structure. It said they’re not
to exceed 1,000 square feet. Does it say anything about the number of 1,000 square foot?
Generous: No, it would be cumulative so they could have four 250 square foot accessory.
Weick: But not four 1,000 square foot.
Generous: Correct.
Weick: Okay. I just wanted that clarification. Thank you.
Aller: Okay, would the, hearing no other questions. Oh, Commissioner Campion.
Campion: One question…so prior to 2007 was there any requirement on the accessory structure
sizes?
Generous: Only, Mr. Chairman. Only as far as you could only have 20 percent site coverage
and you had to meet setbacks.
Campion: Okay.
Aller: Any additional questions? Hearing none we’ll go ahead and hear from the applicant.
Welcome sir. If you could state your name and address for the record that’d be great.
Robert Boecker: I am Robert Boecker. The applicant. I don’t even know where to begin. This
process, it just seems that it’s so geared to not help the resident that you guys all represent.
Myself. There’s nothing we’re trying to pull over. We’ve got a very well laid out plan for what
we want to do. We think we’ve articulated it through there that what the structure will be used
for and I guess I just the whole process of dealing with staff on this. I don’t feel that in any way
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
the City would like to help approve or do any type of project like this because I happen to own a
property that’s guided differently than, I’m going to say it. There’s an agenda for my property
other than what I have. And when I bought the property in 1997 it was so that I could have
storage structures for my classic cars. My snowmobiles. My motorcycles and to be able to have
animals. All right here in Chanhassen. It’s kind of the dream to be able to do that but I feel that
since we’re being guided differently that we’re being pushed out and not allowed to do these
things. Saying that what we’re doing will not fit the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. How would this
building existing on my property affect that plan? Bob says it because then no one would want
to buy it because there’s a building already there. What if I wanted to just take the structure and
turn it into a house? When we can so do so. When the utilities are there. Maybe that’s a use for
it so then there’s no reason that the building can’t be there and have use in the future in the way
that our land is being guided. So there’s so many options that are not even talked about here.
And as to the businesses, staff has never once asked me what I do for a living. Never once did
you ask me that. But the report says I own a landscape company. I haven’t landscaped in 8
years but yet that’s what the staff says that I do for a living. Never once did we get an interview
where you asked me any of the questions to any of the points that are in here and I think that’s
sad. And I just feel like this is all geared against us, the landowners so. One thing that the staff
didn’t put out was the, or talk anything about was the alternative option. Do you all have that in
front of you? Because part of the issue is that they feel that they won’t be able to control what
the structure’s used for so my wife and I talked. We changed the plan so that the building itself
is totally transparent. You can see directly through the building any side that you were standing
on by simply removing portions of the siding. Leaving the structure intact so does that all make
sense when you look at those plans? Okay. Now you’re saying that Carol Dunsmore says that
that then cannot be used as a stable? Is that what you said Bob?
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, if you could have the applicant address the Chair and then direct the staff
with the questions I’d, I think that’d be helpful.
Aller: Why don’t we go ahead, that’d be great.
Robert Boecker: So if I have a question of staff.
Aller: You should address me and then we’ll get it answered.
Robert Boecker: Okay. Alright. Andrew.
Aanenson: If you want to put this over here…
Robert Boecker: Oh, okay. Oh I thought you said they were all going to get a copy.
Aanenson: They do…
Aller: But anybody.
Robert Boecker: Okay, so I can point at it and then you can see.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
Aanenson: Yeah.
Robert Boecker: Okay. Alright. As we talked about you can see that here, this façade would be
Highway 101 would be right here. So without any doors on this side you can see directly into
the structure. On the reverse side of that structure would be the west. This one here. By
removing this whole section here you would be able to stand here, or from Highway 101 look
directly through the building and know exactly what’s in the building. So the use of the structure
is totally transparent. That’s why we’re proposing this to kind of put that issue to rest. As far as
putting horses in there, could I have Andrew clarify whether or not the City inspector, Carol
Dunsmore said that horses could not be stabled in a structure.
Aller: That’s what I believe was stated, is that correct?
Generous: Yes. When I showed her this plan she said that the structure must be enclosed for the
shelter for the horses.
Robert Boecker: So inside of this structure, can the two horse stalls themselves be enclosed?
Aller: If you know Bob, I don’t know.
Generous: I’m not sure.
Aller: I wouldn’t know without asking her.
Robert Boecker: So as a requirement when Carol would do the inspection, part of the
requirement would be that the horse stalls themselves would need to be enclosed which would
not be an issue to enclose them within the structure.
Aller: Although wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of having it open? If you have enclosures.
Robert Boecker: No because the horses will have their own structure to keep them from the
elements. The biggest issue is that you want this structure, the canopy structure so that you can
put your hay and your tack and all your feed in there and keep that dry. The biggest issue with
staff says well you’ve got other buildings. Why don’t you just go ahead and put the horses in the
other buildings. My other buildings have classic cars in them. Classic motorcycles in them. I
am not going to bring feed, hay, things that are going to bring rodents next to those cars. There’s
a reason I have them in there so. Just look at my notes here. At the time in the ordinance
amendment it was decided that the discussions, after the discussions the request for accessory
structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a legitimate agricultural
use. I believe this is a legitimate agricultural use to house our horses, hay, tack and one other
thing we would also like to store in there is our horse trailer. We’re planning on getting a 4 place
trailer with a bunk. That’s a lot of money for a trailer that I don’t want sitting outside but I was
informed by staff that I could not store that trailer inside of this building because it’s personal
property. Are my horses not personal property? Can they go in the structure? So these are the
types of what I’m getting from staff when I’m trying to work through this and it’s just, it’s very
frustrating. The overhead door sizes were in question in here. First of all they were designed
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
that way to match the other doors so that the building was uniform. Second, I asked staff what
the average height of a horse trailer was with a hay rack on top. They didn’t know. My doors
are 11 feet on this. They are not super tall doors but it will be 10 feet to the top of the hay rack
so it will fit. Personal property. Just for the City’s record I will address the hoop house. The
hoop house was constructed in 2006. It’s a non-permanent structure. We didn’t actually realize
at the time that we would need a permit for the hoop house so that’s why there is no application
for it. The hoop house. Complaints. Staff said that there would be, this type of property and
these buildings will bring up more complaints and I was wondering if staff has an actual
complaint that was directed towards my property or caused by my property in any, because of
any of my buildings or anything that I have.
Aller: There is none in the report right now. Let me ask Bob, are we aware of any right now?
Generous: Not that I’m aware of. Not for this specific property. We’ve had it for other
properties.
Aller: In general, okay.
Robert Boecker: Okay. The 10 acre exemption. The other thing that I wanted, I had a
supplement that I had put in there was the City’s, that top one right there. If you guys have this.
This is the zoning permit. You guys all have a copy of this? If you read through this, what does
it take to get a zoning permit and what do you need a zoning permit for? Very last item on the
list is agricultural buildings so when we looked at this to build our agricultural horse shed we
assumed that we would be able to, and reading through this it makes it sound very easy to go in
and we’ll get a zoning permit because it’s an ag building. So that’s what we assumed. Nowhere
on here, which I would think this would be a great place to put, that you must have 10 acres to
have an agricultural building. None of us knew that as homeowners that we needed 10 acres.
That we live on agricultural land but cannot own an agricultural building. I don’t get that and
that’s really something that should have been on this page if this is where I’m going to to find
out what I can and cannot do. All variance requests are automatically denied by staff. So from
the first day I went in to start working on this I was informed that no matter what, it doesn’t
matter what the findings are, it will be denied. Or that’s what the request will be, to be denied.
Once again it’s, there’s a frustration there that the city I live in doesn’t feel like they want to help
us in any way to do this other than to figure out how can we not let this happen. That’s the only
feeling you get and that’s once again frustrating. And along those lines if I have to come in, in
front of a committee that also views the same guide, guided plan for my property, how is that not
a conflict of interest for that party to be able to decide what I do on my land. It’s out there. It’s
guided. My land is guided differently than it was when I bought the land and in 2007 we know
that changed. That’s going to be the last issue that I’m going to bring up is that in 2007 these
changes were made. How was I informed that that was going to happen? Does the council know
how that happened?
Aller: I’m sure there were noticed hearings.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
Robert Boecker: There was a public notice in the Chan Villager to tell us about it. Does
everybody agree that is the best way to contact? How many homeowners are there that are
affected by this? Are there 500? 100? Just a guess. Let’s just throw a guess out there.
Aanenson: Well it’d be pretty much the whole southern part of the city. It’s every, anything
that’s zoned residential. This applies to anybody that has residentially zoned property so it’s,
which we have almost 9,000 homes in the city. Those are ones that have properties on them so
it’s the entire city that is residentially guided.
Robert Boecker: And something like this that affects, we all agree this affects the value of our
property immensely. The 2007 decision affects our property value immensely. Do we agree on
that?
Aller: I don’t have enough facts to say I agree or not.
Robert Boecker: Well, I’m going to put it out there that it affects us immensely and if we’re not
people that read the Chan Villager then we miss something that obviously affects a lot of us and I
would venture to say if we sent out that, if we did do a mailer that in 2007 and put it out to vote,
that should be changed. Should it stay as what it was voted on in 2007 or should it go back to
what it was? I’m going to guess I’m going to know what that vote will come back as because
people, it’s getting to the point where the, we’re all being cookie cuttered and you can’t look at
every single property the same and that’s basically what’s being done here and so that’s why
we’re up here. We’re asking, look at our property. It is special. We are bordered by wetlands
on both sides. The only way our property is going to change when the sewer and water come in,
is if a developer comes in and buys us all out and grazes us all and the chances of that happening,
that’s not actually for the City to decide. That’s the market. The market’s going to decide
because if it’s there. If it’s worth it then it will happen but otherwise us having an addition like
this is not going to change that at all. And like I said if I wanted to decide to develop it, I’ll just
take this structure and turn it into a home and there should be no issue with that. So with that, do
you have any questions?
Aller: I do.
Robert Boecker: Yep.
Aller: I mean you said you read this thing about agricultural buildings and the zoning permits.
Why didn’t you go in and get a permit?
Robert Boecker: Why didn’t I go in and talk to them about a zoning permit?
Aller: Any permit.
Robert Boecker: Our plan was to go in and talk to them about it but we had already started the
process of trying to get all the numbers together of what this was going to mean for us to do this
project and we had a window to get in. We took it and we thought this would be no big deal and
it’s obviously a big deal.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
Aller: Okay. And then you said nobody asked you. I’ll ask you, what do you do for a living?
Robert Boecker: I am actually a reclaimed wood broker. I buy reclaimed lumber. Salvaged
lumber and I ship it all over the United States and I resale so I’m basically a wholesaler.
Aller: Is it your intention to store that lumber on this property?
Robert Boecker: No. We ship directly from our site. Wherever I source it at, we pay another
company to do the actual removal. It gets prepped and then it gets shipped to the site. So I do
have an in-home office that I work out of and that’s where I do all my business.
Aller: And then these other businesses, Boecker Properties, LLC.
Robert Boecker: That is, when my wife used to be in mortgages and we owned multiple
investment properties and we put all our investment properties under our LLC so that LLC is
actually still sitting there. When the market tanked we sold those properties but it’s sitting there
in case we ever decide to jump back. Back into that.
Aller: And then Devaan-Sellers.
Robert Boecker: Devaan-Sellers and.
Aller: And Cheap Thrills.
Robert Boecker: Cheap Thrills is I collect motorcycles. I have multiple motorcycles and I have
two friends that actually have motorcycles and equipment at my house and we actually set those
up so that we could purchase parts because we can’t just go in and get special pricing. So they’re
basically shell companies set up so that we can get the pricing that we want on the parts.
Aller: So you’re buying and selling parts out of your residence?
Robert Boecker: No, we restore bikes. So but that’s not to say that parts don’t get sold. When I
restore a bike I’ll sell it, everything off of it that I don’t re-use so whether, if you look at that as a
business that I’m doing that for business purposes. It’s the same as if I’m working on truck.
Take a fender off. Put a new one on and put that fender on Craig’s List. Am I running a
business? So.
Aller: I would think so.
Robert Boecker: If I sell an old fender off of a truck that I fixed and I put it on Craig’s List and
sold it?
Aller: It depends on how many you’re selling.
Robert Boecker: I’m doing that one truck so it’s.
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
Aller: Okay, so for that one part you’re incorporating? I mean that’s what I’m having a hard
time.
Robert Boecker: No, no, no, no, no.
Aller: Is that the Secretary of State lists these as working LLC’s at your residence.
Robert Boecker: As LLC’s. Correct and you need.
Aller: With the place of business listed as your residence and with a manager by the name of
Eric Devaan.
Robert Boecker: Yes, who is my friend who races and the whole, what I just said was that in
order to purchase parts at wholesale prices you need that entity set up. Otherwise they will not
set you up. Those are set up for that reason so that we can purchase those parts.
Aller: And the bikes that the parts go on are in your shed.
Robert Boecker: A collection and raced, yes.
Aller: Okay.
Robert Boecker: And crashed and replaced again.
Aller: Alright. Any other questions from anyone else at this point?
Undestad: Just one here.
Aller: Sure.
Undestad: Yeah, the four buildings, the out buildings you have, two of them are.
Robert Boecker: The first building that they talked about, we don’t have a garage attached to our
house so the first one is a detached, three car garage so as far as I’m concerned that’s all, that’s
our everyday driver cars.
Undestad: So that’s number 1 up there?
Robert Boecker: Yeah. Yeah, so that’d be number 1.
Undestad: Okay.
Robert Boecker: Yep. Well we’re doing the numbers so if you put up the other one with the
numbers that will be, there. So the number 1.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
Undestad: Is your garage.
Robert Boecker: That’s our regular garage and we park our cars in every day. Number 2 is the
one that we are proposing to add onto and that’s where you saw the pictures of the bigger doors
and the alone door is where I work on whatever equipment breaks down. Whatever I’m working
on at the time. The other bay next to it is where I store all motorcycles. Everything that has to
do with that is in that spot. The hoop house has my unrestored cars. Unrestored snowmobiles.
No. That’s the hoop house. That’s all the unrestored items that and extra stuff that I may need
because if that, you know if it collapses or whatever. And then the next structure, if Bob goes to
that, that’s where my nice products are. My nice cars and my motor coach too.
Undestad: So you don’t use any of these for agricultural right now? Four buildings.
Robert Boecker: No. No, I can’t grow on my land. I can’t do anything like that so, and when
they were permitted they were permitted for personal storage. Not as agricultural buildings.
This is the only one that we’ve applied for as an agricultural building.
Undestad: Okay.
Robert Boecker: Anything else?
Aller: Questions?
Hokkanen: Can you clarify the 10 acres zoning? What was that?
Aanenson: That’s for agricultural purposes. That’s the farming component. I mean you can
have a horse stable on less than that.
Hokkanen: That’s what I thought.
Aanenson: So we do allow certain animals to be housed so for 10 acres would be if you had
something more, if you wanted sheep or something like that but to have a horse stable you can
have less than the 10 acres.
Hokkanen: That’s what I thought.
Robert Boecker: I had just one more thing then. Along with Mark asking about the different
sheds. Let’s just take the property right next door to me. Riegert who did get a variance
approved. Let’s say I bought their house. It does have an attached two car garage and I decide I
want to have horses. So I put up a 1,000 square foot structure. No big deal. That all goes
through. Now my wife and I and my 2 kids are into snowmobiling. We all go out and buy brand
new sleds. Put them on our four place trailer. I cannot build a building to put that in. I cannot
put them in my horse structure. My horses. My horse trailer. My feed is taking up that 1,000
square feet so I would live on 5 acres where I can have those 2 horses but I can’t have anywhere
to put anything, if I have any type of hobby, there’s nowhere for those items to go. Where does
staff suggest I put those?
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
Undestad: Can’t that be in an attached though? Right I mean you can.
Aanenson: Absolutely, if it’s attached to the principle structure then it’s not considered an
accessory structure. Some people do have 5 car garages that are attached…
Robert Boecker: Well we’re looking at the property right next door to me with, we’re only 155
feet wide. There would be no room to add that on. That wouldn’t work. So if I attach this
structure instead of to the pole barn, if I attach it to my house, this would have been acceptable?
Aller: What are the setbacks?
Generous: If it’s not an accessory structure, if it’s part of the principle structure. And then the
setbacks are 50 feet on the front…
Robert Boecker: That’s interesting. Obviously I’m not going to put horses attached to my house
but.
Aanenson: And I’m not sure what the building code would be on that then too. I’m assuming it
would be different standards for construction if it’s attached to the principle structure.
Robert Boecker: But do you see how this is, obviously we’re unique. Our area is unique. It
should be treated unique. It shouldn’t just be cookie cutter 1,000 square feet so. Any other
questions?
Aller: No. Thank you.
Robert Boecker: Thank you.
Aller: At this time I’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to come
forward speaking for or against this item can do so at this time. No one wishing to come
forward? No one coming forward, we’re going to close the public hearing portion. Oh. Sir
come on up. State your name and address for the record.
th
Greg Falkner: Greg Falkner, 720 West 96 Street. Right down the road from the Boeckers.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Falkner.
Greg Falkner: Yes. I have been here before you. You may remember my case and you know it
is frustrating and stuff and I see where Bob’s going with this. I would like to say one thing and
that is, a lot of have been here before 2007 and these rules didn’t apply at that time so it’s really
hard for us to swallow it now and if you just understand that, it is different. I mean if I had
known what I know now back then I may have made some different choices but you know we’re
dealing with the 2007 as much as we can. I’d like to say we are grandfathered in but clearly
we’re not but I mean we did have different opinions of our property until this 2007 so you know
I understand where you’re coming and I understand where Bob’s coming but if you guys could
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
just give that a little bit of thought you know because it is real unique property. When I found it
in ’96, I mean I was ecstatic and I’m still ecstatic about it. I love it. It’s a way of life for us you
know and I treat it well and everybody else on the street does too and we all get along very well
and I don’t think that anybody has really made too many complaints in our neighborhood against
anybody in the neighborhood because I’ve never heard of anything and it is a dead end street but
you know I just don’t know if what Bob’s proposing is really going to make a difference at this
point. If it is going to be turned into something different in the future where somebody buys us
all out, which would be extremely difficult since I mean I just built my house 4 years ago. I have
a hard time believing that somebody’s going to come in and give me what I want for it at this
point so. And there is swamp on both sides. There is swamp. They’re going to have to deal
with swamp because that is what’s on both sides of the street so thank you.
Aller: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to speak either for or against the item? Seeing no
one come forward, close the public hearing. I’ll open it for commissioner comments.
Discussion.
Aanenson: Chair can I just add one thing?
Aller: Yes.
Aanenson: This isn’t Bob’s position paper. Bob wrote the staff report. This is the staff’s
recommendation so as a planning Community Development Director, I read this. The City
Manager reads the staff report so this is coming up through the staff’s recommendation.
Aller: I think we all understand that.
Aanenson: Okay.
Aller: Thank you for pointing that out though for the public because they may not have realized
it at this point so with that we’ll open it up for discussion. Comments. My first blush reaction
quite frankly was he didn’t ask for permission. He didn’t ask for a permit. Take it down. I think
he made some valid arguments. I think the community is interested in knowing where it goes so
I’d like to hear some discussion on those other factors to determine whether or not a variance
would be appropriate under these circumstances.
Weick: When in doubt I tend to, and I am in doubt, but I do tend to go to the Findings of Fact as
a guide and to see are there any conditions of the variance that are met or are not met and they,
the Findings of Fact list 6 of those one doesn’t apply. One is met and in my opinion four are not
under this, even with all the considerations and everything we’ve heard today and so that, I mean
that tends to guide my thinking when there’s 4 of 6 that are not, that don’t appear in my opinion
to be met for a variance.
Aller: Any other comments?
Hokkanen: I do want to point out, these are very unique properties and I do feel, I understand
their frustration. I understand the whole 2007 change. I wasn’t here at that time so I can’t
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
comment on that but if you purchase your home or your property with certain expectations you
think that’s going to go through for the whole time that you own your property no matter what
that case may be so I understand that frustration on that part. How it applies in this particular
situation I kind of agree we’re missing some components here. Just my but I do understand their
frustration and it is a very unique area.
Aller: I agree.
Hokkanen: Of the city. I mean it’s, that’s part of what makes Chanhassen a great place to live.
Aller: And this isn’t the first one in this area that we’ve had to deal with.
Hokkanen: No. No.
Aller: Just on a much smaller scale where people were looking just to expand by a couple
hundred feet here and there.
Hokkanen: Right.
Aller: And to expand an already existing use as opposed to creating a new use.
Hokkanen: I agree with that, yeah.
Aller: Any additional comments? Questions. Concerns.
Undestad: Yeah I don’t know. I’m kind of in the same boat is how do you pick and choose?
You know I mean yeah, it’s tough because again it’s, if you’ve got acreage you want to do that
kind of stuff but you know, I don’t know how we can pluck one out here and say yes and one
here and say no and you know at what point does, and again we talked about this before. Getting
all these buildings going up at the same time so, you know and I think that if we had somebody
here that didn’t have any buildings on there and everybody else did, well then we look at the one
in there. Four buildings, he’s got a lot of square footage on there and none of them are for
agricultural right now but I guess I’d have to agree with the Findings of Fact on this too.
Campion: I had one question. That building number 4. The one where we, there wasn’t a
history of the permit. When was that built?
Robert Boecker: 2006. And it does meet setbacks.
Aller: Further?
Yusuf: I just have one question.
Aller: Sure.
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
Yusuf: We understand your hardship and the situation that you’re faced with. I’m just
wondering whether staff has made any recommendations or alternate proposals that might help
to fit the need or is there a way to maximize the use of the existing structure so you could
accomplish your goal without the add on?
Generous: Commissioner. No, we didn’t recommend any alternatives if you will. We did ask if
he could use the existing structures for his stable.
Yusuf: And the response was?
Generous: Was no, he wanted to keep it separate with the hay and other critters possibly getting
into it and so he has a separate unit if you will for that operation.
Aller: Which is I think what his testimony was and I think it’s a very understandable one. If
you’re rebuilding and creating things then you don’t necessarily want mice and other things
going into your component so I think the big question is, does it meet the requirements of the
variance and does it fulfill any of the exemptions for purposes of agricultural use.
Tennyson: It doesn’t meet the requirements of a variance in general. That’s the problem.
Robert Boecker: Could you read those out?
Tennyson: I’m referring to the same, same information that Commissioner Weick was talking
about. The six things in the Findings of Fact starting on page 1 of Findings of Fact and going (a)
through (f). Those are the legal requirements. Trying to find a Finding that meets those legal
requirements of a variance including practical difficulties which is sometimes called a hardship.
And the one that didn’t apply was related to earth sheltered construction. These Findings are
what we need to go to when we try to look at a variance. Does it meet the requirements of the
variance because a variance is a really unique thing itself. Even though the property is unique,
so is a variance and that’s the problem for us.
Robert Boecker: Can I just, I guess I’d have to say the uniqueness as we talk to the property I
believe also makes it that much tougher for Findings to support you know doing what we’re
looking to do in our area. I don’t want to be on your side either. Trying to figure out a why. As
residents purchasing in 1997, purchased under a certain assumption that this is where I’m going
to grow up. This is probably where I’ll retire and when I sell this house I’m probably going to
Florida and that’s changed now and really I had no way to not let, it happened. 2007 happened.
Even if you had mailed each one of us, I don’t know for sure you know what the outcome. I
guess none of us would have known but I think it’s to the point now where too many things. As
you say there’s more and more of this coming up and this happening where it should be pointing
out that you know, this is actually a problem. What was done in 2007, maybe we shouldn’t have
cookie cuttered everything and just treat, and just say everything has to match this because we
are Chanhassen. We are unique and there’s a reason that we want to keep and have all these
areas. I believe having us looking the same in 2030 and our neighborhood look the way it does
now, the way we keep it would be great. But I don’t think staff agrees.
19
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
Aller: Any additional comments?
Undestad: Well I mean just to comment on that. You know I think part of the, when we go
through rezoning and then we look at these comp plans and things like that. Now as the city
grows it does change and it does need to have changes made and the only way that we can put
those out is in the newspaper. Public notifications and things and that’s when we need
everybody to come back in and say, wait a minute. I’m not sure I like that. If everybody, if they
don’t read the paper they don’t get the notice. Maybe the neighbors don’t tell them but it’s really
our only way of getting that out there. And that’s why we do the publications so changes have to
be made. We send them out and you know when we adjust a zoning it gets adjusted and that’s
what we’ve got to live with for a while here so.
Aller: Anything further? I’ll entertain a motion.
Weick: I will.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: The Planning Commission denies the variance request. Direct the applicant to demolish
the horse shelter, quote unquote, expansion and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Tennyson: I’ll second.
Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Weick moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the accessory structure variance request, directs
the demolition of the “horse shelter” expansion and adopts the attached Findings of Fact
and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Aller: Moving on to item 3. We have a request.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, if I may. Just for clarification for the applicant or anybody else following.
Anybody can appeal this decision.
Aller: Yes, that’s correct.
Aanenson: Within 4 days.
Aller: Within 4 days in writing.
th
Aanenson: And if it is appealed it would be set for the December 8 City Council meeting.
20
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
Aller: December 8, 2014.
Aanenson: Correct.
Aller: Okay, so now we’re moving onto item number 3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MEDICAL ARTS BUILDINGS SIGNAGE: REQUEST FOR SIGN PLAN
AMENDMENT ON .90 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED CENTRAL BUSINESS
TH
DISTRICT (CBD) AND LOCATED AT 470 AND 480 WEST 78 STREET.
APPLICANT: JONATHAN ADAM, SILVERSTONE REALTY & DEVELOPMENT,
LLC. OWNER: KEN TALLE, CHANHASSEN MEDICAL ARTS, LP/CHANHASSEN
MEDICAL ARTS II, LLC. PLANNING CASE 2014-34:
Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The subject site is located at
th
the northwest corner of the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and West 78 Street. Brief
background on the buildings that we have out there. In 1989 the City Council approved the
preliminary plat and site plan application for the Medical Arts Building. It was approved in two
phases. Phases 1 and 2 and Phase 1 was completed in 1990. And Phase 2 in ’92. Part of the site
plan approval for those two buildings was a sign plan for the overall site. The City wanted to
ensure that there was a detailed plan in place. This is, this was a fairly large building for
Chanhassen at the time and they just needed to ensure that things didn’t get out of hand and signs
weren’t all over the building. The one thing that we need to point out is at the time when those
buildings were built the main occupant was Ridgeview Medical and there were a couple of other
large users within the building. The developer at the time requested that the sign band facing
th
78 as well as the parking lot be limited in how many signs it would include. Since then
Ridgeview, as you know built their own building and moved to the corner of Highway 5 and
Powers Boulevard. This building, these spaces started to get occupied by smaller businesses but
quite a few more within the building and we’re often faced with a request to put up a sign along
the building and within the sign band. Unfortunately when we look at the criteria that was
approved for the Medical Arts Building, our answer always has to be no. And we got to a point
where we picked up the phone and contacted the management company and said please request
an amendment to this criteria. This is not something that you find anywhere else in the city. All
of the buildings usually you will see a sign band and this is where you will have your signage so
what staff is recommending is we remove the limit on the number of signs. One of them is
currently the Phase 1 building is limited to 10 signs. Five on each side and the second one is
limited to 14, 7 on each side. Instead what we have is a sign band that is limited to 2 feet 2
inches and it doesn’t matter how many signs you can fit within that band as long as it meets the
criteria set in the, in this application then that’s fine. And just on another topic, I did do the math
for the overall area of the façade of the building and the percentage that will be occupied by
signage and it is way below what is permitted by ordinance so with that staff is recommending
that we remove the language limiting the number of signs on each face. Everything else within
that development will remain as is. And I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: How many tenants are we expecting to be in the facility?
21
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
Al-Jaff: When we spoke to the applicant, I mean they said what do you think if you limited it to
12? It’s a matter of how many they can fit on the façade and it’s really limited, they will only be
able to potentially fit 10 signs. I don’t believe they can fit in 12. And it depends on.
Aller: My concern is if it comes, something that looks like a gaudy, 10 different styles and
shapes and names in there and it becomes a detraction to what would otherwise be a nice
building.
Al-Jaff: You won’t be able to, the space is limited. There is a separation between each
individual letter. There is also, you want the separation between one sign and the other so when
you incorporate these, I tried to do the math to figure out how many signs you could potentially
put in there but then it depends on the length of the name of a business. Maybe you’ll have one
business that will just put up a logo and nothing else so I didn’t think that I can give you a
number. A solid number.
Aller: Nope but I’m glad that we’ve examined that and you’ve thought it through because that
was my first blush. Oh-oh, we’re going to have a bunch of signage in there and it’s going to
detract so any other questions?
Hokkanen: You don’t have a closer up picture of the signs do you? I mean I’m really familiar
with the buildings so I know what you’re talking about and I agree with you.
Aanenson: I think the most recent one would be the MacPhail.
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Aanenson: Which is a nice sign.
Al-Jaff: Correct and that was located on Phase 1. And all the signs that you see there, it is
letters that are 24 inches and in compliance with ordinance.
Aller: And this doesn’t change any of the other conditions that would be placed on it by
ordinance.
Al-Jaff: None. None.
Aller: Any additional questions? Comments. Okay. We’ll hear the applicant. Would the
applicant like to step forward? Welcome sir.
Jonathan Adam: Thanks. I’m Jonathan Adam, 165 Louisic Court, Chaska, Minnesota. I’m with
Silverstone Realty. I’m the leasing agent for the two buildings and I’m also here representing
the owner tonight. Thanks for the time. As Sharmeen mentioned we ran into this problem
recently when we started switching over these buildings to become more multi-tenant than single
tenant related. Especially at the 470 building which is a two story building. That sign
th
requirement only limited us to 5 signs on the 78 Street side which became a big problem which
we weren’t fully aware of because this dates back to 1990. So going forward what we have been
22
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
doing is managing the tenants based on size requirements so if you have a larger tenant like
MacPhail or Health Source which are our two biggest tenants currently in the building, we’ve
reserved the canopy kind of areas for them so we’re not just giving everybody the opportunity to
have a sign so we do limit that in some ways so we won’t have you know just a plaster of signs
everywhere. We do reserve them for the larger tenants so I think that’s all I really have. If you
have any questions I’d be happy to answer them.
Aller: No, I think we’re looking good. Thank you sir.
Jonathan Adam: Okay.
Aller: Okay. We’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward, speak either for
or against this item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public
hearing and open it up for comments.
Aller: My concern’s been addressed. It’s being properly managed for basically market driven
and aesthetics and everything else hasn’t changed so.
Hokkanen: Well and thank you to staff for being proactive and asking the owner.
Aller: So with that unless anyone has anything else I’ll entertain a motion.
Hokkanen: I will. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the
attached sign plan for the Medical Arts Buildings, Phase I and II, located on Lots 1 and 2, Block
1, Medical Arts Addition.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none we’ll go to the
vote.
Hokkanen moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the attached Sign Plan Criteria for Medical Arts Buildings Phase I and II
located on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Medical Arts Addition; and adoption of the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 21, 2014 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS.
Aller: At this point I’d like to congratulate Commissioner Campion on his election results and
his moving to the City Council for the next 4 years and I’d like to thank him for his work here on
23
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
this commission and look forward to providing you with a lot more input to think about when
you’re at the council meetings on Monday nights so congratulations.
Campion: Thank you Commission Aller. Or Chairman Aller.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
th
Aanenson: I have a couple updates if that’s alright. City Council action from October 27. We
didn’t have a meeting, first meeting in November for election so I’ll give you that update. The
Bentz Farm, the final plat was approved as was the Chanhassen Specialty Grocery. And then on
th
Monday, November 10, the Shops of Chanhassen, which is Noodles was also approved and that
was the consent for the final plat so we’re working on putting all those things together. They’re
going to start construction here in the spring and then also the request for a variance on Kolbow
was approved and then the Twin Cities Self Storage was also approved.
Aller: And just to remind everybody, that variance application was a 3-3 split decision.
Aanenson: Yes.
Aller: At the Planning Commission and went up and received approval so.
Aanenson: Yes. I also wanted to give you an update on future agenda items. This will be our
last formal meeting together as a group until next year, minus one. Soon to be Councilman
nd
Campion will not be with us but I do want to remind you, since we’re not meeting on the 2, not
to let you go until after the holidays. We have a joint meeting with the City Council and there’s
two action items that I wanted to make sure the Planning Commission was involved with
because they’re big issues affecting the course of the city. The first one would be the final report
on the 61 corridor study. We are starting the Comprehensive Plan update and so you’ll see that
final report and then we’ll talk to you a little bit about where we are in that process so you’ll be
able to see that and the study came out really nice. I think you’ll be impressed with kind of the,
just the compilation of everything that was put together in that study and that included the utility
study that we looked at there. As we move forward there. That’s another area as we think about
some of these properties that change. Change is hard. There’s properties down there that, when
you come into the city probably don’t best represent you’re coming into Chanhassen so how do
you effectively encourage some change in those areas so we do have some businesses down
there that have run a certain way and over time probably not going to sustain that. So we’ll see
how that works out. We’re not going to be down there right away but we’ll be working on that.
And the other one is we’ll be talking about the southwest corner of Lyman and Powers
Boulevard. That property is under control of a developer who wishes to go forward with a
project so we’ll talk about that. That will be a big work item for the Planning Commission and
the City Council to review that and review the Environmental Assessment documents that go
with that so that will be kind of a big work program for the Planning Commission the first part of
the year and then ultimately you’ll send your recommendations up to the City Council so I think
that will be two big projects so it will be nice to have both groups together to hear the same
presentations so everybody’s kind of on board as we start the new year. So with that, we do
know there’s a couple other projects that are already penciled in for January. One we know that
24
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 18, 2014
there’s a senior housing project coming in and they are having a neighborhood meeting at the
th
Legion on November 24 so those notices should be going out to those residents. I think it’s
about 150 units and so, three stories so get some neighborhood input on that and then also we
had a variance that was tabled and instead of meeting just on that one item, and they weren’t
th
going to do anything anyways, they gave us a letter moving that to January 6.
Aller: Okay.
Aanenson: And then the other item we do have penciled in and that won’t be until March is that
the Learning Center on the site at Galpin and, that’s a daycare on Galpin and Highway 5. So that
project will be coming too. There’s a couple other things that are out there floating. They
haven’t kind of got everything put together yet but we do anticipate quite a few other projects
coming forward so we’ll have a busy schedule.
Aller: Great. I’d just like to, on behalf of the commission thank staff for it’s hard work and
looking at these items before they get here. For instance holding those meetings with the public.
Trying to get the information out there so that it’s very transparent as we move forward and we
try to encourage the uses that are the highest and best uses of the properties for the homeowner
so thank you.
Aanenson: Thank you.
Aller: I’ll entertain a motion.
Undestad 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 8:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
25