Loading...
PC 2015 05 19 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Maryam Yusuf, John Tietz, and Nancy Madsen MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Hokkanen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: ND BEEHIVE 2 ADDITION, PLANNING CASE 2015-10: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6440 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) TO MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-8); REPLAT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6330 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD AND 6440 HAZELTINE ND BOULEVARD INTO TWO LOTS (BEEHIVE HOME 2 ADDITION) WITH VARIANCES; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 10,700 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO A CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT FACILITY (BEEHIVE HOMES), WITH VARIANCES. APPLICANT: TYLER STEVENS. OWNERS: TYLER STEVENS AND BENJAMIN & HIDEKO GOWEN. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. As you stated this is an application. The two applicants are Tyler Stevens and Mr. Gowen and there’s three actions. Three actions tonight that you’ll be considering. One is the rezoning of .94 acres of property from residential single family to mixed medium density residential. A subdivision and preliminary plat and a site plan review of a 10,700 square foot continuing care retirement facility. So the two subject properties, so some it includes a site plan is 6330 Hazeltine Boulevard and the other one is 6440 and that’s Mr. Gowen’s property, and I wanted to point out Mr. Gowen’s here tonight. He’s had that property since 1937 and so I know he’s had a lot of hostas and is a very careful steward of his property so we’ve had a lot of people look at this property. I think the fact that Mr. Stevens was able to work with them is a testimony to how he feels about the project that’s next to him. This property, actually the last time I saw Mr. Gowen was actually when we did our Comprehensive Plan update. We were looking at that commercial center to the north and looking at some transitional zoning there and knowing that it’d probably be difficult to do single family residential, we guided the property to the north as either office or medium density residential and as you know that came in as a continuing care. Went to the medium density and then now this piece that Mr. Gowen has is also medium density so we’re taking a portion of that to change to medium density. So again the rezoning is just a portion of the property. It’s .94 acres. That’s what’s shown in yellow there so again it’s consistent with the rezoning. Has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the subject site is. Now we’re not rezoning the entire piece of property. It’s Mr. Gowen’s intent to stay in his home on the Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 property and the rest of it so we’ll go through it in a little bit more detail and Assistant City Engineer Alyson Fauske will talk a little bit more about kind of the remaining property but what we’d like to do is as a part of the application what we call is a ghost plat showing how that property could lay out in the future. So again this is the .94 that you’ll be looking at that will be attached as the subdivision to the property to the north for the construction of an additional continuing care or as an expansion. Aller: Kate, and just for clarification. Even though we’re looking at a ghost plat we’re not taking any action on that. Aanenson: Thank you, yes. That would have to come back through another process. Another public hearing. Thank you for that clarification. So again this would be the subdivision replat. You can see Lot 1 will now be the expansion of BeeHive so it will be all one lot so we’re adding a portion of that lot. That’s the replat to the existing lot. Lot 2 will remain and that will have Mr. Gowen’s home and other, there’s some out buildings there and then you can see to the right, this would be the ghost plat in this area here. Again that would have to come back through the process to show but we wanted to make sure with the subdivision or the attachment of that lot that there’s viability of the rest of the property that it does make some sense. Obviously there’s tweaks to it and I know we’ll talk a little bit more detail on that. So this again would be the ghost plat. Part of with this plat is to make sure that you know with right now with the two driveways, we had a right-in/right-out. It’s being used as a full service as you get close to 41. Excuse me, Highway 7 and the middle school. A lot of turn movements there at certain times of the day. The new driveway then will be located T’ing into Minnetonka Middle School West and that existing driveway will go away. So with this subdivision there’s also a variance for having existing structures off of a private drive, and I’ll show you that here in a minute. So this is a little bit more detailed. Little bit better illustration of how this lays out. So this is the existing building. The proposed addition with 17 more beds. So the existing driveway will come out. Let’s see if I can make this show up a little bit better. A little red dot maybe. The existing driveway would come out and move down here. It’s our recommendation too that the sign come down so that it’s easier for emergency vehicles or entering guests, that they can find the main entrance. So the private street comes in in the fact that we’re serving two properties off of a private drive so that does require a variance so that the Findings of Fact are in there for the private drive. Again we think it makes sense. Ultimately this could become a public street when Mr. Gowen chooses to sell his home, whenever that may be but that was why we showed the ghost plat is how we can lay out the rest of that property. Could it be developed in the future and again we kind of went with a twin home or it could be a smaller lot too coming in in the future. So is there any questions so far on that part of it? Okay I’ll show you a little bit more detail then. Just showing you the floor plan and I know when we got questions, I’ll go back a little bit saying how does this work? It’s actually going to be one building via building code that it’s connected through a breezeway and that’s between the blue and the yellow how they’re connected. You can see that on the floor plan so it will function as one building but the connection of the breezeway. So the architecture, you can see what’s out there today. It’s just continuing compliment of that architectural feature. So you can see the existing building and the proposed addition and again more detail on the addition. There’s a lot more detail in the staff report. I wasn’t going to go through a lot of it. I’m assuming most of you are pretty familiar with it but it does meet the city code as far as all the architectural standards and then the parking. One of the 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 things I didn’t show on here is there was some concern when people move in and out there’s some activities that are higher so they are providing additional parking with the new phase and then providing that in good access for both buildings. Here’s the material board. Again similar to what’s already out there and the same style. I’ll let Alyson Fauske go through some of the drainage on this site and some of the other engineering issues. Fauske: Thank you Kate. As you can see on this slide, this shows the existing, the post development drainage patterns with the area outlined in red showing the existing building that goes to a pond that was constructed with that development and then the area outlined in yellow that goes over land to a pond located in the Reed’s Orchard Subdivision in this outlot here. So what the developer is proposing, the area that we just took a look at is essentially this orange area. Or pardon me is this area to the north here. The new area, drainage areas are shown in here with the proposed addition to the BeeHive development. The area in orange would go to a filtration basin. The area in red to the existing pond. The area in yellow to the MnDOT right-of- way and the area in blue, that would go over land and to the west. So the proposed filtration basin that goes to, from the previous, that goes to the west is in this location and actually even just today staff met with the applicant and the applicant’s engineer to go over some of the concerns that staff had raised with the stormwater report making sure for one that the existing pond would have capacity for the additional drainage from this site. Another thing that has posed a little bit of a design constraint is that the, the storm event that one uses to model has changed. They’ve updated those rain event models so we’re working with the developer so that they can get the drainage plan changed and altered so that it can meet the requirements from the City and the Watershed District. As Kate had mentioned, excuse me. A traffic analysis was done with this development and one of the reasons being is that we are doing a new connection to the Trunk Highway system removing 3 existing accesses and putting one that T’s up with the middle school west. This was always the intention for looking at the development of this area. Phase 1 did not allow for that since the owner did not have rights to that connection point but now they’re at an opportunity where they can do so. Staff and MnDOT I think all involved believe that this is an improvement to the corridor. It will still allow full access to the site so that you can have both right turns and left turns into the site but as part of the analysis staff working with the developer to get the ghost plat so that they could get a reasonable idea of what the ultimate number of units in a feature development would be so that when they took a look at the function of that access to 41, that the estimated trip generation would be in the ballpark of what you would ultimately see at that intersection so we’re not just looking at this development by itself but we’re also looking forward into the future and making an estimate on that. So based on those assumptions the developer had a traffic engineer do a trip generation analysis for both the a.m. and p.m. peak and based on that analysis they determined that there would be no changes needed in the traffic control at that location so no signalized, there’d be no signal requirements there. Excuse me. Highway 41 traffic would have the right-of-way would be the right movement for northbound and southbound would not have a stop condition. Aller: Alyson, are you. Fauske: Certainly. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 Aller: Just ask a quick question. On that however should the conditions change in the future and it become desirable to have one, we can work with MnDOT and MnDOT can certainly come in and request or impose a stop light condition. Fauske: Certainly. MnDOT can certainly do that. It would be under MnDOT’s jurisdiction being that it is a state highway. This was always something that was anticipated in this corridor would be to have a T intersection at that, at the middle school. Aanenson: Alyson I was going to have you maybe mention the safe to school a little bit further to the north. We’ve got, looking at a trail, I didn’t show that. Maybe if you want to. So there is a proposed trail that connects to the north. To the existing building going north and then there is a control for crossing that street. Maybe if you want to just mention that too. Fauske: That’s correct. A couple, time has kind of gotten away from me. Two-three years ago or so and Mr. Stevens might have a better idea on the exact dates but some improvements were made to the Highway 41 corridor where there’s a pedestrian signal to allow pedestrians. It’s a push button access so that folks that are using the trail can go ahead and push that. It’s push activated. It’s then a lighted signal warning motorists that there’s a pedestrian crossing at that location. Traffic is to yield to the pedestrian so that was one of the intent was to provide a pedestrian access particularly for the middle school students that would be crossing Highway 41 so that they wouldn’t have to make the crossing at Highway 7. Aanenson: I think you just had one other slide Alyson. Fauske: In addition to getting some idea of how any proposed future subdivision would lay out on Lot 2, for traffic perspective. Staff also likes to take a look at how the layout would work for sanitary sewer service so again we’ve been working with the developer’s engineer to see if, how we would service this, any potential future development on this property sanitary sewer. The reason being the existing phase stubbed the sanitary sewer. It’s right here at this location so we’re taking a look to see if we continue extending this through here, if we would be able to get gravity sewer service to the most westerly lots within the ghost plat and one of the things that the developer’s engineer is taking a look at is some sanitary sewer that is to the northwest that is deeper than what we’re seeing at the existing proposed extension at this location. So those are parts of the process for getting things set up for having the foresight for any potential future development so that we, you know when the time comes when the property owner is ready to allow for development on the property that we kind of have a game plan and that we’ve looked forward and looked ahead to how we would service this with municipal utilities. Aanenson: Thank you. So I just want to say we put in the staff report too the landscaping plan. I didn’t share that with you. There are a couple tweaks that we have for conditions of approval in the staff report. We also have the compliance table in there. One of the things we talked about when this project came forward in 2012 is that it does allow for two stories. Even the office zoning and this application is for one story. Highly articulate building. We think is really nice reflective in that transitional zone from the buffer from a state highway to lower density residential so it does meet all those requirements including the parking. So with that the staff is recommending approval. Again there’s 3 motions that go with that so we’ve included in your 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 staff report the Findings of Fact for the variance and for the subdivision so I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Aller: Does anybody have any questions at this point? Madsen: I do. I just have a question about the private road. I just want to verify that the parameters of a private road would ensure sufficient access for emergency vehicles or an ambulance. Aanenson: Yes. The Fire Marshal does look at the plans for these and it’s servicing right now. Actually I think one of the benefits of this private street, it’s going to actually give better access in turn movements. Right now at certain peak hours, especially when school is unloading and loading, some of those turn movements are difficult so yes it will meet those requirements. Madsen: Thank you. Weick: I had. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Two questions pretty quick. It mentions hard cover. Not to exceed 35 percent and this is 33. Can you just clarify what the hard cover is calculated off of? Is it original Lot 1? New Lot 1 or Lot 1 plus Lot 2? I mean how is that calculated? Aanenson: I would have to go back and look at the staff report. Weick: Okay. Aanenson: It may be combined because they’re, it’s going to be one lot. If you look into the future. Weick: Like the new Lot 1. Aanenson: It’d be Lot 1, yes. Weick: Okay. Aanenson: That’s my assumption, yes. Yeah it’s both. Weick: Okay, thank you. Oh and then a question on the drainage. Just were there any concerns over the existing home and out buildings as far as where some of those drainage patterns might be? Fauske: The existing facility or? Weick: The single. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 Aanenson: Mr. Gowen’s home. Weick: Yeah. Fauske: Not that I’m aware of but it’s a single family home so it’s impervious surface is relatively small compared to what. Weick: I just mean the actual flow of it. If there was water. Aanenson: Water going to that house. Weick: Going to the house. Fauske: Not that I’m aware of. Weick: Okay. I didn’t know if anything was noticed. Okay. Aller: Okay, and for those present and for those at home watching. Tietz: Andrew. Aller: I just want to remind everyone that these packets and the reports that we’re provided to read and review are on the City website and you’re certainly welcome to take a look at those. And if you do that before the meetings you can kind of read along with us or afterwards if you want to check out things before the City Council meeting, everything is on the website so. Tietz: Andrew? Aller: Mr. Tietz. Tietz: Yeah Alyson, I have a question regarding the stormwater retention. Fauske: Yes. Tietz: The new parcel for BeeHive, if the stormwater is in that, the west corner on the low end of that corner, how does that impact any future plans for the ghost plan? Are they, would they be stand alone projects so this is stormwater just for BeeHive and it would not be available for future development on Mr. Gowen’s property? Fauske: That’s an excellent question Commissioner Tietz. Currently the proposal is to provide infiltration for the proposed development on Lot 1. That being said the applicant can certainly take this opportunity to size it appropriately based on what they’re anticipating is the ultimate development of the site. But as far as the standards for this development it would just be for lot, as it currently stands. The proposed. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 Tietz: So potentially the ghost plan for Lot 2 would be encumbered by an additional ponding area for infiltration. Fauske: Correct. If we look at this slide shows it quite nicely. If we look at this potential ghost plat, the developer’s engineer has identified this as a potential stormwater management area so any development proposal on Lot 2 would be subject to the surface water management requirements at that time. It’s not grandfathered in under this because it would be under a new subdivision scenario so it would be, the new rules would apply to that subdivision and stormwater management. Tietz: Okay. And the west property, proposed west property line on Lot 1 and the ghost plan differ. Go back to the one that shows the drainage plan that’s squared off and this one is angled. Is there just a. Fauske: That’s an excellent question. Tietz: There you go. Aanenson: I think the ghost plat is probably more illustrative. Just showing how that would work. Tietz: That’s what I, that’s what I figured but it doesn’t affect this…area. Aanenson: Absolutely, yeah. Tietz: Okay, thank you. Aller: Any additional questions? Okay. At this point in time if the applicant would like to come forward and make any presentation or comments, that would be wonderful. Tyler Stevens: Hello and good evening. My name is Tyler Stevens. I’m the applicant and my address is 6505 Fox Hollow Court. As you know about 2 years ago, 2 ½. Well 2012 I was here for the first round and my wife and I live in Chanhassen and when we decided to do this, you know started thinking about this whole idea 4-5 years ago, the reason we wanted to do it in Chanhassen was because we thought not only, we knew it would be an advantageous thing for the city. It’s, the building looks, was designed to look and feel like a home and I think we’ve accomplished that. And one of the main reasons for the idea of doing this addition is to have, it’s going to allow us to have 6,000 square feet more activity space for the residents to use. We are adding bedrooms but we’re adding a significant amount of activity space really because the idea of BeeHive is kind of based on the premise that it’s suppose to look, feel and act like a home and the only way of doing that is to you know bring in kids and you know outside activities and things like that. So you guys have any questions for me? I guess I can address Mr. Tietz, about the lot line adjustment. The original plan with the ghost plat when we first brought this to the City and they wanted to see a ghost plat. That was kind of like first phase, months and months ago so that angle was very, very preliminary in the beginning. And then once we hired the civil firm to kind of really start tightening up these plans, then they decided to do the 90 degree right 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 off the existing property line and kind of simplify it a little bit. But the ghost plat was originally just more conceptual as to what could come. Aller: And again the only thing that you’re asking us tonight is to work with the smaller. Tyler Stevens: Yep, just the Lot 1. We’re going to be, we’re breaking off the, just under the acre and just change the zoning and the variance for the addition. Aller: Alright. Tyler Stevens: But the remaining 6 acres would stay the same. Aller: Any additional questions for Mr. Tietz? Seeing none, thank you so much. Tyler Stevens: Thank you. Aller: At this point in time I’ll open the public hearing portion of this item so anyone wishing to speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. We’d ask you to come up to the podium and state your name and address. th Gary Reed: I’m Gary Reed, 2461 West 64 Street. Aller: Welcome Mr. Reed. Gary Reed: Yeah, anyway we’re just happy on how this development has been working out for the neighborhood and for, you know because we knew it quite a while ago that it was up for rezoning at some point and so this is probably the best thing that can happen to that property for the rest of the neighborhood. Anyway we’ll be more affected by the ghost plat, whatever that might be because our property butts into the west, southwest corner of that property there and actually I have probably an extra lot on my lot there that could be incorporated into that if it need be so anyway we’re just happy. Aller: And Mr. Reed I just wanted to let you know we did receive your correspondence which is in the packet and we understand that in there you stated that you heard nothing but good things about BeeHive and it’s operation and again you’re very pleased that they’re there. Gary Reed: My wife emails all the neighborhood girls. Jan Reed: Well I’ll make a comment. Gary Reed: This is my wife Jan. Same address. Aller: Welcome. Jan Reed: We have a really great, tight knit neighborhood. Actually it’s extended out. We have 26 women that at different amounts get together every month for a little gathering and so 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 everybody’s been interested in the proposal. Our property. What was going to happen and I’ve just heard nothing but wonderful comments about Tyler. The development but Tyler as a person as how considerate he’s been to the neighbors and especially now how considerate he’s been to Ben and we just think Tyler’s a wonderful person and we feel anything that he proposes in the future will be with great consideration for the neighborhood so I just wanted to let you know what the talk is among all the women is that it’s just been a great project. Aller: Great, thank you so much. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I may. I don’t know if you know, maybe for our new commissioners too. So the Reeds is Reeds Orchard Ridge but they also owned the drive in where the first phase went in so there was a drive in there and some other buildings so they were the owners. Gary Reed: Reeds Drive In. Aanenson: Yes, I remember that. Yes. Yes. Aller: I missed that one. Mr. Gowen, welcome. Ben Gowen: My name is Ben Gowen, 6440 Hazeltine. I’m very much in favor of this proposal. I know that time will change and I will have to change and I’m getting old and I’m ready. I think it’s a good project. Good deal. Aller: Well it’s good to see you again. Thank you for your comments. Any additional comments? Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing portion and open it to discussion by the commissioners. Weick: For fear of offending the staff that puts together awesome reports, I will say that the most important people that I personally hear from are the neighbors in the area and although there’s, there’s a lot of business that we take care of. It’s always I listen the closest to how you feel about projects. It is the most important voice for us and for the City and so thank you for taking the time to come out and talk about this property and this development and this developer. It is very important I think to all of us what you think and what you want for your area so thank you. Aller: Additional comments? Yusuf: …Commissioner Weick’s point I’d acquiesce. Aller: Great, and it’s great to hear about a neighborhood that works together and has a community feel to it because that’s what Chanhassen’s all about. We love to hear about that so again thank you for coming forward. I’ll entertain a motion at this time. Yusuf: I’ll make the motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve rezoning of property from Single Family Residential District to Mixed Medium Density Residential District. Preliminary plats to replat 8.69 acres into two lots with a variance 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 for a private street. And the site plan review for 10,700 square foot addition to a continuing care retirement facility, BeeHive Homes and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Yusuf, a second by Commissioner Madsen, any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approvePlanning Case #2015-10 to rezone 0.9 acres of property from RSF, Single Family Residential District, to R-8, Mixed Medium-Density Residential for Lot 1, nd Block 1, BeeHive Home 2 Addition subdivision contingent upon final plat approval, as shown in plans dated received April 17, 2015, and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Yusuf moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat with a variance to allow a private street for Planning nd Case 2015-10 for BeeHive Home 2 Addition as shown in plans dated received April 17, 2015, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Engineering Conditions: 1.All conveyances, drainage ways and stormwater treatment devices must be included within a drainage and utility easement as required in Section 18-76 (c). 2.The perimeter drainage and utility easement must be vacated and re-platted to border the new property lines. 3.The proposed drainage and utility easement over the proposed sanitary sewer must be widened to facilitate the utility maintenance and excavation of the pipe. 4.The portion of the private driveway that would be shared for access will be considered a private street under the city code. It must, therefore, have a 7-ton design and a joint access and maintenance agreement must be created between the two parcels. 5.The private street will need a name labeled on the plans. Name suggestions shall be submitted to the City for approval. 6.The drive aisle of the parking lot must be revised to provide 26 feet wide from face of curb. 7.The new trunk lines will be owned and maintained by the City. The services connecting to the buildings will be private. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 8.The sanitary sewer pipe under the new section of driveway is set at a 5.02% pitch. The grade on that pipe section shall be adjusted to a 0.50% slope to provide future gravity sewer to as much of the southern property as possible. 9.Plan and profile sheets are required for all publically-owned utilities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Yusuf moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan consisting of a 10,700 square-foot addition continuing care retirement facility, Planning Case 2015-10 for BeeHive Homes as shown in plans dated received April 17, 2015, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Planning Conditions: 1.The existing monument sign shall be moved to the new access into the site to clearly define the access for emergency vehicles. 2.Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the rezoning, subdivision and vacation of drainage and utility easement. 3.All rooftop equipment must be screened. Building Official Conditions: 1.The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A “Code Record” is required (Code Record schematic plans may be same scale as architectural). For “Code Record” information go to MN Dept. of Labor and Industry: http://www.dli.mn.gov/CCLD/PlanConstruction.asp 2.Retaining walls in excess of 48 inches in height must be designed by a professional structural engineer licensed in the state of Minnesota. 3.A demolition permit is required for removal of any existing structures. 4.The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 5.An accessible route must be provided to buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common-use facilities. 6.All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. 7.Accessible units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 8.The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures. In particular, occupancy group, type of construction and allowable area issues must be addressed. Fire Marshal Conditions: 1. “No Parking Fire Lane” signs and yellow-painted curb will be required on the new driveway. Only one side of the driveway will be posted “No Parking.” Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. Engineering Conditions: 1.A stable conveyance must be provided to the proposed infiltration basin identified as 5P on the drainage plan. 2.The applicant must create a HydroCAD model for the entire site using data from Atlas 14 and demonstrate the pond created with the first phase can accommodate additional drainage. 3.The applicant must model the conveyance to the infiltration basin as a reach and demonstrate that the grass filter swale meets the MN Stormwater Manual guidelines for pretreatment. 4.The applicant is required to meet a water quality volume of one (1) inch runoff from all new impervious surface. 5.The applicant must provide a water quality model, as required by Section 19-144 of the city code, showing that there is a 60% reduction in TP and 90% reduction in TSS as required by city code and the NPDES permits. 6.The plan set shall include a detail specific to each bioretention feature which is consistent with the MN Stormwater Manual. 7.Plugs and live plants shall be used in lieu of seed and a planting schedule and maintenance plan shall be developed and submitted for city approvals and record retention for both bioretention features. 8.The stormwater management plan shall treat the runoff from the proposed drive. 9.The applicant shall prepare and submit to the City for approval a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit which shall contain all required elements as listed in Parts III and IV of the permit. 10.The plans shall indicate that six (6) inches of topsoil are to be placed on all disturbed areas to be vegetated and a stockpile area shall be indicated on the plan set. 11.A final stabilization plan shall be prepared for the site. 12.The plans shall show locations proposed for stockpile areas. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 13.A soils report shall be submitted to staff indicating soil conditions and permeability. 14.The grading plans must be revised to show the first floor elevations of adjacent lots. 15.Spot elevations must also be shown to illustrate the drainage pattern near the existing home’s driveway. 16.The proposed grades on the site shall be no greater than 3:1. 17.The engineer shall coordinate with MnDOT and incorporate their comments. 18.The radius of the driveway curves must be shown on the plan set. 19.The trail width shall be labeled on the plan set. 20.The plan shall be revised to reconstruct the trail further north to create a better connection. 21.The new addition is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 22.The developer’s engineer must incorporate the latest edition of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates into the plan set. Environmental Resource Conditions: 1.Install tree protection fencing around all preserved trees shown on grading plans. The fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activity and remain until site construction is completed. 2.Site plantings shall be increased to meet minimum bufferyard requirements. Plantings shall be located so as to soften direct views in areas where the proposed building is closest to property lines. 3.Bufferyard plantings shall be located on the west side of the entryway drive rather than on the east as proposed. 4.A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city showing proposed plantings adjacent to the entire parking area that limit direct views of the pavement and the vehicles. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: DAYCO CONCRETE CUP/SPA AMENDMENTS, PLANNING CASE 2015-11: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-02 ND SITE PLAN AGREEMENT 2001-05 TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND LOCATED AT 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 1850 LAKE DRIVE WEST (DAYCO CONCRETE). APPLICANT/OWNER: LDW PROPERTIES. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, Planning Commissioners. As you stated this is basically a re-do. The reason this came about, the City annually does inspections on all our Conditional Use Permits to determine compliance with the original conditions of approval. When we went out to DayCo Concrete this year we found that they were storing some of their excess equipment outside and so we worked with Mr. Brockpahler to come up with a solution. We looked at the original CUP and there was a condition in that that there be no outdoor storage. However under the planned unit development there was a clause that you could have outdoor storage if it was approved as part of the site plan. At the time I don’t know why we didn’t do this back in 2001 but he thought that all his equipment would fit inside his building. He’s been doing very well and is very busy and so he has all this excess equipment that he needs to store and so we recommended that he come back through the process and amend both the site plan to show a storage area and the CUP to eliminate the prohibition against outdoor storage. And so that’s where we are tonight. This property is located at 1850 Lake Drive West. It’s at the end of Lake Drive, west of Audubon. It’s the last property on the north side. Just to the north of this is a railroad. Twin Cities and Western Railroad Line which is actually 10 feet higher than this property so it provides a perfect opportunity to screen the back yard of this site from other properties to the north. And to the west is the Bluff Creek corridor. It’s a dense area of wooded lands and then it drops down into the Bluff Creek which runs through that little valley down there. LDW Properties or DayCo Concrete are the applicants in this. They’re requesting an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan to allow screened outdoor storage which is located, and they’re proposing to locate this just to the north of the existing building. Everything behind there will be screened. And this, I thought I changed this number. No, that was, that was a history one there. The PUD was originally reviewed in 1991 and it was approved in 1993. This came through for site plan review in 2001 and was approved at that time. Additionally there’s another building pad on the south side of this building that in the future will come in for site plan review. The conditional use permit was for development within the Bluff Creek corridor and as part of that there was prohibition against outdoor storage because it wasn’t shown as part of their original site plan so, there we ran into problems so go to the next one. As I stated they’re looking at the north side of the building so from the cul-de-sac you can only see the very corner of this area and so it’s, under our ordinance you have to screen storage with either buildings or landscaping and one of the next slides will go into that. We asked that he provide us with a list of the equipment and materials that he was proposing out there. The only issue we had is to make sure that he didn’t provide any storage of any loose materials like dirt or that. That’s something that he says he’s not, he doesn’t plan on doing and he agreed to all the conditions of approval that we recommended so. And Terry is acceptable to this because this does drain right into the Bluff Creek corridor so. We did go out to the site and try to look at the view corridors into the back part of the site. This shows basically the cone of where you can potentially see back there and if we go to the next one, there’s actually a picture. We tried to show you know if you were looking what you would see and there’s just a small area and so as a condition of approval we’re recommending that they provide additional landscaping in this spot and work with the City Forester to come up with an adequate plan to make sure we get permanent screening in that one location. And the next slide basically shows that little area. There is some existing landscaping in there already so it would just be enhancing that. With that 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 staff is recommending approval of the amendment to the Site Plan and revise the Conditional Use Permit to allow screened outdoor storage and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Tietz: Yeah Bob, is there any security fencing proposed to screen, you know to, well security fencing I guess basically. It’s a pretty wide open site back there. Generous: Yes. Tietz: And if I had equipment and scaffold things tend to get legs sometimes. Generous: He hasn’t proposed that and that was actually one of the questions our Fire Marshal had. If they do put up a security fence they would need to have access to it but currently he’s not proposing any fencing. I think he believes that the equipment’s too heavy for people to move and plus he’s at the end of this long cul-de-sac that you go through so. Tietz: Okay, thanks. Aller: I was going to ask, just as clarification. What we’re doing here tonight is in reality living up to the spirit of the original CUP. This isn’t something that is a surprise to the City. Something where he was operating outside of what normally would have been done or was thought to have been done originally. Generous: No, we’re not operating outside of it. We knew he would have equipment there. It’s just, it’s gotten too big for him to be able to continue to store it all inside so. Now we’re just procedurally we have to. Aller: So the use hasn’t changed. The volume has changed. Generous: Right. Aanenson: And I just want to add too, because it was the Bluff Creek corridor. This is one of the first industrial parks that I think I worked on when I came here and one of the concerns was, you know because there’s a corridor the wildlife movement and the quality of water that we, you know he said that at some time in the future as Bob had mentioned they may expand so that was kind of our sensitivity in looking at what of materials being stored outside and how that’s being used. Just to make sure that the integrity of the creek is being maintained so we do allow outdoor storage with screening. We have that in industrial parks pretty common place. And there’s different types of screening so we look at it situationally. Not everybody has to secure their’s with a fence depending on what they have. Sometimes it’s most appropriate but in this circumstance because of the view shed it seemed to make a lot of sense and if he’s comfortable with the security he has there, there’s no requirement that it has to be fenced. That’s kind of how, we leave that up to the owner to make that decision but that’s a good question. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 Tietz: And just one more. Kate, you brought up when you mentioned the runoff or the future expansion. I noticed that that back area is all curb and guttered. Does that drain to that little wetland to the, what would it be? The northeast. Aanenson: Yes. Tietz: Not to the west so I didn’t look at the out flow from that curbed area but at least it’s retained now. It’s not just sheet drainage. Aanenson: Right. Exactly, and I think that’s similar to what we looked at at Powers Pointe. The new building that just opened up on Powers Boulevard. I mean they also abut the creek and so their drainage, they actually have an underground system that’s draining the opposite way to maintain it underneath the parking lot. Tietz: Okay, thanks. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Does the storage area allow for large pieces of tractor equipment and wooden pallets to be stored outside? I didn’t see them on the list. Generous: Well it would be because it’s part of the other materials that they have there. Madsen: Okay. Generous: He doesn’t intend to store the, actually store the block material outside because he likes that inside or it’s just in time he gets it and he wants it at the job site rather than at his facilities. Madsen: Thank you. Aller: And in looking at the packet he’s agreed to all the conditions? Generous: Yes. As you can see he didn’t, he liked it so well and he was happy that we came to the solution that he’s not here tonight. Aller: Any additional questions? Weick: Is there any concern over lost parking spaces? Whether it be just for their own employees or requirements? Generous: No because they’re over parked on this site and the future expansion is that whole area. He had proof of parking on here because he doesn’t have as many men as our ordinance requires that he provides parking for. Weick: Oh, okay. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 Aanenson: So if you look at there’s a future pad on this spot here and that’s kind of what we’re talking about. So if he was to come in and put a building on there, then we’d have to reassess, do both buildings. Are they whole? Right now Bob indicated they’re over parked so they should be fine. Good question. Aller: And if he wants to put up another structure it will come before us. Aanenson: Absolutely. Generous: Right and at that time we will address any stormwater issues for the southern part of the site. Aller: And that will be under the new guidelines? Generous: Yes. Aller: Any additional questions? Okay we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone wishing to come forward may do so at this time. This is your opportunity to speak either for or against an item that’s before us. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing and open it for commissioner discussion. Tietz: No questions. Aller: I think the, it’s a good solution because it’s living up to what we wanted to. The use in reality hasn’t changed. He’s comfortable with the security issues and I’m sure would bring that up if there had been problems and there obviously have been no reports of violations of the understanding of what the privacy was so I would be in favor of a motion at this time. Undestad: I’ll make a motion here. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council amend Site plan 2001-05 and revised Conditional Use Permit 2001-02 to allow screened outdoor storage at 1850 Lake Drive West subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: Having a motion, do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Commissioner Yusuf. Having a motion, future discussion. Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan amendments to allow screened outdoor 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 storage for LDW Properties, to be located on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center, as shown on the plans dated received April 17, 2015, subject to the following conditions: Planning 1.The Conditional Use Permit shall be restated to “outdoor storage is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan review.” 2.No unlicensed or inoperable vehicle/equipment shall be stored on the premises. 3.Outdoor storage is limited to the construction equipment outlined in this report. 4.The applicant shall work with city staff to complete full screening of the outdoor storage space through landscaping. Water Resources Coordinator 1.Materials shall be free of concrete. No cleaning or maintained of equipment can occur in this area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 21, 2015 as presented. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Aller: I guess I would just like to remind everybody that I believe we have one more upcoming th Mayor Is In on the 28 so feel free to come down and see Mayor Laufenburger and give him a piece of your mind on how things are going here in Chanhassen. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. th Aanenson: Thank you. On Monday, May 11 the City Council did hear the Children’s Learning center. They did table action to clarify the site plan conditions and the PUD so that is on for consent next Tuesday. That’s all I had that was on for that meeting. If I may Chair I’ll go onto our future items. Aller: Please. nd Aanenson: We do have a meeting on June 2. Two weeks from tonight and that will include an interim use permit for grading on, this is on the Holasek Greenhouse property so there’s someone looking forward, pursuing potential development there. Again that’s guided office industrial so you’ll see potentially something on like that. And then we do have a variance request for Lund’s Food Holdings. As you know Byerly’s and Lund’s have combined so their sign, their new sign 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 19, 2015 needs some relief to our current ordinance. As you know we did modify our ordinance but we never quite hit the target right on to meet everybody’s needs so that will be in before you too. th And then we are, right now as of June 16 we may not have any items in on that one but there’s th a couple projects that are out floating so I do anticipate July 7 that we’ll have a couple th applications in for that. Was there a variance that came in for the 16? Generous: There was a variance for an detached garage on Lake Minnewashta. th Aanenson: For the 16? Generous: Yes. th Aanenson: So we do have one item on for the 16 to clarify that. A variance. We may plug something else in on that so we’re not meeting, a discussion so we’re not. It might be something related to the Comprehensive Plan such as looking at some of the population projections or something else pretty exciting like that. So we will have one item on. Again if you look at the top up there, there are some projects floating around so we’ll see who lands on that. With that, oh the other thing is I think I mentioned this before. I think the parks commission recommended that we try to go in August for our tour. Our joint tour so we’re going to try to settle on a date hopefully before your next meeting so you can get that on the calendar. It seems like September it gets dark so early. We really have to hustle so if there’s anything of particular interest that the Planning Commission wants to make sure gets on the tour, you can shoot me an email. We’re in the process of our Comprehensive Plan update for the 61 corridor. We did receive approval from the. Generous: Community Development Committee. Aanenson: So then it goes to the full Met Council. th Generous: On the 27. Aanenson: Of this month so, by your next meeting we’ll let you know on that so things are progressing with the bridge and 101 so moving along there so that’s all I had Chair. Aller: Great, thank you so much. Any additional matters before us? Seeing none, I’d request a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 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 19