PC Minutes 2018 01 02Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
3. The delineated wetland edge required wetland buffer and structure setbacks shall be
shown on the building permit survey.
4. Wetland buffer signs shall be installed at the front building setbacks and at each turn in
the wetland buffer for a total of five signs prior to any construction.
5. Any impact to the wetland buffer shall be restored to the satisfaction of the City of
Chanhassen prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from review agencies with jurisdictional
authority.
All voted in favor, except Commissioner Weick who opposed, and the motion carried with
a vote of 4 to 1.
Aller: Motion carries.
TH
531 WEST 79 STREET – PANERA SITE PLAN REVIEW.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. The public hearing before.
Aller: If we’re going to have conversations can we take them outside please. Thank you. Please
proceed.
Generous: The public hearing before you is a site plan review for a Panera Bread restaurant on,
th
at 531 West 79 Street. Today is the public hearing. This goes to the City Council on January
nd
22. Panera LLC is the applicant. Chanhassen Inn is the property owner. This property is
th
located between West 79 Street and Highway 5. To the west of this site is a city owned
property with a storm water pond in it. To the east is Chick-fil-A restaurant which was recently
opened last year so there’s a joint access for both properties along the east side of this property
line. Chick-fil-A additionally has another driveway on the east side of their site. The property is
zoned business and highway services district. The request is for, to construct approximately a
4,500 square foot one story restaurant with a drive through and this has come up since the staff
report went out. They’re requesting a variance for the use of EIFS. Exterior insulating finishing
system as a primary material on the building. EIFS is similar to stucco but it’s a modular unit
that they use. The applicant from Panera wants to discuss that further. We did notice this for
variances so it’s something that the Planning Commission could review. The intent of the
business and highway services district is to provide for highway oriented commercial
development restricted to a low profile building. This building has a total height of 21 feet. It’s
one story so I believe it complies with that requirement. Fast food restaurants are a permitted use
in the BH district so the proposed use of the property would be consistent with our zoning.
Additionally they have joint cross access and cross parking easements with the property to the
east. As part of the Chick-fil-A development they actually built 13 more parking stalls than are
31
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
required under this use. The proposed development shows that they have 51 parking stalls on the
site. However our ordinance would require 56. With the cross parking arrangement they would
be in compliance with our ordinance which allows parking to be on addition, other properties if
it’s within 400 feet of the building and it’s considerably closer. Again it’s a 4,500 square foot
building. They comply with all the zoning requirements such as height and bulk so they meet all
the setback standards. They meet the building height. They meet, comply with the site coverage
so this is an instance where they do, they’re less than the 65 percent site coverage that is
permitted in the highway and business services district. As part of their storm water plan they
are providing an infiltration pond on the west and south side of the development. This is not
intended to continuously hold water but to allow it to be extracted. I’ll have engineering discuss
that any further. However it did create some problems as part of their landscaping. They don’t
meet the requirement, buffer yard replanting requirements for trees along the south property line.
Ordinance requires 12 trees. They provide 1 and so they’re 11 short. While we may not be able
to fit all of them in there we do believe that they can move closer to meeting that standard and I
did talk with the Water Resource Coordinator and there can be trees that are provided in the
bench of the storm water area so we would request that they work with our environmental
resource person to come up with the appropriate trees for that area. The buildings are pretty
much aligned with the existing restaurant to the east. Common driveway down the middle.
They have so much drive aisles on the south side of the building because they need to provide
two way operation and so that’s where the garbage trucks will go around and then back into that,
the garbage or trash enclosure which is located in the northwest corner. This is their trash
enclosure. Drive through wraps around from the north to the south side of the building. They do
comply with the stacking requirements that the City amended. At one time it was 6. We raised
that up to 12 and they do meet that standard. Exiting would again be through this common
driveway area. They are providing a pedestrian connection to the trail system on Highway 5.
We have proposed that they provide some bicycle racks adjacent to this so that it would be very
similar to what they did at the Chick-fil-A. It’s the most likely access point for anyone on a
th
bicycle to come along our trail and in since there any pedestrian accesses from West 79 Street.
th
There’s no sidewalk on West 79 Street. And this is the area that we want additional trees to be
incorporated. There are 5 overstory trees are required and they provided 1 and then some
understory trees. They have provided shrubs but that’s understory and we want something a
little bit bigger to help soften this site. Now this is where the report was different. Unfortunately
I was on vacation the first week it came in. The applicant’s architect was on vacation when I
came back so we couldn’t discuss it. They had submitted some information on two colored brick
building. However that was just to show some of the elements they wanted to incorporate to try
to meet our standards. All this area would be proposed as EIFS. City code permits only 15
percent of a wall area to be of EIFS material. If they were to do regular stucco they would be
permitted to do all this. Brick elements are included as a base and to help raise up the elevation.
If you notice on this wall, which is the north elevation they have a large expanse of blank walls.
As part of our condition we’re saying you need to revise that to provide an additional window
area. It could be either full or real glass and a lot of this, behind this is a kitchen area so I’d leave
it up to them to determine what’s the best alternative for that. This is the west side. Again they
have kitchen area and then some storage so I’m not sure if they could put real glass in but they
32
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
could provide some spandrel glass in there to help break up that expanse. This building is visible
from all 4 elevations. It’s very, it’s an entryway to our downtown area and we’re really
concerned that they meet our architectural standards. And then this is the west side of the
building as you see the only opening they have is a doorway and so they could provide additional
area for windows on this. Additionally they need to assure us that they’re going to be screening
any rooftop equipment that they have. They did try to provide a little bit in this elevation. This
is, they were starting to evolve on their architecture but this is the last thing I got from the
architect and then he went on vacation and so, but they, the roof line began to be varied as it was
going up. We got a large expanse of brick over the entry area. However again we’re still left
with those large expanses of blank walls and so we need them to correct that. Additionally their
plan sets show that they have signage on 4 sides of their building. Our City only permits it on
their street frontages. However we have allowed, they get 2 building elevations that have
windows on. We would work with them if they want to designate 2 different ones. Either the
north and east or the east and south or whatever rather than the north and south sides of the
building. However we, as part of this entrance area we do believe that additional articulation and
the roof treatment should be provided in this. I did hand out a revised conditions from the
planning department. We added a condition that says that we’d like, we want the applicant to
revise the elevations prior to it going to City Council for approval. Their revised building
elevations.
Aanenson: So Mr. Chair if I may. Sharmeen Al-Jaff actually started working on the
architecture. As you know she’s done, does a lot of the architecture in the core of downtown as
we kind of a changing of staffing level there for a little bit. This really isn’t far enough along as
we like to see so while we’re trying to keep it on track by saying changes, it’s nowhere near
where we’d like to see and I’m a little reticent of just saying well go ahead and you can fix it by
putting EIFS on the building so we’re hoping that the applicant in good faith is working with us
as we move towards Planning Commission so we’ve got good examples in the downtown core.
If you look across the street over on the other side of the Dakota Building. Where we’ve got
Smashburger and the like. There’s some nice articulation there. There’s some different
applications there.
Generous: Walgreen’s.
Aanenson: Walgreen’s so there are other building styles that we can look at for images and we’d
just like to hear from the applicant today that they’re willing to move in that direction.
Otherwise I would recommend tabling. We don’t want to do that. We want to keep it moving
for we just want to make sure that the architecture is where we want it as we move along so I just
want to make that comment. So as Bob noted we did add that condition of approval tonight so if
they’re amenable to that and can get that accomplished then we can stay on track.
Aller: And I guess any questions at this point in time for staff? Commissioner Randall.
Randall: Is the EIFS product, is that something that’s new, is that’s why we’ve limited it or?
33
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
Aller: It’s not new.
Generous: No, it’s not a new material. It’s been around a long time. However the City’s
concerned that if you put it at a lower elevation it is soft and you can poke it and so we wanted to
eliminate that. However it is really good if you want to do some architectural detailing.
Cornices or jut work or things like that because it’s formed in a factory and then they just install
it on the building.
Aanenson: Again our intention on that is it’s more of an accent material to give articulation,
yeah.
Aller: Great, Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I have a question about the parking easement and the sharing. The concern would be if
they want to share in that parking easement it’s likely that their busy times are the same times
and I’ve been there when it’s really busy at Chick-fil-A and I don’t know that there’s going to be
that extra parking for them. It’s just so difficult and crowded during those busy times so that
would be a concern.
Generous: Yeah, well we’d like to have the applicant address it but we felt that their employee
parking would be the farthest one away.
Madsen: Okay.
Generous: So I know that right now they’re providing some parking for the Holiday store or
they did, were doing that when they were under construction on their parking lot area so there is
some slack in that and it’s a lot of times our restaurants are really busy when they first start
opening and then they sort of slow down a little bit as they go forward.
Madsen: Okay.
Generous: And as a matter of fact as part of this whole thing we had the applicant submit a
traffic study and I’ll have Paul talk about that a little bit later. Shortly. The floor plan’s pretty
basic. However it did provide you know this is the south elevation along this wall and so you
have a bathroom so we know that we can’t put a glass window in there but a spandrel type
window on the outside would work with that and then you have the utility room that again glass
may not be appropriate but spandrel would and then along the south elevation, and then this is a
kitchen area which is in the northwest corner of the building. And then here’s the entrance. My
direction to the architect is how are we going to make this entrance more inviting so that they
come here rather than go over to Chick-fil-A. And so now we get to the trip generation
information if I can hand it over.
34
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
Aller: Great. Mr. Oehme.
Oehme: Mr. Generous, yep. So we did request that the developer produce a traffic study for this
development and look at surrounding traffic. The existing traffic and base their model on what
potentially we would see in the future so this graph, table shows you what the existing use is.
The hotel versus the proposed use for the fast food and what the increased potential trips would
be on a daily basis and on a peak hour timeframe so this would be your a.m. peak during your
breakfast time. Probably around 8:00 and then the p.m. peak would be around 5:00 or 6:00 in
the evening. Those would be the trips generated per hour so in total we’re looking at about 800,
th
a little over 800 new trips per day to this site off of 79 Street. The traffic, the table here shows
the trip generation comparisons. This is the level of service that traffic engineers use to gauge
the, you know how well traffic is moving through the area or intersections so this is basically
showing that each of the intersections of the points modeled are functioning at an acceptable
level of service A. However at certain legs of the intersections aren’t functioning as well as
th
some other legs so for example the 79 Street/Great Plains Boulevard intersection. The left turn
th
onto Great Plains from 79 Street is currently at a level of service F and in the future we’re
anticipating that that remain the same. And likewise these other intersections are basically
staying the same or dropping maybe one level of service from what it is currently today. We
typically try to remain at a level of service C if we can. Level of service F means that it’s not
completely you know accidents galore or anything like that. It’s just a delay that we’re
anticipating are longer than what we’d like to see these intersections or specific legs of the
intersection so if that’s helpful. And so with that information and the existing trips that are
generated, and I think the traffic study did include the Chick-fil-A traffic that is currently out
th
there today. The biggest concern again is the left turn out on 79 Street onto northbound Great
Plains Boulevard. That’s something that staff has requested that we look at a little bit more in
detail by the traffic engineer for the study. Give us some options. Look at other things that we
can do maybe to help alleviate that situation. I know one of the recommendations is to work
with MnDOT on trying to retime Great Plains Boulevard and Highway 5 intersections, especially
at that peak p.m. peak hour so those are kind of the strategies that we’re looking at generating.
However when you look at traffic you know people are going to go in the direction where they
feel most comfortable or where they think it will be the most expedient to get from point A to
th
point B so you know if for example you’re heading north off of 79 Street we would anticipate if
this exit here going north on Great Plains Boulevard is backed up, we anticipate a lot of traffic
would end up going onto Market Boulevard which is a free right which would be a little easier
th
movement and taking some of that congestion away from 79 Street and Great Plains Boulevard
so thereby kind of balancing out where the traffic would be going so I would say this traffic
study and our recommendations and our strategies that we’re looking at it’s still a work in
progress but it’s something that we’d like to have you know wrapped up before this goes to
council and make sure we understand exactly what the impacts are. If there’s any questions on
traffic I’d be more than happy to try to answer them at this time as well too. I think the traffic
study was included in the packet.
Aller: Any questions at this point in time? Alright.
35
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
Tietz: Not for Paul. Can I go back to Bob?
Aller: Sure.
Tietz: Bob I just have a question. Obviously they’re meeting the requirements and so forth. It’s
just the hard cover, you know in these sites get so constricted by existing property lines and then
you try to plunk something down that now we have to have a 2 way driveway behind. I mean
we’re just adding significant amount of hard surface which obviously it’s acceptable under the
code. I just hope that as we look to the future and projects that are coming down the road where
we have large parcels of land that will have similar functions occurring on them that we deal
with them in advance where they do proper planning. We have good circulation. We have
proper use of land. This is, it will be nice I guess to have it but maybe the site, I don’t know. I
looks like there’s on the elevations there’s one by the HyVee. I don’t think we have a HyVee in
Chanhassen yet so maybe that’s a flat open site up there that works a lot better but you know
that’s, it’s a problem I have with these tight sites in the urban, in the core area of our city where
the land use changes and we force something on the site that creates I think significant problems.
Aanenson: I think that’s one of the things that we’re looking at with the downtown study. Not
only the, you know the infrastructure of streets. Adequacy. We talked about the upgrade of
Market Boulevard with the City Engineer.
Tietz: Right.
th
Aanenson: We’ve also talked about the functionality of Great Plains and West 78. We’ve also
talked about storm water management in this area which is very difficult and those are some of
the challenges but as we work on that plan, looking at some of those land uses and targeting all
those areas to try to solve some of those problems. And also staging. I think that’s a long term
thing too is to say put them into a capital improvements plan to make sure that they’re moving
forward.
Tietz: Thanks Kate.
Aller: So just a quick informational question of Mr. Oehme would be, based on the work that
was previously done there with the underground storage, water storage and the fact that it’s
pretty much all hard cover anyway, what impact, if any do you see on the storm water
management system if this goes through.
Paul Oehme: Well Chairman Aller, we’re trying to limit the runoff to current conditions. We’re
trying to meet that 1.1 inch capture rate so in terms of impervious surface coverage I think we’re
about the same what is out there today so in terms of the runoff so in terms of you know how
much more extra runoff. I think Vanessa’s looked at that model a little bit more than I have.
Maybe she can try to answer that.
36
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
Strong: Interestingly enough they opted for surface treatment so they didn’t do underground
storage. Actually they’re doing a basin and so that actually reduces the impervious surface on
this lot from that respect and reduces also the amount of like heat island and heat sink because
it’s a vegetated surface. They do meet city requirements. I will be clear that I did not evaluate
for watershed district requirements because they do have to go through the watershed district for
permitting and we’ll see how that goes. The city requirements at this time are not as stringent as
the watershed district so I just leave that out there as you know our hoop right now is not the
only one so.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional questions of staff? Hearing none, if the applicant would like
to come forward and make a presentation they can do so at this time. Please come forward and
state your name and address and representational capacity if any for the record and tell us about
your project.
Alan Catchpool: Good evening. My name’s Alan Catchpool with CEI Engineering. We’re the
civil engineer on the project. With me tonight.
Dan Cook: Dan Cook, Senior Design Manager for Panera, 3630 South Geyer in St. Louis.
Aller: Great, thank you. Welcome.
Alan Catchpool: I can talk a little bit on storm water. Yes as far as impervious coverages we’re
slightly less than existing. Just under the 65 percent requirements. As far as runoff’s, yeah the
City, I mean the watershed is by far the more stringent. We’ve submitted to them. We just got
comments the end of last week so we’ll be working with them and we’re on their next agenda
meeting so we’ll be working with them and working out the kinks. This is restricted soils.
We’re Type D clay soils. The Chick-fil-A next to us is you know a couple higher, taller than us
in elevation as far as the finished floor elevations so we weren’t able to go with underground
chambers so we decided to go with the bio retentions which you know allowed us to reduce our
hard coverage and be very close to the required parking counts and with the shared cross access
easements we do meet those requirements. And you know with what Panera was originally
looking for as far as numbers we do meet those parking requirements so. I would comment on
the landscaping. The only reason we didn’t initially put trees along that south edge is because
there’s drainage and utility easements along there. Kind of the same reason Chick-fil-A doesn’t
have any along there so but we’ll absolutely work with city staff on all of that stuff.
Aller: Okay and just to make it clear, you’ve had an opportunity to read the report and go
through it and you’ve been working with the city. Is there anything in the report that you can’t
live with right now? I mean understanding that you still might want to tweak it and work with
them on different things.
37
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
Alan Catchpool: Nothing that jumped out at us. We’ll absolutely work with them and like I said
I think a little back and forth and yeah, there’s no issues there.
Aller: And then the traffic study. How does this work with other Panera’s that may have drive
throughs. Do you see the same kind of flow through traffic? Is this the same pattern? Is it
different?
Dan Cook: It’s similar to some. This actually has quite a bit longer queue than the majority of
our cafes do. We usually have between a 6 and 8 car stack in general. We typically only have 1
to 2 cars beyond our menu board at any given time. So having a 12 car stack, while we do meet
that here is over and above what we would typically put in.
Aller: Okay, so it should be able to accommodate additional traffic compared to what your
normal.
Dan Cook: Absolutely. About less than 30 percent of our sales is through the drive through
window whereas Chick-fil-A is 75-80 percent through their drive through. We are definitely not
a fast food use. We created the fast casual category. Several cities across the country don’t have
fast casual in their books or in their law so we have to kind of skirt the line between restaurant
and fast food. But a 12 car stack is more than enough for our typical use.
Aller: And then the EIFS system is there, are you particularly tied to that for a reason? Is it
your, are all your other stores EIFS or?
Dan Cook: Quite a few of them. Quite a few of them are. The EIFS system we spec is
equivalent to drivet lime stone system. It’s not your 1980 strip center, real bubbly EIFS look. It
is very much a stone look on the building or a true stucco look. It is an additional coat process.
It’s not just a spray on finish. It is a troweled on finish in the EIFS. In this climate the EIFS
product does give a better insulation value than regular stucco. I don’t have the numbers to back
that up but we use EIFS I’d say on the majority of our cafes across the country.
Aller: Okay.
Dan Cook: With that upgraded finish, sorry.
Aller: Any additional questions? Have I prevented you from providing. I jumped in and started
asking questions. Did you have a presentation or anything that you’d like to tell us about your
project that we haven’t covered or isn’t in the report.
Dan Cook: Just that we, we are very excited to come to Chanhassen. We think it’s a great
community. We feel it’s a great spot for this bakery café. We feel we will do very well here and
we are more than willing again to work with staff on the building design and feel. I do want to
make one comment. What’s going to bring folks to us as opposed to Chick-fil-A, it’s more
38
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
environment than it is putting a mansard roof over the entry or some entry element to the
building. It is very much our environment. Our food. Our staff. Our people that bring the
customers back. We just opened the café in Richfield. I don’t know if any of you have had the
opportunity to go to that one. Your’s is going to be better. I can say that hands down you are
getting the next generation café compared to Richfield.
Aller: Well we definitely have the best customers.
Dan Cook: Absolutely.
Tietz: I just have one question.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Again in that dual lane drive around the back side. The east to west and looping,
providing access to the garbage. Is there a reason that that cannot be, could not be a one way
from east to west in loop behind and still reduce it by maybe 30 percent in width and still provide
your access to your service area?
Dan Cook: It’s primarily from, we use a WB62 delivery truck for our dry goods at least 2 to 3
times a week. It’s so our delivery trucks can circulate the site without affecting parking.
Without affecting landscape area.
Tietz: So you could have had a better site. It’s driven by the turn radius and the accessibility?
Dan Cook: Primarily, yeah.
Tietz: That’s too bad.
Aller: Okay, additional questions? Comments. Concerns. Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: Just an additional question on the parking. For other Panera locations that you have of
similar size, how many parking spots do you find is sufficient?
Dan Cook: With shared parking we’re down in the low 40’s in some instances. If we are our
own entity we’re in the mid 60’s so we’re kind of again we’re hitting right in the middle with
this one. Very comfortable with the parking situation with Chick-fil-A. I believe the
honeymoon period was mentioned earlier with Chick-fil-A that their sales will hopefully taper
some. You know I think again us providing a drive through here with only about 30 percent of
our cafes in our entire system being drive through it’s that additional option for our guests. If the
parking lot is full, they have the option of going through the drive through and still enjoy a meal
with us.
39
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Dan Cook: Yep.
Aanenson: Mr. Chairman I just want to for their edification too.
Aller: Yes.
nd
Aanenson: So we’re anticipating this going to the City Council on the 22. We need to get
some of the traffic issues resolved and we want to finalize the architecture as close as possible.
Aller: Right.
nd
Aanenson: So just for anybody watching it’s our goal to get on that meeting on the 22 but it
may bump back 2 weeks if we can’t get everything resolved. Just to make sure that it’s.
Dan Cook: And we’d love to work with you to make that happen.
Aanenson: Yeah, we want to work too.
Dan Cook: Absolutely.
Aanenson: And just to point out to the site, we know they’ve been looking for a long time to try
to find a site on Highway frontage so.
Dan Cook: We have.
Aller: Great.
Dan Cook: Thank you.
Aller: Thank you so much. At this point in time I’ll open up the public hearing portion for this
item so anyone wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the matter before us,
please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know your opinions.
Have any questions. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and open it up for
commissioner comments and action. Any comments? Any requested action?
Weick: Very excited. I think it’s a good use.
Aller: We ate at Panera out on 7 a couple days ago so I’m glad to see it a little closer to home.
Tietz: Motion? The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve
for a 4,500 square foot one story restaurant with a drive through facilities, plans prepared by CEI
40
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
Engineering Associates, Inc. dated revised November 30, 2017, subject to conditions of approval
and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Generous: Mr. Chair? Does that include the amended motion?
Tietz: Oh you mean the one that’s on here?
Generous: Yes.
Tietz: Yes. Final architectural details shall be revised and approved prior to City Council
review.
Generous: Do you have any direction on the EIFS?
Tietz: I think can’t that be handled at the staff level?
Aanenson: Yes.
Aller: Alright. Having a motion, do I have a second?
Randall: Second.
Aller: For further comment before we vote. Any further additional comments or concerns
before we vote? I will state that I feel that I would prefer to see less EIFS and more articulation
on the property and it sounds like the applicant’s willing to work diligently with staff in getting
that accomplished so with that I would be voting for this motion. Anyone else? Comments.
Tietz: No.
Tietz moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approve the site
plan for a 4,500 square foot, one-story restaurant with drive through facilities, plans
prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. dated revised 11/30/17, subject to the
following conditions, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendations:
Building:
1. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
3. Sanitary and storm sewer service must comply with Minnesota State Plumbing Code (see
Table 701.1).
41
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
4. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are
submitted.
5. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Engineering:
1. The plans shall be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of
Minnesota prior to recording the site plan agreement.
2. Provide perimeter drainage and utility easements were none exist concurrent with
recording the site plan agreement.
3. The applicant must move any feature out from within the City’s drainage and utility
easement, including both bioretention basins or the applicant must enter into an
encroachment agreement with the City after, but concurrent to the site plan agreement.
4. An additional drainage and utility easement shall be recorded over the two bioretention
basins concurrent with recording the site plan agreement.
5. Soil boring locations shall be shown on the grading plan prior to site grading.
6. Indicate finished floor elevation of the adjacent parcel to the east prior to site grading.
7. Provide existing and proposed elevations at each lot corner, top of curb or centerline of
the roadway at each lot line extension, center of the proposed driveway at the curbline,
and indicate the proposed driveway grade prior to site grading.
8. Indicate information to verify the lowest building opening is a minimum of 1-foot above
the emergency overflow elevation of the bioretention basins prior to site grading.
9. Identify soil stockpile areas intended within the site limits prior to site grading.
10. Address review comments identified in the attached letter from MnDOT prior to site
grading.
11. Provide Limited Use Permit (LUP) for the public sidewalk connection prior to recording
the site plan agreement.
12. Applicant shall utilize the City’s standard detail for the sidewalk connection prior to site
grading.
13. Staff has requested further traffic analysis to include the Market Blvd intersection prior to
review for City Council consideration.
14. The applicant’s engineer shall also examine ways to mitigate the queueing and decreased
th
LOS at the W 79 Street & Great Plain Blvd intersection prior to review for City Council
consideration.
15. The applicant’s engineer shall verify whether an adequate sight line is provided for
vehicles exiting the site access prior to review for City Council consideration.
16. Prior to review for City Council consideration, the traffic analysis report shall further
th
discuss recommendations for the timing of improvements to the W 79 St & Great Plains
Blvd intersection. The recommended ¾ intersection shall include a figure in the
Appendix showing the proposed design. Further commentary shall be included related to
its operation.
42
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
17. Plans shall show the current City detail plates and indicate all of the most up-to-date
plates shall be used when the project under construction.
18. The storm sewer piping shall be included on the utility plan prior to recording the site
plan agreement.
19. Plan shall include the bioretention basin details with elevations prior to site grading.
20. Recommend applicant review the design for the on-site hydrant. From a long term
perspective, the hydrant should be fed by the water service to the parcel it serves.
Coordinate with the adjacent property owner to abandon un-necessary water pipe.
Otherwise, a maintenance agreement between the two parcels shall be filed to define
future maintenance responsibilities and other important business protection aspects prior
to site grading.
21. Utility plan indicates 0.87% for the sanitary sewer grade. Revise plan to increase grade
to a minimum of 1% prior to site grading.
22. Sanitary sewer service shall be routed the nearest sanitary manhole to facilitate sewer
cleaning due to the zoning classification and proposed property use. Prior to site grading,
revise the plan to show the existing sanitary service connection to the main shall be
abandoned. A short liner shall be used in the sanitary main and the pipe shall be filled
with flowable fill or non-shrink grout to the property line. The line shall be capped at the
property line.
23. Staff recommends C900 PVC water main pipe material be considered.
24. Recommend testing requirements for the utility piping be considered with the utility
design. Install a new gate valve at the property line where the new water service piping
ties into the existing service piping.
25. Provide details on the plans for the grease trap prior to site grading.
26. Demolition plan shall include removal of existing service piping to the connection
locations prior to site grading.
27. The applicant shall coordinate with City staff prior to removal or construction of the
th
services regarding inspection and traffic control on W 79 Street prior to site grading.
28. Once construction is complete, the applicant shall retain ownership of the proposed
sanitary service, water service and hydrant constructed on this property. Recommend
applicant consider flushing of the water service piping when selecting the location for the
hydrant.
29. The applicant shall follow the accessibility code for the construction as well as all
applicable State and Federal laws.
30. The applicant shall obtain permits from all applicable agencies which may include, but is
not limited to the MPCA, MnDOT, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, etc.
Environmental Resources:
1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to accommodate more of the required
bufferyard trees in the south buffer yard area.
43
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
2. The interior width of all landscape islands and peninsulas containing trees must be a
minimum of 10 feet. The east island shall be enlarged to a minimum interior width of 10
feet.
3. Any existing trees scheduled to be preserved that are lost due to construction activities
shall be replaced.
4. The Colorado spruce listed in the Plant Schedule shall be replaced with Black Hills
spruce.
5. Existing ash trees that are preserved must be treated for EAB, as approved by the city.
Failure to treat the trees, resulting in their death, will require replacement trees to be
planted.
Planning:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. A copy of the cross access/parking agreement shall be submitted to the city.
3. Wall lighting and the trash enclosure lighting shall comply with city code.
4. The proposed monument sign shall be relocated on the site to comply with city code.
5. Signage shall comply with city code and requires separate sign permits for each sign.
6. Bike racks shall be incorporated on site near the access sidewalk from Highway 5.
7. The building elevations shall be revised to incorporate additional window openings in the
bare expanses of the north, west and south walls.
8. The applicant is proposing two color bricks for the building material: tan and brown.
The soldier course of brick above the doors and windows shall incorporate the darker
colored brick to accent the windows.
9. Brick veneer may not be painted. EIFS may only be used as an accent material and may
not cover more than 15 percent of the wall area.
10. Additional rooftop treatments shall be provided above the building entrance.
11. Final architectural details shall be revised and approved prior to City Council
review.
Water Resources:
1. Six inches of topsoil is required and will be verified by city staff. In grading notes on
page C3 it states 4 inches.
2. Topsoil needs to be specified.
3. Sequencing of Construction identifies no. 5 as to construct the temporary sedimentation
and sediment trap, but nowhere in the grading plan is it identified. Plans should identify
the bio-filtration basins be graded to be used as temporary sediment basin, along with
temporary outlets to allow stormwater to be pumped and drained too, during construction
of the site.
44
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018
4. A design and planting plan approved by the Water Resources Coordinator is required for
this high visibility location. Seed mix is insufficient for these vegetated basins. You must
use species native to the ecoregion.
5. Sock should be eliminated from drain tile. Buckshot and or pea rock to surround
underdrain pipe.
6. Underdrain tile needs to be identified. Should be a HDPE Corrugated perforated plastic
tile. SCH 35, 40 PVC pipe is not allowed for underdrain.
7. Tile in bio-filtration basin needs to be placed on a minimum grade of 0.5 percent.
8. Plan details need to show a profile of the bio-retention basin with the grade of the tile
placement.
9. All quantities of materials to be used, and specifications need to be identified on plan
sheet for contractor to bid and to construct.
10. Mixed D soil may not be used. We only use 75 percent washed sand and 25 percent leafy
compost.
11. Bio-filtration basin should be identified in sequencing that it should not be completed
until all surrounding watershed to basins are stabilized.
12. City staff to be called, and be on site when contractor is installing bio-filtration basin to
make sure the existing subsoil is scarified 18 inches below surface in bio-filtration basin
13. Contractor to have written statement as part of the pre-construction meeting, the means
and method of how they plan to scarify and protect the subsurface from compaction in
the bio-retention basin.
14. An approved operation and maintenance plan is required for all stormwater treatment
devices. Including contact information for person(s) responsible for maintenance as well
as person(s) performing onsite inspection and maintenance duties. The city must approve
operation and maintenance plans prior to permits being issued.
15. The city will hold the security on the project until vegetation is well established and the
planting is free of weeds. This may take a few growing seasons to achieve.
16. An additional drainage and utility easement shall be recorded over the drainage basins
located west and south of the parking lot.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Aller: Again those of you that are following this item for further action it should come before
the City Council on January 22, 2018. You should look at the packets or double check the
calendars as they come out on the city website because if they’re working, even though they’re
working diligently on getting things done it might get pushed back so the intended date is
January 22, 2018.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated December 5, 2017 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
45