Loading...
Agenda and PacketAGENDA  CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2018, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.CALL TO ORDER B.NEW BUSINESS C.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Consider Variance to Build an Accessory Building (Garage) at 3790 Lone Cedar Lane 2.PUD Amendment to Allow Liquor Sales, in Conjunction with a Temporary Event Permit, at Paisley Park Museum D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated November 20, 2018 E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION H.ADJOURNMENT I.OPEN DISCUSSION NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by­laws.  We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda.  If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options.  Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, December 4, 2018 Subject Consider Variance to Build an Accessory Building (Garage) at 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 2018­20 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13­foot front yard setback and a 4­foot shoreland setback variance, subject to the conditions of approval; and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 1,000 square­foot detached garage on a currently vacant parcel (PID 25.1700010). The proposed detached garage would encroach 13 feet into the front yard setback and 4 feet into the shoreland setback. In order to facilitate the construction of the proposed detached garage, the applicant would combine the parcel with his other property at 3790 Lone Cedar Lane. Combining these parcels would remove the possibility of a new single­family house being constructed on the vacant lot. APPLICANT Richard Morris (Owner) SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential District ­ RSF LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .48 acres  DENSITY:  NA  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1­2. Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II. Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article VI. Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article XII. “RSF” Single­Family Residential District PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, December 4, 2018SubjectConsider Variance to Build an Accessory Building (Garage) at 3790 Lone Cedar LaneSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 2018­20PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13­foot front yard setback and a 4­foot shorelandsetback variance, subject to the conditions of approval; and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 1,000 square­foot detached garage on a currently vacant parcel(PID 25.1700010). The proposed detached garage would encroach 13 feet into the front yard setback and 4 feet intothe shoreland setback. In order to facilitate the construction of the proposed detached garage, the applicant wouldcombine the parcel with his other property at 3790 Lone Cedar Lane. Combining these parcels would remove thepossibility of a new single­family house being constructed on the vacant lot.APPLICANTRichard Morris (Owner)SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential District ­ RSFLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  .48 acres DENSITY:  NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, General ProvisionsSection 1­2. Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 20, Article II. Division 3, VariancesChapter 20, Article VI. Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article XII. “RSF” Single­Family Residential District Section 20­615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks Chapter 20, Article XXIII. “General Supplemental" Regulations Section 20­904. Accessory Structures BACKGROUND In July 2018, PID 25.1700010 was placed on the market. City staff received numerous inquiries as to the possibility of constructing a single­family home on the parcel. As the parcel is a lot of record, staff responded that a home could likely be constructed, but cautioned that multiple variances would be needed due to the presence of wetlands along the property’s northern edge. On September 28, 2018, the applicant purchased this parcel along with the adjacent home at 3790 Lone Cedar Lane. The applicant subsequently approached city staff to discuss the possibility of constructing a detached garage on the parcel. Staff indicated that this would require a variance and the consolidation of the two parcels. RECOMMENDATION The applicant’s proposal to combine PID 25.700010, the vacant parcel, with PID 25.1700020, 3790 Lone Cedar Lane, and construct a detached garage represents a significantly less intensive use of PID 25.700010 than the construction of new single­family home. Additionally, the applicant’s proposed placement of the detached garage maximizes its distance from both Lake Minnewashta and the property’s wetland and minimizes the length of the driveway needed to access the garage. Since the proposed garage is located at the end of a street with no neighboring homes to the north, east, or south, reducing the front yard setback will not negatively affect the neighbor’s viewscape. Staff recommends approval of the proposed variances with conditions. A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision Approval Findings of Fact and Decision Denial Variance Document Development Review Application Letter from Applicant Surveys Letter from Lester Buildings ERS Memo Affidavit of Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: December 4, 2018 CC DATE: January 14, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: January 1, 2019 CASE #: 2018-20 BY: MW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 1,000 square foot detached garage on a currently vacant parcel (PID 251700010). The proposed detached garage would encroach 13 feet into the front yard setback and 4 feet into the shoreland setback. In order to facilitate the construction of the proposed detached garage, the applicant would combine the parcel with his other property at 3790 Lone Cedar Lane. Combining these parcels would remove the possibility of a new single-family house being constructed on the vacant lot. LOCATION: PID 251700010 OWNER: Richard Morris 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .48 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13-foot front yard setback and a 4-foot shoreland setback variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” (Note: A motion for denial and appropriate findings of fact are also included at the end of the report.) 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Variance Request December 4, 2018 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant owns a home located at 3790 Lone Cedar Lane and an adjacent undeveloped parcel of land with PID 27500010. The vacant parcel is a lot of record and the city is required to allow the applicant reasonable use of the property. Since the parcel is zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF), reasonable use could be a single-family home; however, the applicant is instead proposing to construct a 1,000 square foot detached garage on the site. Due to the configuration of the lot of record and the presence of a wetland classified as preserve along the northern property line, the applicant is requesting a 4-foot shoreland setback and 13-foot front yard setback variance to accommodate the proposed garage. This placement would maximize the structure’s distance from Lake Minnewashta and the wetland, and would minimize the size of the driveway required to service the garage, resulting in reduced impervious cover within the shoreland district. Since the City Code does not allow the construction of accessory structures without a primary structure, the applicant has agreed to combine the two parcels if the requested variance is approved. The applicant is also requesting that the city vacate the unused drainage and utilities easement located between the two parcels to accommodate the structure’s proposed placement. Combining the parcels would permanently remove the potential for a new single-family home to be constructed on the vacant parcel. The applicant has noted that other uses for the parcel, such as a new single-family home, would result in significantly larger impacts on Lake Minnewashta and the property’s wetlands. Of particular note are the increased amount of impervious surface that would be required to build a house on the parcel, the dock and associated vegetative removal rights that the new homeowner would enjoy, and generally increased intensity of use. Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment that their proposed use of the property is significantly less impactful on the lake and wetland than a new single-family home. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2. Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article VI. Wetland Protection 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Variance Request December 4, 2018 Page 3 Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article XII. “RSF” Single Family Residential District Section 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XXIII. “General Supplemental Regulations Section 20-904. Accessory structures BACKGROUND In July 2018, PID 251700010 was placed on the market. City staff received numerous inquiries as to the possibility of constructing a single-family home on the parcel. As the parcel is a lot of record, staff responded that a home could likely be constructed, but cautioned that multiple variances would be needed due to the presence of wetlands along the property’s northern edge. On September 28, 2018, the applicant purchased this parcel along with the adjacent home at 3790 Lone Cedar Lane. The applicant subsequently approached city staff to discuss the possibility of constructing a detached garage on the parcel. Staff indicated that this would require a variance and the consolidation of the two parcels. SITE CONDITIONS The property is zoned Single Family Residential District, is located within the city’s Shoreland Management District, and has a wetland classified as preserve which runs along the northern lot line. This zoning district requires lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front yard setbacks of 30 feet, setbacks of 75 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water level, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot coverage. Houses are limited to 35 feet in height and detached accessory structures are limited to 20 feet in height. The property must also have a 40-foot buffer from the edge of the wetland, principal structures must be setback 40 feet from the edge of the buffer, and accessory structures must be setback 20 feet from the edge of the buffer. The lot is 15,135 square feet and is currently undeveloped; however, the applicant also owns the neighboring parcel at 3790 Lone Cedar Lane, which has a single-family home built in 1981. This parcel is approximately 37,026 square feet and has an estimated 6,508 square feet of lot cover resulting in 17.6 percent lot cover. This home appears to have a non- conforming wetland setback of 75.5 feet, but meets all other standards established by its zoning district and applicable City Code. 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Variance Request December 4, 2018 Page 4 NEIGHBORHOOD Cedar Crest The plat for this area was recorded in January of 1962. This plat and its lots predate the City of Chanhassen, its zoning codes, the shoreland management district, and the wetland protection ordinance. Additional subdivisions of the Cedar Crest plat subsequently took place between late 1975 and 1978 creating the Trolls-Glen development, and further subdivisions in 1987 and 2007 split up several of the larger lots along Lake Minnewashta. Changes to Highway 5 led to the city vacating the portion of Cedar Crest Court’s, also known as Lone Cedar Lane, right of way in favor of a private street serving Cedar Crest’s eastern parcels. Houses in the area vary significantly in age and scale, and many of the older homes have non-conforming elements or variances. Variances on Lone Cedar: 78-10 3895 Lone Cedar Circle: Approved - 18.5’ front yard setback (house) 82-11 3892 Lone Cedar Lane: Approved - 11.23’ front yard setback (house) 87-05 3900 Lone Cedar Lane: Approved - 5’ rear yard (enclosed deck) 02-13 3840 Lone Cedar Lane: Approved - 10’ bluff setback (retaining wall) 07-07 Gauer Addition: Approved - Access off of private street (2 lot subdivision) 14-20 3880 Lone Cedar Lane: Approved - 13’ bluff setback (water oriented accessory structure) 15-20 3892 Lone Cedar Lane: Approved - 25’ shoreland setback (retaining wall) ANALYSIS Lot Combination and Vacation The City Code does not allow for the construction of an accessory structure on a lot that does not have a principal structure. Additionally, the properties in question each have a 10-foot drainage and utility easement on their respective sides of their shared interior lot line. The City Code does not permit accessory structures like detached garages to be located within a drainage and utility easement, and requires these structures to meet a required 10-foot side yard setback. The applicant proposes to address these issues by combining the two parcels and requesting that the city vacate the drainage and utility 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Variance Request December 4, 2018 Page 5 easement. Combining the two lots would allow for the construction of accessory structures since the house on 3790 Lone Cedar Lane would be the principal structure. It would also remove the interior lot line and its associated side yard setback. The Engineering Department is currently processing the applicant’s request to vacate the drainage and utilities easement; however, the easement is not currently being used by the city and, once the lots are combined, there will be no anticipated need for the city to retain the easement. Vacation of the easement is a separate process that is currently scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on January 28, 2019. If the City Council votes to approve the vacation, recording of the vacation and lot combination would occur concurrently. In addition to allowing for the proposed placement of the detached garage, combining the parcels would remove the potential for a new single-family home to be built on PID 251700010. Since PID 251700010 is a lot of record and zoned Residential Single Family (RSF) District, the city could be required to accommodate a single-family home as a “reasonable use” of the property. Due to the city’s minimum standards for single-family homes, any single-family home would involve the creation of significantly more impervious surface and greater encroachment into the lot’s shoreland and wetland setbacks. A single-family residence would also have the right to install a dock and conducted associated wetland alteration on the property. Once the parcels are combined, they would not be eligible for future subdivision since the lake and wetland setbacks would preclude the creation of two lots meeting the subdivision ordinance’s minimum standards. For the above reasons, staff supports the proposed lot combination and requested vacation. Front Yard and Shoreland Setback PID 251700010 has a roughly triangular shape. Approximately the eastern one third of the triangle is covered by a wetland with a combined buffer and accessory structure setback of 60 feet. The wetland also runs the length of the triangle’s hypotenuse, but in this case, the lake’s 75-foot shoreland setback is the most restrictive. At its deepest point, the lot measures approximately 135 feet from the front lot line to Lake Minnewashta’s ordinary high water line. Between the property’s shoreland and front yard setback, which require a combined 105 feet of setbacks, only a small triangle of the property is buildable. 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Variance Request December 4, 2018 Page 6 The applicant initially proposed placing the garage in this location that met the ordinance’s front yard setback; however, in order to meet the front yard setback the proposed structure would require a 23-foot shoreland and an 8-foot wetland setback variance. Staff requested that the applicant propose an alternate location that maximized the property’s distance from the lake and wetland by encroaching upon the front yard setback. Given the high quality of the property’s wetland and the importance of protecting Lake Minnewashta, staff believes that every step should be taken to maximize the distance between the structure and the lake and wetland. The applicant subsequently proposed a location that would require a 13-foot front yard setback, reduces the required shoreland setback variance to four feet, and removes the need for a wetland setback variance. The triangular shape of the lot means that only the northeast corner of the garage will actually be located within the 75-foot shoreland setback. Due to the property’s location at the end of a dead-end street with no residential properties facing it, many of the concerns involving viewscape and neighborhood character that typically apply to variance requests for reduced front yard setbacks do not apply. Since the property already has a large driveway and the garage will be accessed from east side rather than the southern facing elevation, there are no concerns about the distance between the structure and street being adequate to provide off-street parking spaces. Finally, Highway 5 has a large enough right of way that distance between the front property line and curb is over 45 feet, rather than the 10 to 15 feet that is typical for residential properties. For the above reasons, staff supports the requested front yard and shoreland variances. Impact on Neighborhood The vacant lot is bordered by Lake Minnewashta to the north and east, Highway 5 and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum to the south, and the applicant’s home to the west. The applicant’s proposed detached garage is larger than other accessory structures found within the neighborhood; however, its size does not exceed the district’s 1,000 square foot maximum size. Additionally, the proposed accessory structure has a smaller footprint and lower maximum height than an alternative use, such as a new single-family home, and will not generate additional traffic or lake use. Due to its relative isolation from other residential structures, the proposed variance is not expected to significantly affect the surrounding property owners. SUMMARY 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Variance Request December 4, 2018 Page 7 The applicant’s proposal to combine PID 25700010, the vacant parcel, with PID 251700020, 3790 Lone Cedar Lane, and construct a detached garage represents a significantly less intensive use of PID 2570010 than the construction of new single-family home. Additionally, the applicant’s proposed placement of the detached garage maximizes its distance from both Lake Minnewashta and the property’s wetland and minimizes the length of the driveway needed to access the garage. Since the proposed garage is located at the end of a street with no neighboring homes to the north, east, or south, reducing the front yard setback will not negatively affect the neighbors’ viewscape. Staff recommends approval of the proposed variances with conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a 13-foot front yard setback and a 4- foot shoreland setback variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020 must be combined. 3. The drainage and utility easement between parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020 must be vacated. 4. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits for the accessory building and note trees to be removed. All preserved trees must be protected during construction. Should the Planning Commission decide to deny the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and attached Finding of Fact and Decision: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the request for a 13-foot front yard setback and a 4-foot shoreland setback variance and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Finding of Fact and Decision Approval 2. Finding of Fact and Decision Denial 3. Variance Document 4. Development Review Application 5. Letter From Applicant 6. Surveys 7. Letter from Lester Buildings 8. ERS Memo on 3790 Lone Cedar Lane 9. Public Hearing Notice Mailing List G:\PLAN\2018 Planning Cases\18-20 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Sub Var\Staff Report-3790 Lone Cedar Ln_PC.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: The application of Richard Morris for the construction of a detached garage on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2018-20. On December 4, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Crest 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The intent of the city’s shoreland and wetland ordinances is to minimize the impact of development upon the city’s water resources. The applicant’s proposal to combine the undeveloped lot of record with a parcel that has an existing single-family home will remove the potential for a new single-family home to be constructed on the vacant lot. A new single-family home would entail the creation of significantly more impervious surface and require a larger shoreland setback variance than the proposed use, as well as a wetland setback variance that the proposed use does not require. Granting the requested shoreland variance to accommodate the construction of a detached garage that will result in the less intensive use of a riparian lot is in harmony with the intent of this Chapter. 2 The intent of the city’s required front yard setback is to ensure adequate driveway length to accommodate off street parking, and to create a uniform aesthetic within residential areas by ensuring the presence of a minimum amount of front yard greenspace. In this instance, the parcel in question has an existing driveway that provides adequate off-street parking and is located at the end of a dead-end with no potential to negatively impact the neighbors’ viewscape. Furthermore, the requested reduction in the front yard setback will reduce the need for a wetland setback variance and will significantly reduce the size of the requested shoreland setback variance. In this case, increasing the structure’s distance from the lake is more important than increasing its distance from the public right of way. For the above reasons, the requested front yard setback variance is in harmony with the intent of this Chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The shoreland, wetland, and front yard setbacks leave the parcel with a very constrained triangular building area, and relief from one or more setbacks would be required for most potential uses of the property. The applicant’s proposed use of the parcel to accommodate an accessory structure is reasonable and is significantly less intensive than other potential reasonable uses for the property, i.e. a single-family home, and requires significantly smaller variances. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is a lot of a record and was platted before the city’s zoning, wetland, and shoreland ordinances were adopted. The lot does not meet current standards and the non-conforming nature of the lot has created the restricted buildable area that necessitates the requested variances. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The size and scale of the proposed detached garage is permitted by the property’s zoning district. Additionally, the location of the parcel at the end of a dead-end street on the far side of the property from the only neighboring residence means that granting the requested variance should not have any impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. 3 f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2018-20, dated December 4, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13-foot front yard setback and a 4-foot shoreland setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020 must be combined. 3. The drainage and utility easement between parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020 must be vacated. 4. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits for the accessory building and note trees to be removed. All preserved trees must be protected during construction. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of December, 2018. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Chairman 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: The application of Richard Morris for the construction of a detached garage on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2018-20. On December 4, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Crest 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The intent of the city’s shoreland management district is to limit the placement of structures near recreational development lakes, in order to prevent the creation of impervious surfaces near water resources and preserve the view of the shoreline for lake users. Granting a variance to allow for the construction of a large detached garage within the lake setback would not be in harmony with the intent of this Chapter. Similarly, the city’s front yard setback is designed to create a uniform viewscape within residential areas by ensuring the presence of a minimum amount of front yard greenspace and requiring accessory structures to be built at or behind the front most point of the primary structure. Allowing a detached garage to be built with a front yard setback significantly less than that of the primary structure would not be in line with the intent of this Chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. 2 Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The applicant’s home has an existing two-car garage, and, if the two parcels are combined, there are locations on the property where a smaller detached garage could be constructed without the need for a variance. The inability of a parcel zoned RSF to accommodate the maximum sized accessory structure permitted by the City Code is not a practical difficulty. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is a lot of a record and was platted before the city’s zoning, wetland, and shoreland ordinances were adopted. The lot does not meet current standards and the non-conforming nature of the lot has created the restricted buildable area that necessitates the requested variances. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: No other property in the area has a 1,000 square foot accessory structure. The prevailing development pattern is for properties to have a home with an attached garage and a relatively small shed or water-oriented structure. Granting a variance to allow the construction of a large pole barn type structure would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2018-20, dated December 4, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the request for a 13-foot front yard setback and a 4-foot shoreland setback variance.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of December, 2018. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Chairman 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2018-20 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13-foot front yard setback and a 4-foot shoreland setback variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Cedar Crest. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020 must be combined. 3. The drainage and utility easement between parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020 must be vacated. 4. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits for the accessory building and note trees to be removed. All preserved trees must be protected during construction. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. 2 Dated: December 4, 2018 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Denny Laufenburger, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2018 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 .}ct ?- )D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952)227-1300 / Fax: (952)227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submiftal o"t",lIl ;r t t (PC Date: P l{ l' tX cc Date: CITY OT CHAI.IIIASSII*I 60-Day Review Date: (Refer to the appropriate Application Checktist for required submittat information that must accompany this application) tr n tr Comprehensive Plan Amendment $600 f] Subdivision (SUB) n Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers......$100 E Create 3lots or less E Create over 3 lots ... Conditional Use Permit (CUP) E Single-Family Residence.,n Rttothers lnterim Use Permit (lUP) E ntothers.... n Rezoning (REZ) n Sign Plan Review E Site Plan Review (SPR) ......$325 ............$425 trtrtrtr (_ tots) Metes & Bounds (2lots) Consolidate Lots ............ Lot Line Adjustment. Final Plat.... ..$300 $6OO + $15 per lot ...$300 ...$150 '..$150 .'.$700 ........ ......$150 .............' $275 ... . ...'..'..$100 .............. $500 n tn conjunction with Single-Family Residence (lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)* "Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC). . ...$300 (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) ..............$200 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) I Single-Family Residence...... E ntothers I Zoning Appeal I Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) $200 $32s $425 E Planned Unit Development (PUD)......... .. ....$750 E Minor Amendment to existing PUD.................$100 E rutothers ....... . .....$500 'E "E[ tr............$150 I Administrative ..........$100 E C;;;i.i,rrrno,.i,i;iDi;i;i;i;; ... .'$5oo Plus $10 per 1 ,000 square feet of building area: (- thousand square feet) *lnclude number of existing.employees:*lnclude number of ry emPloYees: E Residential Districts ..$500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit (- units) p[!: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, th- appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ..$3 per address -lJ .,8 .N Description of Proposal: fitttcD 4P AcC.ASorz-f /$t-tt t-Dril 6 (arw.a66) oN La'z' 37 70 LoN{ kD*L l*Ns ct*sr* ,MN ST3lgProperty Address or Location: Parcel #: 2{17 ot:t> t or}o Legal Description: TotalAcreage: /. 33 Wetlands Present? fives n Uo Etoc-i1 / ce>,+tt Cr?€sT lPr 2 BLo cl< Requested Zoning fte5' Requested Land Use Designation' S a 6t Cb'qAtdPresent Zoning: fZ€S Present Land Use Designation: S L Pe** br Existing Use of Property: StfGLr" Fn'+rtc E[ Cnecf box if separate narrative is attached. oN PTb i2r/7afl eo, vAc*.,,or Lof FzD zrtzoe:siO fo fec€tt/{ ffitz*.i€ ff727L cD^) SoL( D*r7oN sf Lo79 . Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) E Conditional Use Permit f] lnterim Use Permit fl Vacation l-I Variance Ei frl"t". & Bounds Subdivision (2 deeds) E Easements (- easements) ....$50 Per document E Site Plan Agreement fl Wetland Alteration Permit n Deeds TOTAL FEE: Section 2: Required lnformation AppLtcANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. iagree to be bound by conditions of approval, sub.iect only to ine rrght to onject at the hearings on the application or during thL appeal period. lf this applicatioi has not been signed by in" piop"rty o*n"r, I have atta6hed separaie documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application .noltO'0" [rocessed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this il;ti";f;": I ;i1 k";f myself informed of the deadiines for submiision of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any autnorization to proceed with the study. I certift that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Address: Contact: Phone: City/State/Zip: Email: Cell: Fax: Signature: pROpERTy OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this afplicition. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those ionaition", subleit only to ihe right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods..l will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of -material and the progresJof this application. I further understand that additional fees may i" "11iig"a io;. "onsulting fees, feasibility studies, eti. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct Contact:/OcZ 4n415- adaress: 3'770 /.:p e' Q=-o*a- L+z"te' city/state/zip: q/4r(4, tlil s3'3/8 g.n bs-t-ad/- //{6/- /{6, Email: PfcKb4 Fax: PROJECT ENGINEER (if aPPlicable) Contact: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all intormliion and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before flling this application, refer to the ippropriate eppiication ihecklisi and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 1 5 business days of application submittal. A writien notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. trtrtrtr Who should receive copies of staff reports? Property Owner Applicant Engineer Other* copy to the city for processing. *Other Contact Information: Via: E Email E tr,tailed Paper CoPY via: E Email I Maited Paper Copy via: E Email E Maiteo Paper copy via: E Emait ! uaited Paper CoPy Name: Address: Cityistate/Zip: Email: INSTRUCTTONS TO APPLTCANT: Complete all necessary.form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and delivEito city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital 6s-t-e6/- /?67 Address: City/State/Zip: Richard D Morris 3790 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 (City of Chanhassen) 651-261-4469 rickdm@uwalumni.com 11/2/2018 Mr. Bob Generous & City Planning Commission City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Generous & City Planning Commission, On 9/28/2018, I purchased a home at 3750 Arboretum Blvd. within the city limits of Chanhassen. The City and I have since changed the address to 3790 Lone Cedar Lane to match the neighbors and facilitate emergency response and postal services. Two lots of record were in included in the sale. There is a 1981 single family home on PID 25700020. There is a vacant lot adjacent with PID 25700010. Both are on Lake Minnewashta’s south side. A variance from the 100’ wetland setback is requested from the city to allow the building of a 26’ x 38.5’ garage accessory building on the vacant lot. I’ve met with Mr. Bob Generous and Ms. Vanessa Strong regarding the project. Both the City Building Department and Water Resources staff support an accessory building as the optimal usage for this lot versus the alternative of another single-family home. As an official lot of record, a case could be made to build a house on this lot as an alternative to the accessory building proposal. To be a good steward of the lake and water resources, I will consolidate the two lots into one contingent upon approval of the variance, and thereby permanently remove the potential for another single-family home. I am requesting vacation of the drainage and utility easement. The City Engineer confirmed the easement is not used. Recording of the vacation will occur concurrently with the recording of the variance and consolidation of the lots. If another single-family home was built, it would result in more impact to the wetland and lake with another dock, erosion from usage, and riparian owner weed removal rights of 2500 square feet plus a 15’ path of weed removal to clear water. Another house would also impact a city fire hydrant, the access road, and a drainage ditch. Lot 1 is zoned for a single-family home and a hardship of usage exists from the lot shape and lack of buildable space. Mr. Generous and City staff support waiving the 30’ frontage setback to the proposed 17’ setback to provide more spacing from the lake OHW mark. Instead of the 75’ setback from the OHW mark, the proposed location is 71.8’ for one corner as shown on the Site Plan. 99% of the building area satisfies the 75’ lake setback and City Code Section 20-481. The previous (and currently website ordinance posted) OHW mark was 944.5’, but it was recently changed to 945.9’. Your consideration and approval of this variance request for an accessory building with the condition of lot consolidation is appreciated. As noted above, this plan is supported by Water Resources and City Building Dept. staff. Respectfully submitted, Rick Morris ffisqxm October 16,2018 Rick Morris 3790Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 Day Phone: 651 -261 -4469 Dear Rick Morris, Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with a quotation for a Lester Uni-Frame Embedded building. For your review, please see the enclosed proposal, which is based on our understanding ofyour building requirements up to this point. As you review it, please be assured that we understand new building projects always come with many decisions and a fair amount of stress! Our goal is to help make those decisions easier and reduce your stress with what we feel is our industry's most responsive and collaborative buying experience. Some other important factors set us apart and help us offer long-term customer satisfaction. For instance, the renowned quality and engineering standards of Lester buildings means you get the most value from your investment. In fact, with a solid reputation going back to 1947, Lester Buildings feature: o Unmatched design flexibility to meet your unique needs o Fast,cost-effectiveconstruction . Strong, straight and true structures, with excellent curb appeal o An industry-leading Lifetime Structural Design warranty Of course, we do our own part by providing full-service project planning and construction services. We do so with one goal in mind: to complete your project just as you envisioned it, in the agreed-upon time frame. Our team here at Lester Buildings LLC. stands ready to work with you and we look forward to your comments and questions. Thanks again and, as always, feel free to contact me anytime al 612-756-1395 or jwight@lesterbuildings.com. Respectfu lly Submitted, .le lliirr \l'ight Territory Manager enc. Attachment A Detailed Building Specifications for Rick Morris, 3750 Arboretum Blvd, Chaska, MN 55318 Lester Buildings LLC. proposes to deliver, furnish and erect to industry standards the described building to the following location: Rick Morris, 3750 Arboretum Blvd, Chask4 MN 55318. Lester Structural System: Uni-Frame Embedded Width: 26'-0" Length: 38-4" Clear Height: lzt-0tt Building Code: IBC-2012 End Use: Personal Use - Garage Ground Snow Load (psf): 50 Roof Dead Load (psf): 4 Risk Class: General Use UniForm Roof Snow Load (psf): 33.3 Truss Bottom Chord Load (psf): 5 Design Bottom Chord Braces for Ceiling Load: Yes This Warranty allows for a properly designed Snow Retention Trim to be installed on this building. Design Wind Speed (mph): I l5 Ultimate Warranted Wind Speed (mph): 90.9 Exposure Category: C Quotation on a code clear span building system with columns embedded in the ground at 9'-7" OC and poured concrete footings. . 3 ply 2x6 sidewall columns . I ply truss 2x6l2x6 . Poured concrete footings Material: Uni-Rib 28ga steel- AZ50 SMP Top Chord Slope: 4 / l2 Overhangs: 12" Overhang around perimeter of building Bottom Chord Slope: 0 / 12 Annex or Dormers: None Additional: 2x6 roof purlins pocketed in saddle hangers between trusses for a flush roof system EWI EW2 swl sw2 Panel Material: Uni-Rib 28ga Steel - AZ50 SMP Panel Material: Uni-Rib 28ea - AZ50 SMP Panel Material: Uni-Rib 28ga - AZ50 SMP Panel Material: Uni-Rib 28ea - AZ50 SMP Fasteners: Colored Screws Fasteners: Colored Screws Fasteners: Colored Screws Fasteners: Colored Screws Sheathing: None Sheathing: None Sheathing: None Sheathing: None Insulation: House Wrap Insulation: House Wrap Insulation: House Wrap Insulation: House Wrap Wainscot Material: Uni- Rib 28ea - AZ50 SMP Wainscot Material: Uni- Rib 28ea - AZ50 SMP Wainscot Material: Uni- Rib 28ea - AZ50 SMP Wainscot Material: Uni- Rib 28ea - AZ50 SMP Wainscot Insulation: House Wrap Wainscot Insulation: House Wrap Wainscot Insulation: House Wrap Wainscot Insulation: House Wrap Gable Material:None Gable Material: None Eave Material: None Eave Material: None Additional: 2x6 flush frame (bookshelf) wall girts at 24" OC. Wainscot at 36" Basic Construction Roof *nd Roof Accessories Insulation: None Sheathing: None Fasteners: Colored Screws Exterior Walls EW1 EW2 sw1 Additional Material: Uni-Rib Liner 30ga-G40 Polv Material: Uni-Rib Liner 30ga-G40 Poly Material: Uni-Rib Liner 30ga-G40 Poly Insulation: 6" FG Insul Unfaced (R- 19) Insulation: 6" FG Insul Unfaced (R- l9) Insulation: 5" FG Insul Unfaced (R- t9) s1v2 Cei'lins Partition Wall Material: Uni-Rib Liner 30ga-G40 Poly Material: Uni-Rib Liner 30ga-G40 Poly Material: None Insulation: 6" FG Insul Unfaced (R- 1e) Insulation: R-49 Blown Cellulose Attic Insulation Additional: Fully lined and insulated. Includes Attic access doors, blown attic insulation and vapor banier. Exterior and interior finishes, require "surface mounted" electrical and plumbing fixtures and connections. Any holes cut into the final finish material will require a labor and material surcharge. Consult your salesperson for an estimate. Openings Schedule Refer to floor plan and or elevation drawings, AJ Door and Windows Product Bulletin, and Openings Schedule Report for additional information. ID Ouantity Type/Model/Size A 1 Overhead Door Opening - Custom / Custom Size (16'wide xl0'high) No overhead door included. B J Window - Commercial / Window Vinyl Slider Thermal Pane / 4'0" Wide x 3'0" High with color matched erids. insulation in the frames and removable screens C I WalkDoor - Commercial / Wlk Door 7100 22x36 Lite / 3'0"x6'8" with color matched grids, lever latches, door latch guard and deadbolt prep D 1 Overhead Door Opening - Custom / Custom Size (10'wide x 10'high) No overhead door included. Additional: No overhead doors included. Refer to Accessory Product Bulletins for additional information. ID Quantity Twe/Model/Size A I Rideecap - Metal / Ridsecap - Metal / Ridsecap - Vented B 2 Cupola - Louver / Square - Louver I 24" Louver- non-operating Additional: Continuous vented ridge full length of building. .I*terior Walls/Partition lValUCeilinc Accessorv Schedule Additiunal Accessories Gutters:S1:Gutter - F.B.O. S2:Grrtter-FRO Downspouts:S1:0 0 Snow Retention Trim:l:No No Additional: Buildinp Color Schedule Roof Colors Roof: Ouaker Grav Non-Cfg Shingles: N/A Cupola Roof: Ouaker Gray Eave Trim: Quaker Gray Rake: Quaker Gray Cupola Body: Snow White Gutter: N/A Ridge Cap: Ouaker Grav Cupola Base: Ouaker Gray Ridge Vent: N/A Wall Colors Exterior Walls: Pewter Gray Wainscot: Quaker Gray Ceiling Liner: Liner White Porch Root Quaker Gray Gable: N/A Eave Finish: N/A Wall Liner: N/A Porch Column Covers: Snow White Gable Louver: N/A Accent: N/A Porch Vblock: Snow White Insulated Wall Batten: N/A DownSpout: N/A Porch Ceiling or Soffit: Snow White Sofrit: Snow White Ooenins & Trim Colors Base Trim: Snow White Overhead Door Panel: N/A Signature SIdg. Door Field: N/A Dutch Dr. Insert: N/A Corner: Snow White Overhead Door Jamb: Snow White Signature Sldg Trim: N/A Dutch Dr. Frame: N/A Sldg. Door Panel: N/A Walk Door: AJ White Signature Sldg Jamb: N/A Horse Stall: N/A Sldg. Door Verticals: N/A Walk Door Trim: Snow White Signature Sldg Window: N/A Mansard Root N/A SIdg. Door Jamb: N/A Window: Hayfield White Signature SIdg Track Cover: N/A Mansard Fascia: N/A Sliding Door Track: N/A Window Trim: Hayfield White Large Door Panel: N/A Mansard Soffit: N/A Sliding Door Bottom Girt: N/A Shutters: N/A Large Door Trim: N/A Clear Opening Trim: N/A Curtain Opening Trim: N/A Additional: Attachment B Item Includes Excludes Site preparation x Fill and preparation needed for concrete grade heights x Lester building material package x Labor x Delivery x Builders risk insurance x General liabilitv and workmans' comp.x Sisned ensineered drawings X Architectural stamp x Local buildins permits X Concrete and placement ofconcrete x Jobsite electricity x Final exterior landscapins - eradine x Electrical hook-up of overhead doors x Interior finishing x Dumpster x Complete construction proiect debris placed in customer provided dumpster x Tax x Exclusions Note All items not specifically listed above or noted elsewhere are excluded from this proposal. The investment proposal assumes building site is prepared and level, with no underground obstructions, has easy and obtainable Tractor/Trailer access and has no other features that can inhibit efficient construction performance. Any delays or additional costs resulting from owner(s) or owner(s) agents negligence to or failure to comply with any part of this contract, or have not completed site preparation prior to start of construction will be charged extra material and labor according to Change Order Procedures and Schedules. Work Authorization No holds are applied to this project. It will be fully processed, produced, and delivered as scheduled. Total Building Investment I $411889.91 Includes 80% Promo discount throush October 27, 2018 Note: This investment proposal is based on Lester Improv Project 060A- I 5406-02-00, and the Price File QP092218 that expires on Nov 10, 2018. Authorized this _ day of ,20 By (Buyer Signature) Printed Name: By (TM Signature) Printed Name: trnclusio nslExclu sion s @ DEALER INFO.CUSTOMER INFO.BUILDING DESCRIPTION Customer Approval Bldg Direction + PRoJ: 0604-1 5406-02-00 Jennifer Wight 25434 Cedar Lane New Prague, MN 56071 Rick Morris 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 26'-0"x38'-5"x12'-0" Uni-Frame Embedded QP092018 PROPOSAL DRAWINGS ONLY Not lnlendd for Constudlon Put@*s (lnloals) DATE: prdhlnary deslgn udng tre hpd Foftd. The inal d6lgn ls 3ubj*t to L*Gr Enghstug E*w- NOT TO SCALE @ Orry J O,r-mc e!ry O,Z-O-CR- o #^* c-414" cLMBRG O+.oumore n -4-4" CLMBRGt- O*" "**o.. ,1} ENDWALL E2 SECTIONttffi /:} SIDEWALL 51 SECTION Y ) 2o'-2" FRoM E1 ,E8TEN BUIIOINES DEALER INFO.CUSTOMER INFO.BUILDING DESCRIPTION Customer Approval Bldg Direction ^+ Y (Mark Nonh) PRoJ: 060A-1 5406-02-00 PROPOSAL DRAWINGS ONLY Not lnl€nded for Consruclion PurposesJennifer Wight 25434 Cedar Lane New Prague, MN 56071 Rick Morris 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 26'-0"x38'-5"x12'-0" Uni-Frame Embedded QP09201 I (lnitials) DATE: preliminary d6si9n using the inpul providsd Th. nnel desiqn is subFdto L6sld Engln€s.ins review 'NOTTO SCALE' n 0'-0" FLooRF* A EHBi.ir,.r+LL 1 ELRTATIO\,--//a SIDE'.'.'A-L 1 ELEI/ATION \J- d: l-Hl:1tr,1.1 I 7 Fl l-ur\l lotlffi ,5 :iltll-ti,q I ir Fl FUrr ll(lN ,E*rEfi gUtLfitffEs DEALER INFO.CTJSTOh,IER INFO.BUILDING DESCRIPTION {-}r, ulurr rcr Ap;;r o';a I BhlU Dirustiuil L'ciF iHirt]}d l Prr(1,r. 060A-15406-02-00 PRUPL)SAL DRA\,UlNGS UNLY icl @ d:dt tFr +JahFvEa(;Jennifer lvYight 25434 Cedar Lrrre Nerv Frague, I\.lN 5{J071 Rick l\,lorris 3790 LonE Cedar Lane Chrska, l\.lN 55318 2810" x 38 -5' x '2'-0" Uni-Frarne Ernbedded 0P DC20'l S irrhl{; DATE iErn tr.r..{.EiluJtr, I E r r-l -rord-d l'E l .xr{. rErFrl ,: kd- !i[r*rE'ts Fr 'il:r l:l ;:il1 MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Planner I FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: December 4, 2019 SUBJ: Variance to combine lots, 3790 Lone Cedar Lane The applicant did not submit tree cover as part of the existing conditions survey, so staff cannot confirm which, if any, trees will be removed for the proposed accessory building. Staff recommends that the applicant meet ordinance requirement when applying for the building permit and show all trees within the construction limits on the survey. Recommendations: 1. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits for the accessory building and note trees to be removed. All preserved trees must be protected during construction. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COLINTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 21,2018, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing to consider shoreland, wetland and front yard setback variances in order to build an accessory building (garage) on the lot located at3790 Lone Cedar Lane, Planning Case File No. 2018-20 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me thir3 <- day of F-k,.u< ryrb(,^ , 2018. JEAN M. STECI.LiNG Notary Public-Minnosota (-otary Public Clrnmbsion Explreo Jan gl, A01O Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are errorfree, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data Drovided. Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offlces and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are errorfree, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2OOO), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. (Next Record>rTAX_NAMED <TAX_ADD_LIr (TAX_ADD_L2I, <TAX_ADD_L3D (TAX_ADD_L3D B ii Fr Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Gommission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time:Tuesday, December 4,2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the aqenda. Location:City Hall CouncilChambers, 7700 Market Boulevard Proposal: To consider shoreland, wetland and front yard setback variances in order to build an accessory building (garage) on lot. Applicant:Richard Morris Property Location: 3790 Lone Cedar Lane A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public.4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the oroiect. Questions & Comments: lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the city's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-20. lf you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie Walters by email at mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at952-227-1132. lf you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project website listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www. ci. chan hassen. mn. us/notifvme to siq n u p! . Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviem, Conditional and lnterim Usas, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinanes require all property within at least 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the applietion in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.. Staff prepares a report on the subject appli@tion thal includes all pertinent information and a rs@mmendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overuiew of the report and a recommendation. The item will b€ open€d for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the haaring pro@ss. The Commissaon will closa the public hearing and discuss the item and make a re@mmendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's rmmmendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council ex@pt rezonings and land use amendmenls from residential to @mmercial/industrial.. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all appli€tions to be pro@ssed within 60 days unless the appli€nt waives this standard. Some appli€tions due to their omplexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the pro@ss should check wilh the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.. A neighborhood spokesperson/represenlative is en@uraged to provide a @ntaci for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborh@d regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the prolsct with any interested person(s). . Beeuse the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not Minutes are taken and any @rraspondence regardang the application will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contacl the Plannino staff person named on the notificataon. Date & Time:Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location:City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard Proposal: To consider shoreland, wetland and front yard setback variances in order to build an accessory building (garage) on lot. Applicant:Richard Morris Property Location: 3790 Lone Cedar Lane A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public.4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the proiect. Questions & Gomments: lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the city's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-20. lf you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie Walters by email at mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at952-227-1132. lt you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project website listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Gommission meetinq. Sign up to receive email andior text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www. ci. chanhassen. mn. us/notifyme to siq n u p ! City Review Procedure:. Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rszonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendmonts require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinanes require all property within at least 500 feet of the subj*t sita to be notified of the appli€tion in writing. Any inlerested party rs rnvrted to attend the meeting.. Staff prepares a report on the subject appli€tion that includes all pertinent information and a re@mmendation. These reporls are available by request. At lhe Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a re@mmendation. The item will be opened for the public to sp€ak about the proposal as a part of the hearing pro@ss. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a re@mmendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, aftirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's rmmmendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments lake a simple majority vote of the City Council ex@pt rezonings and land use amendments from rssidential to @mmercial/industrial.. Minnesola State Statute 519.99 requires all applietions to be proessed within 60 days unless the appli€nt waives this standard. Some applietions due to their @mplexity may take several months to @mplete. Any per$n wishing to follw an ilem through the proess should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is en@uraged to provide a @ntact for the city. Often developers are enouraged to meet with the neighborh@d regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the poact with any interested person(s).. Be€use the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not Minutes are taken and any orespondence regarding the appli€tion will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to hav6 something to be included in the report, oleas contacl the Plannino slaff oerson named on the notifi€tion PIN 251700010 2s0080200 252940030 252940020 2s0080100 2s1700030 TAX_ADD_T2 CHANHASSEN EXCELSIOR CHASKA BONITA SPRINGS MINNEAPOLIS CHASKA TAX_ADD_13 MN 55317-0026 MN 55331.-3102 MN 55318-9652 FL 34134-2502 MN 55455-01.79 MN 55318-9652 TAX-NAME ABRAHAM & DOROTHY ABBARIAO JEFFREYJ & DEBRAJ PAPKE SCOTTP&LAURIEAGAUER WAWH BS FAMILY TRUST REGENTS OF THE UNIV OF MINN KENNETH R & MARTHA t SORENSEN TAX_ADD_11 PO BOX 26 6180 CARDINAL DR S 3820 LONE CEDAR CIR 265 BAREFOOT BEACH BLVD # 405 319 15TH ST SE 424 DONHOWE BLD 38OO LONE CEDAR CIR SHAPE 3750 ARBORETUM BLVD 3810 LONE CEDAR CIR 3675 ARBORETUM DR 38OO LONE CEDAR CIR PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, December 4, 2018 Subject PUD Amendment to Allow Liquor Sales, in Conjunction with a Temporary Event Permit, at Paisley Park Museum Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2. Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director File No: PC 2018­19 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve an Ordinance amending the PUD to allow liquor sales in conjunction with a Temporary Event Permit.”  SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant, PPark Management, for the Paisley Park Museum located at 7801 Audubon Road, is requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance governing the use of the property to permit liquor as a part of Temporary Event Permit. BACKGROUND Paisley Park’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance allows for the hosting of private events. The proposed events would occur outside of normal business hours, thus requiring a permit. Additionally, Paisley Park is interested in serving cocktails during these events. Since the PUD Ordinance specifically prevents liquor sales and consumption, PPark Management is applying for a PUD amendment to allow for an exception from the alcohol prohibition under the Temporary Event Permit. ANALYSIS On October 24, 2016, the City Council approved the rezoning of the Paisley Park property to permit a museum.  The rezoning was a PUD that specified uses for the site.  One of the prohibited uses was liquor sales and consumption.  The operator of the museum requested approval to serve liquor for the week of the Super Bowl.  There were no issues with the Super Bowl event. The management is now requesting, in conjunction with the issuance of a Temporary Events Permit, the ability to sell liquor.  In order for liquor to be served at any event, it must be catered by a restaurant that holds an on­sale intoxicating liquor license and a caterer’s permit.  Per statute, liquor service and sales shall be incidental to the food service.  The caterer must notify public safety of the event dates and times prior the event.  The city has a special event permit that is a mechanism for notification of the event.  City Code permits 15 days of temporary events per year.    PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, December 4, 2018SubjectPUD Amendment to Allow Liquor Sales, in Conjunction with a Temporary Event Permit, atPaisley Park MuseumSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2.Prepared By Kate Aanenson, CommunityDevelopment Director File No: PC 2018­19PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve an Ordinance amending the PUD toallow liquor sales in conjunction with a Temporary Event Permit.” SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant, PPark Management, for the Paisley Park Museum located at 7801 Audubon Road, is requesting anamendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance governing the use of the property to permit liquor as apart of Temporary Event Permit.BACKGROUNDPaisley Park’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance allows for the hosting of private events. The proposedevents would occur outside of normal business hours, thus requiring a permit. Additionally, Paisley Park is interested inserving cocktails during these events. Since the PUD Ordinance specifically prevents liquor sales and consumption,PPark Management is applying for a PUD amendment to allow for an exception from the alcohol prohibition under theTemporary Event Permit.ANALYSISOn October 24, 2016, the City Council approved the rezoning of the Paisley Park property to permit a museum.  Therezoning was a PUD that specified uses for the site.  One of the prohibited uses was liquor sales and consumption.  Theoperator of the museum requested approval to serve liquor for the week of the Super Bowl.  There were no issues withthe Super Bowl event.The management is now requesting, in conjunction with the issuance of a Temporary Events Permit, the ability to sellliquor.  In order for liquor to be served at any event, it must be catered by a restaurant that holds an on­sale intoxicatingliquor license and a caterer’s permit.  Per statute, liquor service and sales shall be incidental to the food service.  The caterer must notify public safety of the event dates and times prior the event.  The city has a special event permit that is a mechanism for notification of the event.  City Code permits 15 days of temporary events per year.    Temporary Event Permits require an application to be submitted describing the nature of the event including dates, site layout, and the number of people.  Staff reviews the application and determines any potential negative impacts on neighboring properties. On June 12, 2017, staff provided the City Council an update of the approved PUD conditions and Site Improvement Performance Agreement for Paisley Park as well as a report on how the museum operations are working. The conclusion of that report was that the operation of the museum continues to evolve as the owner refines their business model. There is a minimal number of Calls for Service (CFS) for this location and has a negligible impact on our overall public safety mission in the city. There have been no major problems at Paisley Park Museum and operations do not have a negative impact on law enforcement services. The updated traffic study demonstrated an acceptable level of service. Special events require traffic and parking management plans. They have revised their traffic circulation and access and have also made accommodations for Uber and Lyft. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of an amendment to the PUD to permit alcohol to be served in conjunction with a Temporary Event Permit. ATTACHMENTS: PUD Ordinance Ordinance Amending PUD for Paisley Park Development Review Application Special Event Permit Affidavit of Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 616 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE,THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code,the City's zoning ordinance,is amended by rezoning the following described property("Subject Property")to PUD,Planned Unit Development: Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Carver County, MN Section 2. Paisley Park Planned Unit Development a. Intent The purpose of this rezoning is to create a PUD zoning district for Paisley Park. The uses, development standards and regulations of the IOP, Industrial Office Park District shall apply subject to the following modifications: b. Permitted Uses. Only the following uses are permitted: 1. Museum. 2. Recording studio. 3. Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than twenty percent(20%) of the floor space is used for retail sales. These sales may include food, beverages and memorabilia. 4. Twelve(12) indoor concerts per calendar year. A concert-specific seating plan must be filed with the City at least ten(10) days in advance of each concert. 5. Private events. An event-specific seating plan must be filed with the City at least ten 10)days in advance of each event. 6. Office. 7. Multiple buildings on a lot. c.Conditional Uses. The following conditional use is permitted: 1. Hotel. d. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited: 1. All conditional and permitted uses not listed as permitted or conditional uses. 1 189087v3 2. Outdoor events. 3. Liquor sales and consumption. e.Materials and Design Fence: Fences shall comply with City Code requirements including the Buffer Yard requirements, except that fences may be opaque to provide security screening. f.Development Plans and Regulations. The PUD must be maintained in accordance with the following development plans which are on file with the City and which are incorporated herein by reference: 1. Site Plan—SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Parking Study dated September 15, 2016, Figure 5, Option 1, with a north access right-in for buses only and right-out only for buses, and passenger vehicles. 2. The tent identified on the Site Plan may only be used for the sale of food,beverages and memorabilia. 3. A hotel may only be in the round building on the Site Plan and may not exceed 35 guest rooms. 4. Site Improvement Performance Agreement approved by the Chanhassen City Council on October 24, 2016. 5. Landscaping along the east side of Audubon Road is required and shall include roses, junipers and barberry. g. Parking 1. Parking lots and parking spaces shall comply with city code requirements. 2. If guests only arrive to the site by a shuttle bus the tour size shall be limited by the maximum occupancy under the Fire Code. 3. Audubon Road must be striped to include a left turn lane into the southernaccess. 4. All required permits, including from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, must be obtained prior to installing the pavement. 5. The north access shall be limited to a right-in for buses only and right-out of the site for buses and passenger vehicles. 2 I89087v3 6. The traffic signal at Highway 5 and Audubon Road must be optimized based on the SRF study. 7. The number of guests allowed on the site shall be limited so that either(a)there are a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces to accommodate guests who arrive by a personal vehicle, or(b) guests arrive and depart by bus. 8. Until all parking requirements have been constructed, all access to the site shall be by bus with the exception of employees, contractors and 40 guest cars per hour maximum. 9. If the on-site parking is inadequate,the maximum allowable tour size shall be reduced to a level where the on-site parking is sufficient, or the PUD and the site plan must be amended to provide more parking or guests shall be bused to and from the site. Any changes to the site plan are subject to review and approval by the City and other agencies with regulatory authority over the site. Section 3. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations,references,and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 2016,by the City Council of the City of anhassen, Minnesota. 4‘44r --- To d Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Lau nburger, Mayor Published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 3, 2016) 3 I89087v3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 630 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PAISLEY PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Ordinance 616, Section 2D, Paisley Park Planned Unit Development, is amended to provide as follows: D. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited: 1. All uses not listed as permitted uses. 2. Outdoor events. Liquor sales and consumption except from January 29, 2018 through February 5, 2018 from 7:00 PM until 1:00 AM during which period liquor sales and consumption are permitted for private parties with a maximum of 1,000 people. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8a` day of January, 2018, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 195458vl yvY Denny Lau nburger, Mayor If Publish in the Chanhassen Villager -on January 18, 2018) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 630 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PAISLEY PARR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Ordinance 616, Section 2D, Paisley Park Planned Unit Development, is amended to provide as follows: D. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited: 1. AD uses not Iisted as permitted uses. 2. Outdoor events. 3. Liquor sales and consumption except from January 29, 2018 through February 5, 2018 from 7:00 PM until 1:00 AM during which period liquor sales and consumption are permitted for private parties with a maximum of 1,000 people. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately. upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 2018, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, January 18.2018: No 4548) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.qs-14 was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyzz 0444&Q Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of 2018 Public VVJYMM JEANNETTE BARK NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 01131123 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.97 per column inch aol g^ t9 FA CO iIUiIIW DEVELOPiiEiIT DEPARTMENT Planning Divi8ion - 7700 Market Boulovard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanha$an, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227{ 300 / Fax: (9521227-1110 .,*,*,*,".1t iJ liY eco"t",il/r lt? cc o*", llrq lrq *crTrorcHAtrrrAssrr APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 60-Day Review Oate: (tutet to the dpptwiste Application chec!4id lor tquid st bmittat info/.',f/.|,@ that n,u& awnDny this appllcetioa) E $rmprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600E Minor MUSA line for failing on-sit€ sowers ..... gt 00 E Conditional UEe Permit (CUP) E Sing[+Family Residence...................,....,..,..., $325E Atotlers........ ..,............... $42s E lnterim Us6 PBrmit (lUP) E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $32SU All Others........ ........ ......... $425 E Rezoning (REZ) - E PEnned Unit D€velopment (pUD) ...............,.. $750 _\EJ Minor Amendmont to exEting PUD................. SiOO$ rut Oners......................................................... t5OO E Sign Plan Review................................................... $1SO E Site Plan Review (SPR) E Commerciat/tndustriat Distric1s....................... $500 Plus S10 per 1,000 squarc feet of building area:( thousand squara foet).lnclude numbor o, errciira omploye€si _ fl Residential Disrids-............. . ................... 3SOO Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) Prop€rty Owners' Ligt within 500' (City to generato ater pre-apptks on ,n€otjng) ............1. ..... $3 per address Escrow ror. Recording Documenrs (check ar rhar appry).... ttl::::::*:l .....gso per documentLl conditional us€ Permit EJ rnrarim use p€rmit fJ s[e ptan Agr€;mentn vacation E v"ri"n* - - - "' E wltr"nJ nriEr"ion p"-itE Metas & Eounds Subdivision (3 doca.) E easer"ns f ees€ments) - ;;- *'*' TOTAL FEE: tr Subdivision (SUB)rl Create s lots or less .......,................................$30{) D Creete over 3 |ots.......................$600 + S15 per lot( lols)U Metss & Bound8 (2 tots)........................,......... $300E Consc,tidaiB Lots..,........................................... $1SOE Lot Line Ad,usfnonr......................................... $lSOE Final Prat......... .................. $7OO (lncludes $450 esdow for attomey coBts)* 'Addllboll rlclo$ may b€ .€qulr€d br ottEr spptkxions throlgh nra dovd@meflt contEcl. Vacetion of Easemcnts/Right-of-way (VAC)........ E3OO (Addilio.ral rccodlng h6 riay apply) Variance (VAR)..... ................. $2OO Wetand Alteration Permit (WAP) fl SinglsFamily Resiaente............................... $1 SOE Allourers........ ................ $275 Zoning Appeal....... ................ S1OO Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $SOO !!(IIE: Whcn multlph rppllc.tort .ro prcc.Ird co,rcurcnity,tIo rpprop.i.L foc rhtll br Ghrrgod for.!ch tpplh.$olt. tr tr tr tr tr E tr Description of Proposal: 7801 Audubon Rd. Chanhassen, MN 55417Property Address or Location: parcet#: 251900'110 Total Acr6age: Legal Description:Museum/Fecording Facility Present Zoning: Selacl One Presenl Land Use Designatio6; Selecl One Requested Land Use D6ignation:Salect One Wstlands Present?E ves E tto Requested Zoning:Select One Existing Use of Property; Museum ECtrec* box if separats narrative is attached. 'sonal ;on, APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWIIER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authoriaation from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions oi approval, sub,iect only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during thl appeal period. lf ihis application has not been signedby the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full ligal capacity to file ihe application. This appliiation should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contid regarding'any ma6er pertaining to thisapplication. I will keep myself informed of Ure deadlines for submiision of material ani the irogiess of this apflidtion. Ifurther understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior toany authorizalion to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and coneci. Tlm Fitch Address:7801 Audubon Hoad Contacl: Phone:952-495-6757 City/StateEip: Email: Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cell: Fax: 612-425-5632 authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are [inding and agree to be bound by thoseconditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during itre appeat periodsl I wilt klep myself informeo ofthe deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this app-iication. I further understand that;dditional fees maybe charged for consulting-fees, feasibility studies, etC. witr an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the :t!ldJ.".!.qe!:tJff lhat the information and exhibits submitted are true and conect. Signature:Date:10/23/18 PROPERTY OWNER: ln this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, Contac{: By: Angela W Aycock phone: 248-236-0954 City/State/Zip' 411 W. Lafayefte, 2nd Floor Detroit, Ml48226 Cell: Address: I*,ff,,i=P..9:ft-tlpt*din full.andmust-be accompanied by allinturmation and ptans required byapplicable City Ordinance provisions. Before fling this applicition, refir to the appropriate Apptication Checktistand confer with the Planning Department to delermine the specific ordinance and'applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittat.wrifren notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 1S business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if appticabte) Name:Contact; Address:Phone: Cell:City/State/Zip: Email: Who ehould rccetvs copies of $aff reports? Property Owner Applicant Engineer Olher* rfiher Contact lnformation: Name:EEnn Via: El Emait E frlaileO paper Copy Ma: ElEmait D manea paperCopy Ma: f]Emait f]uaireo pabercobi Via: fl Email fl naaiteo paper Coiy Address: CitylStateZip: Email: lNsTRUcTloNs ro AEIISANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then setect to save a copy io yourdevice. and. deliver to city along with required documents and payment to send a digitat copy tothe cityforprocessing. f:::=--t t--l- lsAvEFoRil I IPR|NTFOBU I lSUBmrrOnmit---"'-'---"1 Email: Signature:Date: 1013012018 We are requesting an amendment to the PUD for the ability for licensed caterers/suppliers to be able to serve alcohol for specia! events when requested. Temporary Outdoor Event/Seasonal Sales Permit Permit Type Permit Days Used Permit Days Remaining Special Event The City of Chanhassen authorizes Organization Name to conduct Event Name at Event Location on Date(s) from Start Time to End Time (hours of operation). This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Condition(s) Note The City may inspect the property on which the sale or event is being held before the start of the event and/or during the sale or event to verify compliance with the City Code or the above conditions. The City Manager or their designee may, upon written notice, suspend or revoke this permit if the provisions of the City Code or the conditions of the permit are violated. This permit may also be summarily revoked by the City’s chief law enforcement officer or fire chief when by reason of an emergency; they determine that the safety of the public or property requires such revocation. Approved by: (Printed Name) CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COLINTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 21,2018, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing to consider an amendment to a PUD permitting licensed caterers/suppliers the ability to serve alcohol as part of special events on the property located at 7801 Audubon Road, Planning Case File No.2018-19 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this.r-,6ldayof l' t u;rn5' -,2018.JEAN M. STECKLING Notary Public-Minnesota Comrnl.ebn Expirco Jln 01, e018 Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are errorfree, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (20001, and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are errorfree, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. (TAX_NAMED (TAX_ADD_L1D (TAX_ADD_L2D, (TAX_ADD_L3) <Next Record>cTAX_NAMED cTAX_ADD_LIr (TAX_ADD_L2I, <TAX_ADD_L3I I'l t @ :1 v .l -&'\ I Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time:Tuesday, December 4,2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the eveninq, dependinq on the order of the aqenda. Location:City Hall CouncilChambers, 7700 Market Boulevard Proposal: To consider an amendment to a PUD permitting licensed caterers/suppliers the ability to serve alcohol as part of specialevents. ApplicanUOwner:Tim Fitch / Anqela W. Avcock Property Location: 7801 Audubon Road A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public.4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the proiect. Questions & Comments: lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the city's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-19. lf you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie Walters by email at kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at952-227-1 139. lf you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project website listed above the Thursday prior to the Planninq Commission meetinq. Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www. ci. chanhassen. m n. us/notifyme to sig n u p ! utly xevrew Procedure: . Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all properly within at least 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the appli€tion in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.. Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be proessed within 60 days unless the appli€nt waives this standard. Some applications due to their @mplexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is en@uraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Statf is also available to review the prcject with any interested person(s).. Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application wlll be included in the repo( to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be included in the report, please mntact the Planning staff person named on the notification. Date & Time:Tuesday, December 4,2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not. start until later in the eveninq, dependinq on the order of the aqenda. Location:City Hall CouncilChambers, 7700 Market Boulevard Proposal: To consider an amendment to a PUD permitting licensed caterers/suppliers the ability to serve alcohol as part of specialevents. ApplicanUOwner:Tim Fitch / Anqela W. Avcock Property Location: 7801 Audubon Road A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public.4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the proiect. Questions & Comments: lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the city's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-19. lf you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie Walters by email at kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at952-227-1139. lf you choose to submit written comments, it is helpfulto have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project website listed above the Thursday prior to the Planninq Commission meetinq. Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen. mn. us/notifyme to sign up! utly Keyew tsroceoure: . Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within at least 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the appli€tion in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.. Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbai overuiew of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a re@mmendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's re@mmendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.. Minnesota State Statute 51 9.99 requires all applications to be proessed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their @mplexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the prcject with any interested person(s).. Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be PIN TAX_NAME 250101OOO SOUTHWEST TRANSIT 254480010 JAIN PROPERTIES II LLC 251900110 PAISLEY PARK FACILITY LLC 25]51OO2O KERBER HOLDINGS LLC 25O11O3OO STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT 251920010 MUSTANG LLC TAX_ADD_11 13500 TECHNOTOGY DR 1621 MCGLYNN RD 230 PARK AVE STE 634 3697 LERIVE WAY TAX-ADD-12 TAX_ADD-13 SHAPE EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344-2283 1620ARBORETUM BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1621 MCGLYNN RD NEW YORK NY 10169 7801 AUDUBON RD CHASKA MN 55318 1430 PARK CT 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD MAILSTOP ST PAUL MN 55155-1899 1450 ARBORETUM BTVD 7860 PARK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9294 7850 PARK DR 25L92OO2O SUMMIT EQUITY PARTNERS LLC 7870 PARK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 254480020 LOVE 4 ONE ANOTHER CHARITIES 8014 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY 55 GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427 257510030 GALLER PROPERTIES tLC 9376KIOWATRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-861,5 1,450 PARKCT 254520010 MCGLYNN BAKERIESINCf,366 POBOX1113 MINNEAPOTIS MN 55440-1113 8OOOAUDUBON RD 257510010 TWO S PROPERTIES INC PO BOX 25025 GLENDALE CA 91201.5025 78OO PARK DR PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, December 4, 2018 Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated November 20, 2018 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from the November 20, 2018 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated November 20, 2018 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated November 20, 2018 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; and Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Pete Moreau 411 Jefferson Avenue So, Edina Brady Busselman 12800 Whitewater, Minnetonka 55434 Ed Farr 7710 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM) AND AMEND FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION ORDINANCE. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: HOLASEK BUSINESS PARK CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REZONING PARCEL, SUBDIVISION, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. Commissioner Mark Undestad recused himself from this item. Bob Generous and Erick Henricksen presented the staff report. Commissioner Tietz asked for clarification on traffic, fill, water for fire suppression, and wetland mitigation. Chairman Aller asked about concerns with the bluff. Commissioner Madsen asked about concerns with the pipeline running through the property. Ed Farr with Edward Farr Architects, spoke on behalf of Eden Trace Corporation and outlined their proposal. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 2 Tietz moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A-2, to Industrial Office Park, IOP; Preliminary Plat approval creating three lots and one outlot with access via a private street; a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill wetlands on site; and Site Plan approval for three office industrial buildings for a total of 449,350 square feet, plans prepared by Sambatek, dated 11-02-2018, and Edward Farr Architects, dated 10-19-2018, subject to the following conditions: SUBDIVISION Engineering All ingress/egress locations, including the right-in/right-out access located at the northwestern portion of the property, and subsequent impacts of trip generation by the development, shall be designed to Carver County standards and shall meet all Carver County’s requirements. Any requirements set by Carver County to improve the intersection shall be addressed by the applicant (if necessary). The applicant shall dedicate the 40’ x 120’ drainage and utility easement at the northwest corner of Lot 1 on the preliminary and final plat prior to recording. An executed agreement between the developer and Magellan Pipeline Company allowing construction over Magellan Pipeline Company’s easement shall be provided to the city prior to the issuance of grading permits. The preliminary and final plat shall not include the 5’ drainage and utility easements located at the south side of Lot 2, and the north side of Lot 3, prior to acceptance and recording. All retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height shall have plans and details prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect prior to issuance of building permits. At the time of building permit submittal, connection methodology to the existing stubs (sanitary sewer and water services), material type, and location of service valves and other appurtenances shall be identified for review. Prior to construction of the water and sanitary utilities within the development, all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required. An O&M plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 3 Improvements to the existing manhole where the effluent will be received via the lift station. Parks Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the three proposed lots totaling 36.39 acres as a condition of approval for Holasek Business Park. These park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Planning A 40-foot access and maintenance easement shall be recorded over the private streets. The private streets shall be constructed to a nine-ton design with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet and a maximum slope of 10 percent. A street name for the private street at Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard shall be submitted to the Building Official and Fire Marshall for review and approval prior to recording the final plat. Water Resources Coordinator Stormwater Development Charges. Estimated stormwater development fees in the amount of $770,012.40 (36.39 acres x $21,160) shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. Financial Assurance. To guarantee compliance with the plan and related remedial work, a cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished to the city before a building permit is issued. The escrow amount shall be $7,500.00 per acre. The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. The assurance shall be maintained until final stabilization and removal of erosion and sediment controls. Drainage and utility easements will be required over all remaining wetlands and public stormwater utilities. This includes the western boundary of the project as well as the southwest corner of the parcel which should have a sufficient easement for the main drainage pipe for this area (required in conjunction with final plat). Private stormwater easements will be required over all private stormwater facilities using the city’s template (required in conjunction with final plat). Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 4 The Holasek Business Park construction plans show areas of grading over the main stormwater pipe that runs north to south along the western property boundary. Construction on this pipe may be planned for the next couple of years. Please coordinate earthwork in this area with the city and Carver County Public Works Department. The plans show significant grading in the south outlot. Sec. 19-145 of City Code does not allow unbroken slopes greater than 30’ and slopes steeper than 3:1. Additionally, the proposed grading would trigger bluff regulations Sec. 20-1401 and Sec. 20-1405. Staff recommends removing the stockpile from the proposed plans. If the stockpile cannot be removed it will need to be reduced to slope less than 20’, 3:1 max. It must meet all other regulatory requirements for wetland hydrology, erosion and sediment control, and surface water management. Erosion and sediment control must meet the requirements of Sec. 19-145 including a dewatering plan. Erosion and Sediment Control Practices including temporary sedimentation basins, silt fence, the construction entrance, and ESC BMPs are shown in the legend on sheet C5.02, but not on the plans. Indicate the location of these practices on the Erosion Control Plan sheet. EOFs should be stabilized with TRM or similar. Include chosen stabilization measures in the construction plans. Temporary Sediment Ponds. The proposed stormwater ponds will need to be utilized as temporary sediment ponds during construction. A faircloth skimmer will need to be installed, and the outlets of the pond will need to be sealed off for the duration of construction until the site is stabilized. Skimming devices should be designed to remove oils and floatable materials up to a one-year frequency event. The skimmer should be set 12 inches below the normal surface water elevation and should control the discharge velocity to 0.5 fps. Incorporate these notes and details into the construction plans. Topsoil Management a. Subsoil Decompaction. Please add a note about subsoil decompaction to the topsoil section on sheet L1.03. Subsoil must be decompacted to a depth of six inches in all pervious areas, prior to placement of six inches of topsoil. Contractor must identify the method used to decompact six inches of subsoil prior to placing topsoil. b. Topsoil Depth. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 reads that a minimum of four inches of topsoil is required. CCWMO Standards require that six inches of topsoil be replaced in all disturbed pervious areas. Update this note to reflect the six inch requirement. c. Stockpiles. Please indicate the quantity of topsoil needed to restore six inches in all pervious areas of the development. Show location(s) where existing topsoil is to be stockpiled on the site. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 5 d. Soil Hauling. Describe topsoil hauling plans, including locations and estimated quantities. Note that if topsoil is exported or imported to the site, an additional permit may be required. e. Vegetative Cover. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 refers to a healthy stand of vegetation in all disturbed pervious areas of the development. Please note that 90% of the expected vegetative density is required. Stormwater Management Sec. 19-142. Plans required. All plans shall be reviewed and stamped “Approved by the City Engineer” and all applicable permits must be obtained prior to commencing construction. For all newly constructed stormwater facilities (ponds, retention areas, infiltration basins, storm sewer, etc.) or existing facilities that are modified, as-built plans shall be prepared by the developer. As- built plans shall be signed and certified by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota and record drawings shall be provided to the city. Standard details for many typical storm structures (e.g., storm sewer, outlet structures, catch basins, sump manholes, etc.) are available on the city's website. Sec. 19-144. Major facility design elements. a. For basins intended to have permanent water levels, a minimum of four feet of standing water (dead storage depth) and a maximum of ten feet shall be provided. b. Separation between the inlet(s) and outlet shall be maximized to prevent short- circuiting. c. Outlets shall be evaluated for the need to dissipate energy so as to reduce velocities to permissible levels as allowed by the soil and vegetation. At a minimum, flared-end sections should be provided with riprap consistent with Minnesota Department of Transportation standards. For areas with high flows or where excessive erosion occurs or is anticipated, energy dissipation per Federal Highway Administration standards shall be followed. d. Riprap shall be provided below the channel grade and above the outfall or channel bottom to ensure that riprap will not be undermined by scour or rendered ineffective by displacement. Riprap consisting of natural angular stone suitably graded by weight shall be designed for anticipated velocities. Riprap shall be placed over a suitable filter material or filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not move through the riprap and reduce its stability. BMP Details. Include the following BMP details in the construction plans: a. BMP Cross Sections. Include site-specific elevations on the Bioretention Bench and Bioretention Trench details on sheet C4.02. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 6 b. OCS Details. Include Outlet Control Structure Details (attached) for the stormwater BMPs with specific elevations for inlets, outlets, and draintile (when applicable). c. BMP Profiles. Include profiles of the stormwater BMPs with draintile (Pond B Filtration Bench and Filtration Trench) showing draintile slope. Please note that all draintile must have a positive drainage slope of at least 0.5%. Include site-specific invert elevations for assistance with field construction. d. EOF elevations. EOF elevations should be set to at least 0.5 ft. above the HWL to allow for construction tolerance. Include cross-sections of the EOFs in the plan set. Impervious Acreage. The area (ac) of proposed new impervious is inconsistent between the application (25.10), stormwater report (27.5), project narrative (25.08), plan sheet C5.03 (28.4), and HydroCAD model (25.34). Clarify the correct area of new impervious and update components of the submittal to match. Elevation-Storage Tables. Include the Filtration Bench bottom (should be 928.5) in the elevation- storage table in the HydroCAD report so that the treatment volumes can be determined for the ponds, bench, and re-use system. Filtration Trench. The filtration trench design is not compliant in the current design. a. Contributing Area. The filtration trench appears to receive runoff from pervious areas only. Stormwater BMPs should capture and treat runoff from impervious areas on the site. b. Tree Roots. The filtration trench is proposed in an area that is wooded on the landscape plan. Trees may be planted on the side-slopes or adjacent to the trench but are not allowed in the trench bottom. Tree roots may impact the draintile and prevent proper drainage. c. Model and Plan Details. The filtration trench is not included in the HydroCAD model and the construction plans do not show details (bottom, NWL, HWL, OCS, EOF) for this BMP. Please include the details listed in Comment #2 above and include information for this practice in the construction plans and HydroCAD model. Operation & Maintenance Plan (O&M). Provide a draft O&M plan outlining the responsibilities for inspecting and maintaining the stormwater BMPs on site. The O&M plan must be signed by all responsible parties. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 7 a. Reuse Maintenance Plan. Provide a draft Reuse Maintenance Plan as part of the overall O&M plan. Please include all details outlined in the corresponding section on the Stormwater Reuse Design Guidance document. Reuse Plan Sheet. Please add the following information to the stormwater reuse plan: a. Location of the following reuse system components: irrigation lines, irrigation zones, sprinkler heads, pumps, intakes from ponds, and usage meters. If applicable, include the locations of the potable connection, backflow prevention devices, filters, and debris collection sumps. b. Narrative describing operation of the systems. If the irrigated areas will be actively used during daytime hours, the irrigation needs to be scheduled for times when the areas will not be in use. c. Location of access for reuse system maintenance. d. Drawdown elevations of the reuse ponds. e. Volume reduction and/or water quality calculations. f. Other information relevant to the reuse systems. SWPPP. A copy of the SWPPP including soils/infiltration data within the perimeter of all infiltration/filtration devices is required prior to review for final plat. The SWPPP must also meet all requirements of City Code 19-145. Basin. There is a bioretention basin south of Lyman Boulevard in the road construction plans. Please show this basin on the construction plans for Holasek Business Park and demonstrate that the road project plans don’t interfere with this project. Chloride Management Plan. A chloride management plan is required. Applicant will need to respond to the comments received by Twin Cities & Western (Wednesday, October 24, 2018 6:39 AM): “In response to this proposal Twin Cities & Western offers the following comment: Twin Cities & Western has concerns of stormwater and general runoff impacts with this land being developed making it non-pervious. What will happen to the stormwater runoff and will the increased runoff adversely impact the railroad roadbed?” SITE PLAN Engineering Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 8 Must comply with the conditions of the Holasek Business Park conditions of approval for the subdivision. Environmental Resources The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to increase quantities to meet minimum ordinance requirements for parking lot trees. Additional tree species will need to be added rather than increasing quantities of existing selection. The applicant should consider limiting the number of lindens called for in the plant schedule and avoid planting elms and lindens in groupings. The applicant should designate snow removal/storage areas on each lot that do not conflict with proposed landscaping. All parking lot islands and peninsulas that contain a tree planting must have an inside width of 10 feet. They also will be required to have proper planting soil as specified in the Planting Notes. Parking lot islands located in the pipeline easement shall be planted with small shrubs or perennial plantings, if allowed. Planning The applicant shall enter into separate site plan agreements with the city for each lot and building and provide the necessary security to guarantee grading and erosion control, site restoration, stormwater and landscaping. Pedestrian ramps shall be added at each curb at the driveway entrance to Building A and included on the site plan sheet C3.01. Community features including benches, bike racks and picnic tables shall be incorporated in the site. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. Water Resources Coordinator Must comply with the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 9 WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT a. Sec. 20-409. Decisions under this article must not be made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the city council, the landowner, or a member of the technical evaluation panel asks for such determinations. b. Any projects seeking a wetland alteration permit subject to this article will also be required to submit the following incomplete requirements: Existing and proposed drainage areas to wetlands; Buffer strip plan meeting the criteria of subsections 20-411(c) and (d) c. Sec. 20-416. Mitigation. Wetland mitigation shall be undertaken on-site. If this is not feasible, then mitigation may occur locally within the subwatershed. If this is not possible, then mitigation may occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be accomplished on-site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off- site, then the applicant shall be responsible for providing off-site mitigation within the major subwatershed, as designated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, or purchasing wetland credits from the state wetland bank. Staff believes mitigation can occur on site by expanding the wetlands in the south outlot. d. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by this Code. e. If a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland; (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation; (3) It shall not adversely change water flow; (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action; (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas; (6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures; (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning; (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland. f. The alteration shall not alter the hydrological patterns in the remainder of the wetland, if a portion of the wetland remains, unless exempted under Sec. 20-417. Please show how hydrologic patterns will not be altered for the remaining wetlands. g. Sec. 20-405. Wetland delineation. An electronic copy of the delineated wetland boundaries must be submitted in a format compatible with the city's GIS database. h. Sec. 20-406. Wetland classification. All wetlands delineated under Sec. 20-405 of this article that have not been previously classified shall be classified using the results from the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 10 Version 3.0), or future versions. A MnRAM shall be completed by the property owner or applicant for each previously unclassified wetland. An electronic version of the MnRAM evaluation must be submitted to and approved by the city to establish the classification of each wetland prior to any alteration or impact to the wetland. i. An approved Notice of Decision (NOD) for Boundary and Type is required for a complete application, however, the applicant has been very involved, communicative, responsive, and fully participatory in the application process. Staff will accept the application in process as the TEP has met prior to deadline for completion. The NOD will be issued by November 27, 2018. j. Staff review will be conditional upon an approved NOD for Boundary and Type. k. Based on the submission the site will require at least one additional Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Application. A grading permit cannot be issued until the applicant has completed the WCA process. l. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the wetlands on-site. Please indicate wetland buffers widths and locations where signage will be placed on a plan sheet. Please find additional information on signage placement in the guidance document attached. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of materials. Alternative signs (by the city or applicant) are also acceptable provided they contain similar information. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. m. Sec. 19-146. Wetland elements. 1) Water level fluctuations (peak elevation and duration) for wetlands shall be limited to two feet and duration not to exceed 48 hours so as to prevent the destruction of wildlife habitat and wetland vegetation. 2) Sedimentation basins or sediment removal devices shall be provided prior to discharge into wetlands. 3) Variable bottom contours should be considered to provide deeper holes and flat shallow benches. This feature will provide habitat for diversity of plants and wetland inhabitants for wetland mitigation sites and stormwater basins. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 2, 2018 and the summary Planning Commission Summary – November 20, 2018 11 Minutes of the Planning Commission Work Session meeting dated October 16, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson discussed items from the City Council meetings dated October 8, 2018, October 22, 2018 and November 13, 2018 before discussing future Planning Commission agenda items. Commissioner Weick moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; and Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Pete Moreau 411 Jefferson Avenue So, Edina Brady Busselman 12800 Whitewater, Minnetonka 55434 Ed Farr 7710 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM) AND AMEND FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION ORDINANCE. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. This is a continuation of the work session that we had back in October 16th just to talking about why the City is going through this process. Is that more helpful? There we go. So this is a public hearing and then this item will be followed up to the City Council on December 10th. We are in a short timeline to adopt to make sure that we meet the guidelines for staying within the requirements of the flood mapping. So again why are we doing this? Carver County is updating the FEMA maps. The City update and their floodplain ordinance have to be adopted by December 21st so this will go to the City Council on the 10th and then we have publication requirements and then there’ll be, we want to stay in the floodplain mapping. So the issues are now that there’s better data which means some properties that were not previously shown in the floodplain are now in and some properties that were previously shown in the floodplain are now out. So there’s a known mapping error on Bluff Creek and then the existing floodplain ordinance does not sync well up with the model ordinance so those are some of the ongoing issues which you are not the body to resolve that. Your authority then here tonight is to adopt the ordinance itself. So the federal regulated and/or insurance lenders must requite floodplain insurance for those properties in the flood areas and any portion of the house or attached deck or the structure is required so that’s, while your house may not be in there, we get this request from mortgage holders all the time. If part of their property’s in the floodplain but the way this requires is if any structure which would be a deck attached to the house or the like would be a part of that. So the new map versus the old map. So our flood maps go back to Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 2 the 70’s so we’ve got much better data so the new maps based on better data reflect the changes in the water behavior due to changing weather patterns and development. And the new flood maps more accurately depict the actual location of the floodplain area and then some houses have been added or removed from the area itself. So again we know there’s an issue on the Bluff Creek. These new maps show that the flood area and the elevations do not correspond to the creek’s base flood elevation. These residents may receive letters from their mortgage holder and then they would have to go through the process with their mortgage holder to resolve it again. That’s not your issue to resolve. Your role here tonight and that is to adopt the ordinance for the new floodplain. Again homeowners can appeal through that determination. So many banks use outside firms to determine flood insurance requirements and they have 45 days if they’re outside of the area. If homeowners believe they were incorrectly included they can get their LOMA or either shown as using the GIS or some other data points to work through those surveys. Again that’s the responsibility of the property owner. The City would be willing to help if we’ve got technical information here such as our GIS information where we can help them with some data points that they can provide to their mortgage holder but otherwise it’s up to the bank to determine that. And just so you know we went the extra, and we mailed to 16 properties that we believe are mistakenly in the area so that’s up to them again to work with their mortgage holder on that. Aller: Just to break in. The City has no responsibility with regard to that? That was something that you did that was above and beyond? Aanenson: That’s correct, yep. So there was about 130 properties that we identified using the engineering department’s GIS specialist and then of those we kind of narrowed it down to the 16 affected properties. Some are in, some are out so we let them know and then they can work with their, those letters haven’t gone out. Once we adopt it they’ll be getting those letters but then they can work with that. Again we’re here to assess with some technical information but they would have to work on that their own. So in adopting, yes. Tietz: Just to follow up on Andrew’s question. If they were out, if they are now outside would it affect their insurance? Aanenson: They may be able to drop it. Tietz: So they have to notify their banker as well? Aanenson: Yes, that’s correct. Tietz: Not just the folks that… Aanenson: And I’m not sure the mortgage holder may not notify them so if they get notified then they could work through that themselves. If the mortgage holder doesn’t. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 3 Tietz: It goes both ways. Aanenson: Correct, right. Yeah. So again the goal here is to adopt the new language. So there’s some terminology that we’ve added so there’s 2 sections of the city code. One is in definition so that’s Chapter 1 and that’s the model ordinance that we’ve attached so that would providing better definitions. And then Chapter 20 where we have the floodplain ordinance. We have an ordinance in place already when we review housing. It has to be so many feet above the lowest level. Opening has to be so many feet above the ordinary high water mark so this is clarifying some of those terminologies. So in adopting the ordinance we’ve met their qualifications. We did attach the most recent letter we got. We had the DNR review our draft ordinance. They just had a couple of recommended changes which we have made to the ordinance so our ordinance is in compliance. Again we’re kind of on this short timeline here so our ordinance does meet the requirements of the DNR so then the goal then would be after you hold the public hearing that we would send this onto the City Council for their recommended approval of the ordinance itself and then we would have it sent up to DNR. We’d have to officially publish the ordinance and then send it up to them. Again so the original 1979 ordinance is similar structure to this model ordinance but then we’re just modifying some of the terminology and incorporating into the city code and then we are recommending that the City adopt the modified version of the DNR. Again they give a model ordinance. We pick those things that are most appropriate for Chanhassen. Some of the terminology will be modified to make it consistent with the terminology that we use and then we did receive the conditional approval from the DNR as I mentioned. So again the key changes are the critical facilities. Again these are recommendations from ’79 to the current recommendations from the DNR. Critical facilities and just for the Planning Commission’s information before I read all these, this is also for anybody that’s watching this that may want to know kind of what this, how this affects them. So critical facilities. There are special provisions have been adopted regulating the placement of utilities in the floodplain. Sometimes that we’ve got lift stations that are close in proximity. Those sort of things. Again regulatory flood protection elevation increased from 2 feet. As I mentioned before we’ve used 2 feet. Not to say now 3 feet above the ordinary water mark. And then new performance standards for permitted and conditional uses. We have a process to go through conditional uses. We’ve actually processed subdivisions where they can ask for clarification or modification if they believe that the floodplain is in error or modify just portions of that. So there’s a process then for determining flood way, flood fringe and general floodplain which we have done on specific subdivisions and stricter provisions of regulating non-conforming uses within the floodplain. So if you recall when we did the 212 or the 61 corridor study there are some structures along that that are in the floodplain and so we’ve addressed those as we move forward with those non-conforming structures. We believe that when those properties are redeveloped that those will change. So with that I would recommend that you would hold a public hearing and then we are recommending that you adopt the ordinance as we have outlined in the staff report and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 4 Aller: Okay I’m remembering that we had the work session October 16th and the materials which are well presented, are there any questions for staff at this time? Weick: I have one. Aller: Sure, Commissioner Weick. Weick: You mentioned before that a homeowner can appeal, who do they appeal to? It’s not to the City is it? Aanenson: No, it’s through their mortgage. Weick: That’s what I thought, okay. Aanenson: Yep. Weick: I just wanted to clarify that. And then also I think it’s just a typo right. An f-r-i-m is the same as an F-i-r-m in the report. Aanenson: Yes, yes. Weick: Because it kind of varies. Aanenson: Yes, yes. Weick: Okay. Just wanted to put that on the record. Aanenson: Thank you yeah. So along that same point so we, there were 6 that we thought possibly added 6 homes that were property that were added and then again like I said 10 that were possibly could be removed but that’s up to them. Again this gives them the opportunity to go through that federal program so a better rate for flood insurance. Aller: So it sounds like anybody that has flood insurance this is a good time to reassess. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: Take a look at it. Alright hearing no other questions I’ll open the public hearing on the item. Any individual wishing to come forward and speak either for or against this item may do so at this time. For those of you at home please remember that all these materials will be forwarded onto the City Council for final action on December 10, 2018. That’s your opportunity to look at these and any other materials that are presented to the City Council. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing and open it up for commission discussion, comment or I’ll request a motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 5 Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Alright. Undestad: I make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a valid motion and second before us, do we have any further discussion? Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: HOLASEK BUSINESS PARK CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REZONING PARCEL, SUBDIVISION, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. Mark Undestad recused himself from this item. Generous: Thank you Chairman, commissioners. Holasek Business Park, Planning Case 2018- 18. There’s 4 parts to this request. There’s a rezoning, a subdivision request, a wetland alteration and a site plan review. The applicant is Eden Trace Corporation. I should note that Mark Undestad has left the council chambers. Recused himself from this discussion. Property owners is Holasek Farms Limited Partners. This is the public hearing. This is also scheduled to go to City Council on December 12th. Or 10th. The property is located at 8610 Galpin Boulevard. It’s on the south side of Lyman Boulevard at the intersection with Galpin Boulevard. The property will be accessing off of Lyman which is a county road. Again the request is a rezoning from Agricultural Estate District A2 to Industrial Office Park District, IOP. A subdivision review to create 3 lots and one outlot. A wetland alteration permit to fill wetlands on the site and impact additional wetlands, and site plan review of a total of 449,350 square feet in 3 office industrial buildings so this will be a little industrial park. Office warehouse space primarily. The property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for office industrial uses. The rezoning is to industrial office park and that development, the proposed development complies with all the requirements of the IOP. Office manufacturing, light manufacturing and warehouse uses are permitted in the IOP district. The Comprehensive Plan specifies, and it was just the last sentence of this that office industrial uses are facilitated by the IOP industrial office park and PUD planned unit development zoning districts. Because this property complies with all the standards of the IOP district and they’re not looking for any relief from the standards, that’s Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 6 more appropriate zoning to go forward with and so staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to IOP. The second part of this application is for the wetland alteration permit. I’ve highlighted on the map in front of you, or the schematic in front of you where the wetlands that will be impacted are. There’s 5 of them that are shown. Four of them will be filled and the one along the south and west side will be, may be impacted and so we’re working with them. As part of this review they have to, oh did I skip the subdivision? Yeah. I’ll have to go back. As part of the development they’re filling these sites. The first one is impacted immediately with the access road that’s coming in. This, both access roads will be private streets and so there’ll be no public improvements as part of this subdivision. The second, the two middle ones will be impacted through the placement of the buildings and parking lot. It’s also between the Building C and Building B there’s a gas easement that runs down the middle of that parking lot area. And then finally the third one, there’s a small wetland in the ball pit site and the fill site that will be filled as part of the development. We’re looking at working with them. We just received a report on the type of wetland this is. They’re still proceeding through the Wetland Conservation Act process which is the Army Corp of Engineers is involved with that and they don’t anticipate to have a final determination until the November 27th so that will be one thing that delays any development on the site that that be finalized. Sorry, excuse me. The subdivision of this property is, oh staff is recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit subject to the conditions in the staff report for the wetland alteration permit. Primarily that they meet all the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act and receive all those approvals. The subdivision creates 3 building lots. One for each of the buildings and an outlot which will contain stormwater ponds and it’s an excess material site. They’re going to be storing material in it. All the lots exceed the minimum requirements of the IOP district by substantially. And again they will be accessed via private streets at the intersection of Galpin and on the very westerly portion of the site. As part of the subdivision we’re requesting that they provide additional drainage and utility easements up in the northwest corner of the property and that they work in conjunction with Carver County to resolve some drainage concerns and issues that the Carver County has in conjunction with the Lyman Boulevard project. Additionally we currently show a drainage and utility easement between Lots 2 and 3 and this runs over the center of the Magellan Pipeline easement and so we want to have that removed. And finally as part of the subdivision we would request have the developer dedicate additional drainage and utility easements over any wetlands and that are remaining on site in the stormwater system. Staff is recommending approval of the plat for the Holasek Business Park. So and finally we can go to the site plan. It’s for site plan consists of 3 buildings. Building A and C are pretty much mirrors of each other. Their Building A is shown as 179,000 square feet. This includes a second story mezzanine of approximately 18,000 square feet. If the person, the tenant who comes in does not want that, or does not use that then they will shift that square footage down to Building C and that will be approximately 179,000 so those, each of those buildings can shift between 160,000 and 179,000 square feet in area depending on the final usage. Building B is slightly smaller. It’s 109,000 square feet. They are all, again they will have the same architectural detailing. On each corner of the building, on the front corners of the buildings they have these highly articulated entrance areas. The two levels of the vision windows. Canopies over the entrance as well as tenant space. They’re highlighted by a column to the left of the entrance as you’re going in and then they recess it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 7 Additionally in the middle of the building they have located for each of the buildings two additional tenant space entrances and they’ve articulated again with the columns and the canopy above the entrance area as well as two levels of windows. The window system is unique in that the upper panes are spandrel windows and the bottom panes will all be vision glass windows so. And this architectural and detailing continues in each of the buildings. Building materials. It doesn’t show up as well. Just go out a little bit. But the two primary, it’s tilt up pre-cast concrete materials. The primary colors are red and a buff color which is a tan in color. They have coping that is dark bronze. Dark brown in color. Champagne colored window framing and then they have dark window panes. Again this will provide a lot of architectural interest and articulation in the front of each of these buildings and break up the large expanse of these walls because they are very long buildings. Again the building is, will be designed to be multi-tenant areas and so they’ll be able to snap in additional walls on the interior. The bottom it’s a little hard to see but they, every 53 feet or so they have a break in the building materials. Around all the windows areas they used the red. Exposed aggregate tilt up pre-cast and in the other areas of the building they have the buff and then again adjacent to the entrance areas they have the smooth, I don’t remember what we called it. Pre-cast without. An etched finish. Again Building B is a little smaller in size. It’s 109,000 square feet so it’s about 70,000 square feet less. Little shallower and it picks up, it shows that on the end of each of these buildings they have the highly articulated entrance areas with the vision glass and the canopies. And now I’ll turn it over to our engineering staff to discuss. Henricksen: Thanks Bob. Yep traffic. So Vernon Swing a professional engineer with Traffic Solutions conducted a trip generation analysis as requested by the City. From the proposed site usage trip generations were estimated using the methodology of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, traffic, trip generation workbook the 10th Edition. As you can see from the table the key numbers to take away are the 185 a.m. peak hour trips and the 195 p.m. peak hour trips. This is what would be generated during those peak hours and then the daily trips of 1,649 trips. Additionally this report or the memo that was supplied to the City concluded that Lyman Boulevard is operating at 40 percent capacity and after the development Lyman Boulevard would be operating at 45 percent capacity. These are using current year numbers as well. The City in concert with MnDOT Access Management Manual guidelines does not find a need for a full traffic impact study. This is because those recommendations are for any development that would propose an impact of fewer than 250 a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips and fewer than 2,500 daily trips does not warrant a full traffic impact study. Based on these findings engineering doesn’t anticipate any extraordinary transportation impacts associated with the development and didn’t propose any conditions. However access is being had off Lyman Boulevard which is a Carver County jurisdictional road. Therefore any conditions and all conditions shall be met by the applicant prior to any construction. The applicant has been informed by city staff that coordination with the county is mandatory along with the improvements that will be happening with Lyman Boulevard. We can go onto grading. Aanenson: Yeah I was just going to just add too. The County is considering the upgrade to Lyman Boulevard so this project is in conjunction with that so if there’s additional right-of-way Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 8 that would be required or the like they would be working with this property on that. I think one of the other things that they were potentially considering is a right-in/right-out on this side of the property so that’d be something again they’d have to coordinate with Carver County to make sure that it meets their requirements. Henricksen: Correct. Aanenson: I was just going to bring up one other point really quick. We kind of glossed over it kind of at the beginning of the whole project. Kind of the sitting of where this property is. So this was the Holasek Greenhouse. If anybody remembers the greenhouses were here and they had the growing fields in the back. There was actually some houses on the property at the time so if you look at where it’s sitting. When Galpin Boulevard was built access was provided to that property so this, since Holasek’s have closed the greenhouse and removed those structures, they’ve been working on trying to find a suitable users and it’s been challenging a little bit. You’ve got the railroad to the south. As we talked about there’s some significant wetlands so it would take some, to maximize the property or to make it work and to make a successful project you’d have to kind of maximize that so you’ve got the storage units over here in Chaska. So it is surrounded. It’s also got an industrial park to the north. Again some of those buildings would look somewhat similar. Probably more the Waytek building up here and I know Bob’s going to talk a little bit about a retaining wall in there so these buildings aren’t out of character. If you look at the last one we did, probably Federal Packaging was probably the last largest one. That was probably 140. That’s just on the other side of Powers Boulevard. Otherwise the last ones we probably did of this scale, I was trying to think. There was about 2 or 3 of them that were of this size but it’s been a little while since we’ve seen some industrial so there’s definitely some pent up demand. We’ve had some other users try to lay something out on this property but we know there’s users looking and I believe he’s got some users to final plat that but I just wanted to remind everybody kind of how we got to this point and it’s been worked on for a couple years so we’re excited to see a project that can come forward on this so. Past the traffic. Grading, back to that. Henricksen: Alright thanks. From the proposed grading plan, stormwater or drainage will be routed away from all the buildings and routed to a stormwater conveyance system where then it will be conveyed over to the 2 wet ponds that are located at the east outlot and then will go through the stormwater, which are to act as stormwater treatment facilities. Due to substantially lower grades from Lyman Boulevard and the proposed development and the proposed grading plans, as you can see on the north side these are, in red are the retaining walls that are to be constructed so due to that substantial grade change and on the southwest corner there’s also some substantial grade changes. Those retaining walls are proposed to be over 4 feet in height. Any retaining wall over 4 feet has to be constructed and plans submitted by a professional engineer or landscape architect for review by the City prior to construction. The plan also if you look to the south and the south outlot where that tiny little wetland is, the plan shows significant grading and fill in this outlot. As proposed the grading plan and stockpile area would create a bluff by definition by city code and all bluff regulations would therefore be enacted. Staff does Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 9 recommend the removal of the stockpile area or if it cannot be removed limiting the height to 20 feet and a slope less than 3 to 1. Currently it is over 30 feet and has a slope greater than 3 to 1 which makes it a bluff. Also about that stockpile area it must meet all other regulatory requirements for wetland hydrology. Erosion and sediment control. Surface water management. We have had correspondences with the applicant and they have informed us that this is something they’re taking into the design of their construction plans to reduce it based on our recommendations. We can move onto utilities. Aanenson: Can I just add one other thing? I just want to point out this retaining wall…different when we looked at the Avienda project we had a significant retaining wall on the north side of Avienda. I also want to remind there is residential homes over on this side and I know when the Waytek building came in that was a concern so the grade change is putting the buildings lower so the buildings are 38 feet tall and so you’re, with the grade change you’re looking not at the whole building when you’re in that residential area so it’s a benefit that you’re not seeing. It’s similar again to when we looked at that office building on the north side of, office buildings on the north side of Avienda that they’re actually recessed. You’re looking at not the whole 38 feet of significantly. Weick: Similar to the view across. Aanenson: Yep exactly. Yep, yep. That Waytek building, yep so those are also recessed so it’s not as severe so I think that’s a positive thing and with the landscaping so that is a large retaining wall. I know Erik mentioned over 4 feet has to be engineered but I believe it’s closer to 12 feet. Henricksen: I think at the highest point on the northern section it’s about 900 feet long and it’s 12 ½ feet at the tallest. Aanenson: So it takes the bottom part of that building which is a positive thing, especially for those residential areas. Henricksen: Looking at their site utilities on their site plans, the blue indicates the private watermain utility that would be installed and the red indicates the private sanitary sewer service. A 10 inch ductile iron pipe water service and an 8 inch PVC sanitary sewer service are currently stubbed to the property. Those stubs are located within the 50 foot wide access to the northeast corner just at the intersection of Galpin and Lyman Boulevard. The applicant has proposed connecting to the 10 inch water service. They’re going to be creating a looped system to service all 3 of the proposed buildings. Material type on the utility plan was not given. Engineering has recommended the use of what is typically our standard which is the PVC C900 material type for that installation. For the water installation all applicable permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies would have to be gained before construction could begin of the private water utility. While an 8 inch PVC sanitary service is stubbed to the site the applicant is proposing to discharge their sewer effluent to the neighboring city of Chaska. Currently at this time that approach is not approved. The applicant may be required to submit plans that utilize the Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 10 discharge to the existing sanitary sewer stub and because and based on the topographic conditions and the proposed grading plans this would require a lift station. A private lift station with a maintainable forcemain. This is something that public works would want to have an operation and maintenance plan on due to things that can happen with lift stations so we’d want to just ensure that it’s being maintained and properly operated. However the applicant can continue to pursue a connection with Chaska. That is something that both Chaska and Chanhassen would have to have formal approval of. This is something the applicant could, they’d have to facilitate a meeting to discuss some of the concerns that Chaska may have with their capacity. How sewer billing would work and any other additional analysis that either Chaska or Chanhassen would want to see for that connection. I did actually just get a meeting request for that meeting so I think they’re continually trying to spearhead that approach to discharge up their sanitary sewer effluent. Generous: And then finally the landscaping plan for the development. Based on our natural resource review they are deficit in, deficient in their parking lot landscaping. They have been working with city staff on coming up with a revision for that and they will, their intention is to provide a revised plan in time to go, to bring it to City Council. I should point out that up in the northwest, northeast corner of that site they have, they’re providing extensive landscaping to help buffer the residential neighbor to the northeast so eventually they probably won’t even be able to see these buildings because of all the trees. And because of it’s location the loading docks are sandwiched between the buildings and to the south of the building and they’re going to have landscaping on the east side so those areas will not be visible to the public. Good layout and design for providing those truck dock areas. And then with that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning, the preliminary plat, the wetland alteration permit and the site plan approval for the 3 buildings subject to the conditions within the staff report and we broke them down by type of development. The zoning doesn’t have any conditions but it will be contingent on final plat approval because the legal description would be Holasek Business Park Addition so. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Does anyone have any questions of staff at this time? Commissioner Randall. Randall: Were there any other issues with the City of Chaska being a bordering property like that? Did they have, or is the County pretty much taking care of that? Henricksen: There is some discussion about the storm water that’s going to come off Lyman from the project where they’re going to need to coordinate with Chaska and Carver County in conjunction. There’s going to be storm water improvements to a storm line that’s just abutting the property on the west portion. Right now we’ve been mainly working with, discussion on the sewer effluent. Randall: Okay thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 11 Bender: To maybe add to that is, they’re talking about you know a possible regional pond between the city of Chaska and Chanhassen and Carver County. Whether that you know gains any steam is yet to be determined. Randall: Okay. Aanenson: I just wanted to clarify. So there’s two moving parts here. One is getting the plat approval and what they need to do and the other is the County’s moving forward with the Lyman project and there’s things that they would like to desire as an opportunity now as this project’s moving forward if that makes sense. Aller: Any other additional questions of staff at this time? Tietz: Chairman, I have a question. Erik I just want to follow up. One question is just for my own education. The increase in traffic you said is probably about 5 percent? Henricksen: Correct. Tietz: I know from experience that where Lyman intersects with 41 that’s an extremely long light when you’re coming out. Obviously that’s two county roads. I suppose the county controls that for the speed and traffic on 41. But it is a difficult intersection to get up and if you start backing up a lot of traffic just a point and a question because I experience that. The other is, in ’95 there was a permit granted for 36,000 cubic yards of fill for Holasek. I assume that that’s creating some problems for the developer because I have no idea where it is and probably they don’t either. Maybe they do, the developer does now but Holasek’s I don’t know what kind of, it wasn’t probably clean fill. I’m just curious what it is, where it’s going and how much of a problem it’s creating for the development. Do we know? Bender: We might be able to let the developer’s engineer help respond to that question. We are still waiting for more information back as far as where soil materials of varying quality are probably going to be ultimately transported to and but that can be a function of which contractor is involved and what their connections are as well so it’s kind of preliminary to find answers to those questions. Tietz: Sure. Bender: Do you want to add anything to that Brady? Brady Busselman: Sure, thanks George. Brady Busselman with Sambatek. Civil engineering consultant. You’re correct that soils are a huge challenge on this site. We’re primarily finding a lot of organic material. Peat that’s not suitable for structural support and that’s why you see the large stockpile at the south end of the site and we appreciate staff’s willingness to work with us on that. We want to continue to work on you know determining the right height and the right Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 12 slopes for that because we want it to be as high as we can to avoid the need to truck a bunch of that material back off site so. Tietz: And some of the non-organic or whatever was used as fill you know back where the greenhouses were, I remember that was. Brady Busselman: Sure. Tietz: When the greenhouses were removed the soil and top looked like there was a lot of stuff in there. Is that going to be maybe the base of the stockpiled area? You’re going to try to use it as just? Brady Busselman: Yeah there is a certain amount of unknown fill there that could be structurally suitable to support buildings so that will have to be sorted through and determined whether it needs to, whether it has too much organic material to be useful or whether it can reused. You know there were a number of test pits dug out here this summer. I think somewhere in the order of 40 so we are, our geotech does have a pretty good idea now what’s going on out there. Tietz: Yeah okay. I’m sure it’s a challenge yeah. And Erik just a couple more. Sorry everybody but the water loop. Do we have adequate pressure for fire suppression and sprinkler system there or will they have to install additional pumps for fire protection? Henricksen: From the fire flow test and from our meeting with our utility superintendent it looked like pressures were going to be adequate for the system that was in place. One of the things that was not included on the utility plan were where the location of the valves were going to be. You know all kind of pertinences that go with the watermain system. Although this is private you know that’s something that we would like to take a look at in the event that at some point for some reason this would get dedicated to the City so as of right now yes. It looks like there’s the adequate pressure is there. Tietz: Adequate pressure, okay. One more for staff maybe on the wetlands. You talked about on site mitigation. Can you explain how we’re going to have on site mitigation with the loss of wetlands? Generous: I know that our Water Resources Coordinator has been discussing it with their engineer. They’re looking possible in that southwest corner of the site to see if there could be any expansion to that wetland area. However now with the Carver County also wanting to do regional ponding down there it may become a moot point so, but they’ll continue as part of the wetland conservation act reviewing this development to see if there’s any place on site that they can create the additional wetlands. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 13 Tietz: So otherwise we’d be faced with like Avienda where they’re having to buy land or buy rights someplace else in, either within, hopefully within the watershed but I think we ended up outside the watershed with Avienda. Aanenson: Yeah well we got some that was on Lyman Boulevard. Actually Pioneer Trail on and so. Tietz: Yeah, oh we did end up with it? Aanenson: Yep, yep so yeah we’re working with the County on a project there too so I think there’s another opportunity to kind of add to that ponding area there so I think we’re trying to partner with the watershed district and the County to upgrade that on Pioneer and replace some of those homes so that’d be an opportunity maybe to buy another home there and increase that. Tietz: Okay thanks. Aller: Well Commissioner Tietz’s question dovetails with mine which was the bluff where we mentioned that you prefer it not to be a bluff but it’s presently a bluff. It’s going to be used for stockpile so what is the impact of stockpiling on top of the bluff? Why is it preferential to remove a bluff that’s already existing? Henricksen: So currently there is no bluff there. That’s from the existing site condition it’s a wetland and I guess you could call it concaved. What you’re seeing on this grading plan, those topo lines they’re really, really close and that’s actually a hill going up so this is actually the creation of a bluff where none existed prior to that. That does, would put additional regulations that we have in our code for bluff setbacks. All that kind of stuff which would impact the design as well, and then also I mean one of the concerns is the wetland that you were discussing as well as you know, is it necessary to fill it there? Again with construction and stockpiling there’s a lot of erosion and sediment control concerns when we have slopes that steep. One of our city code, I think it’s in Section 19 discusses where if you have slopes over 3 to 1 you know you can’t have an unbroken slope so it would have to be terraced so there’s just concerns about having that type of stockpile and then permanent stabilization afterwards as well. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I have a question about the petroleum pipeline and I just am not familiar, I haven’t seen one in a development recently and is it a common practice to put a parking lot over a pipeline? And the other question would be are there any other additional safety precautions during excavation and construction around that pipeline? Generous: The quick answers are yes and yes. From the City’s zoning ordinance we have additional 20 foot building setback from the edge of that easement. They have to get permission from Magellan to do any activity on top of it but parking lots are one of the things that they do Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 14 permit. It’s, they don’t allow other structures. Buildings, things like that. Arbor Glen is an example where the pipeline goes through the development. The private street coming in runs across that. Aanenson: The high school. Generous: And the high school property has it also. So but yes, it’s part of the report. One of the attachments. Magellan provided us with their standards and so we included that in there. So yes they’ll have to coordinate that with them. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Aller: Great. Commissioner Weick. Weick: As is often the case I got more confused and so I apologize. Down in that south corner where we were talking about where they want to stockpile, currently it’s a hill and they just want to make it a bigger hill or? Henricksen: No. Weick: It’s not. Henricksen: No. It’s currently from the existing conditions, topo lines it’s not a hill. It slopes I believe east to west. It’s semi gradual and then in the very center you have the wetland where you have that concave topo line. Weick: Yeah. Henricksen: It’s well surveyed on the existing conditions and when we’re looking at it through this lens it kind of is difficult to see. I can understand that so no currently there is not any type of hill. That would be the stockpile itself. Weick: Okay. And I understand the cost implications for the developer of removing you know, taking the dirt somewhere other than putting it there but say that wasn’t a consideration, would it be, in your opinion would it be an option to make that area a bigger, in other words keep it low and not stockpile at all and make it a bigger wetland? Or a bigger water basin or something. Henricksen: Yeah I believe that could be an option. We don’t have that I found through my research any ordinances or standards that say you can’t create a bluff so I mean is it an option? Yeah, I don’t know. Weick: Okay. Maybe you can help, yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 15 Aanenson: Yeah no, the challenge there is there’s a railroad tracks so you can see the change in grade. Weick: Oh that’s right. Aanenson: Then there’s Lake Hazeltine to the south so if we kind of go back. I think sometimes when we look so close we lose kind of frame of reference. I’m just going to go back. Weick: Yeah please. Aanenson: Yep, oops. I’m going the wrong way. Go back to this one. So if you go back, this is Lake Hazeltine right here. Weick: Right. Aanenson: And then you’ve got the raised bed of the railroad tracks here. So this is kind of where that ends up with that low area there. And then this is the other wetland over here so that’s kind of what, what came into play here is the shoreland regs and the wetland part of that for this area here but you can see now it’s, as Erik was saying, you can see now that it’s the lower area there. Weick: It’s low right, okay. Aanenson: It’s low yep so it’s dropping off from the tracks there, yeah. Weick: Okay. Bender: So to maybe add a little bit more to that. From the perspective of the public you know and finding good spots for regional stormwater which can be a significant challenge, especially you know when you get approach the edges of a jurisdiction, you know the proposal to leave it similar to it’s current functionality and maybe expand it would definitely be something that you know is an option and that’s kind of what Chaska and the Carver County, I’m under the understanding that they still want to have that discussion so. Weick: Okay. Bender: As part of that would probably bring with it you know some sort of give and take which could be a reduction in the stormwater fees. More of a partnership and, in addition to you know I mean the problem is the expense that comes with removal of the dirt and maintaining the viability of the site and you know the shared nature of that for you know I mean because the developer owns the site. Benefits from the site. You know improvements and you know I mean obviously the viability you know financially has to be maintained. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 16 Tietz: But it does seem possible George and Erik that if there’s a way to make that borrow, or become a borrow pit because it’s organic material. Principally organic. If there’s some way of making some transition of that. Re-sculpting that area and working with the County to increase the size of that drainage area might be a possibility. You know it’s such an engineered looking mound right now. It’d be nice to have that you know change a little bit and if it came down a little bit maybe it could come in and come up and we solve a lot of problems that way potentially by, you know we’re not here to redesign but it seems like that corner, if there is a mutual interest in the corner and if there’s some way that the developer could benefit from removing some of that soil it may be, there could be a win/win. Aanenson: Yeah I think it’s safe to say that’s a consideration for negotiation that’s underway. Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: I think it’s as much as we’re going to say about that, yeah. Tietz: I think that helps. Aanenson: Yeah. I was just going to point out too, you can see where the pipeline comes through then, through the school. Right through there. Aller: Okay, any additional questions at this time? Hearing none we’ll open it up for the applicant to make it’s presentation. If you could please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Your representational capacity and tell us about your project. Ed Farr: Thank you. Good evening Chairman, commissioners and staff. My name is Ed Farr at Edward Farr Architects representing Eden Trace Company on this application. Aller: Welcome. Ed Farr: And with me tonight are two representatives from Sambatek, Brady Busselman who you already met, as well as Pete Moreau. I always have 2 to 1 engineers to architects. A lot of engineering questions going on here so they can save me when I misspeak. We’re very happy to propose this project to you tonight and frankly a lot of the talking points that I’ve had on my notes here have already been covered by staff so I’ll try and keep my comments additive and not redundant as best I can. So with that maybe if we could have the site plan up and I’ll just touch on some points that maybe haven’t been discussed yet. Thank you. That’s perfect. The building layout as it’s been told already is pretty much based off of this Magellan Pipeline route right through the middle of our site so we’re very happy to have a little back to back, like wagon trains huddling around the loading dock there to keep that from any visibility to the public way for A and B to the north side of the site and then of course Building C then to the south of Magellan Pipeline with parking over the top of it like you said. Along Lyman Boulevard there is the stop light already at Galpin for our main access and with the reconstruction of Lyman, the redo there Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 17 we are asking for the right-in/right-out on the far northwest corner of our property for additional truck circulation so the trucks can always enter the loading docks easily in a clockwise or counter clockwise movement depending upon which building they’re going to for ease of backing into the loading dock. So this project pretty much attacks the target market of office warehouse generally throughout that area of just north of this site in Chanhassen. A 28 foot clear product in the marketplace. 20 to 30 percent office finish. Warehouse manufacturing. Could be a variety of multi-tenant uses that we’re targeting so pretty standard stuff but there is market demand for that so. On the frontage of Lyman Boulevard and all the buildings architecturally, the buildings are tall enough. About 36 feet like staff said so we’re trying to make it look like a two story building by adding that clear story window up on top. That will let daylight in for warehouse manufacturing areas that only have single story space where we may have that mezzanine. It will offer windows up there on the second floor for the occupants to see out of the second floor as well as first floor. We’ve tried our best to have some architectural articulation, both in the step roof line as well as the in and out architecture of the front to back of the façade. All along the front as staff pointed out so we are excited about the palate of our architectural precast with some limestone, granite, and quartz chips in it. Real good rock selections with tinted precast and everything. The champagne anodized frames and so the materials look better than the colored renderings you have in front of you so I think it will look very handsome out there. We’re using LED lighting throughout. Very energy efficient lighting. There was a LED illumination plan in the packet and all of the rooftop units will be screened both by the parapet height itself despite the fact that the buildings are low on the site. We did a cross sectional view on one of our sheets to demonstrate the view angle from Lyman Boulevard so they’ll be set back from the front façade as well as the parapet. Anything that may be out of the ordinary that sticks up we would put an architectural screen in front of that as needed. Talked on the building size. Magellan Pipeline. Lighting. The parking. I think that’s about it. You covered everything else but we’re going to, we’re going to really do a really good job on landscaping. Sorry for the numbers that were short. It wasn’t our intent and realized the math problem. That’s going to get picked up and meet, probably exceed landscape requirements. Aller: Nobody likes to do math in public. Ed Farr: We’re not going to do it here either but we’re going to put our best foot forward there. So I’ll sit back. Again I’ve got 2 engineers behind me so if there are any further questions of us we’re more than happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you. Questions at this point in time of the applicant? For the water alteration. Most of the time we’re looking at a choice of A, B, C and we’re looking at the lesser of the evils to get to where we are. Can you explain the process that you went through in coming up with this design and the alteration request that you’re making? Brady Busselman: Sure I can take a stab at it. We do have a wetland expert in our office who isn’t here tonight who is helping us with the procedure but one thing I will point out is that the initial plan for this site had 4 buildings. I think we were over 600,000 square feet and as we got Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 18 into it we realized that the building on the south, we’d benefit more if we removed that building and utilize that area to mine because that had good structural material and then back fill the bad peat material in that excavation and then build out the berm in that area. We did focus on the wetland in the southwest corner and try to plan around that and make it work. The challenge with this site, besides the poor materials and the wetlands is also the pipeline and that’s really a non starter to try to move that. I think it’s on the order, I’m going to shoot from the hip but I think it was $200 bucks a foot if we had to move that so that really set where our buildings started from, from that pipeline and we went out from there so I don’t think we have the wetland exhibit up here that would, that would help because they fall in kind of unfortunate areas. Especially the one directly south of the pipeline. I will say that the one east of Building B we are continuing to work with the Corps on because that is a result of a topsoil mining operation in 2015 and we want to make sure that that’s appropriately labeled. I think the City would determine that incidental. Correct me if I’m wrong Bob but the wetland, and maybe I’m, maybe you’re not the one to answer but, but the Army Corps does not do incidental wetlands so we’re still working with them on yes, it was definitely created by this mining action but how, you know how does that get to the point where they acknowledge that. So really the prime motivator then was to preserve the wetlands in the south and southwest corner and that’s how we’ve laid out the site to help with those. Hopefully that made sense. Aller: It does thank you. I can see where economically it would be great if you could put 4 buildings on there but no one realizes without you making that explanation the process that you go through that this is a better plan for purposes of water and being able to preserve what we can. Brady Busselman: Yeah. Aller: And making the least request for alterations as possible. Brady Busselman: And I really, I really can’t overstate the impact of soils on this site. It is the number one challenge to getting this project to work. Aller: Thank you. Brady Busselman: Thank you. Aller: Additional questions at this time? Hearing none I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Again this is an opportunity for an individual to come forward to speak either for or against the item. Having heard the questions and the presentations and of course there are many items that are in the package that is presented and that’s on the website for your review and again you can look at those and then come in and ask any questions you have during this opportunity for the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing. Open it up for further discussion of the commissioners. If there is no discussion then I’d request a motion. Tietz: I’ll make a motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 19 Aller: Okay. Tietz: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning from Agricultural Estate District A2 to IOP, preliminary plat approval creating 3 lots and one outlot. Approval of the wetland alteration permit and a site plan approval for a total of 449,350 square feet in 3 office industrial buildings subject to the corresponding conditions of the approval 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 and a second, any further discussion? I would just say that from review of the package it looks like it is a very difficult project and the soils and the water features will create some ongoing processes but I think that they’re working hard and are diligent and I think they meet the requirements of the OIP and I’ll be voting in favor. Alright hearing no additional discussion all those in favor should signify by saying aye. Tietz moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A-2, to Industrial Office Park, IOP; Preliminary Plat approval creating three lots and one outlot with access via a private street; a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill wetlands on site; and Site Plan approval for three office industrial buildings for a total of 449,350 square feet, plans prepared by Sambatek, dated 11-02-2018, and Edward Farr Architects, dated 10-19-2018, subject to the following conditions: SUBDIVISION Engineering All ingress/egress locations, including the right-in/right-out access located at the northwestern portion of the property, and subsequent impacts of trip generation by the development, shall be designed to Carver County standards and shall meet all Carver County’s requirements. Any requirements set by Carver County to improve the intersection shall be addressed by the applicant (if necessary). The applicant shall dedicate the 40’ x 120’ drainage and utility easement at the northwest corner of Lot 1 on the preliminary and final plat prior to recording. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 20 An executed agreement between the developer and Magellan Pipeline Company allowing construction over Magellan Pipeline Company’s easement shall be provided to the city prior to the issuance of grading permits. The preliminary and final plat shall not include the 5’ drainage and utility easements located at the south side of Lot 2, and the north side of Lot 3, prior to acceptance and recording. All retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height shall have plans and details prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect prior to issuance of building permits. At the time of building permit submittal, connection methodology to the existing stubs (sanitary sewer and water services), material type, and location of service valves and other appurtenances shall be identified for review. Prior to construction of the water and sanitary utilities within the development, all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required. An O&M plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Improvements to the existing manhole where the effluent will be received via the lift station. Parks Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the three proposed lots totaling 36.39 acres as a condition of approval for Holasek Business Park. These park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Planning A 40-foot access and maintenance easement shall be recorded over the private streets. The private streets shall be constructed to a nine-ton design with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet and a maximum slope of 10 percent. A street name for the private street at Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard shall be submitted to the Building Official and Fire Marshall for review and approval prior to recording the final plat. Water Resources Coordinator Stormwater Development Charges. Estimated stormwater development fees in the amount of $770,012.40 (36.39 acres x $21,160) shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 21 Financial Assurance. To guarantee compliance with the plan and related remedial work, a cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished to the city before a building permit is issued. The escrow amount shall be $7,500.00 per acre. The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. The assurance shall be maintained until final stabilization and removal of erosion and sediment controls. Drainage and utility easements will be required over all remaining wetlands and public stormwater utilities. This includes the western boundary of the project as well as the southwest corner of the parcel which should have a sufficient easement for the main drainage pipe for this area (required in conjunction with final plat). Private stormwater easements will be required over all private stormwater facilities using the city’s template (required in conjunction with final plat). The Holasek Business Park construction plans show areas of grading over the main stormwater pipe that runs north to south along the western property boundary. Construction on this pipe may be planned for the next couple of years. Please coordinate earthwork in this area with the city and Carver County Public Works Department. The plans show significant grading in the south outlot. Sec. 19-145 of City Code does not allow unbroken slopes greater than 30’ and slopes steeper than 3:1. Additionally, the proposed grading would trigger bluff regulations Sec. 20-1401 and Sec. 20-1405. Staff recommends removing the stockpile from the proposed plans. If the stockpile cannot be removed it will need to be reduced to slope less than 20’, 3:1 max. It must meet all other regulatory requirements for wetland hydrology, erosion and sediment control, and surface water management. Erosion and sediment control must meet the requirements of Sec. 19-145 including a dewatering plan. Erosion and Sediment Control Practices including temporary sedimentation basins, silt fence, the construction entrance, and ESC BMPs are shown in the legend on sheet C5.02, but not on the plans. Indicate the location of these practices on the Erosion Control Plan sheet. EOFs should be stabilized with TRM or similar. Include chosen stabilization measures in the construction plans. Temporary Sediment Ponds. The proposed stormwater ponds will need to be utilized as temporary sediment ponds during construction. A faircloth skimmer will need to be installed, and the outlets of the pond will need to be sealed off for the duration of construction until the site is stabilized. Skimming devices should be designed to remove oils and floatable materials up to a Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 22 one-year frequency event. The skimmer should be set 12 inches below the normal surface water elevation and should control the discharge velocity to 0.5 fps. Incorporate these notes and details into the construction plans. Topsoil Management a. Subsoil Decompaction. Please add a note about subsoil decompaction to the topsoil section on sheet L1.03. Subsoil must be decompacted to a depth of six inches in all pervious areas, prior to placement of six inches of topsoil. Contractor must identify the method used to decompact six inches of subsoil prior to placing topsoil. b. Topsoil Depth. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 reads that a minimum of four inches of topsoil is required. CCWMO Standards require that six inches of topsoil be replaced in all disturbed pervious areas. Update this note to reflect the six inch requirement. c. Stockpiles. Please indicate the quantity of topsoil needed to restore six inches in all pervious areas of the development. Show location(s) where existing topsoil is to be stockpiled on the site. d. Soil Hauling. Describe topsoil hauling plans, including locations and estimated quantities. Note that if topsoil is exported or imported to the site, an additional permit may be required. e. Vegetative Cover. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 refers to a healthy stand of vegetation in all disturbed pervious areas of the development. Please note that 90% of the expected vegetative density is required. Stormwater Management Sec. 19-142. Plans required. All plans shall be reviewed and stamped “Approved by the City Engineer” and all applicable permits must be obtained prior to commencing construction. For all newly constructed stormwater facilities (ponds, retention areas, infiltration basins, storm sewer, etc.) or existing facilities that are modified, as-built plans shall be prepared by the developer. As- built plans shall be signed and certified by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota and record drawings shall be provided to the city. Standard details for many typical storm structures (e.g., storm sewer, outlet structures, catch basins, sump manholes, etc.) are available on the city's website. Sec. 19-144. Major facility design elements. a. For basins intended to have permanent water levels, a minimum of four feet of standing water (dead storage depth) and a maximum of ten feet shall be provided. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 23 b. Separation between the inlet(s) and outlet shall be maximized to prevent short- circuiting. c. Outlets shall be evaluated for the need to dissipate energy so as to reduce velocities to permissible levels as allowed by the soil and vegetation. At a minimum, flared-end sections should be provided with riprap consistent with Minnesota Department of Transportation standards. For areas with high flows or where excessive erosion occurs or is anticipated, energy dissipation per Federal Highway Administration standards shall be followed. d. Riprap shall be provided below the channel grade and above the outfall or channel bottom to ensure that riprap will not be undermined by scour or rendered ineffective by displacement. Riprap consisting of natural angular stone suitably graded by weight shall be designed for anticipated velocities. Riprap shall be placed over a suitable filter material or filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not move through the riprap and reduce its stability. BMP Details. Include the following BMP details in the construction plans: a. BMP Cross Sections. Include site-specific elevations on the Bioretention Bench and Bioretention Trench details on sheet C4.02. b. OCS Details. Include Outlet Control Structure Details (attached) for the stormwater BMPs with specific elevations for inlets, outlets, and draintile (when applicable). c. BMP Profiles. Include profiles of the stormwater BMPs with draintile (Pond B Filtration Bench and Filtration Trench) showing draintile slope. Please note that all draintile must have a positive drainage slope of at least 0.5%. Include site-specific invert elevations for assistance with field construction. d. EOF elevations. EOF elevations should be set to at least 0.5 ft. above the HWL to allow for construction tolerance. Include cross-sections of the EOFs in the plan set. Impervious Acreage. The area (ac) of proposed new impervious is inconsistent between the application (25.10), stormwater report (27.5), project narrative (25.08), plan sheet C5.03 (28.4), and HydroCAD model (25.34). Clarify the correct area of new impervious and update components of the submittal to match. Elevation-Storage Tables. Include the Filtration Bench bottom (should be 928.5) in the elevation- storage table in the HydroCAD report so that the treatment volumes can be determined for the ponds, bench, and re-use system. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 24 Filtration Trench. The filtration trench design is not compliant in the current design. a. Contributing Area. The filtration trench appears to receive runoff from pervious areas only. Stormwater BMPs should capture and treat runoff from impervious areas on the site. b. Tree Roots. The filtration trench is proposed in an area that is wooded on the landscape plan. Trees may be planted on the side-slopes or adjacent to the trench but are not allowed in the trench bottom. Tree roots may impact the draintile and prevent proper drainage. c. Model and Plan Details. The filtration trench is not included in the HydroCAD model and the construction plans do not show details (bottom, NWL, HWL, OCS, EOF) for this BMP. Please include the details listed in Comment #2 above and include information for this practice in the construction plans and HydroCAD model. Operation & Maintenance Plan (O&M). Provide a draft O&M plan outlining the responsibilities for inspecting and maintaining the stormwater BMPs on site. The O&M plan must be signed by all responsible parties. a. Reuse Maintenance Plan. Provide a draft Reuse Maintenance Plan as part of the overall O&M plan. Please include all details outlined in the corresponding section on the Stormwater Reuse Design Guidance document. Reuse Plan Sheet. Please add the following information to the stormwater reuse plan: a. Location of the following reuse system components: irrigation lines, irrigation zones, sprinkler heads, pumps, intakes from ponds, and usage meters. If applicable, include the locations of the potable connection, backflow prevention devices, filters, and debris collection sumps. b. Narrative describing operation of the systems. If the irrigated areas will be actively used during daytime hours, the irrigation needs to be scheduled for times when the areas will not be in use. c. Location of access for reuse system maintenance. d. Drawdown elevations of the reuse ponds. e. Volume reduction and/or water quality calculations. f. Other information relevant to the reuse systems. SWPPP. A copy of the SWPPP including soils/infiltration data within the perimeter of all infiltration/filtration devices is required prior to review for final plat. The SWPPP must also meet all requirements of City Code 19-145. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 25 Basin. There is a bioretention basin south of Lyman Boulevard in the road construction plans. Please show this basin on the construction plans for Holasek Business Park and demonstrate that the road project plans don’t interfere with this project. Chloride Management Plan. A chloride management plan is required. Applicant will need to respond to the comments received by Twin Cities & Western (Wednesday, October 24, 2018 6:39 AM): “In response to this proposal Twin Cities & Western offers the following comment: Twin Cities & Western has concerns of stormwater and general runoff impacts with this land being developed making it non-pervious. What will happen to the stormwater runoff and will the increased runoff adversely impact the railroad roadbed?” SITE PLAN Engineering Must comply with the conditions of the Holasek Business Park conditions of approval for the subdivision. Environmental Resources The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to increase quantities to meet minimum ordinance requirements for parking lot trees. Additional tree species will need to be added rather than increasing quantities of existing selection. The applicant should consider limiting the number of lindens called for in the plant schedule and avoid planting elms and lindens in groupings. The applicant should designate snow removal/storage areas on each lot that do not conflict with proposed landscaping. All parking lot islands and peninsulas that contain a tree planting must have an inside width of 10 feet. They also will be required to have proper planting soil as specified in the Planting Notes. Parking lot islands located in the pipeline easement shall be planted with small shrubs or perennial plantings, if allowed. Planning Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 26 The applicant shall enter into separate site plan agreements with the city for each lot and building and provide the necessary security to guarantee grading and erosion control, site restoration, stormwater and landscaping. Pedestrian ramps shall be added at each curb at the driveway entrance to Building A and included on the site plan sheet C3.01. Community features including benches, bike racks and picnic tables shall be incorporated in the site. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. Water Resources Coordinator Must comply with the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT a. Sec. 20-409. Decisions under this article must not be made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the city council, the landowner, or a member of the technical evaluation panel asks for such determinations. b. Any projects seeking a wetland alteration permit subject to this article will also be required to submit the following incomplete requirements: Existing and proposed drainage areas to wetlands; Buffer strip plan meeting the criteria of subsections 20-411(c) and (d) c. Sec. 20-416. Mitigation. Wetland mitigation shall be undertaken on-site. If this is not feasible, then mitigation may occur locally within the subwatershed. If this is not possible, then mitigation may occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be accomplished on-site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off- site, then the applicant shall be responsible for providing off-site mitigation within the major subwatershed, as designated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, or purchasing wetland credits from the state wetland bank. Staff believes mitigation can occur on site by expanding the wetlands in the south outlot. d. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by this Code. e. If a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 27 hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland; (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation; (3) It shall not adversely change water flow; (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action; (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas; (6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures; (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning; (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland. f. The alteration shall not alter the hydrological patterns in the remainder of the wetland, if a portion of the wetland remains, unless exempted under Sec. 20-417. Please show how hydrologic patterns will not be altered for the remaining wetlands. g. Sec. 20-405. Wetland delineation. An electronic copy of the delineated wetland boundaries must be submitted in a format compatible with the city's GIS database. h. Sec. 20-406. Wetland classification. All wetlands delineated under Sec. 20-405 of this article that have not been previously classified shall be classified using the results from the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Version 3.0), or future versions. A MnRAM shall be completed by the property owner or applicant for each previously unclassified wetland. An electronic version of the MnRAM evaluation must be submitted to and approved by the city to establish the classification of each wetland prior to any alteration or impact to the wetland. i. An approved Notice of Decision (NOD) for Boundary and Type is required for a complete application, however, the applicant has been very involved, communicative, responsive, and fully participatory in the application process. Staff will accept the application in process as the TEP has met prior to deadline for completion. The NOD will be issued by November 27, 2018. j. Staff review will be conditional upon an approved NOD for Boundary and Type. k. Based on the submission the site will require at least one additional Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Application. A grading permit cannot be issued until the applicant has completed the WCA process. l. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the wetlands on-site. Please indicate wetland buffers widths and locations where signage will be placed on a plan sheet. Please find additional information on signage placement in the guidance document attached. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of materials. Alternative signs (by the city or applicant) are also acceptable provided they contain similar information. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 28 shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. m. Sec. 19-146. Wetland elements. 1) Water level fluctuations (peak elevation and duration) for wetlands shall be limited to two feet and duration not to exceed 48 hours so as to prevent the destruction of wildlife habitat and wetland vegetation. 2) Sedimentation basins or sediment removal devices shall be provided prior to discharge into wetlands. 3) Variable bottom contours should be considered to provide deeper holes and flat shallow benches. This feature will provide habitat for diversity of plants and wetland inhabitants for wetland mitigation sites and stormwater basins. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 2, 2018 and the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission Work Session meeting dated October 16, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Aller: Anyone wishing to discuss any item or? Madsen: I just have one question. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I happened to see a sign when I was driving down Pioneer Trail. It was actually in Eden Prairie and the sign said future road expansion. Aanenson: Yep. Madsen: So it was a development where at some point there’s going to be a road coming through and I was wondering if that’s something that we ever used here to help communicate. Aanenson: Yes we do those now. I think the problem is some of those older subdivisions, they’re not there but yes. If you go put them back in now it’s still controversial so right now all subdivisions, I would say the last probably 10 years we’ve done that. Yeah, yeah. Madsen: Okay great, thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 29 Aanenson: Yeah it’s an ongoing source of consternation. Aller: The bigger the sign the smaller the project and people are in an uproar. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: Okay administrative presentations. City Council action update. Aanenson: I cannot find it on my, let’s see. Let me try one more time here. The Glendale Drive, got it. The Glendale Drive was approved without the extension but that may be back for revisiting on that one so again the staff’s position is you try not to landlock somebody or deter them so that one may come back. The council did approve it without, with the applicant’s request so we’ll see where that goes. We also, it was really at the council level there was a request from Mr. Halla who owns the Mustard Seed to do, modify his Stipulation Agreement. They were regulated in how they could use that property. They also wanted to enjoy some of the benefits of the temporary use permits similar to what we do to other events such as the Autoplex so we worked through, with the council on that one so that’s been modified so they can also have a number of temporary events permitted by ordinance that run through the planning office so that was approved. And then the downtown vision plan was accepted. I also want to note that it’s out on the website now. We’ve moved that so if you go to, this is for anybody else. If you go to the planning department and then you go special studies it’s listed in there and so there’s some key strategies that we’ll be working on. You’ll probably see those and some of the council will be looking at those. This year we talked about, a lot of it has to do with downtown walkability. Maybe some landscaping improvements. Some signature things as we move forward in the downtown. Some of the projects that are ongoing so you’ll probably be seeing a little bit more on that as the council moves forward on that and that’s all I have on the council update. Aller: Great. Future Planning Commission items. Aanenson: Sure, so your next meeting, the last one of the year is December 4th. There are two items on there. A variance and then there’s a PUD amendment for PPark. They also want to take the opportunity of special events with liquor so that’s being noticed for that so they were allowed one last year during the Super Bowl. They just had one last week regarding the Timberwolves but some of those they would like to have that liquor so that’s what the public hearing will be at. We have to amend the PUD ordinance. I do want to let you know in January the first meeting in January is normally on the first Tuesday of the month is January 1st so we’re not going to meet. So we only have one meeting in January the 15th so we do have a couple big items. There might be a big follow up subdivision on that meeting so be prepared for that. Potentially kind of revisiting the Galpin property. I believe they’re having some neighborhood meetings and then we’ll revisit that with the council before it comes back to the Planning Commission so we’ll stay tuned on that. As much as updates I can give you on that I will be sharing that with you so just following up some of that information today so we’ll give you an Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 30 update on that. So I think that’s all I had for upcoming. There’s one more meeting and if you can’t be there I appreciate, thank you Mr. Tietz for coming in tonight. Tietz: Well I should have waited an hour because my plans changed an hour after I called you. Aanenson: I was just going to mention one other thing. Mr. McGonagill went to, there’s the government training service that does planning classes so he had actually signed up for the, not the introductory one but the secondary, kind of more comprehensive plan but he really enjoyed it. He sent me an email on that. I think he went to that last week so always if there’s an opportunity that you want to I can sign you up for a class but he found it very helpful. I think it’s always good to hear from a different person but so that’s where that’s at. That’s all I had. Aller: Any last comments for anyone? Otherwise here’s wishing that all of you have a great Thanksgiving and may you spend it with family and friends and neighbors here in Chanhassen and when it becomes Black Friday at the end of the week remember to Buy Chanhassen so I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Weick moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim