PC Minutes 1-15-08Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008
Papke: Mr. Chair, I’d like to make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the distribution of the Nondegradation Assessment to
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in compliance with the NPDES Phase II permit as
revised June 1, 2006.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the distribution of the Nondegradation Assessment to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency in compliance with the NPDES Phase II permit as revised June 1,
2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BUSINESS IMPACT GROUP SNAP FITNESS: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY
ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LOCATED AT 2411 GALPIN
COURT (LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK). APPLICANT,
EDEN TRACE CORP, PLANNING CASE 07-27.
(Mark Undestad excused himself from the meeting due to a conflict of interest.)
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Any questions of staff?
Larson: Yes.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Why do you want them to redirect the walkway to Galpin Boulevard and not through
the trees? Wouldn’t that make a prettier walk? Or are they too tight?
Generous: Jill’s answer to that was by going into that you impact the tree system and you have a
tendency, because they have to take Bobcats and stuff in that, you destroy what you’re trying to
preserve.
Aanenson: You have to grade it level.
Larson: To put a walk back there?
Generous: Yeah.
Aanenson: Yeah, put a sidewalk. Yeah, to meet ADA.
28
Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008
Larson: Gotch ya. Okay.
McDonald: Alright. Any other questions?
Papke: Yeah. This is going to be a very highly visible. From Lyman this is going to be kind of
the corner stone of that area. The drawings, it was hard to tell from the drawings. It’s easy to
tell what the building is going to look like, but it was hard to tell what the site is going to look
like after the landscaping and trees and everything go in. Any idea of how much of the building,
the trees are going to.
Aanenson: Perspective from highway.
Papke: Yeah, from Galpin and from Lyman.
Generous: Not the trees per se. It should be fairly visible, if you look at the landscaping plan.
Papke: Yeah, it didn’t look like there was going to be a tremendous amount of landscaping
that’s going to be added in the front of the building.
Generous: It’s mostly on the Galpin side that they’ll have the screening because of the existing
concentration of preserved trees that they’re going to have to need to do.
Papke: How about berming? Is there?
Generous: No, they’re not berming. The site actually goes down and so the… Well it’s 958 in
this corner and it’s finished floor elevation of 961 so it’s 3 feet up from this, the southeast.
However you’re down at, 65, 66. About 968 at the Galpin…intersection so you’re down 7 feet
to the finished grade so you’re looking, from the north you’re looking down into the site. From
the south you’re looking up. On the south side, the corner, like I said, will be mostly open on the
landscaping plan. They have incorporated the rain gardens too as part of their surface water
system.
Papke: Where are the existing trees on that?
Generous: They’re grouped right in this area so they go in and out, and so they’ll, all, most of
the new plantings…heavy concentration there. This will be more open on the south side.
Papke: Yeah, it looks like the parking lot comes pretty close to the right-of-way on the south
side.
Generous: Yeah, it meets, it’s at the 20 foot when you get over to the west end.
Papke: Okay. Well I guess the good news is, it’s a good looking building but it is, it does seem
like it’s going to be extremely visible.
29
Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008
Aanenson: We did make modifications from when it first came in. We did ask for some
additional articulation. Some window treatments. That concern. It is a highly visible building.
Generous: Yeah, all these upper level windows were something that we added…base around the
windows and then the expansion of these stone material.
Aanenson: Those are all the changes from the first.
Generous: And plus you know, they incorporated these arches over the, the bigger windows to
add the emphasis that provides the interest to the building.
McDonald: Is there actually a second story up there with those windows?
Generous: No.
McDonald: Or is that just a really high ceiling?
Generous: Yes. It’s a high roof.
Aanenson: And again we wanted to give it that look, a more office on two stories as opposed to
a larger warehouse.
Larson: So would they just be real windows or are they just façade treatments?
McDonald: Okay, no further questions. This is a public meeting so I would ask if there’s
anyone out there that wishes to make comment, please come up to the podium and address the
commissioners with your comments.
Applicant: I’m just here for questions.
McDonald: Oh, okay. Well in that case, seeing no one come up. I will close the public meeting
and I’ll bring it back up for the commissioners for any final thoughts or comments. Kathleen?
Thomas: I don’t really have any comments. It is visible but I think like that’s, they’ve done a
good job at kind of making it acceptable for being on the corner so, and being so visible so I’m
okay with it.
McDonald: Debbie?
Larson: Nothing.
McDonald: Kurt?
Papke: I have no concerns. I think it’s a very attractively designed building and it will finish off
that development quite nicely. It would have been nice to have a few more trees there on the
corner but for what they’re trying to cram in there, I can see why they’re doing what they’re
30
Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008
doing. They’re certainly following all the city codes and so on. They’re not breaking any rules
so I can’t fault them for what they’re doing there so I’m fine with it.
McDonald: Okay. Then in that case, does anyone wish to make a motion for recommendation.
Thomas: Sure, I’d like to make a motion, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve Planning Case #07-27, approving a site plan for a 50,000 square
foot, one story office warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated
November 6, 2007, subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 through 31 with the
removal of condition 32.
McDonald: Okay. Do I have a second?
Larson: I’ll second that.
Thomas moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approves Planning Case #07-27 approving a site plan for a 50,000 square-foot, one-
story office warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated November
06, 2007, subject to the following conditions:
1.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
2.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
3.The plan must be revised to meet the 50-foot setback from the property line (on Galpin
Boulevard) to the parking lot.
4.Site lighting shall be revised to incorporate high-pressure sodium vapor lamps.
5.Architectural lighting shall be down cast only.
6.Two upper level windows shall be added on the west end of the south building elevation.
7.A column shall be added in the middle of the north building elevation.
8.The developer shall provide a pedestrian connection from the site to Lyman Boulevard.
9.The proposed sidewalk shall not be located within the existing group of protected trees. The
sidewalk shall be located either north or south of this area with City approval.
10.Pedestrian ramps shall be provided at all curbs for trail and sidewalk connections.
11.All plantings along Galpin Boulevard shall be field located so as to not damage existing
trees. No trees or shrubs shall be planted within the protected area of trees without City
approval.
31
Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008
12.All trees shown as preserved on plans dated 09/16/07 shall be protected by tree protection
fencing before any construction activities begin. Any trees killed or damaged shall be
replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
13.Shrub quantities shall be increased to meet minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings.
14.Wood chip mulch shall be used around trees in all landscape peninsulas in place of sod or
rocks.
15.Applicant must comply with the following Fire Prevention policies:
a.40-1995 Fire Sprinkler requirements.
b.07-1991 Pre-fire plan drawings.
c.29-1991 Premises identification.
d.34-1993 Water service installation.
e.36-1994 Combination Fire/Domestic water service line.
Combustible Storage and High Pile Combustible Storage
16.Applicant must fill out the
form.
17.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and scrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
18.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
19.The park fees payable with the building permit shall be $42,416.00.
20.Sheet C1 shall be amended to show inlet protections on all existing storm sewer inlets.
21.Sheet C1 shall be amended to extend the erosion control blanket in the northeast corner of the
lot to cover all soil until the proposed grading matches the existing grade.
22.Sheet C4 item #2 shall be amended to insert the construction of rain gardens as item #11 in
the sequencing of construction activities and “inspect site” shall be amended so that it is #12
in the sequence.
23.Sheet C4 item #5.1 shall have language added to the effect that the SWPPP, all amendments
and the NPDES permit shall be kept on site in a readily accessible location known to all
relevant individuals.
24.Sheet L1 the rain gardens shall be designed so that water runoff from the parking area will
travel through some form of filter BMP.
32
Planning Commission Meeting – January 15, 2008
25.The rain gardens shall be designed to drain within 48 hours and not be inundated to a depth
greater than one foot during a 10-year storm event. Calculations need to be provided
supporting this.
26.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies and
comply with their conditions of approval.
27.The complete existing contours must be shown on the east side of the property.
28.The proposed contours must tie into the existing contours shown on the plan.
29.Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be designed by an
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
30.Eight-inch watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be privately
owned and maintained.
31.A cross-access agreement must be dedicated and a copy provided to the City before the
building permit is issued.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 2007 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
None.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
33