PC Minutes 3-18-08
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 18, 2008
Acting Chair Keefe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kathleen Thomas, Dan Keefe and Kevin Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kurt Papke, Debbie Larson, and Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City
Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Mohamed R. Mumin 1759 Valley Ridge Place
th
Jerry Backman 14800 28 Avenue North
Danielle Magnuson 1411 Heron Drive
Rachel Nelson 8550 Tern Court
Rachel Mikkonen 6781 Penamint Lane
Allison Nelson 8550 Tern Court
PUBLIC HEARING:
AUDUBON CORPORATE CENTER/IDI DISTRIBUTORS: REQUEST FOR
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF 7 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS; SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR A 55,000 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING
WITH A FUTURE 15,000 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION; AND A WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER OR FILL WETLANDS ON SITE ON PROPERTY
ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP_ AND LOCATED AT 8301 AUDUBON
ROAD. APPLICANT: EDEN TRACE CORPORATION/IDI DISTRIBUTORS,
PLANNING CASE 08-07.
(Mark Undestad recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest.)
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Keefe: Okay. Kathleen, we’ll start with you. Have any questions of staff?
Thomas: Yeah, I guess I do have a question, just so I’m clear about the pond that they’re going
to create and cover. Are they going to get credit for that wetland or what happens with keeping
the ponds that are on the property versus one that they’re losing. Like what happens?
Generous: Well for the wetland that they impact on the south side, they have to mitigate that.
It’s a 2 to 1 basis. It’s my understanding they’re purchasing wetland credits from a bank that’s
already been established. The northerly one, we don’t know the final outcome for that. Our
preference would be to preserve it all. We’re not sure that that is completely doable. We think
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
the impacts can be minimized but we need a more definitive plan on that and so we’re waiting
for that wetland approval process until they come in with that second phase.
Thomas: Okay. Alright, thank you.
Keefe: Kevin, do you have any questions?
Dillon: Well how will that wetland be filled? What goes into it? Just gravel and stone and just
fill? How does that work?
Fauske: Typically the, Commissioner Dillon, typically in this situation they’ll go and do what
you call a muck excavation. They’ll take out the more organic materials and then they have a
soils engineer that would approve any density testing for any building pad that would be within
that wetland, that filled wetland area.
Dillon: So even for a wetland that’s not very big, like this one that’s going to get taken out. This
doesn’t look very big on a map. Are there other environmental agencies or you know wetland
preservation societies or things like this that have to take a look at that and okay it?
Generous: Not in this instance. The City sits as the local governmental unit controlling wetland
impacts. We do submit it to other agencies like the watershed district has reviewed the plan and
so if they don’t agree with us or have specific requirements, they can, they provide that to us.
Dillon: So have they given an opinion, the watershed district on filling this wetland?
Generous: Not on this one, no.
Dillon: Why is, just?
Generous: Well because they figure, it’d be conjecture on my part but they probably felt that it’s
an unavoidable impact. At least for that southerly one. And so there’s no you know way to do
it, and so it just goes through the natural process of review it. Minimize it and then mitigate it
under the Wetland Conservation Act.
Dillon: Okay. And I don’t know if you can answer this question or not but what is the
approximate timeframe til the expansion is going to be built?
Generous: I’m not sure that the property owner is aware of that. I heard 3 to 5 years.
Dillon: Okay. And I don’t know if you can answer this one either but what does IDI
Distributors do?
Generous: That I’m not certain of.
Dillon: Those are all the questions I have.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
Keefe: Okay, I’ve got a bunch. Just to start out, you know on the front page it says, what is, is
the building 55,000 or 45 because on the front page you’ve got 45.
Generous: Well it’s 45 on the first floor and then there’s another 10,000 square feet on the
second floor.
Keefe: On the second. And then the expansion is 16.
Generous: And then the expansion is 16,000…
Keefe: Okay, I got that.
Generous: So that, the original numbers they gave you were the 45,000 and I had to actually
look at the plans today. There’s another 10,000 square feet in this.
Keefe: Yeah. Right, okay. And is the expansion space a one story expansion or is it a two story
or?
Generous: It’s my understanding that it will be the warehouse. It will expand the warehouse
portion. They’ll continue the architectural treatment on the west side and the north end. It could
conceivably add some additional office space in that northwest corner.
Keefe: Okay. You make reference in the report, in grading that the entire site should be massed
graded and it says something along minimizing, to minimize truck traffic completion. And it
will minimize, I think I’m generally, minimize future impact to the wetland. Go ahead.
Generous: Well the idea is that there’s a high part review that we know will have to come down
and so we need, we want them to bring that down. But we want to limit any grading to outside
the buffer so there’s a 20 foot from the existing wetland that they couldn’t go right into, and we
also want to preserve these trees. So it’s mostly bringing, like this high part down on the
property. There’s quite a bit of dirt there and it needs to be removed.
Keefe: And is the plan that you’re showing there, is that to the required setback or does it need
to come back further because there’s some reference to meeting.
Generous: They would have to come back further from this grading plan.
Keefe: And if they do that, is it still a viable site on the north side?
Generous: Well we don’t know what the final configuration will be. They still may have a little
wetland impact once they come in.
Keefe: Yeah.
Generous: But we’re not certain. That’s why we don’t want to give them a Type I, go ahead and
fill it now.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
Keefe: Right. One thing in regards to you know side access. You sort of say staff feels the
drive location will be acceptable as long as the minimum sight distances have been met. I guess
the question is, what is the number? I mean is it 70 feet or is it, if minimum have been met?
There’s some, it wasn’t clear to me whether we’re sort of setting it. It has to be at this number or
whether we’re saying it has to meet minimum. Like on page 7, I think you just, it says
something, you know the staff feels. Where’s that access. Yeah, city staff feels this drive
location will be acceptable as long as the minimum sight distance requirements have been met.
Do we know, how do we reconcile that? I mean is 70 feet, does that 70 feet have they been met
or don’t we know that?
Fauske: Chairman Keefe, I’m looking through the, and I apologize. I don’t recall which
condition of approval it was but I believe that staff gave direction for the amount that that
driveway needed to shift with reference to the center line, and unfortunately I don’t see it right
off the top of my head here. To give you a little bit of background on the access location for this
site, originally, the original proposal from the applicant was to have the access further to the
north, actually along the common lot line between the two proposed properties. However with
the railroad bridge to the north of there, the applicant submitted an escrow and the city’s traffic
consultant did an analysis to find out what a safe distance is for that driveway to be placed at,
and so staff’s recommendation in the report and.
Generous: It’s number 35.
Fauske: Thank you, number 35. Shift proposed drive off Audubon Road so that the center of the
driveway is located 70 feet north of the Kingdom Hall Drive. That’s the recommendation that
came based on that…
Keefe: Yeah, and it was just some conflict with what was written in the report to the
recommendation because it just said, it sort of made it sound to me like it wasn’t clear whether
70 feet was enough to meet the minimum.
Fauske: The staff recommendation number 35 is consistent with what the traffic consultant.
Keefe: Okay, and then that will meet the minimum sight distance requirement of 70 feet.
Fauske: Correct.
Keefe: And that’s really what I was trying to clarify. Okay, good. We did that. A small item
here. You know in the loading area, it says dumpsters will be on the inside but that there’s
apparently some area on the other side of the retaining wall.
Generous: For that one their response was that that’s where, they’re going to keep them inside
but even if they were to pull them outside, there’s this retaining wall on the north end of the truck
back-up area that they could create a storage area if you will because it’s screened from public
views and so if it becomes more efficient to have it out there, it’s some place that they could do
it.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
Keefe: Is there a requirement that we should make around that or is there something we
typically, you know or do we leave it up to them as to kind of whether they want to keep them
inside or outside. Do we need to have something in place?
Generous: Well you could add a condition that if they do decide to bring them out that they
make sure that they properly screen them.
Keefe: Properly screen them, okay. Yeah. I think we should do that. Then, have you had any
feedback on the landscaping because it’s significantly under requirements. So you know if you
look on page.
Generous: 12?
Keefe: Yeah, page 12. I mean proposed south property line… I think you have a requirement
that it just needs to meet that. I mean have you had any feedback from the applicant that they’re
willing to do that?
Generous: Yeah, they are and they’re sort of, would like their designer to catch those before
they get.
Keefe: Yeah.
Generous: Because they’re adding additional trees. And also we’re looking at preserving some
more trees on this side.
Keefe: And then on the wetland piece, you know what will, is it pretty common that we mitigate
these things for credits? You know, I mean because we’re going to take out wetland 1 and
they’re going to put it into a mitigation bank or purchase credits. I mean is that pretty typical for
mitigation along these lines? It doesn’t seem like it’s that good of a wetland to begin with but
it’s a wetland all the same.
Generous: It’s a wetland. Chairman Keefe, and they do have to do the mitigation. The site’s too
small to actually do it right here.
Keefe: Yeah.
Generous: However there is a potential that through enhancement of the existing wetlands to get
credit but that’s another process and maybe Mr. Stockdale will look at that as part of any
proposal that he makes for wetland impact. It’s more, in this instance, at least for the southerly
impact it’s probably better to do it off site. Our preference would be to do it locally if we could.
Keefe: Yeah, and you know one thing I think you made mention throughout, really throughout
the report in a number of different areas is, is you really emphasize this wetland number 2 and
protecting it and how do we do that and on the one hand we’re going to be giving up this wetland
number 1 and we’re going to yeah, we’re going to get credits but it seems that we should sort of
5
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
take the first step in making sure and insuring that that wetland number 2 is protected. Sort of in
exchange and I don’t know if we think of these things in kind of exchange of, or if we really sort
of separate the wetland.
Generous: Well you do but under the Wetland Conservation Act, the first thing you always try
to do is avoid it.
Keefe: Yeah, right.
Generous: So can you do that? And that’s part of what we’ll work with the applicant on that
northerly piece is to try to avoid it because there are things. We’re, already we’re recommending
that they change the proposed finish floor elevation down 2 feet which reduces the amount of
grading that they have to do. And then they can incorporate retaining walls or site design issues
that may not require grading, although.
Keefe: Okay. I think that’s it for me. Do we have an applicant?
Jerry Backman: I’m Jerry Backman. I’m with.
Keefe: You want to come up, step up and.
Jerry Backman: …Brian Hallman couldn’t be here tonight but if you have any questions I can
answer them for you. I think Bob did a very good job explaining the site and I guess the only
thing I’d like to say about that wetland is, there wasn’t really anything we could do and he’s able
to buy some credits. They aren’t cheap either. But I think it’s going to be a nice project. It
looks nice and I think it should be a good one.
Keefe: Any questions of the applicant Kathleen or Kevin?
Dillon: What does IDI Distributors do?
Jerry Backman: They sell insulation. And I don’t know if it’s wholesale insulation or what but
that’s what I know about it.
Dillon: Alright. And again just to, I don’t know if you know, when is the anticipated timeframe
for adding the addition to this building?
Jerry Backman: I don’t know that and I don’t think they know that yet either.
Dillon: And would it be that addition will be occupied by the same company?
Jerry Backman: He anticipates that.
Dillon: So those are the only questions I have.
Keefe: Kathleen, anything or?
6
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
Thomas: No, I don’t think so, thank you.
Jerry Backman: Pardon?
Thomas: I’m good, thank you. I don’t have any questions.
Keefe: You know in regards to the northerly site, you know when you push this line back,
retaining wall line back away from the wetland and you do end up using up a fair amount of the
site on the north side. You know in terms of anticipated development on the north, on that
northern parcel, can you give us any ideas on what your plans may be there or?
Jerry Backman: Well, Dave Stockdale, he’s the owner here. He owns the north side. He owns
the south side right now too at this time but, we’re just going to work with Dave and see what we
can do about you know putting in a building that doesn’t bother the wetland that much. Just do
the best we can.
Keefe: Okay. Alright, thank you very much.
Jerry Backman: Thank you.
Keefe: Okay, and this is a public hearing and if anybody would like to come up and speak, we’ll
open it for any comments or questions you might have. Please come up to the podium and state
your name and ask your question. Anybody? Seeing nobody we’ll close the public hearing and
bring it back here for comments by the commissioners. Kevin, you want to go first?
Dillon: Sure. You know I mean whenever you have a project that’s affecting wetlands, you
know to save takes literally an act of Congress sometimes to get those things through. It seems
like the applicant has worked pretty well with the staff and have a plan figured out to try to
minimize the impact with the one and buy the credits and you know kind of offset it with
something and it certainly seems like there’s good intent with the second one to make sure that
that doesn’t take away any more wetland they have. Other than, so that would be you know my
big concern with this project. Other than that, you know while the driveway issue looks like
that’s been smoked out pretty well and that’s not going to be a safety issue or anything. It looks
pretty straight forward. The architectural design of it looks aesthetically pleasing. I don’t have
any issues with this.
Keefe: Kathleen.
Thomas: Kind of the same thing. I don’t have an issue with this project. They did their best
with trying to lay it out on the property to not have as much issue with it and they took, they’re
very conscientious of it so I am okay with it.
Keefe: Okay, good. Just my comments. You know I like the elevation of the roof. I think it’s a
very attractive design. I am concerned about the wetland on the north side and that we are going
7
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
to be giving up this one so we need to do what we can protect that and other than that I think it’s
a reasonably decent, yeah. So with that I’ll take a motion.
Dillon: I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission adopt the following three motions for
Planning Case #08-07 and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and recommendation. A.
That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the
subdivision creating one lot and one outlot and right-of-way for Audubon Road, plans prepared
by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc, dated February 15, 2008 subject to the following
conditions number 1 through 39. And, should we make them all at one time?
Keefe: Go right ahead.
Dillon: And B, that the Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Site
Plan for IDI Distributors for a 71,500 square-foot, two-story, office-warehouse building to be
built in two phases, plans prepared by Houwman Architects dated January 24, 2008, subject to
the following conditions number 1 through 25. And C. That the Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends that City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit for the
grading and filling of wetlands on the site, plans prepared by dated received February 29, 2008,
subject to the following conditions number 1 through 9.
Keefe: Do I have a second?
Thomas: Before I second it, can I make a friendly amendment?
Keefe: Absolutely.
Thomas: To B. I think it’s B of the site plan that we talked about the dumpsters. If they were
going to have to go outside. Just make sure they’re screened with just some sort of verbiage
within that?
Keefe: You accept that?
Dillon: Yeah sure, that’s fine.
Keefe: Okay. Did you, how do we?
Generous: Dumpsters that are placed outside shall be properly screened?
Thomas: Yes.
Dillon: So we’ll add that friendly amendment. So that will be condition number.
Generous: 26.
Thomas: Is it 26? On B? Yeah. In that case then I second your motion.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
Keefe: Alright.
Dillon moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the subdivision (preliminary and final plat) creating one lot and one outlot
and right-of-way for Audubon Road, plans prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Associates,
Inc, dated 02/15/08, subject to the following conditions:
, as shown in the preliminary plat
1.Lot 1, shall be designated as Outlot A until the
ultimate development of the lot is determined and a revised grading plan submitted that
shows the wetland impacts.
2.The applicant shall use BWSR U8 in all graded areas along the eastern property line.
3.Existing City boulevard trees will be protected with fencing during all phases of
construction. The applicant will be responsible for replacing any trees that die as a result
of construction activity.
4.The north lot will be required to provide buffer yard and parking lot landscaping as
required by ordinance at the time of site plan approval.
5.All trees on the north lot within the wetland buffer and setback shall be preserved until a
final grading plan is approved for the lot. The developer shall work with staff as part of
the development of the site to preserve these trees through revised grading and the use of
retaining walls.
6.A wetland buffer 20 feet in width and a 30-foot setback from the wetland buffer must be
maintained around all wetlands on the property. Secondary structures are allowed to
encroach up to 50% of the setback. It appears that the retaining wall has exceeded the
allowed encroachment and needs to be moved out of this 15-foot setback. Wetland buffer
areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland
ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City
staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
7.The retaining wall needs to be moved so that it is at least 15 feet from the edge of the buffer
or 35 feet from the wetland edge.
8.A NPDES Phase II Construction Site Storm Water Permit will be required from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for this site.
9.The proposed storm water pond shall be constructed prior to disturbing upgradient areas
and used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. Diversion berms/ditches
may be needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet shall be provided.
The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be
revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
10.A detailed construction plan needs to be created for the pond construction which shows
how water quality of the existing pond and adjacent water body will be protected. At a
minimum, this must show how the pond will be dewatered and what best management
practices will be employed.
11.All silt fence that is not laid parallel to the contours shall have J Hooks installed every
50-75 feet.
12.A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the stormwater pond shall be provided. The
EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf reinforcement mat (a
permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. The
overland route from the EOF to the existing wetland shall be shown on the plans and
shall be encumbered by a drainage and utility easement.
13.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a
curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
14.Inlet protection may be needed prior to installation of the castings for the curbside catch
basins. In that case, all storm sewer inlets shall be protected by at least fabric draped
over the manhole with a steel plate holding the fabric in place.
15.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $69,036.10.
16.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
17.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as
a condition of approval for this subdivision. The park fees shall be collected in full at the
rate in force upon final plat submission and approval.
18.Approval of the subdivision in no way should convey to the applicant, the land owner or
any subsequent owners and occupants approval of the wetland impacts indicated within
Wetland 2 as shown on the conceptual grading plan or any other wetland impacts
10
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
resulting from the development of this parcel. Any grading which, as a result of the
development of Lot 1, occurs on Lot 2 must provide sediment and erosion control best
management practices to protect the wetland and the buffer area.
19.No burning shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be removed
from site or chipped.
20.Remove all existing structures prior to the commencement of grading.
21.This site must be mass graded to minimize future truck traffic upon completion of the
southern parcel. A 20-foot buffer is required around the wetland on the northern parcel to
prevent grading from taking place. Please revise the grading plan and show silt fence in
this location so the contractor can determine the grading limits. Also, the building pad
elevation of the northern parcel shall be lowered to an elevation of 952 to minimize the
impacts to the wetland.
22.The grading plan needs to be revised. The proposed contours on the northern property
need to be revised showing the wetland buffer of 20 feet. Show the existing conditions
within 100 feet of the property line.
23.Normal water level of the existing wetlands should be shown on the plan. Also, include
the normal water level and high water level of the revised pond. Show emergency
overflows on the plan. Keep a minimum of 2 percent slope in the grass areas, 1 percent
in the pavement areas, and .5 percent along the curb lines.
24.Development of the northern parcel will require a stormwater pond to treat the water
prior to discharge into the wetland. This pond should discharge to the wetland northeast
of the site.
25.Revise the drainage calculations. The existing drainage map should include three areas:
One area discharges to the northern wetland, one to the eastern wetland and one to the
existing pond. Revise the calculations to show the pre- and post-development peak
discharge into the northern and eastern wetland. Post-development peak discharges must
remain less than pre-development peak discharges for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm
events. Drainage calculations must be signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota.
26.Rational method calculations, including drainage map, must be provided for the sizing of
the storm sewer.
27.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
28.Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be
designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Additional top
and bottom elevations should be added to the retaining wall.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
29.All of the utilities within the boundary should be privately owned and maintained. These
utilities must be covered by a cross-access agreement. The proposed watermain
th
connection into Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7 Addition must wet tap the existing
watermain.
30.Utility plans shall show both plan view and profiles of all utilities (sanitary sewer, water,
and storm sewer lines).
31.Determine actual elevations of existing utilities. A minimum vertical separation of 18
inches is required at all storm, sanitary, and watermain crossings. Provide details of each
crossing to ensure minimum separation.
32.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. Lot 1, Block 1
will get credit for 8 trunk sanitary sewer charges. Lot 2 will get credit for 15 trunk
sanitary sewer charges. No trunk water charges have been paid. The 2008 trunk hookup
charge is $1,769 for sanitary sewer and $4,799 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and
watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of
building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units
assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
33.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also
required to provide the City with the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of
credit or cash escrow in the amount of $13,200.00 to guarantee the installation of the
pond, erosion control, and seeding. The applicant must also notify the City after
installation of the erosion control and 48 hours prior to the commencement of grading.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA
and the Dept. of Health.
34.Easements are required to provide access to Lot 1, Block 1. A private drive easement
will be required to provide access to Lot 1, Block 1 off of Audubon Road. An additional
private easement will be required to provide truck access through Chanhassen Lakes
th
Business Park 7 Addition and up to Lot 1, Block 1. The easements for the gas line and
power line must be shown on the plat. No work will be allowed in this area without the
approval of the owner of the easement. A drainage and utility easement will be required
over the proposed pond for Lot 2, Block 1. Also, a temporary drainage and utility
easement should be placed on the entire Lot 1, Block 1 until the time of final plat of this
parcel. Provide location and easement for pond access.
35.Shift proposed drive off of Audubon Road so that the center of the driveway is located 70
feet north of the Kingdom Hall drive. Due to limited site distance, this driveway location
will be limited to passenger vehicles only. Truck-trailer access must be provided to Lot
th
1, Block 1 through Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7 Addition.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
36.The boundary survey and preliminary plat need to be revised. Add existing conditions
and property lines within 100 feet of the boundary. Also, the legal description does not
match the bearings on the preliminary plat.
37.Upon completion of the public street, the applicant shall submit a set of “as-built” plans
signed by a professional engineer.
38.Collector and Arterial Roadway Traffic Impact Zone fees will be collected with the final
plat. The fee will be based on the commercial rate of $3,600 per developable acre.
39.All outstanding assessments must be paid prior to final plat.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
Dillon moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the Site Plan for IDI Distributors for a 71,500 square-foot, two-story,
office-warehouse building to be built in two phases, plans prepared by McCombs Frank
Roos Associates, Inc., dated February 15, 2008, revised February 29, 2008 subject to the
following conditions:
1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2.The development shows metal halide lighting which must be revised to high-pressure
sodium vapor. All light fixtures shall be shielded.
3.The developer shall provide a sidewalk connection from the site to the trail on Audubon
Road. Pedestrian ramps shall be provided at all curb cuts.
4.The future building expansion shall continue the same architectural detailing of the first
phase of the building.
5.The applicant shall meet minimum requirements in all bufferyard areas.
6.The applicant shall plant three boulevard trees along Audubon Road in the empty spaces
created by entry drive rearrangements.
7.The applicant shall meet minimum requirements for parking lot trees.
8.The future expansion area will be seeded with a fescue mix and planted with bare root
aspens, or other trees as approved by the City, at a spacing of 15 feet. These trees may be
removed with no penalty when the expansion is needed.
9.The applicant shall use BWSR U8 in all graded areas along the eastern property line.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
10.Existing City boulevard trees will be protected with fencing during all phases of
construction. The applicant will be responsible for replacing any trees that die as a result
of construction activity.
11.A wetland buffer 20 feet in width and a 30-foot setback from the wetland buffer must be
maintained around all wetlands on the property. Secondary structures are allowed to
encroach up to 50% of the setback. It appears that the retaining wall has exceeded the
allowed encroachment and needs to be moved out of this 15-foot setback. Wetland buffer
areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland
ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City
staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
12.The retaining wall needs to be moved so that it is at least 15 feet from the edge of the buffer
or 35 feet from the wetland edge.
13.A NPDES Phase II Construction Site Storm Water Permit will be required from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for this site.
14.The proposed storm water pond shall be constructed prior to disturbing upgradient areas
and used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. Diversion berms/ditches
may be needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet shall be provided.
The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be
revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet.
15.A detailed construction plan needs to be created for the pond construction which shows
how water quality of the existing pond and adjacent water body will be protected. At a
minimum, this must show how the pond will be dewatered and what best management
practices will be employed.
16.All silt fence that is not laid parallel to the contours shall have J Hooks installed every
50-75 feet.
17.A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the stormwater pond shall be provided. The
EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf reinforcement mat (a
permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. The
overland route from the EOF to the existing wetland shall be shown on the plans and
shall be encumbered by a drainage and utility easement.
18.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
14
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a
curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
19.Inlet protection may be needed prior to installation of the castings for the curbside catch
basins. In that case, all storm sewer inlets shall be protected by at least fabric draped
over the manhole with a steel plate holding the fabric in place.
20.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
21.A 3-foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of fire hydrants except
Section 508.5.5 MSFC.
as otherwise required or approved
22.Post fences, vehicles, growth, trash, storage, and other materials shall not be placed or
kept near fire hydrants, Fire Department inlet connections or fire protection control
valves in a manner that would prevent such equipment or fire hydrants from being
immediately discernable. The Fire Department shall not be deterred or hindered from
Section 508.5.4
gaining immediate access to fire protection equipment or fire hydrants.
MSFC.
23.No burning shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be removed
from site or chipped.
24.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
25.Yellow curbing and no parking fire lane signs will be required. The developer shall
contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshall for exact location of yellow curbing and locations
of signs to be installed.
Dumpsters, if placed outside, shall be properly screened.
26.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
Dillon moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on
the site, plans dated received February 29, 2008, subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall produce an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits and a
purchase agreement for the application to be considered complete. Upon receipt of this
information, a notice of application will be sent to the required recipient list and
15
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2008
comments must be accepted for at least 14 days. At the end of the comment period, a
decision on the proposed impacts and mitigation can be finalized. It appears that
sequencing flexibility would be applicable to this wetland.
2.A wetland buffer 20 feet in width and a 30-foot setback from the wetland buffer must be
maintained around all wetlands on the property. Secondary structures are allowed to
encroach up to 50% of the setback. It appears that the retaining wall has exceeded the
allowed encroachment and needs to be moved out of this 15-foot setback. Wetland buffer
areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland
ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City
staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
3.The retaining wall needs to be moved so that it is at least 15 feet from the edge of the buffer
or 35 feet from the wetland edge.
4.That portion of the wetland buffer adjacent to the proposed earthwork shall be planted in a
suitable native seed mix.
5.As the area at the toe of the retaining wall is unlikely to be mowed, a suitable BWSR
seed mix shall be used below the retaining wall within the area to be graded.
6.Approval of the subdivision in no way should convey to the applicant, the land owner or
any subsequent owners and occupants approval of the wetland impacts indicated within
Wetland 2 as shown on the conceptual grading plan or any other wetland impacts
resulting from the development of this parcel. Any grading, which as a result of the
development of Lot 2 occurs on Lot 1 (Outlot A), must provide sediment and erosion
control best management practices to protect the wetland and the buffer area.
7.In order for any impacts to occur on the northern parcel, Lot 1 (Outlot A), a detailed site
plan and wetland application would need to be submitted. With this submittal, a
thorough discussion of sequencing considerations for wetland avoidance and/or impact
minimization is required.
8.The applicant needs to show that the wetland was avoided or provide documentation
indicating why wetland avoidance is not possible. If wetland avoidance was shown to the
satisfaction of the Local Government Unit to not be possible, the applicant would need to
show that the impacts were minimized to the greatest extent practicable.
9.No impacts are indicated for Wetland 3 and a no net loss decision will be rendered for
this area.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 4, 2008 as presented.
16