Loading...
PC Minutes 7-1-08 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 1, 2008 Acting Chair Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Denny Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kurt Papke and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Joe Shamla, Project Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CW-III: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 30,480 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING; AND PUD AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS WITHIN CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2451 GALPIN COURT (LOT 3, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK). APPLICANT: EDEN TRACE CORP. - PLANNING CASE 08-14. Public Present: Name Address JoEllen Radermacher 2479 Bridle Creek Trail Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Larson: We’ll start with you Dan. Any questions? Keefe: Yeah. On PUD amendments, is there a density limit on like a per acre basis. We’re taking it from 350 to 365 but you know in this number of acres, is there an upper limit on which could be approved on this size? Or how do we think of that? Generous: Well there’s two things that generally limit the intensity of development. One is the site coverage, and in this instance if we go back to the one table. Keefe: 61% was it? Generous: Overall of 61%. Generally for industrial developments you’re at 70% so we’re way under that and we don’t even account for the wetland area on the north in Outlot B or the wetland and storm water pond in the southwest corner of the site so. And the other issue is parking so to increase the intensity of development you would have to provide additional parking, and to do that generally either you have more area or the buildings have to go up. So Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2008 they have a smaller footprint or you have to provide ramp parking. And so the economies of it really control that. But generally you look at a 30% floor area ratio is our standard when we look at industrial development, and they’re well under that number. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Generous: As well as they’re under the threshold for even having to do the environmental assessment, even though we do a very significant review of this for all the environmental issues. Trees and storm water. Keefe: Are the other industrial developments in the city similar in terms of their site coverage? Are they greater or lesser? Generous: Generally they’re greater. Keefe: Yeah, okay. In regards to the Galpin speed question. I mean isn’t the volume on Galpin going to go up substantially when the school opens up? I’ve got to believe that’s going to be a bigger driver of speed potentially than. Generous: Well the volume. Keefe: Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions there. Generous: The volumes will increase because of more traffic going on there. The question becomes speed. Keefe: Yeah. Generous: And so part of that is through enforcement and then people just doing it and hopefully if you see more cars there you slow down. Keefe: Was there a traffic study? I’m trying to remember, wasn’t there a traffic study done on this a while back? Or didn’t we think there was enough volume to justify? I can’t remember when we did the original. Generous: Not as part of the site plan. We did do some basic traffic analysis. As part of the high school they did do a EAW with that traffic, and also the 2005 MUSA area. They did the ultimate urban area wide review which also looked at traffic. One thing that came out of that, all that is that Lyman Boulevard and Galpin does need to be signalized and it will be prior to opening the school. I believe it’s included as part of the upgrade for Lyman Boulevard that’s going on right now. Keefe: But the additional 15,000 square feet in terms of translation of cars really isn’t, you know especially when you stack it up against what’s going to be happening with the school there is relatively insignificant. Wouldn’t you say that? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2008 Generous: Right. The numbers were a total of 191 based on a worst case scenario that I can find. On a daily basis so that’s. Keefe: Yeah. You know jumping over to the site plan review, just in terms of the, I mean you’ve got this, it’s kind of goofy because it’s kind of sitting in the middle there so you know one thing we’re, how it’s decided that all the sort of trash and then this additional dock for Bay 5 all kind of on the south side because it looks like it sort of faces right into Lot 2. I mean I presume there were a number of different iterations on this and sort of the layout but can you comment on that at all? Generous: Well the applicant probably would be a little better. That’s the only external one that they have for the site. Generally each of the tenants will have their’s internally. Keefe: Okay. Generous: And then they bring them out but I think they wanted to provide the opportunity that they had one exterior location. It has to be accessible, and because of that angle and the landscaping, that will be a fairly sheltered spot. Keefe: Yeah. I mean from an elevation standpoint, is it equivalent to the lot next door? It’s pretty flat isn’t it? Generous: Yeah, it’s a little bit higher I believe. Keefe: Yeah, okay. And then just to your comment, I mean these are going to be individually owned or are these going to be condos or are they sort of rental, bay? I presume they’re going to be different owners. Or different tenants. Generous: It’s different tenants. I think they’re going to be under one ownership and a management, but they could in the future if they wanted to split them up on a condominium type of arrangement. Keefe: Right. Okay. That’s all I have. Dillon: I don’t have any questions. Larson: Denny? Laufenburger: Yeah I do. Bob you mentioned that Galpin is planned for 4 lanes. Do you know when that is going to happen? Shamla: I do not know the answer to that question. Laufenburger: Certainly not before Lyman is completed. Generous: Definitely not. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2008 Shamla: No. Generous: It was, when the city constructed it last, they built it to be 4 lane but they striped it for 2 lane. So usually what is 12 to 15,000 trips a day is when the threshold when you need to switch over and they’re not there yet. Laufenburger: We may hear this from the applicant but do we have an anticipated start on when construction in this area? Have you been told that at all? Generous: They haven’t. I anticipate this summer though. Once they’re get all their approvals. Laufenburger: As I look at this, I’m assuming that the layout of the design of the, layout of the property and stuff takes into account turning requirements for trucks because I see that the bays, I was just trying to figure out how the trucks would make it to the back if they were delivery trucks for any reason. I’m assuming that they would have to enter on Galpin. Make a left turn into the property and then make an immediate right turn so that they can circle around to the building in the back. And then back their trucks into those bays. Does that make sense? Generous: I would anticipate that they’d use the north access. If they’re semi trailer trucks. Laufenburger: Yeah but how they going to, how do they back a truck into that bay on number 5 if they’re, did you say the north or the south access? Generous: Well I was thinking of the north for that south one would be the same thing. Laufenburger: Oh you’re right. You’re right. They would. Generous: It’d be the same thing. It would come from the north down and then they’d just back in. Laufenburger: They would use the north driveway. Continue around on the north side and then to the west side of the building and then back in. Okay. Generous: And when they get to the unit they would. Laufenburger: Okay. That would make sense. Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you. Thomas: I don’t have a question. Larson: No? Okay. I don’t either so have we got an applicant? Have you step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Jerry Backman: Jerry Backman. I’m with MFRA and Bob actually explained everything quite well. He kind of worked his way through the whole project. He’s been doing all the rest of them all the way around in this whole development. We initially did the whole development at 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2008 Schoell Madsen then we merged with MFRA you know about 5 months ago or so, and the project just carried through and I think this is a good project. It’s, it leaves one lot left and that’s that one just east of the one that we’re working on right now. And otherwise then all of it will be developed and the pond is sized for all of them so it’s all just going together well. Larson: Okay. Alright. Keefe: Can I just ask a quick question for the applicant? Can you speak to the sort of the layout of the building in terms of having that trash container and the other, yeah. Jerry Backman: Well the architect laid that out but like you say, they have one exterior one and the rest of them will all be interior just for small amounts and I suppose if they have a larger amount, then they’ll bring it to the other one. Keefe: Okay, so that would be what? They need to carry it around to this or? Jerry Backman: Yep. It shouldn’t happen very often but it’s there for them to use if they need it. Keefe: Okay. And then I mean is there concern at all in terms of screening to the building next door or not for you know all of those uses down in that area? In terms of the trucks coming in and the trash and you know because the other, it looks like the other building looks out right on that area. Is your intention to screen at all? Generous: Building 2? Keefe: Yeah. Generous: To the southeast? Keefe: To the east. To the south and east. Jerry Backman: Well there’s enough trees and everything there. I mean it’s, I really don’t think, I don’t know how you can do it any better than with this site that’s left over. Keefe: I don’t see any trees there. Shamla: Actually that particular area has a rain garden so there’s no trees in that area. Generous: Yeah, you can just see the outline. Jerry Backman: So the trees are up by the curb there. Keefe: Okay. So these are going to be the plant, this is the planting plan? Okay. Generous: And then on the west side of course is that big retaining wall to preserve the mature trees that we saved as part of the overall project. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2008 Larson: Anybody else? Dillon: The target tenants for this? Jerry Backman: I really don’t know all that. Eden Trace has that all in line so. That’s his job. Larson: Anything else? Thomas: No, I don’t. Larson: Okay. With that we’ll open up the hearing to the public. Anybody wishes to come up, now is the time. JoEllen Radermacher: Good evening. My name is JoEllen Radermacher. I live at 2479 Bridle Creek Trail and I’m just curious because it doesn’t affect us immediately but I would just like to have confirmation that it meets the PUD for sound and lighting so we don’t have any loud crashes or bangs or anything in the wee hours or night hours and any lighting that would be disturbing. Thank you. Larson: Bob, you want to address that? Generous: Yes, and unfortunately I don’t, they did submit the lighting plan for review. It’s in the packet. They meet the standards for a half foot candle at the property line. All of them are down cast so you don’t get the glow off property. They’re pointed towards the interior of the building. They do have some wall mounted units but, so it meets that. Noise, well the type of development, this is an office/warehouse so you shouldn’t have really manufacturing type of businesses in there and those are generally the noisier ones. I never say never but as far as I know it meets it. If they, we do have noise complaints we always do go and investigate it to see if they are in violation of city code. It’s a little tougher because noise, you have to meet state standards and there’s decibel levels and duration that you have to meet before it becomes a violation. But again this is the wrong type of building to see a lot of manufacturing. It’s a little too small. We see it as more start-up companies going in there and once they get big enough they’ll do like Waytek did and buy their own building and build it and allow for their own expansions. Laufenburger: Bob, are there any restrictions on noise during construction? Like can construction take place during the wee hours of the evening. Generous: There are those, as part of the site plan agreement that they enter into, there’s hours of construction and I don’t remember what they are. I think they’re 7:00 to 9:00 but they could be 7:00 to 6:00. Shamla: It’s only open til 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Generous: And then yeah, it’s 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday. No Sunday or holidays. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2008 Laufenburger: So any noise associated with construction would occur only during the day and not during the wee hours of the night. Generous: That’s correct. Larson: Bob, could you speak to the one recommendation you guys have about them incorporating high pressure sodium vapor lamps as opposed to the metal, is it halide? Generous: Halide. Larson: Halide lamps. What’s the difference and why. Generous: Well it’s yellow versus white light and it’s just city code states that it has to be high pressure sodium. The yellow light. Larson: The yellow. Generous: Which is a little softer. They’re going to metal halide as it’s a brighter color. You can get, you see true colors with it but it’s something that the city hasn’t embraced. They like the softer color. Larson: Okay. Generous: But our standards are pretty strict about the spillover effect. Either one we want to control them. You just, and it should match the rest of the development. Larson: Okay. Any more questions or any more comments? Nobody else back there? We’ll close the hearing. Discussion. Thomas: Looks good. Laufenburger: Thorough. Once again. Good staff work. Dillon: So should we have a motion? Larson: A motion. Who wants to be the motoleader? Dillon: I’ll make a motion that the, we follow the staff recommendation and we adopt the following motions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation that A. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the Planned Unit Development design standards for Chanhassen West Business Park to permit a total development building square footage of 365,000 feet. And B. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Site Plan for Planning Case #08-14 for a 30,500 square foot, one story office/warehouse building, plans 7 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2008 prepared by Houwman Architects and McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Incorporated dated May 23, 2008, subject to the following conditions number 1 through 22. Larson: And a second? Thomas: Second. Dillon moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the amendment to the Planned Unit Development design standards for Chanhassen West Business Park to permit a total development building square footage of 365,000. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Dillon moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Site Plan for Planning Case #08-14, for a 30,500 square-foot, one-story office/warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects and McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., dated 05/23/08, 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 developer shall provide exterior benches and/or tables. 3.One additional parking stall shall be provided. 4.At least six of the parking stalls located east of the building shall be relocated to the side of the building. 5.The developer shall provide a pedestrian connection from the site to the sidewalk on Galpin Court. Pedestrian ramps shall be installed at all curbs along this pathway. 6.The plan specifications shall be revised to incorporate high pressure sodium vapor lamps instead of the metal halide lamps 7.Fire Code sec. 508.5 A three-foot clear space around fire hydrants shall be provided. 8.Nothing shall be placed near fire hydrants or fire department inlet connections that would Fire Code sec. 508.5.4. deter or hinder from gaining immediate access. 9.No PIV (post indicator valve) will be required. No Parking Fire Lane” 10.Contact Fire Marshal for location of “ signs, and curbing to be painted yellow. 11.Park fees in the amount of $31,387.67 shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2008 12.The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 13.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 14.Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 15.The applicant shall increase the inside width of all islands and/or peninsulas to 10 feet or greater. 16.Tree preservation fencing is required to be installed prior to any construction along the north and west property lines. 17.On the Grading plan: a.Show the existing contours on the east side of the site. Provide spot elevations of the driveway connections. b.Show NWL and HWL on the pond. c.Add benchmark. d.Reduce slope on the southern drive. 18.Encroachment agreements will be needed prior to building permit issuance for any driveway or retaining wall in the drainage and utility easement. 19.On the Utility plan: a.Provide details of each utility crossing. b.Add cleanout to the sanitary sewer service. c.Add note to notify City of Chanhassen Utility Department 48 hours prior to connecting to the watermain (952-227-1300). d.Watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be privately owned and maintained. 20.Show location of heavy duty versus light duty pavement sections. 21.Add Detail Plates 3107 and 5215. 22.The northern driveway must be either shifted to the south to remain on the site being developed or secure a private drive easement from the property to the north.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 17, 2008 as presented. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2008 Acting Chair Larson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 10