PC Minutes 1-6-09
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 6, 2009
Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kurt Papke, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, and Denny
Laufenburger
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kevin Dillon, Dan Keefe, and Kathleen Thomas
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City
Engineer; and Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARING:
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH
VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN 82,500 SQUARE FOOT
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK
(IOP) LOCATED ON LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS
TH
PARK 5 ADDITION (7901 PARK PLACE). APPLICANT/OWNER: CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 08-25.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: Alright, Debbie.
Larson: The only question I have, and I think it’s probably self explanatory based on what
you’ve told me but on the landscaping on page 7, we’re showing that there’s a required 70 trees.
We’re proposing to put up 22. Is that because there’s a lot of natural stuff already up there? A
lot of trees that we’re just not touching.
Generous: Correct.
Larson: So we don’t need to do that.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think it was hard to tell from the picture. The original one that we showed,
maybe you can go to that one first. The first picture shows the entire site. The two parcels that
were included in the site. The project itself is sitting to the interior so those are all the trees that
we’re preserving, and that kind of goes into that first why we looked at the variances. Trying to
preserve those trees and create that buffer on Audubon itself, so that’s part of that tree
preservation there and those trees are counted towards that, so not all of that’s being disturbed.
Larson: Okay. That’s all I have.
Generous: Or very little.
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Aanenson: Very little of it, correct. Yeah, provides that, so when you’re driving down Audubon
you don’t see that. Whereas now when you go by the public works building, some of that is very
visible. That was one of the goals that we tried to accomplish too. And then when we get a
chance the architect, there’s a lot of interesting energy applications that are being used in this
building and site design that the architect’s here to talk a little bit about too and I think that plays
into some of the features that we were looking at too. The lighting. The roof tops. Some of
those things so when we get to that portion I’ll let him speak a little bit more about the
uniqueness of the building.
Laufenburger: Good job Bob and staff. Just a couple questions. This is a new facility. Is this
providing the consolidation of public works facilities in various stages around the city or, can
somebody speak to that?
Aanenson: Yeah, maybe let the City Engineer address that question.
Oehme: Thank you Chair, commission members. Yeah, that does, the new facility does
consolidate a lot of equipment into this one facility. That’s one of our problems we have right
now is we have material and equipment spread all throughout the city and parks. We have a
bunch of materials, our equipment stored in water towers and other areas around town. It’s just
hard to properly maintain and keep track of a lot of that. A lot of those equipment…so that’s
what a lot of cities have been going to is trying to consolidate. Try to keep a lot of this
equipment under one roof so it’s really more accessible and usable.
Laufenburger: And will this facility be the only public works facility for the city of Chanhassen?
Oehme: Yes. It will be the only facility. So our existing facility that we’re currently using.
Laufenburger: Right.
Oehme: Actually we’re working that facility right now.
Laufenburger: Okay, so that will be vacated and this will occupy.
Oehme: Yep. We’re definitely going to try to sell that.
Laufenburger: And I don’t recall seeing this. What are your plans for when, assuming all the
approvals are received, when do you anticipate occupancy of this?
Oehme: Well we’re anticipating the first half of 2010. January-February timeframe.
Laufenburger: So about a year.
Oehme: Year plus.
2
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Laufenburger: Thank you. And then one other question. I think you asked it regarding the
meandering creek. Is that Riley Creek that is to the east?
Generous: Yes.
Laufenburger: Is that correct? Do you have any evidence that that meandering will change in
high water times or anything?
Jeffery: If I may Chair Papke, Commissioner Laufenburger. The creek itself, I mean you’ve got
to remember, this area where the public works facility is being proposed has been used as what’s
called the bone yard for city staff and it was used prior to any of our shoreland rules going into
effect so, so the long way getting to answer your question, there has been considerable
degradation along the top bank area within the channel itself.
Laufenburger: That would be just to the west of the channel of Riley Creek, right?
Jeffery: Correct. Resulting in conditions that are prone to erosion throughout there, so I think as
part of the restoration within that area, part of the mitigation, the stabilization outlet channel will
be a priority concern within there. Any natural channel will change it’s course over time and
there’s nothing we can do to stop that entirely, but areas where you know the actions that we’ve
got or water that’s being discharged where it’s creating what I’ll say hazardous conditions, for
lack of a better word, we can act to mitigate those to minimize the chances of that channel
changing course.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Jeffery: And I also think it’s important to note, a lot of the storm water features that are being
put on the site will actually improve the hydraulics of that area and lessen the opportunity for
erosion within that channel. Everything from the establishment of the vegetation along that
shoreline, where now in many cases vegetation is absent to the treatment and detention of storm
water behind the building taking the roof runoff behind the building. Bringing it to the wetland
and then taking everything from the drive on the south side of the building and bringing it to
what will amount to an engineered wetland. You’re actually putting it into the wetland and then
the parking area will actually be diverted to a pond that was constructed when this entire
development went in in ’85-86 to the east. So that should actually help mitigate any problems
within that channel.
Laufenburger: That’s the pond that you’re referring to right there.
Jeffery: Yes, thank you.
Laufenburger: Thank you. That answered my question.
Undestad: Just one quick one too. On, can you bring that slide up that had the shaded areas of
where the impacts are. Yeah. The question on there was just going around that tree with the
driveway, we’re not, the shaded areas is inside of the setback buffer area, is that right? It’s not
3
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
that. So the shaded area’s actually within the setback buffer area, not the actual wetland in
there?
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Undestad: Okay.
Papke: Okay, just a couple here. The oak tree that we’re going to great lengths to save. Quite
often in the construction set like this, despite our best efforts, sometimes these things don’t work.
The City Forester, what’s the assessment of the probability of that oak tree actually surviving?
Generous: She was very positive. They’re doing everything that we require for people to
mitigate and protect it. Before they go forward they’re putting up the tree protection fencing.
They’re using a retaining wall so they don’t change the elevation at the drip line so her prognosis
is good as long as it’s followed through.
Papke: I’d hate to go through all that effort and then end up with a big pile of firewood. Will
there be salt storage facility? One of the things that kind of strikes me is if we’re storing salt
here with the possibility of runoff from a pile of salt and then we’re also, you know encroaching
into the Riley Creek watershed. I’m having kind of difficulty coming to grips with those two.
They seem to be kind of fighting each other. Can you speak to that at all? You mentioned we’re
going to extra efforts to mitigate any storm water runoff. Have we taken the salt, I assume we’ve
taken the salt storage into account but I’d just like to make sure we vocalize that.
Jeffery: Yeah, Chairman Papke, yes we have. In fact it was a large discussion that we had at
that point to make sure that wasn’t going to produce runoff into the creek itself. First of all the
salt container, and Mr. Oehme correct me if I’m wrong but the salt containment area itself will
be of solid construction, which in itself will reduce the leeching out of that area. And then
drainage within the parking area will actually be connected to the storm sewer system which
divert the water to the pond and away from the creek so it should not pose a hazard to the, to
Riley Creek itself. Or the wetland to the south.
Aanenson: Just to be clear, there is a current structure on the existing public works building,
enclosure, that you can see and that same structure will be moved but again measures will be
taken. Actually we did have a discussion about where the best location was. It has been moved
to accommodate that concern so it was moved a couple places to find the best spot to mitigate
that. The staff had the same concern internally.
Papke: Okay. Applicant presentation. Hear from the architect or.
Jeff Oertel: Good evening Mr. Chair, commission members. For the record my name is Jeff
Oertel and I reside and work out of St. Paul. It’s a pleasure to be here tonight. A few comments
first of all to add onto the salt storage. The orientation of that storage building is pretty much
ideal in relative terms with these buildings you basically have an open end almost all the time
and then you have three enclosed sides and the structure is oriented, if I recall, south, southeast
and it avoids a lot of the winter, you know those strong winter winds and that sort of thing. And
4
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
we will do what we can to I think even out, level or even dip the inside of this structure so that
any watery, salt, whatever is contained in that and not run off. I don’t know if we have, or if we
can throw a few pictures up on the wall. Just to orient you a little bit more within the building.
Alright I’ll start on the outside of the building. This, I apologize. This shot’s pretty hard to see.
There’s a lot of detail. One thing that wasn’t mentioned is that even though this facility’s for all
of public works operations, there is a community component to this that the entry that you see in
the illustration there is also the public entry. The main public entry and it’s anticipated that this
building will be used for voting purposes, and internally the facility was designed for the
stacking of people to come in. Move through what is the multi-purpose lunch room, training
room and that’s the room with the little set of it looks like about 16 tables and chairs. So even
though that will be where the public works staff get training. Have their meals and breaks, that
area will be used for the public perhaps for more than just voting purposes, but certainly for that
in particular, and we do have a waiting area. A fairly large waiting area just off the main entry
for that purpose as well. Otherwise, within the building I know your main focus is on the
exterior but within the building we have offices which would be at the bottom of the sheet that
we’re looking at, which looked to the west. And then internally within that office sector of the
building, we have the typical restrooms and locker rooms and support areas of the building.
Now that whole corner which will be the most visible part of the building has the more
expensive material. It has the brick and it has quite a lot of glass for viewing. But within the rest
of the building what we’re doing with day lighting is trying to get day lighting from up above
and you can see off to the right in this shot, where the vehicle maintenance area is, there’s a clear
story unit and we’ve actually, in our facilities, designed quite a few buildings like this where
there’s a clear story right at the roof edge and daylight just seems to love to follow that ceiling
pattern, and it works very well for bringing in daylight. And we’re also adding quite a bit of
clear story glass at the office area to bring in daylight within that area. And partly because we’re
trying to walk a fine line between the budget that the city has and not exceeding that budget,
we’ve come up with an idea to bring in daylight within that big vehicle area. That big bay that
you saw on the plans. And since it’s counter productive to put in a lot of glass at the knee level
or at the viewing level, because that’s where all the vehicles are stored and equipment put up
against the wall. We’re adding the glass units up high to bring in the daylight up high at a more
modest cost. Otherwise as mentioned earlier, we have quite a few devices within the building
and systems to try to conserve energy. These buildings do use a lot of energy because the
exhaust gases have to be removed from the building, both for health reasons, for code reasons,
and so we’re adding quite a bit of mechanical, special mechanical systems to try to lower energy.
We’re looking into geothermal heat which I believe will be considered as an alternate for the
council to consider, depending on how the price comes in. And we’re looking at quite a few
lighting devices and sensors to avoid lights being turned on and staying on all day and so there
are quite a few systems within the building to help keep the energy costs down. Just a few last
notes. On the exterior we’re going with a fairly, what would be an inexpensive pre-cast wall
panel. I’m sure the commissioners are familiar with that, but rather than going with the typical
no-brainer panel, we are trying to break up the skin of it with some horizontal pieces randomly
placed to try to break up the wall, because it is a sizable wall. Fortunate in our favor, as a part of
the planning, the big, long, what did we say it was 300 some foot wall, long wall will be facing
the woods and almost not visible to the public whatsoever. That was a brief visit through it and
if you have any questions I’d be happy to answer.
5
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Larson: I was just wondering, can you show us where, it’s hard to see within these pictures
where this building is going to be for the salt.
Jeff Oertel: Sure. It’s on the.
Larson: It looks like it’s removed or over somewhere else.
Generous: On the north side.
Jeff Oertel: It’s dashed in. There’s the salt.
Oehme: By the northeast corner.
Jeff Oertel: And it’s not the prettiest of structures of course. It’s got a kind of a hoop top to it
and a concrete base and the open end is facing oh, it’s facing southeast but there you go. Thank
you. And so one of the dilemmas that we have, my firm has designed I don’t know, 20 or 25 of
these buildings but the dilemma is that we as the community need salt on the roads and the
municipalities need to buy it in bulk. And even right now, I don’t know if Paul’s had this
experience but some operations are being cut off and if they haven’t pre-ordered a fairly large
quantity over that tough period at the end of the year, some communities are running out of salt
and had to just pick up small batches so the salt buildings tend to want to be big because of the
need to buy in bulk and it’s just that unfortunate, tough component. It’s never the prettiest of
structures.
Larson: I don’t care if it’s pretty or not.
Jeff Oertel: I do.
Laufenburger: If there’s anybody concerned about pretty…
Larson: Touché. That’s all.
Papke: Thank you very much. Any other presentation from the City? Any other issues? Okay.
With that I’ll open the public hearing. If anybody from the public would like to get up and make
any comments on this matter before us, please step up to the podium and let us know what you
think. No movement. With that, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the
commissioners for discussion and debate and Mark we’ll start with you then.
Undestad: I didn’t really have any issues, no. I mean the size of the site and the coverage
they’re on there, we know we don’t have a hard surface coverage problem there. And the way
things lay out here, you’re going around all the, saving all the trees and things. I think it was
well thought out. It looks nice.
Laufenburger: I concur. I, just visually I like the building. It’s kind of hidden. People who
want to see what good architecture is in place in Chanhassen. We might have to put up green
signs that says you know public works facility here. No, I think it’s, I like it.
6
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Larson: Yeah, I like it too. No issues.
Papke: Okay. I had some issues coming into the meeting. You know I’m always nervous when
the city asks for variances and then doesn’t necessarily grant them to the public but I think we’ve
shown good justification for this one and I think all the concerns I had have been… So with that
I’ll entertain a motion.
Laufenburger: Mr. Chair. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City
Council approve the Site Plan for Planning Case #08-25 for an 82,500 square foot, one story
office/warehouse building with a mezzanine storage area with a Conditional Use Permit for
outdoor storage and setback variances from the creek and wetland for the parking lot area, plans
prepared by Oertel Architects and the City of Chanhassen dated December 5, 2008, subject to the
conditions of the staff report and findings.
Papke: Is there a second?
Larson: I’ll second that.
Laufenburger moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the
City Council approve the Site Plan for Planning Case #08-25 for an 82,500 square foot, one
story office/warehouse building with a mezzanine storage area with a Conditional Use
Permit for outdoor storage and setback variances from the creek and wetland for the
parking lot area, plans prepared by Oertel Architects and the City of Chanhassen dated
December 5, 2008, subject to the following conditions:
1.The developer shall provide exterior benches and/or tables.
2.Signage shall require a separate sign permit review to determine compliance with City
ordinance.
3.The applicant shall mitigate for the lost functions and values of any buffer variance by replacing
an equivalent area of buffer in a location which will provide the maximum water quality benefit.
Preliminary review indicates that area to be northeast of the wetland.
4.The applicant shall restore the stream channel as well as the top of bank and flood plain for
Riley Creek including the removal of any construction and other debris in the area.
5.The applicant shall prepare a vegetation management plan for Riley Creek. This
management plan shall be created in conjunction with the landscaping plan and the
Environmental Resources Specialist and Water Resources Coordinator should be consulted in
the creation of this plan.
6.The applicant will modify the existing NPDES permit to identify the construction manager
for the project.
7
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
7.The applicant will provide adequate treatment for drainage directed to the wetland.
8.The applicant should look for ways to promote infiltration and incorporate alternative
stormwater management best management practices into the site design and build. One such
measure is the construction of a bio-infiltration feature at the outlet from the drive aisle
northeast of the wetland. Other features to investigate include pervious pavement systems,
cisterns, biofiltration trenches, preservation or re-establishment of vegetation, etc.
9.The final 200 feet of the swale located west of the proposed facility needs to be protected
with Category 2, Wood Fiber 1S Erosion Control Blanket.
10.Those areas to be planted in BWSR seed mix U7 should be seeded at a rate of 15LBS
PLS/acre where PLS means “Pure Live Seed”.
11.The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
12.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
13.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
14.The 51-inch and 45-inch oaks located near the northwest and southeast corners of the
building shall be protected by fencing throughout construction.
15.The site plan must show the dimensions of the lots.
16.The northern access must be revised so that the maximum width does not exceed 36 feet.
17.An encroachment agreement is required for the portion of the parking area that lies within the
public right-of-way.
18.If feasible, the runoff from the cold storage area access should be conveyed to the existing
storm sewer.
19.Revised drainage calculations and storm sewer sizing must be submitted to ensure that the
existing downstream infrastructure can accommodate the proposed runoff.
20.An encroachment agreement is required to construct the northern retaining wall within the
drainage and utility easement.
21.The proposed top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown.
22.The drainage and utility easement over the abandoned portion of the sanitary sewer must be
vacated.
8
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
23.The existing drainage and utility easements and abandoned utilities must be labeled on the
plan sheet.
24.The utility plan must include a note regarding the connection to the existing storm sewer.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Laufenburger moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage, subject to the
following condition:
1.The proposed development must comply with the approved site plan, plans prepared by
Oertel Architects and the City of Chanhassen, dated 12/05/08.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BECK VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FROM THE BLUFF SETBACK,
SIZE LIMITATION OF A WATER ORIENTED STRUCTURE, AND SIZE
LIMITATION FOR DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE(S) FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SHED AND DECK ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RSF), LOCATED AT 6250 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT/OWNER:
CHRISTOPHE AND NADINE BECK, PLANNING CASE 08-23.
Public Present:
Name Address
Nadine Beck 6250 Ridge Road
Jens Midthun 6225 Ridge Road
Tara and Deana Wetzel 6260 Ridge Road
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: Mark, we’ll start with you.
Undestad: I just have one. You say when somebody went out there in October and issued the
stop work and they elected to finish the deck and things that were out there now and apply for
the variance?
Auseth: The deck and the shed are as is when we went out there.
Laufenburger: Thank you staff. Could you just go into a little further explanation about the 30%
coverage removal and why, if they chose to remove a tree, that would be in violation. Can you
just explain that a little bit more for me please.
9