PC Minutes 5-5-09
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Dillon: I’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission affirms the staff
interpretation, Planning Case 09-05 for the property described as Lots 6 and 7, Sunset View
Addition for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single family lot and requires
the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a larger dwelling unit.
Papke: Is there a second?
Laufenburger: Second.
Dillon moved, Laufenburger seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission affirms
the staff interpretation, Planning Case 09-05 for the property described as Lots 6 and 7,
Sunset View Addition for the regulation regarding multiple dwelling units on a single
family lot and requires the applicant to remove Buildings A and B in order to build a
larger dwelling unit. All voted in favor, except Thomas who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair just for the record.
Papke: Yes.
Aanenson: Because this is a decision of, acting as a zoning appeal, anybody aggrieved of this
decision, including the applicant has the right to appeal that decision and so they should do so
within 10 days.
Papke: Okay, thank you very much. The next item on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
POWERS CROSSING PROFESSIONAL CENTER: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BLUFF CREEK
CORRIDOR; SUBDIVISION INTO ONE LOT, OUTLOTS AND DEDICATION OF
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO
OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL (OI), AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR
A TWO-PHASE, THREE STORY, 160,000 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL CENTER,
UP TO A 731 STAFF, FIVE LEVEL PARKING RAMP AND SIGNAGE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON OUTLOT A, BUTTERNUT RIDGE (SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
POWERS BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 312). APPLICANT: UNITED PROPERTIES
LLC/TIMOTHY & DAWNE ERHART, PLANNING CASE 09-06.
Public Present:
Name Address
Bill Katter, United Properties 3500 American Blvd W, Minneapolis 55431
Dan Parks Westwood Professional Services
Paul Holmes Pope Associates
Kevin Ellsworth 9601 Flintlock Trail
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Johnnie Meyering 1050 Homestead Lane
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: Debbie, we’ll start with you. Put you on the spot.
Larson: Thanks. I’m kind of overwhelmed so I don’t have anything.
Papke: Okay, Denny.
Laufenburger: Bear with me as I go through my notes Mr. Chairman. Bob, could you just re-
state, did you say that the parking on the north side of the property would be initially a 3 story
parking lot?
Generous: As part of Phase II.
Laufenburger: Phase II.
Generous: So once they do the expansion they would put in the parking ramp.
Laufenburger: Okay so the first building would be the southern most building is that correct?
Generous: Correct.
Laufenburger: Okay. Then when they put in the second building, then that parking ramp goes
in.
Generous: That’s when the ramp goes in, yes.
Laufenburger: Alright. Can you speak to the soil stability, and the reason I ask the question is
that I know that there was a time that a segment of Powers Boulevard, I think to the south and
west of this proposed property, there was substantial work that had to be done to support, and
I’m not saying that in you know city public works jargon, I understand, but can you just talk, is
the city confident that the soil here is going to support this?
Generous: I don’t know if I’d be qualified. Alyson…
Fauske: Chair Papke if I may answer the question. Commissioner Laufenburger, in this
situation typically the applicant in this case would hire a soils engineer and they would do soils
consolidation through compaction techniques and they would have the soils company test to
make sure that they have adequate compaction. As you referred to there were some soils issues
on the south side of Powers Boulevard and that’s the very thing that they do. That they catch in
time to make sure that they have a solid foundation for any structure.
Laufenburger: So the assumption that I would make is that the city would be arm and arm with
the developer to insure that all of those things are appropriately.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Fauske: Correct. It’s with the building permit. They always get the soils testing.
Laufenburger: Bob I know that there was some discussion about, and I know there’s a table in
here about what would happen if there’s a 100 year flood or something like that. Just give me
confidence that we’re, oh excuse me. Alyson. Would you please give me confidence Alyson
that should that 100 year flood be followed by another 100 year flood within a few weeks, that
that replacement of the collection pond in Outlot A to Outlot B, that all of this, this whole thing
is not going to fall apart. I’m thinking specifically of that retaining wall in that primary zone.
Larson: And end up Eden Prairie.
Laufenburger: Yeah, and end up in Eden Prairie. Well if it’s goes to Chaska that’s okay but.
Excuse me. Sorry.
Fauske: That’s a very good point Commissioner Laufenburger. One of the things that we took a
look at with our analysis of this application was that in the 100 year event there is some
temporary ponding behind that wall, and since this is looking, since the applicant is here for
some preliminary approval, we look to resolve that issue by the time the final plan comes
through. Whether it be re-directing some of that water. It’s fairly clean water. We could look at
doing some sort of infiltration before it reaches that point. There’s certainly numerous options.
Whichever one works best for the applicant and directing the water, we certainly look forward to
working with them on that.
Laufenburger: Okay. I think just one more question Bob. Could you go back to the display, the
picture that would show where the road that would connect Powers Boulevard with, on the west
with 101 on the east. Can you just show us exactly where that proposed road would be.
Generous: Well we only know two ends of that. We have the touch down on Powers Boulevard,
and then approximate location across from Bandimere Park. It would be shifted to the north.
There’s two houses there south of Wilson’s Nursery.
Laufenburger: Yeah.
Generous: And it’d be somewhere in that location would be the other connection point.
Laufenburger: So what you don’t know is what the maze looks like from there to the other side.
Aanenson: That will be development driven. I just want to also add that Highway, the 101
corridor study looked at that touch down point so that’s already been approved by MnDOT and
the city staff so that’s officially mapped and as a part of the AUAR for the other side, that was
the other touch down point. So the rest of it, getting up the hill, making grades, the rest of it will
be development driven as that project comes forward both, we put along the city’s property that’s
shown in green shows the city owned park property. Or dark. The dark that’s labeled park.
There is some other preservation that we anticipate that we would do trade off’s as part of
extractions or you know density transfers or something on some of that other green property, so
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
however that lays out for development, the product type will lead where that road goes. Then as
Bob indicated, the other point is just to tie in other vacant properties. The one to the south. How
we get access to that. If we tie in other neighborhoods. We’ll look at that at a future date but at
this point none of the neighborhoods are being tied in at this point.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Aanenson: But we’ll look at that at a future date. That’s always our goal to see if we can make
better access points. I don’t know if you have anything else to add on that Alyson.
Fauske: Kate made a very good comment members of the Planning Commission when we look
at something like this where we have an opportunity with a large area developing to look at
th
neighborhood connections and one thing that we do take a look at is safety. 96 Street has a
very poor intersection with Highway 101 and making a turning movement onto northbound 101
th
from 96 Street is perilous at times, especially during high traffic so we certainly want to look at,
at the connections and at the point when these applications come in, we don’t know when that
will be, but we’ll certainly have an opportunity for the residents to have a conversation with the
developer and ask the questions why are you doing this and it, like Kate said, it’s good planning
to show how conceptually how those can be achieved.
Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Chairman. That’s all I had for right now.
Dillon: Yeah, where is the sign that’s going to be seeking the variance going to be located?
Generous: It would be down in the southwest corner of this site. Off of the new public street
and Powers Boulevard. And that would also be a condition of approval. Normally they would
be allowed monument signs on each street frontage and one of the conditions is that they get the
one sign.
Laufenburger: So we’re not giving approval to whether it’s an animated or an electronic sign.
We’re just, all we’re doing is the size.
Generous: The size.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Generous: And the display area that they can build.
Dillon: I’ve got other questions but I think they’re probably better answered by the applicant.
Papke: Okay, thank you. Kathleen.
Thomas: Sure. I think the proposal is laid out incredibly well. I think it looks, you know after
seeing the site and kind of being, take a look at like what’s going to happen and listening to
Alyson about the 100 year floods and you know just all the things that are being taken into
account by the city, I don’t have any questions.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Undestad: Just one to add Bob. The Bluff Creek, the overlay and moving the lines on there.
And I see the trade off and I like that. It’s good in there but who, what’s the process of swapping
Bluff Creek lines, primary corridor lines and things.
Generous: It’s up to the city to determine if it’s appropriate.
Undestad: So based on the trade off, that’s what we’re looking at is that.
Generous: Exactly.
Undestad: The developer’s giving up this and we’re going to give up that.
Generous: And then also, part of it is if you look at the line, how it goes in and out of the
property, it would be difficult to develop that site without some encroachment. Because it goes
down and then back up and really there have been additional impacts that didn’t show up on this
original line.
Undestad: Okay.
Papke: Kind of following on that same line. The Planning Commission has been very consistent
in defending the Bluff Creek overlay district. We’ve asked people to tear out patios and fire pits.
Obviously this development is going to have a much bigger impact than that, and I’m reading
here on page 17 of the staff report and there still seems to be some unresolved issues. We have
water flowing into the Highway 212 right-of-way in the current plan and apparently MnDOT has
indicated that that’s not acceptable to them so it sounds like this isn’t fully baked yet from a
storm water management perspective or am I incorrectly interpreting the staff report?
Fauske: Commissioner, Chair Papke. It’s more of a matter of amount of water. You cannot,
they cannot increase the peak discharge through the MnDOT right-of-way so it’s a matter of
redirecting that water elsewhere through the site.
Papke: But by definition doesn’t that mean then it goes into Bluff Creek? I mean there’s only so
many places for the water to go here.
Fauske: We would like to.
Papke: Perhaps the applicant can address that further. I see a head bobbing up and down.
Fauske: They certainly could.
Papke: Okay. But I just want to make sure, you know if I have one hot button on this whole
development proposal I think it’s fine, you know moving the overlay district lines, I think Mark
makes a good point. You know it makes sense where we’re putting it but I’m having difficulty
swallowing how we’re going to put in this big building with a big parking lot with a big parking
ramp and not end up dumping a lot more water into Bluff Creek at peak times. And I want to
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
make sure that we’re all comfortable with the strategy that’s being followed here because we are
making compromises here you know in moving back the Bluff Creek Overlay District. I want to
make sure that we’re doing the right thing for our surface water so. Okay, anything else from
staff? Questions? Okay. With that if the applicant would like to step up to the podium and state
your name and address for the record and tell us a little bit more about your proposal.
Bill Katter: Good evening. Bill Katter with United Properties…to be here with you all.
Appreciate staff’s thoroughness in preparing this. This is as Mr. Generous says a complicated
development proposal. A lot of sensitive issues out here and we’ll try to address those comments
and concerns here but we found staff to be good to work with on this proposal so with that just a
word about United Properties. We have been in business since 1917. We’re one of the oldest
developers in the Twin Cities and I would say the lion share of our development work has been
in the southwestern Twin Cities. Some of our more notable projects are, the two most recent
office towers at Normandale Lake Office Park in Bloomington and Centennial Lakes Office Park
in Edina. We have done some development mostly one and two story projects in Eden Prairie,
and this is our first significant project in the city of Chanhassen so we’re very excited. Some
background about how we arrived at this site and partnered up with Mr. Erhart. We had a very
good customer, Fairview Southdale Hospitals was initially interested in opening up a large clinic
and surgery center in this location and they came to us in 2007 and asked for a number of sites
and information on various sites that they could put this facility and really as kind of a testament
to the importance of this interchange with Powers Crossing chose this intersection principally for
the reason that Powers Boulevard is an extension through a number of communities and feeds
into this important new highway 212 corridor all the way from South Lake Minnetonka all the
way down into this new freeway and then for that matter feeds into Pioneer Trail which is a
major feeder through Chaska and Eden Prairie so it’s a very strategic, central site in the
southwestern communities. And as Mr. Generous described is I believe an important gateway to
your community so, because of the traffic and street infrastructure here I think it’s important just
generally for the city to try to concentrate density near freeways like this and so I think in the
scheme of things, the size and scope of this development is appropriate given the transportation
infrastructure in place there. Traffic really doesn’t ever enter residential areas to and from this
project. It stays on major collector roads and gets right to the project so I think this is a very
good use for this property. Let’s see, with that I think I’ll just talk generally about our site plan
and oh, I should say one other thing here. Fairview, because a question had come up whether
Fairview is still interested in this project and they have put us on hold because of the economic
climate and we’re finding that with a lot of our customers who hopefully will come back to the
table here in the next 6 to 9 months and work that out with us, but in the meantime as a developer
what we’d like to press forward with is getting this site shovel ready. We have plenty of other
customers we’d like to present this site to. As you probably all know there are very significant
corporate customers in the southwest market here that we would like to present the site to and in
our business it’s hard to present a site without entitlements to a customer. The first question we
get is is the site ready to build on? Can you actually build what you’re showing so that’s what
we’re here for is to go ahead and request your approval to be able to deliver what we’re
proposing here so. With that the team on this project, and they’re here and available for
technical questions is Pope Associates, Paul Holmes, a principle there. Of that firm. Dan Parks
of Westwood Professional Services and his firm did the engineering for this site. Again a very
24
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
complicated site and they are here to provide technical support to me. So let me just put a site
plan up here. So what we showed here is the, is it okay? Can you all hear me if I step over here?
Papke: Yeah.
Bill Katter: This is the Phase I site plan and as the staff indicated this is a 88,000 foot building.
Is really a 72,000 foot footprint for the office building and a connecting link, a two story
connecting link of 16,000 feet. The idea here was that if we ever build Phase II here, we have a
common lobby and stairwell system that we don’t have to duplicate in the Phase II building and
can link up with minimal interruption to the site and the building. We could literally build the
separate building and then open up that shared southern wall into the shared common lobby so
that was the genesis of this. Site, building placement out here is really a key issue that we
worked with staff on and granted if there weren’t a number of significant factors we would have
considered moving the building out onto Powers Boulevard. Let me just tell you what some of
those were. Most importantly the customer at the time, Fairview and a number of the other
physician practices we talked to wanted the relationship of the building into the natural setting
there. They felt that was a very good healing environment for their patients that visited the
building and they wanted to maintain a close relationship and view into those woods. Secondly,
in the health care business privacy is critical and as you know there’s an existing trail here on
Powers Boulevard and it would be very sensitive to have a trail immediately adjacent to a
professional medical building. Thirdly it’s inevitable in buildings of this size that we will need
loading facilities and you know they generate significant amounts of garbage and recycling and
in a building out here there’s really no way to shelter that from public view and so pushing the
building further into the site allowed us to screen those activities at the rear of the building where
they’re not visible really to anybody. And lastly there was some issues with respect to being able
to get two points of access into the site, which would have been difficult to accomplish if we had
pulled that building up here from a spacing standpoint so that’s how we arrived at the site plan
here. With that, with the Phase I building I think it was mentioned we would grade the entire site
that Mr. Erhart at present owns. We will, we have been attempting to obtain the turn back from
MnDOT. It’s not clear whether that will happen prior to Phase I or not. If it doesn’t, this what
we show here assumes it will not but certainly will be needed to support the expansion of
building, Phase II building. We would construct this road, this access road which would be a
future extension into 101 to the east and that we’ve worked with staff on the alignment of this
road. It does, I think a comment in the staff report is it could potentially infringe upon a wetland
up in this area and we will continue to work with staff to make sure that road is aligned so we
maintain the proper setbacks and buffers from that wetland area. It’s, I think we did that but
we’ll have to revisit that and make sure we have that right. Additionally we recognize the many
trees in this area of the site and the sensitive nature of grading in there and we introduced a fairly
long and expensive retaining wall to limit our grading activities back into the east of the
building. So we do plan to develop in that manner and to be as sensitive as possible about
removing trees or affecting tree roots in this area. And additionally staff recommended that we
reforest this as best as possible and the landowner, Mr. Erhart has been kind of harvesting and
maintaining white oaks, native trees to the site out there so that we can do just that and re-plant
that area. And then with respect to this pond outlot, we did the same thing. We introduced a
retaining wall here to minimize the grading impacts to the east, southeast of the pond and try to
limit our removal of trees in there. And then our, I don’t know that our landscaping plan fully
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
represents what we intend to do there but we are thinking we would reforest as much of the area
around that pond as possible again with the trees already on site. Or new trees and one of the
staff’s comments was that we don’t have enough trees on site so we’ll try to find a way to put
some more trees around that pond. One of the nice things about those trees too is they, the root
structure absorbs water and helps with pond drain down so. Another thing that we’re
accomplishing I think with this development is we are, the existing trail here, staff has asked that
we grant a trail, a permanent trail easement to connect this existing path up through the east of
the site and into the park area up here and we’ll agree to construct that with Phase I of the
project. Actually we may have to construct that contingent upon where, you know whether we
can get the turn back from MnDOT and then move the trail if we’re not able to get as much land
or any land from MnDOT. And then we are also agreeing to construct within this right-of-way
area a trail that would bring people off this trail up Powers Boulevard into the site and then
connect to this existing trail. That is currently in place so. The development helps finish a
number of connections I believe in the community there so. With respect to, and by the way I’ll
just mention here without getting into too much detail the floorplan of the building gives us a lot
of flexibility for both professional, medical and office in the event that just a typical office user
would elect to locate here so we tried to design it in a manner that’s very flexible. Then I’ll
move to what happens with Phase II. Again without getting too redundant, it shows a twin
building being added with this community wall that would be, we would build this and then we
would connect into the, and share the main reception area with the existing building in place and
then this ramp would be constructed with Phase II, depending on how big this ends up being. If
it’s constructed at the full 72,000 feet, we may need the flexibility to get up to 5 stalls but we
show, or 5 levels but we show, I believe we show 2 or 3. 3 existing? Yeah, 3 existing and 2
proof of parking. The height of the ramp, assuming we build all 5 levels is still below the height
of the building so it would not be a situation where the ramp height would exceed the building
height. And then this drive, this drive at the back of the Phase I building would be extended so
that cars could have a speedy exit into and out of this ramp without encumbering the front of the
site and creating pedestrian issues there. With that I think I’ll just show, it was not shown on the
screen. I think it’s just worth showing what the project looks like when both phases are built so
that’s what it would look like. It would be a 3 story Phase I building with a 2 story common
entry and then Phase II would be the really the mirror of that building so. Okay, with that there’s
just a few things in the staff report I thought I would touch on here and then I’ll try to address
any comments or questions for me. And these, I think we’ll be able to work all these out with
staff here between now and the council meeting, although I’d like to just make them of record so
that we know that, since there are many conditions in the staff report we’d have a chance to work
through all those. Minor comment. We’d prefer not have Butternut Ridge as the plat name. I
assume we can select the plat name. That sounds residential and we would like it to reflect a
more commercial name like Powers Crossing so we’ll work with staff on that. I think the report
does identify a number of the drainage issues, whether we’re putting more water into MnDOT’s
right-of-way and so forth. What we would simply do there is just direct the water flow into the
pipe system, into the NURP pond and go the other way with it if MnDOT continues to have an
objection there so it has to be treated, so it would have to be directed into that pond first. On
page 22 of the staff report it talks about the fees, the storm water fees. I believe there’s just an
omission there. Total of fees, I think it fails to give credit for the credit that would be eligible for
constructing the pond. We can confirm that but I think the $270,000 number should be reduced
by the available credit for building that pond. The staff report requests a blanket, there’s a storm
26
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
water interceptor pipe that has to be developed, or put in by the city in connection with
development here and for support of other areas of the city, and I think the staff report it just
mentions we need to figure out where that location is and an easement for it. It suggest a blanket
easement. We would need to get that tighten up. If we have a site plan that’s approved we
wouldn’t want for instance have that pipe located beneath the building so we’d want to work
with staff here and identify the location of that easement. And then with respect to traffic, really
just a couple of comments here. We were a little confused. The staff report talks about the need
for a second inbound left turn lane with this development and we went back and looked at the
County and MnDOT’s comments on traffic. The City’s traffic consultant or engineer, staff
engineer I think on that and I don’t think, I’m not sure it’s consistent. I don’t think he fully
recommended two inbound, left turn lanes. We don’t think those are needed so we’ll work with
staff to verify all of that. The other point on traffic was the traffic signal. It had us at just filing a
final plat, putting up cash for the cost of that traffic signal. We’d like to work with staff on the
timing of that. It isn’t needed until the Phase II project so I think tying it to a Phase II building
permit would probably be more appropriate than us depositing what’s probably a quarter million
dollars in cash right now for that. The second thing is, the mechanism, there are other properties
that are going to benefit from that light and/or trigger it which there’s the party to the west of this
that is slated for office and you could have the situation where we build Phase I. We don’t
trigger the stop light and then that parcel comes in with an application ahead of our Phase II
project and that triggers the light and yet we’re paying for the light to support their, so we need
to work that out. That wouldn’t be a fair or reasonable way to handle that. And then lastly on
landscaping, we recognize that we do not meet the ordinance with respect to the tree count and
we will work with staff to try to improve tree count. There’s, it’s a little, we’re a little cautious
about over treeing a site. We designed our boulevard trees for 50 feet on center. We could push
that back to 40 feet or 35 feet. We don’t like to go much tighter than that because the trees don’t
have a chance to develop a full canopy and you get a situation where tree roots can interfere with
each other. We will try to reforest the areas within the affected Bluff Creek overlay area or zone
as best we can. It’s also, we have to be cautious about digging in that area and planting new
trees because we’d be potentially digging up roots of healthy trees there, so we just need to work
through details on a plan for that. I guess that’s really the extent of my comments so.
Papke: Okay. Mark, start with questions.
Undestad: No, nothing here.
Thomas: I do not either. Thank you.
Papke: Kevin?
Dillon: My questions I had were addressed.
Papke: Okay. Denny.
Laufenburger: Nice job. I think this is going to be a great thing for us. Just, Bill right?
Bill Katter: Yeah.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Laufenburger: Is there, I realize that Fairview has you on hold right now in your thinking. If
you had to map a future, do you anticipate that this facility will be developed before the end of
2010? 2011? What’s your thoughts?
Bill Katter: Well, don’t know what the future holds. I would certainly hope that it would be by
the end of 2010 with Phase I would be up. Absolutely. So we’ll do our best on that.
Laufenburger: Cool. Thank you. That’s all Mr. Chairman.
Papke: Debbie?
Larson: I don’t have any questions.
Papke: I’m still a little unclear, if MnDOT doesn’t grant you the right to put the storm water into
the 212 right-of-way, and you need to dump that into Bluff Creek, does that change the design of
the NURP pond or can you comment on the storm water management?
Dan Parks: I can address that. Dan Parks with Westwood. This site drains about 20 acres
presently. The plan shows about 20 acres draining down to this pond here on Outlot B. There’s
about 2 acres that presently drain out to the highway. When they are designing and constructing
the highway they are providing a culvert to drain some of the existing area in this area.
Typically when I do a drainage plan we try to balance the site to allow the drainage that’s
allowed by MnDOT’s drainage and then take the rest of the water on the site. We presently have
a catch basin here and a catch basin here that drains out to the pipe in the highway. It, to give
some scope. I think the existing drain is like 1.2 cubic fee per second and our plan was calling
for like 1.7 cubic feet per second and that, it may be Greek to you but it’s not a very big pipe.
It’s an 8 inch pipe or something along that lines. Sometimes when you work with MnDOT they
do give us some of the availability and provisions for a little bit of a change in the numbers but
we don’t always know that until we get the final permit so we’ve done something we think is
consistent with their original design. If MnDOT comes back and says it’s too much water, for
example if they allow 1.2 and we are preparing, proposing 1.7, we will simply take this catch
basin lead and take it to the pond and perhaps leave this catch basin lead into the highway
department so in terms of the grand scale things, we’re talking probably changing maybe a half
to 1 acre of land from the highway department to take it to the pond. And the pond would then
be incrementally sized a little bit larger. The city staff and the city’s requirements and the
watershed’s requirements frankly are that the site not increase discharges after we’re done from
what happens now so even though we have more hard surface, the pond, the bathtub is being
designed in such a way that to slow that water down and discharge it at rates that are acceptable
and velocities that are acceptable at the outlet of the pond. So if MnDOT says no, you can’t do
that. It’s a fairly minor shift of the plan. It doesn’t change the parking lot. It doesn’t change the
site at all. It just changes one pipe that will no longer be coming probably about this big of an
area of the parking lot will now drain to this pond. Again this is probably half an acre, two-
thirds of an acre that would now go to the pond rather than out to the highway department so of
the 20 acre site project I think it’s pretty small of a detail.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Papke: There was a question that came up before. This area is notorious for bad soils. I mean
all of southern Chanhassen drains to the bottom of Powers Boulevard down here, and are you,
have the calculations been done that really show that the NURP pond that’s being put in there
will indeed absorb the water that.
Bill Katter: Well the NURP ponds are typically, generally based upon the type of soils that we
find in the bottom, they may infiltrate out the bottom. The ponds are typically designed to
provide storage, debt storage so the water stays in there for a certain period of time. We’re
highly confident that the pond is going to work. There’s not going to be a problem with it. If
there is a problem with the soil stability we can either use materials to add or clay or do up
mixtures to make sure the pond is stable. We don’t expect any site sloping problems. The
pond’s going to be at a 3 to 1 or flatter slope. We don’t expect that to be a problem. There’s
also a question here about the retaining wall and the drainage, Commissioner Laufenburger
mentioned it. There’s about 6 or 7 acres up in this area that drain presently in kind of a shallow
swale drains to the property. We are providing provisions for a storm sewer pipe that would run
around the east side of the site and then dump that water back in the ditch, not running that
through this pond because it’s generally clean water. It’s not being corrupted by parking lot
drainage or drippings off of cars. There was a comment in the staff report about making sure
that we have the pipe adequately sized and perhaps have an overflow structure in case we have a
larger than anticipated storm event, so we’ll probably have in this area, we’ll have a normal pipe
that will take the water, and then we’ll have a stand pipe at some elevation that’s a little higher in
case the water is exceeding the design storm. We may also look too quite frankly at an
opportunity maybe to redirect some of that water into this wetland rather than having it all come
through, but again staff is very confident. You’ve got a very good engineering staff on board
that will help make those decisions and entirely confident the project will work from a drainage
perspective. There was a comment earlier about the retaining wall as well. You know we will
design a wall that will try to keep the moisture away from it. We always try to make sure there’s
no water pressures against the wall because that’s what’s going to collapse the wall. If there’s a
need for more of a structural integrity wall than a block wall, the materials have not yet been
decided yet but if we need to do something that’s more of a poured concrete wall or something
along that nature that also provides really unlimited ability to resist any tipping from any water
pressures or soil pressures that might be exerted. The comments on soils though, based upon the
results of the soil borings, the soil boring capacities, if soil is needed to be dug out, built you
know, compacted placed and new soils brought in, that will all be done as part of the structural
design for the foundation and based upon the type of soils, usually what happens is it just
changes the size of the spread footing so if there’s really good soils the footings might be this
big. If the soil’s a little worst, it might be this big but that’s all taken into account with the
building structural footing design.
Papke: One last question. Are we too early in the process to be worried about lighting and
impact of light pollution? This is an area of the city that historically has very dark skies.
Aanenson: No, I think this is the place where we do want to talk about that. That comes kind of
back to what we talk about the siting of the building. What was the best way to provide noise
attenuation. Lighting. This building in itself is going to provide a buffer to residential behind is
one of the reasons why we did support the larger, even with the parking ramp, that will also
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
provide noise attenuation for the ramp. But the parking lot lighting, because it’s going to be
commercial, or office excuse me across the street, so the parking lot should be shining that way.
There will be some over spill and we do have the light standards as far as looking at the
photometrics so we believe we should accomplish that by siting of this building, but that was one
of the reasons why we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what is the best footprint to make it
compatible with the neighborhood. And we looked at the elevations, that was one of the reasons
I think walking out there helps too with the change in grade from the existing houses to make
sure we don’t get that spill so hopefully they’re looking over the top, but you’re right. It’s going
to change. It’s going to change with some spill in light.
Papke: Any other questions for the applicant? If not thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay
at this point we’d like to open up the public hearing for the public, if someone would like to step
up to the podium and ask their questions or make their comments, we’d love to hear them.
Kevin Ellsworth: Good evening Mr. Chair, commissioners. Kevin Ellsworth, 9601 Flintlock
Trail. We’re on the far right of Pioneer Hills. In that one triangle lot. Yep, right up there. And
we’ve owned that property since 1985 and built in ’91 and Mr. Erhart’s been an amazing
neighbor and has great stewardship of the land, and that’s clearly illustrated in this work that the
staff and the developer’s put together and so often folks come to these meetings in protest of the
development. I’m not here for that. I’m here to say that this looks like a really good plan and a
really good project. The neighbors may disagree with me, some of them but when that
development was proposed and put together, it didn’t take much study to know that 212 was
coming through nearby and knew that that infrastructure was there and that someday that would
be developed with some sort of commercial property. And indeed with that kind of an
infrastructure investment by the State, the City, the County, certainly putting something like that.
This proposed development’s a great idea and brings jobs to the neighborhood and brings good
tax base to the city and the county so. And again with the way the conservation easements are
laid out, it preserves much of that property that is just gorgeous back there. I think most of us
have been back there and connects it to the nice parkland that the city did acquire so again that’s,
I can only say good things about it and I really appreciate your concern about the runoff into the
creek too. That’s most excellent so thank you.
Papke: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else?
I’m just another neighbor out there and I live at 1050 Homestead Lane. I live on the cul-de-sac
next one over.
Papke: And your name sir.
Johnnie Meyering: Johnnie Meyering, and it, I’ve been going through it with the neighbors and
everything and it is a nice development. But I have just a couple concerns that maybe you can
verify. I was listening to you and he said it went from a 2 story, it might go to a 5 story. Is there
anything down the line in the future that it will go higher?
Bill Katter: Let me address that. No.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Johnnie Meyering: No?
Bill Katter: We will, the approval if it’s granted will limit it to a maximum of 4 heights if it’s
one building or 3 heights if it’s two structures. Kate correct me if I’m wrong.
Aanenson: That’s correct and with the variances that would limit too. If it was to change from
that it would have to come back through a public hearing process to change that.
Johnnie Meyering: Okay. And then one other question is, since MnDOT put 212 in, I don’t
know Kurt lives out there and some other people out there but some of us out there since 212
come in, as soon as they started driving the pilings for the bridges, I don’t know what this one’s
going to have, if it’s going to have pilings or it’s just going to be on the ground, but I have been
having problems with the aquifer of everybody pounding and it’s stirring up the aquifer and I’ve
been having to put a new well in all the time. A new pump in. Not drill a new well but a new
pump in. Fixing it because it’s filling up and getting really bad water. We used to have really
good water, then it started getting worse and worse and I was just wondering if it was going to be
pilings again or if we cannot worry about that because I just fixed it and we’re starting to get,
starting to get better water again and we’re just worried about it. Wondering about that.
Bill Katter: The relatively short answer is, we haven’t done in-depth soil borings but based on
preliminary we don’t believe pilings is what we’ll end up doing. We’ll do some soil correction
but that will be dig out and replace it. It won’t be pilings.
Johnnie Meyering: Well that would really help.
Bill Katter: Just a rule of thumb in our business, whenever you have this many oak trees on a
site it typically means sandy soils. Oak trees hate clay. They can’t stand water constantly on
their roots so that’s a good indication for the soils on the site.
Johnnie Meyering: Okay. And it does look like a nice place for a building there and that’s the
only two questions I had. Thank you.
Papke: Thank you sir. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none. I close the public hearing and bring it
back to the Planning Commission for deliberation and we’ll start with Mark.
Undestad: You know what, I mean I really don’t have a lot to talk about. I think it was, I know
a lot of work has gone into it to this point and even a lot of the trips we’ve had out there to kind
of see how things were going along, so no. I think it’s a very well put together. Staff’s done an
excellent job at some of the negotiating and mitigating out there so I like it.
Papke: Okay. Kathleen.
Thomas: I like it too. I think it’s really well put together. I think that it will be a good focal
point for Chanhassen. It’s just something, if it winds up being a medical building I think that
will be incredibly awesome and wonderful for the community so I think it’s a really great thing.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Larson: …issues regarding the water… I think it will be a great asset to the city.
Laufenburger: Acknowledge a lot of work has been done already but I think that I’m confident
about this because I think that our city staff is in a position to work with the developer to insure
that some of those things that are perhaps unclear right now because we can’t be sure about
them, that the environment will be protected. It will be built appropriately and I’m confident not
only in the builder and the applicant and the owner but I’m more confident in our city being able
to do the job to insure that they follow all the guidelines that are necessary. So I know that puts a
big burden on you Alyson and Bob and Kate but what better place for that burden to be so I
support it.
Dillon: Just to kind of reiterate what everyone said. It appears to have been a great collaboration
and partnership between the staff and the developer and they considered you know some
potential areas of watch out and contingencies there. They seem to have been thought through
quite well. I believe it will be good for our community. It was a very professional presentation
and so I’m in favor of the project moving ahead.
Papke: Okay, thank you Kevin. Yeah, kudos to both the developer and city staff. This is the
most complex development proposal we’ve had, even considering the down turn in the economy
for a number of years here and I’m impressed that given all the challenges here, particularly in
regards to the impact on the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the environmental sensitivity of the
site and the uncertainty with the tenant and so on, I think the developer and city staff have done a
commendable job in pulling this together. As we’ve gone through this we’ve come up with very
few gotch ya’s out of this whole thing and I think this one will, is extremely clean and hats off to
everyone for a process and I appreciate the public comments as well. I think those were very
good. Okay, with that I think we’re ready for a motion. If someone would like to take a stab a
this monumental motion.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Just a few pages in there. Alright, let’s make a motion that the
Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Rezoning of
st
Lot 1, Block 1 at this time Butternut Ridge 1 Addition from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to
Office and Industrial, OI. B. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit with variances to encroach in the primary zone and
required buffer for the development in the Bluff Creek corridor, subject to conditions 1 through
10. C. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the
Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating one lot, two outlots and the dedication of public right-of-
way, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services dated April 1, 2009, subject to
conditions 1 through 45. And D. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Site Plan with Variances for building height and Bluff Creek primary zone
setbacks for Planning Case 08-16 for a two-phased, three story, 160,000 square footage
professional office building and up to a 731 stall, five level parking ramp on Lot 1, Block 1 of
the development, plans prepared by Pope Associates, Inc and Westwood Professional Services
Inc dated April 1, 2009, subject to conditions 1 through 28. And E. The Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends the City Council approve a sign size variance request to permit an
eight foot tall sign and up to 64 square feet of sign display area subject to conditions 1 through 5.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
Papke: Very good. Is there a second?
Larson: I’ll second it.
Papke: Any friendly amendments? If not, let’s have a vote.
Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approves the Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, Butternut
Ridge First Addition, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Office & Institutional
District, OI. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit with Variances to
encroach into the primary zone and required buffer for development in the Bluff Creek
Corridor; subject to the following conditions:
1.The property line may be revised to incorporate the reconveyed property from MnDOT to the
developer.
2.The developer shall meet design and construction standards that would lead to, at a
minimum, certification by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Green Building Rating System by the U.S. Green Building Council, or comply with the
Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (MSBG).
3.To mitigate for the effects of development within the primary corridor, the developer should
be required to meet green construction standards for the whole site.
4.All openings created in the wooded areas on the east and south sides of the development shall
be reforested with native tree species. Planting stock sizes may be variable. Species selected
must be from the Bluff Creek Management Plan native plant list. These areas shall not be
mowed or managed as turf areas.
5.Evaluate other site designs, stormwater management techniques and low-impact development
practices for their benefit in reducing impacts to the primary and secondary zones of the
Bluff Creek Overlay District.
6.Reforest those areas disturbed to grade the site but do not have structures on them. The
reforestation should be done with deciduous tree species representative of the existing
species composition. The forested areas are dominated by bur oak.
7.Maintain the natural drainage patterns.
8.The applicant must clearly illustrate how impacts to the primary zone are to be mitigated.
This mitigation must consider all benefits derived from the primary zone as described in
Article XXXI of the Chanhassen City Code.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
9.The area east of Lot 1 within Outlot A within the primary corridor of Bluff Creek shall be
covered by a conservation easement. This easement shall restrict activities within the area
and prohibit any development. The City shall have final approval of the easement
restrictions. Any wetland mitigation activities that are required within this area shall have
final approval by City staff. No additional activities shall be allowed within this area and
access to the mitigation site shall be the existing path.
10.The wooded areas of Lot 1 and Outlot B within the Bluff Creek primary zone shall be
covered by a conservation easement that restricts specific activities and prohibits any further
development within the area.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approvesthe Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating one
lot, two outlots and dedication of public right-of-way, plans prepared by Westwood
Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009, subject to the following conditions:
1.Revise the Plat name to Butternut Ridge First Addition.
2.The developer shall either dedicate/donate an Outlot or record a conservation easement
containing the Bluff Creek Primary zone north of the road right-of-way in Outlot A. A
conservation easement shall be recorded over the Bluff Creek Primary zone located within
Lot 1 and Outlot B. This easement shall restrict activities within the area and prohibit any
development. The City shall have final approval of the easement restrictions. The easement
shall be recorded with the first phase of the development.
3.Submit proposed names for street labeled “Access Road” on plans for approval.
4.The drainage report and plans must be revised to address comments from MnDOT.
5.The applicant must obtain a MnDOT drainage permit.
6.The drainage report and plans must be modified so that the peak discharge rate to the off-site
wetland does not increase under fully developed conditions.
7.The plans must be revised to provide either an overland emergency overflow or an additional
outlet control structure at a higher elevation.
8.The developer must submit a letter from an engineer stating that the retaining wall east of the
building can accommodate temporary ponding behind the wall.
9.The alignment of the bypass storm sewer pipe must be redesigned to eliminate excess cover
over the pipe.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
10.If MnDOT allows a connection to the Highway 212 storm pipe, then show the existing pipe
on the plan sheets.
11.Building permits are required for retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed
by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
12.A manhole must be installed at the terminus of the sanitary sewer.
13.All sanitary sewer and watermain within Lot 1, Block 1 shall be privately owned and
maintained.
14.The storm sewer that will convey runoff from the drainageway to the east of the property
shall also be privately owned and maintained, including those portions that lie within public
right-of-way and the City owned outlot.
15.The 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement shown on the preliminary plat over this storm
sewer must be deleted.
16.Delete the 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement for the future watermain.
17.Provide a temporary blanket drainage and utility easement over the proposed forcemain
corridor.
18.A permanent 20-foot wide easement will be required over the final forcemain alignment.
19.Each new lot will be subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees will
be collected with the building permit, subject to the rates in effect at the time of building
permit, and shall be based on the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services’ SAC unit
determination.
20.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
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval.
21.All public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit
issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the
MPCA, Department of Health, Carver County and Watershed District.
22.Upon project completion as-built drawings must be submitted for the private utilities.
23.The double left turn lane on southbound Powers Boulevard must be constructed with Phase I
improvements.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
24.The developer must coordinate the construction of the double left turn lane with Carver
County and provide additional right-of-way, if needed.
25.The developer must pay a cash fee with the final plat to cover the cost of the traffic signal.
26.A temporary roadway, drainage and utility easement must be provided over the cul-de-sac at
the east end of the access road.
27.This property is subject to the Arterial Collector Fee which is $3,600 per developable acre.
The acreage used in this calculation shall include the right-of-way turnback from both
Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard. This fee shall be paid in cash with the final plat
28.The RIM and Flowage Easements need to be indicated on the plat. This should include the
document number 10-05-87-1.
29.The wetland mitigation area in Outlot A needs to be created. A Declaration of Restrictions
and Covenants needs to be executed and recorded with Carver County. This document
number needs to be included on the plat.
30.The remaining conditions of approval for WAP #2006-32 need to be met:
a.The plans shall be revised to show how M-1 will be accessed. The access route shall be
stable, shall avoid damage to significant trees (greater than 10” DBH) and shall avoid
impacts to natural drainageways and any jurisdictional wetlands that may exist on site
that were not delineated by Westwood Professional Services in August 2006.
b.A planting plan for M-1, including invasive vegetation management techniques, species
to be planted, proposed planting rates, and the approach to upland buffer restoration, shall
be submitted prior to final City Council approval.
c.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland
creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the
replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five
years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for
wetland creation (including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of
the wetland creation letter of credit.
d.A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement
monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native
species, particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans
shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant
shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for
Replacement Wetland.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
31.The legal wetland boundary of the RIM wetland was not delineated in the Westwood
Wetland Delineation Report dated August of 2006. This boundary must be delineated and
wetland impacts avoided where possible.
32.Because of the perpetual RIM and flowage easements the plans must be provided to the
Natural Resources Conservation Service for review and comment. Any comments from the
NRCS must be made available to the City.
33.Drainage to the RIM wetland from the south flows through a defined swale. The conveyance
of this flow must be maintained under the proposed road extension.
34.Erosion Control plan needs to be updated per the July comments:
a.Show a 75-foot rock construction entrance.
b.Show rounding of corners for proposed grades.
c.Erosion control blanket shall be shown on all slopes east of the proposed building and
adjacent to the pond.
d.An NPDES permit must be obtained prior to any site grading and a SWPPP must be
provided to the City for review and comment.
e.Replace MnDOT 340 mix with a modified BWSR U7 seed mix.
35.Estimated SWMP fees due at the time of final plat are $271,506.20.
36.The development must comply with Carver Soil and Water Conservation District comments.
37.All openings created in the wooded areas on the east and south sides of the development shall
be reforested with native tree species. Planting stock sizes may be variable. Species selected
must be from the Bluff Creek Management Plan native plant list. These areas shall not be
mowed or managed as turf areas.
38.The following practices are required in order to insure the best chance of survival for the
highlighted oaks to be preserved along the east side of the development:
a.Understory trees near the oaks shall be preserved.
b.Roots at the grading limits shall be cut cleanly with a trencher or vibratory plow.
c.Tree preservation fencing shall be installed prior to any grading.
d.Trees shall be thoroughly watered during dry periods.
39.The applicant shall install a second tier to the retaining wall at the north end of the east side
of the development to preserve the grade surrounding the oaks proposed to be saved.
40.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed.
41.Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 10/06/08, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
42.All trees removed shall be chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits shall be issued.
43.The developer shall pay the full park dedication fee in force at the time of final plat approval
and prior to recording.
44.Construction of the 10-ft. wide bituminous access road trail and the North Trail. The North
Trail plans shall be modified dedicating a permanent 20-foot wide trail easement to allow for
appropriate separation from adjoining improvements and boulevard areas for winter plowing,
snow storage and aesthetics.
45.Dedication of a permanent triangular shaped trail easement at the South East corner of Lot 1,
Block 1. The triangle shall be 50’ in length on its South side and 200’ in length on its East
side.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approvesthe Site Plan with Variances for building
height and Bluff Creek Primary Zone setbacks for Planning Case #08-16, for a two-phase,
three-story, 160,000 square-foot professional office building, and up to a 731-stall, five-level
parking ramp on Lot 1, Block 1 of the development, plans prepared by Pope Associates,
Inc. and Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009, subject to the following
conditions:
1.The final plat for the development shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
2.The full buildout is predicated upon a turnback to the land owner of MnDOT right-of-way.
In the event that this turnback does not occur, the applicant may build a four-story building
totaling 112,000 square feet subject to parking compliance with City Code.
3.The developer shall meet design and construction standards that would lead to, at a
minimum, certification by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Green Building Rating System by the U.S. Green Building Council, or comply with the
Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines, MSBG.
4.The developer shall continue the architectural detailing through the use of the three brick
colors as well as the use of stone and metal on the garage structure.
5.The developer shall provide secure bicycle racks and/or storage (within 200 yards of a
building entrance) for 5% or more of all building users (measured at peak periods), and
provide shower and changing facilities in the building. The developer should also provide
benches throughout the site as well as tables and chairs in the patio area.
6.The light fixtures shall be revised to high-pressure sodium lighting.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
7.The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
8.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
9.Accessible routes must be provided between commercial building(s), parking facilities and
public transportation stops.
10.All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking.
11.The developer shall comply with the minimum parking setback requirement and install
appropriate berming and or landscaping to allow the 10 feet setback.
12.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
13.All openings created in the wooded areas on the east and south sides of the development shall
be reforested with native tree species. Planting stock sizes may be variable. Species selected
must be from the Bluff Creek Management Plan native plant list. These areas shall not be
mowed or managed as turf areas.
14.The applicant shall install a second tier to the retaining wall at the north end of the east side
of the development to preserve the grade surrounding the oaks proposed to be saved.
15.The applicant does not meet required landscape quantities for parking lot trees and
islands/peninsulas in both phases. The applicant must meet minimum requirements for
parking lot trees and landscape islands/peninsulas.
16.Phase I: The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for either of the bufferyard
areas. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet minimum requirements.
17.Phase II: The applicant does not meet the minimum requirements for bufferyard areas. The
applicant shall increase the plantings to meet minimum requirements.
18.The applicant must replace the Colorado spruce with other approved species in the plant
schedule.
19.All transplanted materials must be pre-approved by the City. Transplanted trees will not be
accepted if substituted without City approval. If approved for transplanting, the material
must be warranted for a minimum of one year. If transplanted materials die, they must be
replaced with nursery stock.
20.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
21.Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 04/01/09, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
22.All trees removed shall be chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits shall be issued.
23.The North Trail plans or parking lot design shall be modified to allow for appropriate
boulevard areas for winter plowing, snow storage and aesthetics.
24.A 3-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, and nothing shall be placed in
front of the hydrant outlets, connections, fire protection control valves that would interfere
Section 508.5 MN. Fire Code and Sec.508.5.4.
with fire fighter operations.
25.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be
removed or chipped on site.
26.Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for locations of “No Parking Fire Lane” signage, and
MN Fire Code Sec. 503.3.
locations of curbing to be painted yellow.
27.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
MSFC
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
sec 501.4.
28.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
MSFC
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Sec. 503.2.3.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Undestad moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approves a sign size Variance request to permit an eight
(8) foot tall sign with up to 64 square feet of sign display area, subject to the following
conditions:
1.Separate sign permits shall be required for each sign.
2.The development name in the monument sign shall be individual dimensioned letters with a
minimum ½-inch projection.
3.Only one monument sign shall be permitted for the Powers Crossing Professional Center site.
4.The sign height for the directional signs shall be reduced to five feet. The display area for
sign #2 shall be reduced to four square feet.
5.The sign location shall meet all setback and site triangle requirements.”
40
Planning Commission Meeting - May 5, 2009
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 21, 2009 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
None.
Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
41