PC Minutes 10-15-2013
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 15, 2013
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, Lisa Hokkanen, Stephen
Withrow, and Steven Weick
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Maryam Yusuf
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant
City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
POWERS POINTE, PLANNING CASE 2013-20: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
REVIEW OF 16.94 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP) AND
LOCATED WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES & WESTERN
RAILROAD TRACKS, AND EAST AND NORTH OF RILEY CREEK (OUTLOT F,
CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK); AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 140,800
SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING. APPLICANT: UNITED PROPERTIES.
OWNER: PAUL’S FAMILY TRUST.
Aanenson: Thank you Chair, members of the Planning Commission. As you indicated this is a request
for two action items. Site plan review and for a subdivision. This subject property is located on 8100
Powers Boulevard and just south of the railroad tracks. East of Powers. Excuse me, west of Powers and
the property is surrounding, here I’ll show you on the plat is also owned by the City so their parcel, this is
where the creek runs through and give you a little more detail on that but so it’s just south of the railroad
tracks there. So the first action request then would be for the subdivision. This property is actually part
of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park which was platted in 1979 so this lot’s been around for a while as an
outlot so now it’s being platted and the plat actually includes three lots. The lot that the use will go on,
Lot 1 is almost 12 1/2 acres. Outlot A will be a preservation area dedicated to the City and then Outlot B
will be a future well site to be determined later when that goes in. So within this, looking at the
subdivision as I indicated, this property is owned by the City that was created, this lot was created as an
outlot when the Chan Lakes Business Park so this is where the creek is within this outlot, why it was
taken. So part of this property falls within the shoreland district. The building meets all the setbacks of
the shoreland district but then just keeping in mind the impacts of development on here. On this piece of
property and the proximity to the shoreland district. There’s some specific conditions of that as we look
forward and specifically some of the grading which we’ll talk about in a minute. So for the wetlands one
of the issues that was raised in the staff report is in, and one of the things the developer would like to do
yet this fall is to get grading. There needs to be some soil removed off the top of this property and
trucked off site so they can, they’d like to do that yet this fall so in order to accomplish that we’re
th
expediting this project to move forward to the City Council then on the 28. But in this area here there’s
a wetland identified so some of the concerns we have is to make sure as we’re grading that, originally we
thought it didn’t need to be identified but then as you look at the grading limits and the access point to the
driveway we want to make sure that we’re not impacting that wetland so there’s conditions to apply to
mitigate that. So the other wetlands of course are in along the creek which they’re not being impacted at
all because that again is in the city property so it’s just this narrow piece right here along Powers
Boulevard. So for grading as I mentioned there is quite a bit of grade change. In the original part of the
staff report you can see that I mentioned the rise of the property is pretty significant for the elevation.
When you’re on Powers Boulevard looking up, the change in grade and then the property behind, which
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 15, 2013
will be platted in an outlot, does give a lot of buffer because it is heavily wooded and then you have the
road. The frontage road behind and the apartments so you really can’t see across. There’s also industrial
on this side. This property is industrial. Guided industrial and zoned industrial so it meets all the
standards for that. So the grading again, some parts of the property are 37% steep and that’s this area in
here which constitutes a bluff so one of the recommendations then is kind of a close up of this is, when
you’re grading that close in the proximity to the shoreland regs and the creek to make sure that that’s
being mitigated and not do a clear removal of all those trees so we’re just asking the applicant then to
look closer at making modifications in this area on the grading plan so again not to grade within that
shoreland impact so we believe that can be modified to meet the intent. And then also providing the
erosion control so. The other thing, because of the change in grades on the property, those retaining
walls, did you want to talk about the heights of them Alyson, or I can do that.
Fauske: There’s a summary. Staff always like to make the Planning Commission and the public aware of
any proposed retaining walls on the site. When we do that we just take a look at the maximum height.
When they’re over 4 feet tall they do require a building permit. They have to be an engineered wall. So
on page 9 of the staff report we go through the approximate length and height of these. In particular wall
2, with discussions with the developer based on some of the feedback about the reducing the tree impact
in the 37% slope as Kate had mentioned, we anticipate that wall will shift a little bit and will get a little
bit higher to minimize those impacts but the challenge again with this site as Kate had mentioned is that
there’s a significant grade increase from the street up to the top of the site, and even with removing some
of that they still do require some retaining walls in order to develop the site. One of the comments that
we had from one of the discussions with staff is Outlot B being a future well site. The developer was
wondering if he needed to do any additional work with that site and we’re just going to leave that as is at
this point. We won’t be doing any grading or tree removal associated with developing the well site until
that time comes so you know the City would be able to answer any of those questions at the time that that
site’s developed.
Aanenson: Thank you. So as we mentioned, you know the site changes from Powers Boulevard 40 feet
to the center and 50 feet from Lake Riley so it crowns on the top and as Alyson just mentioned, in order
to accomplish that, to get to the finished floor elevation that they want, you know some grading and
exporting of dirt needs to happen so as a part of this then they go through telling us where they’re going
to remove the dirt. Follow that grading plan and where it’s going to be exported to so that’s incorporated
in this. On this plan too, I kind of glossed over it but I wanted to talk too, since we’re on the retaining
wall and the grading plan, is the access to this site. Challenging here because we talked about the change
in grade. Rising up, trying to keep that. You have to be under the 10% on a driveway. Making that work
so the other thing the applicant wanted to do is be able to have an access point, a right out only on the site.
That’s where the, on this side the building would be all of the bays for the trucks so that would give them
a right out only. So they had to work with Carver County to get that permit and that’s been secured I
think, were there some minor changes on that Alyson that needed to occur?
Fauske: The applicant has forwarded information to the County for them to review. The County has
indicated in preliminary discussions that they are amenable to this access point. There are certain criteria,
certainly a permit that the applicant is aware that they would have to get with the County as well as
providing any financial securities necessary to ensure that everything’s restored properly after the work’s
complete.
Aanenson: So again we asked the architect to give us some perspectives from Powers Boulevard so again
we talked about the change in grade. 40 feet from this side so what you’ll be seeing from Powers
Boulevard, have limited access. There is parapet on top of the building so you can’t see the HVAC and
because they’re not sure exactly where all the splits are going to be in the building, they’ll be put in the
appropriate place, our concern was to make sure since we didn’t know now, that that rooftop screening
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 15, 2013
would be covered and based on this elevation we believe it will be. As we move through the architecture,
we’ll talk about that in the landscaping. The one side of the building that has the most exposure. So this
is the material samples. We did ask for a couple modifications on the building itself and that included
some additional color on the upper portion of the building. Because of it’s location you’re really not
going to see a lot of the, the most exposed site is actually the bay side. The material samples I went
through in detail the architectural review of our architectural standards. I’m not going to go through all
those now but this does meet that so if you look at the site plan this is where, this is facing the north side
and that’s where you’ve got the back side of IWCO Direct which is actually built into that slope where
the railroad tracks. So the, but the parking lot’s are on either side of that so they will have some view of
the back of the building so because of the power lines, this site is challenging. There is a utility easement
that runs along this side. Electrical. You’ve got the high tension power lines that also run along there.
The railroad tracks and there’s also a high pressure gas line through there so it’s a challenging site. The
applicant is going to provide underground stormwater management so it’s a lot of moving parts. So this
green area right here is what we’re showing as, the city code allows for lower profile trees and shrubs and
based on that, kind of that same sight line profile that was on the previous slide here, you can see that
same sort of a profile here from the parking lot in the back so by placing those trees on that lower profile
they will also provide screening for the back of the building so we believe that meets. The other thing
that’s in the staff report was the park and trail fees. We are going to take the park and trail fees based on
what’s enforced at today’s dollars. If it gets platted next year that would be the 2014 dollar rate in force
for the 16 acres. The other thing that the park director had recommended to the, that there be a sidewalk
placed along this entrance to get down to the city trail for the workers there. So with that I’d be happy to
answer any questions you would have but we are recommending approval and would be happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
Aller: Kate, there was a discussion in the report with regard to trees and the request that there be higher,
some of the trees placed. Is that in that back section by the railroad?
Aanenson: Some of those would be, there are specific trees that we have a species list from Xcel that we
can use for underneath the power lines so there’s two different places that we talk about trees. Two
different areas. Well actually three. One was that we didn’t want to grade into the bluff. Into that slope
and, let me pull out that section quick. That we install a more columnar form of evergreen on the
northeast side of the building and that the buffer yards needed to be beefed up so those are the other two
areas. That’s on the top of page 15. So it met the minimum but what where we wanted them is placed in
different areas to provide better screening.
Aller: Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions?
Withrow: Yeah a question. You mentioned that there’s exposure, more exposure to the building from the
north.
Aanenson: Correct.
Withrow: In the review, what neighbors it to the north where that would be an issue?
Aanenson: IWCO Direct. It’s also an office industrial building.
Withrow: Oh okay.
Aanenson: Everything surrounding this property is office industrial, except for the apartments. Let me
just go back here to the first slide really quick.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 15, 2013
Withrow: I heard you say that but it didn’t register, sorry.
Aanenson: Yep. So this is IWCO Direct right here. That building so you can see on either side they’ve
got a parking lot here and a parking lot. The topography is such that we went back on these streets, you
can’t see anything there. On Powers Boulevard, the architect did send that sight line there with the trees.
You won’t see much, and that’s the I would guess the most aesthetic side of the building. Where it’s
glass and most office part would be that portion of the building. And then you’ve got the City owned
property right here with the creek going through and when you’re on this road, or at these apartment
buildings, you too cannot see anything there so the only place really you can see is if you’re in the
parking of IWCO Direct and that’s what I’m saying, you’re looking at the back at the loading docks. You
have a change in grade with the railroad tracks and going up the slope. That’s why we’re saying there’s
opportunity there for a little bit lower profile and it still cuts your sight line to look at the back of the
docks.
Withrow: Thank you. And could you, what plans do you have or do you perceive for Outlot A?
Aanenson: Outlot A would just be a conservation.
Withrow: That’s it?
Aanenson: Yep. No development.
Withrow: Okay.
Aanenson: It’s too steep. It’d be tough to get to so by the, either through dedication, if they were to
dedicate that or through preservation of that, no development on there. It does affect what the City would
extract for fees because there’s no development potential there so they’re only being charged fees based
on the development portion of the property which is the 16 acres. 16 plus acres. Alright. Actually 12.
Excuse me, 12.4. Excuse me. The 12.4 instead of the, taking the 4.2 off. Correct. Thank you.
Withrow: And Outlot B, what about that one?
Aanenson: Outlot B would be a City lot. That’s not included in there either. The 3.4. That’s a City
potential future well site.
Withrow: A well site.
Aanenson: A well site for city utilities, correct. Actually when we first met with the applicant we were
looking at potentially another type of public facilities but the grading didn’t work on that site. We’re
looking for the high zone properties to put some utilities on but that did not work.
Withrow: Okay.
Weick: Is the new exit, is that final? I mean has that been, or just proposed? Does the City have to
approve that or? The exit.
Aanenson: This one’s in place. Are you talking about the driveway on the one?
Aller: The one that’s requested. The County…
Aanenson: There we go. We’ll let Alyson.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 15, 2013
Fauske: Sure. During initial discussions, when the applicant first came into the City and indicated that
from the site circulation standpoint they would like a northern access, we did direct them to talk to Carver
County and they had some discussions with them. With the engineers over at Carver County and they
had an agreement with the proposal that you see with you tonight. It has been shifted slightly to the south
in order to avoid some utilities that are in place right now. There’s a gas main valve and some other
pertinent structures and so they will work with Carver County to get that access point. The permitting
and such. The design of that was such that it would only allow for traffic exiting out of the site for a right
turn only. So it would be configured so that you can’t make a right turn into the site because the concern
that Carver County had with that access point was sight distances and as the applicant had explained their
position that this would be, that they would provide an acceleration lane, that this would be an exit point
for their tractor trailer units. The County said okay, well that would be, you know if you’re doing all
these other improvements along with the driveway access, we would be amenable to that so.
Aanenson: It’s hard to see but there’s a railroad bridge there so it’s, it affects your sight line.
Weick: Right. The only thing I was thinking of is coming, you’re coming around a curve and then it
comes downhill and if you’re, even if you’re accelerating a truck coming out of there, if they wanted to
jump over to the left lane and make a U’y to go back to 5 right, and that’s not your issue but.
Fauske: Yeah.
Aanenson: But it is.
Fauske: One of the things that Carver County requested and the applicant has provided to them is the
truck turning movements so that they can see and insure that this access that the tractor trailer units can
stay within that lane and then gain some speed before they’re merging in with the Powers traffic.
Weick: Okay.
Fauske: And as far as making a U turn, I don’t think that Powers would be able, I don’t think it’s wide
enough for.
Weick: Oh for a truck to even be able to do it.
Fauske: For an 18 wheeler to do a U turn.
Weick: So it’s not conceivable to.
Aanenson: Somebody might go rogue. That’s a good question.
Fauske: Very good question.
Weick: That’s it. That’s my question.
Hokkanen: Good question.
Undestad: Alyson, the storm drainage in here now, they’re doing the underground vaults in there? The
tanks.
Fauske: Yes.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 15, 2013
Aanenson: I have that on a map here. It’s on this one right here. It’s kind of hard to see with all the
grading but it’s, yeah.
Fauske: There’s two proposed. One at that location on the northeast side and then the second one on the
south side right here and the reason that they’re proposing this, as you can tell from the grading plan and
visiting the site, it’s not flat and to do ordinary or run of the mill ponding on the site would not be a good
use of the site in this instance so the developer came forward with this proposed underground system.
There’s been discussions of using it for irrigation purposes. I don’t know where they’re at with that. You
have to be careful with cross contamination if your irrigation system is connected to city water so there
was, there is a desire to use that as well but the reason and the, the reason they’re proposing this is
because of the sensitivity of the site. The grades so the idea is to have the underground chambers to hold
the water and then slowly release it and then, if you look. Oops, I’m sorry.
Aanenson: That’s alright, you can turn.
Fauske: It outlets through here and we’re working on some modifications of the storm sewer to come
through here and this area would actually be a rain garden feature in order to try to absorb some of that
runoff so they are looking at trying to take some of that water back into the groundwater table as much as
possible.
Aller: And with the speed that’s built up from the runoff, that’s going to be tricky as well.
Fauske: Yes, it’s a very steep slope but that’s what we’ve been working with the applicant’s engineer on
is making sure that there’s some energy dissipation there because of the grades.
Aanenson: While we’re on this page, Alyson maybe you could talk about, I did hand out for you some
revisions to the sewer connection. Maybe Alyson can show you where that sewer connection is going to
take place and then we would ask that you, if you recommend approval, that these be added as conditions.
Fauske: The conditions that were handed to you were from an email that was sent over to the applicant
and the applicant’s engineer last week. The reason we’re now looking at this, and it came out after the
staff report is that, to back up the story a little bit. The sewer line that the applicant, that’s available for
the applicant is within the outlot. It’s not shown here but it’s in the City owned lot to the west and it’s a
Met Council line. The Metropolitan Council owns and maintains that line and when they, when the
applicant’s engineer approached them with making the sanitary sewer connection, the Met Council’s
response was, that’s fine but because of the type of connection you are proposing it has to be publicly
owned and so, because we were looking at, we’re late in the season. We would like to work with the
applicant to get this project. Hopefully if we get some final approvals here in the next couple of weeks,
we came up with okay, well in order to get this as a publicly owned utility these are the additional, this is
the additional information we need. I have some of these items already and I’ve talked to the applicant’s
engineer and expect to get the remainder of these items in the next couple of days. But essentially it’s the
sewer connection is approximately at this location and then connects to the Metropolitan Council’s sewer
line down at this location so that’s what sparked the additional conditions of approval.
Aller: Great. Anything based on that? Alright. Thank you. At this time we’ll have the applicant or
developer step forward if they wish to do so and make a presentation. Anyone wishing to come forward?
Brandon Champeau: I’m Brandon Champeau with United Properties. We would be the owner or
developer and owner of this project. Don’t really have much more to add. I think Kate did a very nice
job on the presentation. It’s been a challenging site. Probably one of the most challenging industrial
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 15, 2013
project sites we’ve ever worked on. You typically won’t have 15% coverage and you know underground
storm tanks and things on a big industrial site but that’s the reality of this and I hope that we’ve done
everything we could to accommodate the City’s request and still keep a site that we can market and I
think that’s the reason why we were able to stick through everything is just because this is a very good
industrial market and a lot of expanding tenants here and we’ve got a lot of interest on the project so
we’re excited to get going.
Aller: Great. I always ask because we’re an advisory commission and as you said it’s a work in progress
and we’re making recommendations. From what you’ve received and you said the report was well done,
is there anything that you see in it that you may think could be problematic at this point so we can flush
that out now and get working on it? Is there anything that you see that would be difficult for you to?
Brandon Champeau: You know we’re still pricing everything out. I mean my biggest concern right now
is the underground tanks. We’ve got a very wide range of bids on that. I mean from $300,000 up to a
million and that can obviously impact a project one way or the other so you know we’ve circled the
lowest number and we’re hoping that that’s where we come in at but yeah, it’s just you know, right now
we’re in the middle of getting everything priced and just making sure this is, that we’re going to be able
to make the numbers that we need to. You know we’ll, anything that I could ask for tonight, and I
couldn’t say anything right now I mean but you know we’re hopeful that we’ll get there with the
numbers.
Aller: Thank you. Anybody have any other questions or any comments?
Withrow: One question. How many tenants do you anticipate having?
Brandon Champeau: We, we’re very, we’re actively in discussions with one tenant that would take about
half the building and I think it would be a tenant that the City would very much like to have. They’re a
national tenant. Very large group. They’re very interested. We’re negotiating a proposal with them. If
we get that tenant done I would say this is probably a three tenant building. If we don’t, it’s probably a 3
to 5. It could be anywhere from there but we’ve got a lot of interest in the 35,000 to 55,000 foot range so
3 tenants is very likely.
Aller: Great, thank you. Anyone else? Alright, we’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Would anyone like to step forward, state a position either for or against the request? Seeing no one come
forward, I will close the public hearing and we’ll move onto commissioner comments.
Hokkanen: I think it’s a nice project. I’m losing my voice so, but I think it’s a nice project. No, I think it
will be good for the city.
Undestad: Yeah I think it looks nice. Nice to get something going in.
Aller: Yeah, from what I’m hearing and from what I’m seeing in the report it meets all the standards
outlined in the regulations and zoning ordinance, which would then mean that the motion would be self
evident. Does anyone defer to disagree? Okay. Any other comments? I’d entertain a motion.
Undestad: I’ll make the motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve a preliminary plat of 16.94 acres into one lot and two outlots, Powers Pointe, site plan approval
for the construction of 140,000 square foot office warehouse building and adoption of the attached
Findings of Fact.
th
Aller: And if I may, and the conditions in the email dated October 9?
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 15, 2013
th
Undestad: Yes, we’ll add the conditions 1 through 9 on Alyson’s email dated October 9.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Tennyson: I’ll second.
Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion?
recommends the City
Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded that the Planning Commission
Council approve a Preliminary Plat of 16.94 acres into one lot and two outlots (Powers
Pointe); Site Plan Approval for construction of a 140,000 square-foot office/warehouse
building as shown in plans dated received September 20, 2013 subject to the following
conditions, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact.
Planning
1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement.
2.The architecture shall be revised to match the plan dated October 4, 2013.
3.Recycling space shall be contained within the trash enclosure located on the north side of the
building.
4.All signs including future business wall signs are required to obtain permits and meet city
standards.
Landscaping
1.The applicant shall install a total of 11 islands/peninsulas in the parking lot and 66 trees.
2.The applicant shall specify a columnar evergreen species for the northeast landscape
peninsula.
3.The applicant shall install the required bufferyard plantings along the north and east property
lines.
4.The applicant shall correct the botanical name for Imperial honey locust in the plant
schedule.
Park
1.A sidewalk shall be placed along the entrance drive at Lake Drive West that connects to City
trails.
2.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon
final plat submission and approval (2013 rate at $12,500 per acre). 12.40 x 12,500 =$155,500
Building
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 15, 2013
1.The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
2.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
3.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
4.Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are
submitted.
5.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
Engineering
1.Outlots A and B shall be deeded to the City by Warranty Deed upon recording of the final
plat.
2.The sight line and turning movement information for each access must be submitted to
Carver County for review and approval prior to final plat consideration by the City Council.
3.The developer must obtain the necessary permits for the work within the Powers Boulevard
right of way and submit any required security before work in the right of way can commence.
4.The developer shall work with City staff to determine if the current streetlight locations
provide adequate lighting at the proposed driveway intersections. If it is determined that the
current lighting is insufficient, the developer shall work with the City to relocate the
streetlights and shall pay for all costs associated with the streetlight relocation(s).
5.This parcel was not assessed for the trunk watermain improvements; therefore, the City
Water Access Charge (City WAC) shall be collected with the building permit at the rates in
effect at that time.
6.The City Sewer Access Charge (City SAC) is waived because the property was assessed and
paid the trunk sanitary sewer fee with City Project 78-3.
7.The developer’s contractor must notify the Chanhassen Utility Department a minimum of 72
hours in advance of the wet tap.
8.Prior to installation of the private watermain the developer must obtain any necessary
permissions to install the hydrant within the gas and electrical easement on the site.
9.Prior to connection the developer shall acquire the necessary permits/permissions to connect
to the Met Council sewer.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 15, 2013
10.Staff and the developer’s engineer are working to modify the storm sewer design at the full
access to improve runoff patterns and energy dissipation. These design changes must be
completed prior to City Council consideration of the final plat.
11.The developer must provide catch basin spacing calculations to Carver County for review
and, if necessary, provide additional catch basins prior to City Council consideration of the
final plat.
12.Before the retaining wall can be constructed the developer must obtain the necessary
approvals (if any) to install the wall within the gas and electrical easements.
13.Walls over four feet high require a building permit and must be designed by an Engineer
licensed in the State of Minnesota.
14.Temporary sediment basin(s) will be required during mass site grading.
15.Dewatering of temporary sediment basin(s) will require the use of a floating skimmer
methodology.
16.Winter shutdown will require all exposed soils to be stabilized. If soils are frozen, the site
shall be hydro mulched. If the site is snow covered the area will need to be frost seeded and
have straw mulch blown atop the snow. This shall be included as a note in the erosion
prevention and sediment control plan and within the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP).
17.The SWPPP and all pertinent plans shall be updated to reflect that Lake Susan is within one
mile of the site, receives drainage from the site and is impaired for excess nutrients.
18.Appendix A of the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with
Construction Activity under the NPDES shall be incorporated into the Erosion Prevention
and Sediment Control Plan, the Grading Plan, the SWPPP and the storm water management
plan as well as anywhere else it applies.
19.Calculations shall be provided showing that one inch of runoff from the new impervious
surface is retained on site either through infiltration and/or reuse from the underground storm
sewer vaults.
20.Construction of the rain garden shall not occur until after the majority of the site is stabilized
and at least the base course is installed in the paved areas.
21.The proposed rain garden area shall be protected from construction-related activities until
such a time as it is ready to be constructed. This shall be indicated on the plans where
appropriate.
22.Best Management Practices such as j-hooked silt fence or properly sized and staked biorolls
or wattles shall be installed to break up the run on the slopes located in the southeast and
southwest corners of Lot 1.
23.The plans shall include all pertinent setbacks and buffers including:
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 15, 2013
a.Shoreland Overlay District (300’ from centerline of Bluff Creek)
b.Fifty (50) foot setback from Riley Creek.
c.All bluff impact zones.
d.All wetland boundaries and buffers from those boundaries.
24.Given the proximity to the wetland along Powers Boulevard, the applicant shall make
available the necessary evidence to determine that no loss of jurisdictional wetland will result
from the proposed activities. This will either require a wetland delineation or the staking of
proposed improvements in the field for staff verification.
25.Vegetative and topographic alterations shall only occur as necessary for the construction of
the facility and appurtenant infrastructure. The wall located southwesterly on the site labeled
“Wall 2” in the staff report, shall be relocated easterly to minimize aforementioned
alterations.
26.Tree preservation shall occur in those areas where grading is not integral to the intended
purpose or construction of the site. Tree protection fencing shall be shown on the plan and
installed concurrently with the initial erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs.
27. Stabilization of all exposed soil areas must be initiated immediately but in no case later than
seven (7) days after construction activities have permanently or temporarily ceased in that
area.”
28. The sewer from SANMH #104 to the existing MH (201’ 8” PVC@7.84%) must be
public. The developer will be billed for the inspection fees associated with this work.
29. A 40’ easement centered over the sewer is required and must be shown on the plat. This
can be a condition of approval for the final plat.
30. The estimated cost to construct this sewer will be added to the security amount and an
administrative fee (3% of the construction cost) will be collected with the final plat.
Please provide this ASAP as staff’s final plat memo and the development contract must
thth
be finalized by October 18 for the October 28 meeting.
th
31. City Council shall consider approval of the attached agreement at the October 28
meeting.
32. The City and the developer shall enter into an agreement stating that any cost associated
with maintaining the connection will be assessed to the property. I have left a message
with the City Attorney asking for proposed language; I will forward to you for review.
This may be a stand alone agreement or part of the development contract and be finalized
th
by October 18.
33. Plan and profile and specs must be provided for this section of sanitary sewer prior to
th
October 18, as Council approval is required.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 15, 2013
34. An MPCA permit is required for the public sewer extension. The permit must be
obtained before the sanitary sewer can be installed.
35. The sanitary sewer must be sleeved under the retaining wall. This can be a condition of
approval for the final plat.
36. As-built information for this section of sanitary sewer must be provided. This will be a
condition of approval for the final plat. A security (equal to 7% of the construction cost)
will be collected with the final plat to ensure payment of the inspection bills and
submittal of the as-builts.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Aller: Okay, anyone wishing to follow this item, it will be before the City Council, it’s expected to be
there on Monday, October 28, 2013 so again please follow that with the City Council for final action.
And if you’d like to review any of these reports and information, again they’re located on the City
website under the Planning Commission tabs.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated September 3, 2013 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aanenson: I’m not sure I have an update in here. We’ve kind of fast tracked a couple of our projects
forward so we haven’t had too many on the last council update. I did include new business signs and the
future Planning Commission agenda so we do have four items on for your next Planning Commission
th
meeting. We’ll actually have three on. We have another subdivision. That will be on November 19 and
rd
then we’re not sure yet, on the December 3 date or not. That subdivision also is in Shorewood so it’s
got to go through Shorewood first so those are advancing forward. And then we did include some of the
new signs that were being issued. We issued 6 more today. Some of the ones down on, be on Lyman
Boulevard and the Kraus Anderson building and 101 so some of those projects are coming forward so
you’ll have a busy packet. Full packet. Busy agenda next meeting so.
Aller: Great. And then I show that we approved the final plat on Camden Ridge, or the council approved
th
that on the 9.
Aanenson: Yes.
Aller: As well as the preliminary and final plat approval and site plan approval for the Southwest Village
nd
2 Addition and they also approved Lake St. Joe’s Cove subdivision.
Aanenson: Correct. And I think Lake St. Joe is underway. Camden, have you had a pre-con yet on?
Fauske: There have been pre-con’s for Lake St. Joe and Camden Ridge. The pre-con for Southwest
Village is tomorrow.
Aanenson: Tomorrow so yeah.
12