PC Minutes 03-04-2014
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 4, 2014
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuf, and Stephen
Withrow
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Steven Weick and Lisa Hokkanen
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner;
Terry Jeffrey, Water Resources Coordinator; and Stephanie Bartels, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
PUBLIC HEARING:
BUSINESS IMPACT GROUP-PLANNING CASE 2014-07: REQUEST FOR REZONING FOR A
MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 39,240
SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND LOCATED ON PART OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1,
CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK (2410 GALPIN COURT).
Mark Undestad recused himself from the Planning Commission for this item.
Generous: Good evening Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is the public hearing for the
proposed development and amendment to, a minor amendment to the Chanhassen West Business Park
PUD standards as well as site plan review for a 39,240 square foot office/warehouse building. Basically
we’re increasing the overall square footage of the development that was initially estimated at 350,000
square feet. Previously it was amended to go up to 365,000 square feet and now it’s going up to 377,000
square feet. This is still well under the 450,000 square feet that would require a mandatory Environment
Assessment Worksheet. We did, as part of the original review traffic was a big concern and we looked at
what the potential ultimate trip generation numbers would be with this change and it came to a total of
153 trips a day so that would not create any significant impacts on any of the roadway improvements in
the project. Again the second part is for a 39,240 square foot office/warehouse building. The eastern end
of this building would be a two story office space. 6,000 square feet total. The rest of the building would
be for warehouse uses. This property is located at 2410 Galpin Court. It’s at the northwest corner of
Galpin Court and Galpin Boulevard. It’s just within the Chanhassen West Business Park. There are only
two lots that are undeveloped in this project and this is one of them. The one to the west of it has site plan
approval already and is just waiting for the building permit process to go forward. This area is guided for
office/industrial uses and the planned unit development is for a business park. Again the PUD
amendment revises the total square footages of the buildings within the development. We’re increasing
each of them by 6,000 square feet for office and also for light industrial warehouse space. For a total
square footage of 377,000 square feet. Within our report we did show the breakdown of the original
estimated square footages for the developments and then what has actually been built or approved within
the development. Therefore we need to increase the total square footages. Now the site plan for this
building is, this is the, the 36,240 square feet is the first floor footprint and like I said on the eastern end
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014
of the building there is another 3,000 square feet of second floor of office space and so that brings us to
the 39,240 square foot building. The total building height to the top of the parapet is 35 feet. It’s within
the 40 foot that was permitted within this development. They have two access points. The primary one
would be just across from the business access to the south. The existing big Snap building and then
there’s a truck entrance on the west end for, mostly for exiting purposes because they’ll be pulling in on
the first driveway and then having to pull over there and back up into that. Building material consists
primarily of exposed aggregate. This is what the material looks like. However it will be dark brown when
they actually build it so, but this shows you how there’s a lot of texture in the primary building material.
It will be tip up panels that are used for the project. Accent will be provided through the use of these
stone veneer and these are, they have faux columns that they’re creating at all the overhead window
elevations and then in the corner of the buildings they’ll have full columns that go up to the roof
elevation. Again there’s a nice picture. The primary entrance is in the southeast corner of the building.
This is the office space for the building. They’ve taken the entrance feature that’s in the existing building
to the south and then relocated it in this location. It does provide a lot of articulation in that. The
building does step back, or as you go, or step out as you move farther to the west so you’ll see a lot of
articulation in that elevation and then with the landscaping we believe this will be an attractive building.
Again this is just the elevations on all four sides. There’s not a lot on the north side. It’s at 10 feet from
the property line. They will be providing some landscaping to help soften that elevation. The eastern
elevation is full of lots of windows in the office space and then you have that southeast corner that has
the, major entrance feature. Grading on the site. They will be putting a small retaining wall in the
southeast corner of the parking lot. The site jumps up to Highway, or to Galpin Boulevard. The one
condition that we do have is that they create a pedestrian access. There’s a trail on Galpin Boulevard so
from this site to that trail. We’ll leave it up to them and as part of their building permit process to come
up, whether they’ll put in something closer to the building or come out into the right-of-way and make a
short sidewalk segment out there. I should, one of the things that they did have to do is provide some
stormwater improvements on the site. Rain gardens are located in the two, in this area. In the landscape
island and then also in this area, and then it connects into the overall project. There is a stormwater pond
that’s located in the southwest corner of the entire development that all this water goes to before
discharging downstream. They met all the requirements for site landscaping. It will be a nice addition to
this area and actually provide some permanent parking for the users of the site. Staff is recommending
approval of both the amendment and the site plan and adoption of the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Any questions from anyone this far? I think the report’s pretty complete. I’m glad to see the trail
access in there. Something that I think that we’ve continually worked on in attempting to make sure that
our great trail system is connected to all our office buildings and people have an opportunity to move
freely around and through those buildings and enjoy them. With the parking spaces, is there the required
minimum? Do they meet the required minimum on parking spaces?
Generous: They meet the required. 52 spaces are required and that’s what they’re providing. They did
have 53 originally but because of the stormwater improvements they lost some, a couple spaces.
Aller: And they’re using both the pond and water garden?
Generous: Yeah the water, rain garden on site and then downstream there’s a stormwater pond that will
treat the entire, that treats the entire development.
Aller: Good variety of stormwater treatment. Anyone else?
Withrow: I had a question on the additional traffic.
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014
Aller: Sure.
Withrow: Will that be commercial or delivery? Heavy delivery type things or more of a customer retail?
Generous: Well it’s more for the building uses because it’s mostly warehouse space. We use a business
park as the generation number.
Withrow: Oh, okay.
Generous: So it accounts for all, it could account for all of that. You could have some people come and.
Withrow: So it’d be a mix.
Generous: They’re just averages but it was a quick way to look to see if there would be significant
impacts to the street system.
Withrow: Okay.
Aller: And then water and sewer and electric, we’re good to go with that?
Generous: Everything’s available on this property.
Aller: Anything further from anyone? Okay, we’ll hear from the applicant if the applicant wishes to
come forward.
Brian Houwman: I’m the architect. If you have any questions I’m to answer but otherwise.
Aller: Okay. Just for the record so people know, Mr. Houwman is here from Brian W. Houwman
Architect AIA made himself available for purposes of questions. At this point I don’t have any questions.
The report seems fairly complete so and those of you at home that are not present or even those that are
present, don’t have access to these materials, they can be found on the website. The city website does
have the packages there for everyone to review. With that I’ll open it up. Yes sir.
Peter Larson: I’ve got a couple questions if possible.
Aller: Okay.
Peter Larson: Hi everybody. Peter Larson at Waytek. We’re their neighbors.
Aller: Okay.
Peter Larson: They’re a great company and we have no objections whatsoever.
Aller: Let’s do this. I’m going to open the public hearing.
Peter Larson: Okay, sorry.
Aller: Because you’re a member of the public. That’s what I was heading to.
Peter Larson: Okay, thank you. And we’re their neighbors and they’re a great company and they do a lot
of great things for the community and we’re happy to be their neighbors. We got no objections
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014
whatsoever to their amendments or for the amendment. One thing we’d like to see though is, if possible
by the loading dock door have, is there any way I could go up there and pin point on it a little bit? Well
anyways on that northwest corner where the loading docks are, is it possible if they could put a wall that
goes along where the trucks would back up. It would just make it a little softer and it would create a
barrier you know between the trucks and the property line between Waytek. We have a couple walls like
that right now and if they want to see any examples that would be you know a screen or a wall type of
situation so. And then.
Aanenson: I was just looking at that grading plan just to see if there’s, there’s not a lot of grade change.
I’m just wondering if there’s another, if you’re, are you trying to get some screening? Is that what your
objective is?
Peter Larson: Yeah just, just between the loading docks and our parking lot. Just make it a little softer.
Aanenson: When you use the word wall I’m just saying maybe there’s another term that we could use.
Fencing. Screening.
Aller: I was thinking buffer.
Aanenson: Buffer.
Peter Larson: A buffer. Screening. Yeah that type of.
Aanenson: Okay.
Peter Larson: You know that would be nice and it just would break it up a little bit and you know, and
the second thing is if, on that north wall, it’s just a pretty long wall and I’m just wondering if there’s any
way to get a few more trees up along the part of the north wall. It’s a beautiful building and I know it
looks just like the one across the street that they’re in. I know Mark did all that so it looks great so, but
just something to consider too.
Aanenson: Yeah we can look at that. I think one of the things is have the City Forester look at that too.
Whether or not being how much room there is to grow.
Peter Larson: Yeah it’s pretty tight.
Aanenson: Too tight. Whether or not they’d survive so, but understand the intent.
Generous: …back side it’s sort of they don’t get the light so.
Peter Larson: Yeah.
Aanenson: We can look at something.
Peter Larson: We’re just thinking maybe like evergreens or you know arborvitaes that would be a little
bit more screening because in the winter the, what is it? The maples that would be there, they would
probably not have much coverage so.
Aanenson: Yeah, right.
Peter Larson: Not, you know just something to consider so. Okay. Alright, thank you.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014
Aller: Anything else?
Peter Larson: No.
Aller: So it sounds like the concerns you’re bringing forward are really a buffer along the north side.
Peter Larson: Yes. Yes. Alright, thank you.
Aller: Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to come forward and speak either for or against or
make any comments regarding the matter before us? Seeing no one come forward I will close the public
hearing and open it up for commissioner comments and discussion.
Yusuf: I’m good.
Withrow: I’m good.
Aller: Looks like a great project. I would just make the comment that perhaps the City can work with
them and take a quick look at potential buffering keeping in mind that obviously the type of trees and
things that are used, they’re going to have to look. Will they survive? Will it be a good buffer?
Anything else? Alright, I’ll entertain a motion.
Withrow: I’ll move to, that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve
the minor amendment to the Chanhassen West Business Park Planned Unit Development to increase the
maximum building square footage within the development; and a Site Plan Review to construct 39,240
square foot office/warehouse building subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings
of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: Okay I have a motion. Do I have a second or any discussion? Or I need a second.
Tennyson: I’ll second.
Aller: And then any discussion. My only discussion would be that we’ll add, if possible just the
recommendation at the end but it won’t be, I’m not making it an amendment to the motion. So with that
all those in favor.
Withrow moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the
City Council approve the minor amendment to the Chanhassen West Business Park Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to increase the maximum building square footage within the development; and
the Site Plan Review to construct a 39,240 square foot office/warehouse building subject to the
following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1.The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City.
2.The developer shall pay the park fee of $23,121.00 with the building permit.
3.The developer shall install a pedestrian access to the Galpin Boulevard trail.
4.The developer shall provide benches and/or picnic tables for employees.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014
5.The developer shall provide detail of the bioretention areas is provided showing:
a.Any soil amendments and corrections,
b.Pre-treatment practices to be employed and these shall be shown on the plan view and in
the detail sheet (It is highly recommended that something similar to the Rain Guardian
developed by Anoka Conservation District be used.), and
c.Steps that will be taken to prevent compaction and siltation of the area resulting from
construction activities on the site.
6.Hydrologic calculations demonstrating that the features will draw down in 48 hours or less
are provided.
7.Hydrologic and water quality calculations demonstrating the features will treat 1-inch water
quality volume from impervious areas is provided.
8.An exhibit showing pre- and post-development drainage is provided.
9.Calculations shall be provided demonstrating that no increase in runoff rates will result at any
point leaving the site after build out.
10.The SWPPP shall be modified such that it is a standalone document which includes all
elements required by the permit. At a minimum this shall include the following elements:
a.A narrative of construction activity per Part IIIA 1.
b.A listing of the chain of responsibility for oversight of SWPPP implementation per Part
IIIA 2.
c.Training documentation for those involved in the design and implementation of the
SWPPP per Part IIIF.
d.Designs and calculations for meeting Stormwater Discharge Requirements although it is
understood that this project was originally permitted under different rules so design
requirements will be to that approval as administered by Carver County WMO.
e.Estimated preliminary quantities tabulation for al erosion prevention and sediment
control BMPs per Part IIIA 5.
f.Impervious coverage pre-development and post-development per Part IIIA 5.
g.Site map showing soil types per Part IIIA 5.
h.A map of surface waters and wetlands within one-mile of site which will receive
stormwater. The SWPPP must identify if these are special or impaired waters. Lake
Hazeltine receives runoff from the site and is listed as a 303D impaired water.
i.The SWPPP must indicate who is responsible for the maintenance of the permanent
stormwater management practices on the site and a maintenance plan to assure
performance of the practice as listed in Part IIIA 5 k.
j.The plans must show all elements required under part IV.C of the permit.
11.The existing Storm Catch Basin identified as ST CB on sheet C5.01A shall either be
abandoned and have the conveyance eliminated or shall have inlet protection provided prior
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014
to disturbance within the area tributary to the CB. This shall be shown on the plan sheet and
included within the Sequence of Construction.
12.The bioretention area must be designed and constructed following the guidelines set forth in
the on-line Minnesota Stormwater Manual.
13.Because the site connects to city infrastructure, the City and/or their representatives shall be
represented at the pre-construction meeting and shall approve the installation of BMPs. The
Sequence of Construction shall be changed to reflect this.
14.Bioretention areas cannot be brought on-line until all tributary areas are stabilized. The
Sequence of Construction shall reflect this.
15.Inlet protection shall be called out at all curb cut areas and the practice shall be included in
the details. The Sequence of Construction shall reflect this need.
16.The swale areas must be stabilized with ditch checks, erosion control blanket or other
approved best management practice.
17.Silt fence or other acceptable perimeter control practices shall be extended to protect all
down gradient areas including the entire frontage along Galpin Court and shall be shown on
both C5.01A and C5.02A.
18.The Sequence of Construction found on Sheet C5.02 A shall have “if required by contract”
removed.
19.On sheet C5.03A, the city does not allow for the use of wooden posts for silt fence. The silt
fence detail must be modified to reflect this.
20.On sheet C5.03A, change Maintenance Note 7 to include compaction and sediment
protection from all construction related activities.
21.The plans must meet all requirements set forth by other agencies with authority over the site.
The applicant is responsible to procure all necessary approvals and permissions. This
includes, among others, the MN Pollution Control Agency and the Carver County
Watershed Management Organization.
22.The developer must submit a soils report to the City.
23.The engineer shall revise the proposed grading plan to show the existing and proposed
elevation at the corners of the proposed building.
24.The plan shall be revised to show locations of proposed stockpile areas.
25.The plan shall be revised to show the top and bottom wall elevations at points along the
wall.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 4, 2014
26.The engineer shall show the truck turning movements in the loading area on the plan.
27.The plan must follow all applicable State and Federal guidelines, including ADA standards
for the sidewalk reconstruction.
28.Sanitary sewer and water main to be installed for this project shall be privately owned and
maintained.
29.The applicant shall work with staff to develop a revised landscaping plan, which shall
be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
Additional landscaping shall be installed along the north property line. Suitable
species for the area next to the building include arborvitae, such as Techny, and
columnar trees such as Apollo or Sugar Cone maple. To block views of the truck
loading docks, the applicant shall install a hedge along the property line north of the
loading docks. The shrub materials selected should provide year round coverage to a
mature height of at least 5’ – 6’.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mark Undestad joined the Planning Commission at this point.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LYMAN BOULEVARD WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT-PLANNING CASE 2014-05:
REQUEST FOR WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY
RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OF THE SEGMENT OF CSAH 18
BETWEEN CSAH 15 (AUDUBON ROAD) AND CSAH 17 (POWERS BOULEVARD).
APPLICANT: CARVER COUNTY.
Jeffery: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Tonight we have before you the CSAH 18 Lyman
Boulevard wetland alteration permit and Wetland Conservation Act replacement plan permit. The
purpose of this permit is to insure that proper sequencing has occurred to minimize the wetland impacts to
the greatest extent practical and that we are in compliance with Chapter 8420 of Minnesota Rules that the
replacement is adequate to replace the impacts that were unavoidable for this project. Not sure how many
of you are familiar with the overall line of the project. In 2006 the County phased out, where’d we go?
Phased out the project over 3 phases to go from Trunk Highway 41 in Chaska to Powers Boulevard.
Phase 1 was drive by the high school so they started in the middle. I don’t want it to be confusing. This
gets referred to as Phase 3 even though it’s the second phase of the project and that is the area to the right.
Excuse me, on this photo. This is the project location. It extends from Audubon. From Audubon to
Powers Boulevard with some pertinent areas as well. This has been a long time coming, as we talked
about in, okay. (Having technical difficulties with computer) In 2007 the entire corridor was delineated
from Trunk Highway 41 to Powers Boulevard. In 2008, close to 9 months they were able to permit the
wetland replacement for phase 1 of the project, which is by the high school. That was two authorities.
That was Chaska and Chanhassen and then the other players that we have. In December of 2012 the
County came forward with a new wetland replacement plan and in January the Technical Evaluation
Panel (TEP) met to discuss their proposed replacement plan. And at that time it was determined that
because of the age of the delineation that they should go back. Update the data sheets for the delineated
wetlands and field verify the location, just to make certain that conditions hadn’t changed sufficiently to
require a different wetland alteration permit and different mitigation. At that same TEP the applicant was
8