Loading...
CC Minutes 03-24-2014Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 BUSINESS IMPACT GROUP: 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 SQ. FT. OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD); LOCATED ON PART OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK, 2410 GALPIN BOULEVARD. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item did appear before the th Planning Commission at their March 24 meeting. They did recommend approval. There was a concern from the property owner to the, adjacent to it regarding buffering and I’ll go through that in a little bit more detail when we get to that slide. So there’s two actions for you tonight. One is rezoning for a minor amendment to the Chan West Business Park and the other is a site plan review. The rezoning itself is less than 5% so we consider it a minor amendment. In your staff report there’s a compliance table that shows all the buildings so every project that comes in we measure that so this is a 12,000 square foot addition but it’s still within the threshold of the overall project area. It’s also what we would consider you know the traffic increase is pretty nominal compared to what, what could have been. Another building with a little bit larger footprint so we felt the minor amendment made sense. So then the second action would be the review of the site plan for the 39,240 square feet for BIG. The project is located on Galpin Boulevard so you have Lyman Boulevard here and then Galpin Boulevard so it’s this property in front here. Just anecdotally there is one more site that you have given site plan approval so that could just come forward with a building permit and that’s this area right in here. The subject we’re talking about is the highlighted in blue. Just a little over 2 acres. So again the square footage breakdown and the total office, 30%. Light industrial 70% and then 12,000 square foot increase. The original threshold of this was approximately 450,000 square feet so they are still with under that in the PUD but when we do a PUD we establish kind of with that PUD what we believe were the anticipated uses. So that would be the minor amendment. Again we are recommending, as did the Planning Commission recommended approval on that. So the site plan itself, the orientation. The front of it would be towards the Galpin Boulevard and then loading would be on the western side of the building. Again meets all the requirements for parking. This is the perspective. I do have the building materials here if you’re interested in seeing the specific details but it’s a highly articulated building and, with the stone veneer, arched copper, is the stucco on the remaining portion of the building. The majority portion of the building. Again a very nice looking building as all the other buildings within that development. Elevations on all, articulation on all four sides. Grading. And then the landscaping plan. So this is where the issue came up with the property owner to the north here just making sure there was enough buffer and also the view then that you would see of the loading docks so in the staff report, the gentleman who has a business to the north then came and met with city staff to review kind of what his concerns were and had a meeting with the City Forester. Came back with some specific recommendations and those are identified in condition number 29 so they have been added to your staff report so we’ve gone over that condition with both parties. The neighboring party and the applicant itself to make sure that that makes sense for what we’re trying to do there. I think the concern with the, with BIG is to make sure that, because there’s a parking lot there, that something would be viable if we tried to put some additional elements in there so we’ve got shrubs and some trees within there so both parties are happy with that condition. So with that we are recommending approval of the minor amendment and the site plan and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Ms. Aanenson, what’s on the north property line, what’s the setback there? Kate Aanenson: How close the building is? Mayor Furlong: Right. Property line. What space are we fitting the landscaping in? 9 Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 Kate Aanenson: I have to go back to the first slide, I’m sorry. Yeah, it’s to get the parking lot in front so it’s the parking. But they have windows on this side too so you’ve got the parking lot between. Mayor Furlong: Right. Kate Aanenson: So it’s probably about 60. Mayor Furlong: What about from the property line? Setback from the property line. Kate Aanenson: Oh it’s like 10 feet. Mayor Furlong: Northern property line. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So within that 10 feet that’s where they’re going to be planting. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And you said it was direction from, reading the Minutes the Planning Commission gave direction based upon the comments made at the public hearing and the result of the subsequent meetings was condition number 29. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: And you met with both the applicant and with the property owner to the north? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, because I think the concern was that they want to make sure that whatever we recommended there was viable to grow and so, yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? For staff at this point. Is the applicant here? Yes? No? Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: No? Kate Aanenson: No, I think they’re as long as we put the condition I think they were amenable to us moving forward with that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, that’s fine. With that a public hearing was held at the Planning Commission meeting. The only change of the specifics was condition 29 here. I don’t know if there’s anybody here that would like to provide comment with regard to that change but we’d certainly entertain that if there is. Sir. If you’d like to come up to the podium please. Peter Larson: Mr. Mayor, council. 10 Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Peter Larson: I’m Peter from Waytek. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Peter Larson: And I’d like to thank you guys for considering all the changes and everything. The only thing that we’re concerned about with the vegetation along that north side of where the loading dock would be is that may die and then if it needs to get replaced and what not and we just, you know Bob our president was talking about perhaps having a wall there. I don’t know if that’s feasible or not with space but just something to think about because you know with the snowplowing and all that, there’s a good chance that snow will hit that and could damage the trees. Kate Aanenson: I think we did evaluate that. Even with a wall when you’re pushing snow up against it sometimes either they also can have issues but I think we’ve had pretty good success with property owners managing their buildings when those issues arise. Peter Larson: Okay. Okay. Kate Aanenson: And if the trees do die then they may take the perspective of maybe a wall would be better. Peter Larson: Okay, great. Kate Aanenson: We get a little bit more height with some of the trees I think was the issue too. Peter Larson: Okay, yeah. Okay. Kate Aanenson: So I think we tried to identified, our forester did a species that would be probably more tolerant for that and be a little bit better but if there’s a problem you can certainly contact us in the future. Peter Larson: Okay. Okay. Alright, thank you. Have a good night. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. Appreciate that. With that we’ll bring it to council for comments and discussion and a motion. Any thoughts or comments? If I’m not mistaken BIG is located right across the street here so they’re expanding, or their business is expanding. They need more space and they’re choosing to stay here in town. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: That’s a wonderful statement for what they’re doing. Another 40,000 square foot building coming into town so, any other thoughts or comments? Mr. McDonald? Councilman McDonald: I had no comments. I was just going to go ahead and read the motion. Mayor Furlong: Please do. Councilman McDonald: Okay Mr. Mayor, council. The Chanhassen City Council approves the minor amendment in the Chanhassen West Business Park Planned Unit Development to increase the maximum 11 Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 building square footage within the development and the site plan review to construct a 39,240 square foot office/warehouse building subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Kate, I just have a question for you. You made reference to a building site just to the west of this that’s included in the original PUD, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And so did I read you, did I hear you correctly saying that if anybody chooses to build on that area all they have to come forward is a building permit? They must comply with certain maximum square footage in the PUD wouldn’t they? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That one’s already been calculated in there. They’ve gone through site plan review. The builder chose not to go forward at that time. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So it already has gone through the entitlement process so it’s factored in there but you’re right. You are correct in saying anything that would change it would have to come back before you but if it stays in that same format with just some minor change it would just get a building permit. Councilman Laufenburger: Perfect. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none without objection we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City approves the minor amendment to the Chanhassen West Business Park Planned Council 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 adoption of the attached 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.The developer shall provide detail of the bioretention areas is provided showing: 12 Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 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 to disturbance within the area tributary to the CB. This shall be shown on the plan sheet and included within the Sequence of Construction. 13 Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 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. 26.The engineer shall show the truck turning movements in the loading area on the plan. 14 Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 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 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Thank you. Let’s move now to item number E(6) which was request to be removed from our consent agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: E(6). LYMAN BOULEVARD WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT: 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. Mayor Furlong: Why don’t we start, sir if I can invite you back up here. If you could state your question and reason for, desire for discussion then we can perhaps go to a staff report. Mark Anderson: Sure. Mr. Mayor and council, my name is Mark Anderson with MFRA and I’m representing PPB Holdings. Landowner on the south side of Lyman Boulevard, adjacent to the proposed Lyman Boulevard improvements of which the mitigation plan and permit that you’re considering tonight is a part of. The concern with the proposed mitigation plan that. Mayor Furlong: Lay that right over the top of, there you go. Ms. Aanenson, could you pull those things out of his way if they’re in his way? Thank you. Thank you. Mark Anderson: So on the screen I’ve got a copy of the county highway plans and what’s shown here is PPB Holding property on the south side of Lyman Boulevard and part of the application that you’re considering tonight is impacts that the roadway is having on existing wetlands in this area and we’ve communicated with the County on a couple of occasions. My client and myself about our concern for a proposed 24 inch culvert crossing from north to south on Lyman Boulevard that then drains onto PPB Holding property and consequently flows across private property without an easement in the direction of the orange arrow. This is concerning for our client because one, the pipe size is being increased from an 18 inch to a 24 inch. As well the pipe is being extended into PPB property. They do have a small easement for the pipe itself but not for the conveyance of water in the direction of the orange arrow. Along with that the toe of slope, this is a low area on my client’s property and so the toe of slope is being extended into the property approximately 40 feet without any additional permanent easement so those are all things that we’re working through with the County to address so that they don’t negatively impact my client’s property. How it relates to the discussion tonight, since those items haven’t quite yet been 15