PC 2016 07 19
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 19, 2016
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Maryam Yusuf, Nancy
Madsen, Steve Weick, and Mark Randall
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Gina Sauer 2244 Lake Lucy Road
Lance Nevala 6719 Brenden Court
PUBLIC HEARING:
IDI EXPANSION: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 26,962 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
EXPANSION FOR PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP)
LOCATED AT 8303 AUDUBON ROAD. APPLICANT: EDEN TRACE CORP.
OWNER: EQUITABLE HOLDING CO. LLC.
Mark Undestad excused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest.
Aller: If we could have the staff report on that item please.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Planning Case 2016-18 is a site plan
review for IDI Distribution building expansion. The applicant is Eden Trace Corporation and the
owner is Equitable Holding Company LLC. It’s for a 26,962 square foot footprint expansion.
There’s actually a second floor portion of the building that’s office that’s another 8,555 square
feet. Property is located at 8303 Audubon Road. It’s on the east side of Audubon just south of
the bridge over the railroad. Twin Cities and Western Railroad tracks. The initial first phase of
this development was building the south half of the property. When that came in 2008 they
platted. Had a two lot subdivision. They final platted the southerly lot and outlotted the
northerly lot. As part of their expansion the building is proposed to extend across the existing
property line. When this item goes to council there will be final plat approval as well as a public
hearing to vacate the easement that runs along the common property line so as part of this review
however you don’t have to go into that. That’s a public hearing at City Council. The area, the
property is zoned industrial office park and the area is guided for office industrial development.
It’s surrounded on all 4 sides by other office industrial developments. Either office warehouses,
office or to the northwest we have the Auto Motorplex facility which is a big storage facility.
The proposed expansion would continue the existing architectural detailing of the building. It
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
will have exposed aggregate as the primary material with a reddish color and then a buff color
included in it. On the north end they’re including an additional entranceway which will have a
smaller canopy area that mimics the main entry which is on the west side of the building. Access
to the property is from Audubon which is a collector road in the City’s classification system so
it’s designed for carrying more and heavier traffic. Again the expansion of the building would
extend across the property line. It’s about 126 by 215 foot expansion on the building.
Additionally they will be expanding the parking area to the north and they’re showing a future
proof of parking because currently they don’t use the parking that they have and with the
expansion they don’t believe they’ll be using most of that either so city ordinance permits that.
If a problem arises in the future we can compel the owner to put that improvement in place. As
part of this project they will be putting in an infiltration facility for storm water purposes on the
northern property line. Northern portion of the property adjacent to the wetland to the northeast.
Should the future proof of parking be required they will, we’re requiring at this time that they
provide a concept plan for how they will address that but we’re not having them engineer it right
now so we believe it will be one of those systems that we’ve seen in other commercial
developments where there will be some type of underground cistern system that’s developed for
that but prior to the City issuing any building permits on that we’d want to see what their
intentions would be for that. There will be not a whole lot of grading on the site because it was
preliminarily graded before. They’re currently taking out some of the mounds of dirt that were
on the site under a separate administrative grading permit but the majority of the grading will
occur with the site plan. They are providing landscaping for the expansion area of the parking
lot. It complies with city ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan for the
expansion of the building subject to the conditions that we’ve outlined in the staff report and
adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any
questions.
Aller: Questions at this time from any of the commissioners? Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Bob who determines when proof of parking is required?
Generous: Well ultimately it would be the Community Development Director but if we see any
issues about overflow parking or parking being inadequate on the site then we will notify the
property owner.
Tietz: So that’s monitored by staff or?
Generous: Yeah, by the city staff.
Tietz: Or by tenants who complain that they can’t find places to park.
Generous: Well it’s like anything, the tenants can complain. We would investigate and if we
concur we would notify the property owner that they do need to make that improvement.
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
Aanenson: Chair if I could also add on that.
Aller: Please.
Aanenson: The other issue would be if there’s a change in use. Let’s say in 10-15 years. A use
that had a bigger demand so we wanted just to say that put in the development contract if there
was a change then it’d probably have to be an underground system to get the parking in there so
we want to make sure that we provided for a higher use in the site by showing that it can be
provided with the existing parking. With removal of the pond and putting parking in and an
underground system because we always have to plan for the future. Someone, a different use
could come in there.
Tietz: Okay does that carry with the sale of property then?
Aanenson: Correct, yep.
Tietz: So it’s a permanent requirement.
Aanenson: It stays with the property. The development contract stays with the property and
Alyson Fauske could talk to this. Typically if someone wants to get out of a development
contract they’d have to show that it meets the term. This would be one if someone wanted to
refinance it, this isn’t something we’d let go because this would stay with the building because
right now the use that’s in there doesn’t need that much parking which we have other similar
situations like that where we don’t want to over park but we also want to make sure if someone
did want to use it to a different level that we could accommodate it.
Tietz: Thanks.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: Bob I have a question about the previous site plan that was approved for a 55,200
square foot and then an expansion of the 16,272. So this expansion is quite a bit different. Is
that accomplished by including that outlot or what’s the criteria?
Generous: That’s exactly why they need to combine the two lots because they’re going a little
bit bigger. Administratively we can approve up to 10 percent increase above what was approved
so we could have done about 18,000 square foot expansion but since this is 26,000 footprint we
had to bring it back through the public hearing process.
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Any other questions at this time? Seeing none if the applicant wants to make a
presentation they can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward I’ll open up the public
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
hearing. Does anyone wish to come forward at this time to speak either for or against the item?
Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner
comments and discussion.
Weick: Seems like a good, it fits pretty well and I’m encouraged that businesses are growing.
Own a piece of property that can accept that growth seems pretty comfortably so. Big thumbs
up.
Aller: I think it looks like a good project. The building itself is well articulated and it fits the
scheme. The protection is there for future growth which is great and hopefully we’ll see
something and for this type of project we’re limited to whether or not because we’re only dealing
with preliminary site plan, whether or not it fits the requirements and I think it fits the
requirements so I think this is an easy call. Any additional comments? Hearing none I’ll
entertain a motion. If someone would like to make a motion.
Madsen: I’ll make a motion.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan for the
expansion of IDI Distribution Building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects dated June 6,
2016 and Sambatek dated July 1, 2016, subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the
Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Aller: Thank you Commissioner Yusuf seconds. We have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion?
Madsen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
approval of the Site Plan for the expansion of IDI Distribution Building, plans prepared by
Houwman Architects dated June 6, 2016 and Sambatek dated July 1, 2016, subject to the
following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
Building Official
1.The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing system.
2.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
3.Soil evaluation (geo-technical) report required.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
4.Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
5.Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are
submitted.
6.The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Engineering
1.Outlot A must be platted as a lot and combined with Lot 1, Block 1 prior to recording the site
plan agreement.
2.The applicant’s surveyor shall show all easements of record on the existing based on a recent
(within 90 days) title search of the parcel prior to recording the site plan agreement.
3.Prior to recording the site plan agreement, the applicant must vacate the drainage and utility
easement over the storm sewer they are removing.
4.Prior to recording the site plan agreement, the applicant shall submit a concept-level design for
stormwater that would meet the watershed district requirements if the additional parking spaces
were to be added at a future date.
5.Prior to a notice to proceed, the grading plan shall be revised to show the existing and proposed
elevation shots where the new curb line will tie-in to the existing curb.
6.The Emergency OverFlow (EOF) locations and elevations shall be added to the grading and
utility plan sheets.
7.The applicant must submit a soils report to the city prior to recording the site plan agreement.
8.During construction, the infiltration basin area shall be protected from compaction and
disturbance during construction.
9.The infiltration basin area shall not be excavated prior to substantial completion of the site work
and stabilization of the slopes.
10.After construction, the infiltration basin shall be tested by a third party for permeability to
ensure that it is functioning per the stormwater modeling submitted by the applicant. The
infiltration basin must pass the permeability testing prior to an issuance of a permanent
certificate of occupancy.
11.The applicant must submit a SWPPP and erosion control plan per City Code §19-145 for staff
review prior to recording the site plan agreement.
12.Prior to recording the site plan agreement, escrow shall be provided to the city for construction
of erosion and sediment control measures and the infiltration basin.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
13.The applicant shall obtain permits from all appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with
their conditions of approval.
14.The parking lot plan shall be revised to meet the Chanhassen City Code requirements for driving
aisles for 90 parking spaces or to use angled parking prior to a notice to proceed.
15.The plan must follow all applicable State and Federal guidelines and accessibility for the
parking lot and sidewalk construction.
16.Water main to be installed for this project shall be privately owned and maintained during and
after construction.
17.Private water main shall be installed per the most current version of the City of Chanhassen
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, which shall be included in the construction
specification documents for this project prior to a notice to proceed.
18.Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA and the
Dept. of Health prior to a notice to proceed.
19.Prior to a notice to proceed, the applicant’s engineer shall verify whether there is a conflict at the
storm sewer/water main crossing for the relocated hydrant on the east side of the building, and
alter the plans if necessary to remediate the conflict.
20.City and Metropolitan Council SAC and WAC charges will be collected with the building
permit at the units determined by the Metropolitan Council and the rate effective at the date of
permit.
Natural Resources
1.All existing trees to the north and west of the parking lot expansion shall be protected by tree
preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed and approved by the city prior to any
grading.
Planning
1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary securities
required by it.
2.Dumpsters, if placed outside, shall be properly screened.
Water Resources
1.The applicant shall apply for and receive a General Permit Authorization to Discharge
Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit) prior to the issuance of a
building permit or any earth disturbing activities.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
2.The applicant must demonstrate that they can achieve the 90% TSS and 60% TP removal
using removal efficiencies recognized as industry standards or otherwise justifiable prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3.The applicant must provide the water quality modeling, in both a summary and the actual
electronic model used to the city for review and approval prior to issuance of the building
permit.
4.The plan submittal must also include a detail of the infiltration basin consistent with the
Minnesota Stormwater Manual prior to issuance of a building permit. This detail must
include any soils corrections, basin protections and planting plans and schedules in addition
to other necessary design elements.
5.The infiltration basin must be placed within a drainage and utility easement.
6.The applicant shall prepare an operations and maintenance manual specific to the infiltration
feature including anticipated inspection schedule, routine maintenance and frequency of said
maintenance and supply a copy to the city prior to issuance of a building permit.
7.The two outfalls into the infiltration basin shall be combined into one and a sump manhole
with a minimum depth of 4 feet shall be constructed at the last CBMH prior to discharging
towards the infiltration basin.
8.The pipe shall come out of the last structure into the infiltration basin no stepper than one
percent (1.0%). The outfall shall be short of the basin and shall flow through a grass channel
to allow for energy dissipation and additional pretreatment.
9.The applicant shall prepare a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit
to the city for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. No earth disturbing activities
may occur until an approved SWPPP is developed. This SWPPP shall be a standalone
document consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit and shall contain all required
elements as listed in Parts III and IV of the permit.
10.The plan must eliminate the two stalls that encroach into the secondary setback from the
wetland buffer.
11.Monuments indicating the buffer boundary will need to be shown on the plan and placed
concurrent with the erosion prevention and sediment control practices.
12.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District) and comply with their conditions
of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Aller: Again if you want to follow this item to it’s final action or for further action, there will be
a public hearing again at the City Council meeting on July 25, 2016. And we turn to item 2 on
the agenda.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
PUBLIC HEARING:
ND
PINEHURST 2 ADDITION: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPERTY ZONED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 6681 AMBERWOOD LANE,
ND
LOT 14, 15 & 16, BLOCK 1, PINEHURST 2 ADDITION. APPLICANT: KROISS
DEVELOPMENT, INC. OWNER: MIKE & DEB ANDERSON.
nd
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller. Planning Case 2016-19 is a replat of Pinehurst 2
th
Addition for Lots 14, 15 and 16. This item will go to the City Council on July 25. The
applicant is Kroiss Development Inc. and the owners are Mike and Deb Anderson. This property
is located at the end of a private street which is off of Pinehurst Drive which is north of Lake
Lucy Road and West of Galpin Boulevard. The property owners bought the 3 lots and then they
combined them as a zoning lot so they could put the swimming pool in place. What you see in
the lower part of the picture. Which is in this location in the subdivision. However since then
they’ve come in and removed the pool and they want to go back to the original plat that was in
place. City ordinance hasn’t been changed since they did this and so they’re just replatting it in
the original configuration that it was. All the lots exceed half an acre in size. As part of their,
this process we did request that they show us their proposed building pads on the site to make
sure that they were, could fit in there and they can meet all the requirements. I did have one call
today from a resident who lives across Lake Lucy Road and his concern was that these trees on
the hill would come out and based on their plans and what they’re proposing there should be no
alteration to that. And again, and then we had to look at also Lots 16 for compliance with all the
hard cover requirements and setbacks and at least these plans currently comply with those
nd
requirements. So staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat for Pinehurst 2
Addition subject to conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Any questions based on the report?
Weick: The only clarification.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: It looks like the, because it’s a private street it’s included in the property or it’s not
included in the property? I’m a little confused by what’s netted out.
Generous: The lot area is excluded from the buildable and that’s why we have a net area.
Weick: Okay.
Generous: But it’s part of the lot and so there’s an easement over it providing access to the other
properties.
Weick: You don’t have to include it in a hard cover calculation?
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
Generous: No we excluded all of that from the hard cover for that lot. That’s why we used the
net number though so. I should point out all the infrastructure improvements were installed with
nd
the 2 Addition so there’s no improvements that will be required for this except for the actual
buildings.
Aller: And when the actual buildings come in they’ll come in with their building plans. They’ll
move forward in an appropriate fashion and will be additional protections.
Generous: Right.
Aller: Because again this is a preliminary plat that we’re looking at so. Any additional questions
based on the report?
Tietz: Chairman?
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Bob I noticed on Lot 15, I think it was referenced in the write up that there was at least in
the concept plan there was a 9 foot retaining wall but on the site plan it looks like it’s, one corner
is 11 feet. Obviously it doesn’t impact the engineering that would have to be done for that and
this is probably just a concept plan but is that accurate or am I reading it wrong? It’s on the
development.
Generous: On the house plan.
Tietz: On the proposed house plan or the concept house plan.
Generous: I believe that’s accurate for the future but they were talking about the existing
conditions.
Tietz: The 9 foot in the existing condition and potentially up to 11 foot.
Generous: Under the proposed plan.
Tietz: Yeah, okay.
Generous: And the configuration would change slightly. They would have to come in for a
separate building permit for a retaining walls over 4 feet so we will also look at it as part of that.
Tietz: Sure, thanks.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
Weick: And am I, there’s a reference on page 3 of 6 to a Lot 17. It looks like the 3 lots are
numbered 14, 15, 16.
Generous: Yes. 17 would be just to the east of this site.
Weick: So is there a house?
Generous: It’s vacate right now. You can see it on the overhead. It’s this parcel right here.
Weick: But that’s not, I thought there were only 3 lots.
nd
Generous: There’s only 3 lots in this plat but that one was part of the 2 Addition.
Weick: So it will just remain an empty. It’s not part of the.
Aanenson: Yeah to be clear, there’s 3 lots that were combined into one.
Weick: Yeah, okay.
Aanenson: So now we’re going back to 3.
Weick: Oh so we’ just looking at those 3 lots.
Aanenson: Right the fourth one’s still there was never combined.
Weick: And we can build on that.
Aanenson: That one’s fine, yeah.
Generous: Someone can come in separately for that one.
Weick: Got it.
Aller: Okay. Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: One more. Bob there’s on page 3 of 6, the same one that Steve referenced there’s a storm
sewer that lies west side of proposed Lot 15 and on this small scale I could not find that or read
that. Maybe my sight isn’t very good. That’s going to be a private storm line? And where does
it empty?
Fauske: Commissioner Tietz I’d be happy to address that. When staff saw the proposal for this
subdivision, we took a look at that storm sewer and it doesn’t serve a purpose except for the
drainage on that property so that’s the tipping point where staff takes a look and says is, does it
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
make sense to keep this public when it’s only serving one lot so that’s why we’re recommending
that it be privately owned and maintained. From the time that the public improvement from that,
when that improvement was installed it appears that the property owner had installed some
additional storm sewer to connect to that line which is reasonable and to answer your question is
it discharges to the, it would be the southeast. Just near that retaining wall. It doesn’t show
really well up there.
Tietz: Is there also an easement then for that storm line?
Fauske: There’s an easement in there but we wanted to memorialize that it would be a private
storm system in the staff report which would then be recorded against the property so that it
would be very clear that even though it’s within an easement it would not be publicly owned and
maintained.
Tietz: So it’s piped to another.
Fauske: It’s piped to the property. It discharges within the property. It carries drainage only
from the property. It doesn’t carry drainage from the street so that’s why when we look at that
determination, I believe it looks like it’s intended to convey storm water runoff. Surface runoff
before discharging over the wall.
Tietz: Okay.
Fauske: I don’t know if I have a better. Oh my apologies. It discharges just before the wall.
Tietz: So that’s not a conflict in the sale of that parcel or impedes the sale of the parcel?
Fauske: In staff’s opinion no. Like I said we looked at this, and this is a good question and good
conversation as far as when do we want a utility to be public. When we look at a public need it’s
when it serves more than one property and in this case that particular storm sewer system only
services Lot 15 and so to include it in the public infrastructure doesn’t seem warranted when it
only is to the benefit of one property so that’s why with this subdivision we wanted to clean that
up and indicate that it would be a private system with it only being essentially to service Lot 15.
Tietz: Okay. Okay thank you.
Aller: Additional questions. Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward and give
a presentation that’d be great. If you could state your name and address for the record sir.
Todd Simning: Todd Simning, Kroiss Development. The only, on page 5 of 6 under
recommendations, number 4. That’s the only one that I would like to actually strike from the
recommendations. The two items on there. Final grading plan. We are actually adhering to
what was originally approved and so for us to go back and submit something that’s already of
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
record seems a little redundant. And then also soils report, number one. The City actually has
copies of all the original soils reports from Braun Engineering that were done on the property as
well as I submitted a soils reports from the pool excavation from the engineer on site and so
that’s the only thing that seems to be just, to say that we have to have a final grading plan and
soils report submitted before building permit’s issued seems to be a little out of context and I
actually had emailed Mr. Generous and let him know that pursuant to us digging the foundations
that we’d actually have a soils engineer out there guaranteeing the soils and so to have them
beforehand just seems a little redundant and just wanted to strike that recommendation from the
staff report and I know Bob had sent that onto the engineering department.
Aller: Alright we’ll have a discussion on that and see what we come up with.
Todd Simning: Okay.
Aller: Thank you very much. Any other individuals wishing to come forward. We’ll have the
public hearing portion of the item. We’ll open up the matter for individuals to speak either for or
against the item before us tonight so if you’d like to come forward you can do so. State your
name and address for the record and let us know how you feel about the project.
Gina Sauer: My name is Gina Sauer. My address is 2244 Lake Lucy Road in Chanhassen.
Aller: Welcome.
Gina Sauer: Thank you and thank you for the opportunity. I’m not really here to oppose or be in
favor of. I’m mostly here just to memorialize a concern and make sure that it’s on the City’s
radar screen. My husband Troy Brader and I as I said own the property at 2244. As the report
indicates the majority of the drainage from the lots in question go to the southwest and that
would be where our property is so we just wanted to raise the question or the concern that with
respect to the short term, what I understand from the report will be the deconstruction or the
taking down of the existing retaining walls and then the rebuilding of new retaining walls. That
that take into account drainage considerations. Specifically any drainage from those lots flows
into the wetland which is indicated in the report as well. Into a creek which the City has
historically referred to as a riverine. Onto our property. Into a drainage system on our property.
Then goes under our property. Under Lake Lucy Road and across Lake Lucy Road. Some of
you in the room may recall about 11 years ago over Labor Day weekend during the initial
construction phase of this addition there was a very, very large amount of water that left the
property. Came down into the riverine taking with it huge amounts of soil, construction material
and felled trees that had been down during the construction process. They entered the riverine.
Clogged the riverine and we experienced substantial flooding on our property. In some places it
was waste deep in our yard. I know there were other homes affected during that storm as well.
So again our concern that we just want to raise and put on your radar screen is two fold. One is
during the initial construction process, that dangerous period when retaining walls are down and
they haven’t been replaced yet. And then long term as well. While there have certainly been
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
safeguards put in place as a result of the catastrophe 11 years ago. We have additional drainage.
Big holes in our yard now where overflow water can go but long term there has been, if you ever
go back there, there has been a considerable amount of erosion over the years as a result of the
amount of trees that came down and the grading and such that was done initially so again our
concerns. We’re just looking for some assurances that during the construction phase our
property will be protected and we won’t have another incident where we have incredible
amounts of water and soil and debris entering our yard. And then long term that whatever
retaining walls are built and whatever grading is done, that it be adequate to control continuing
erosion and again so that’s not an issue on our property. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Would anyone else like to come forward at this point in time? Come on up.
Give your name and address for the record please and let us know how you feel about the project
sir.
Lance Nevala: Yep, so thank you. I am Lance Nevala. I live at 6719 Brenden Court which is
just to the back, west side of the property.
Aller: Welcome sir.
Lance Nevala: My concern, well not really concern. My question is, we sort of have a little bit
of a building boom going on in terms of subdivisions along Lake Lucy Road and that’s actually a
great thing but the aesthetics of that hill are an important part of the neighborhood and so I just
want to make sure there’s protection or some thought into retaining that aesthetics as you come
around the road there because that is an important part of our neighborhood.
Aller: Great.
Lance Nevala: So that’s my input.
Aller: Thank you sir.
Lance Nevala: Thanks.
Aller: So if we could address some of those issues that have been raised that would be great.
Alyson could you address the drainage issues?
Fauske: I’d be happy to and I believe I spoke to Ms. Sauer during that storm event. Just to bring
the Planning Commission up to date with what historically happened through here. When the
rain events came through of Labor Day of 2005 the Pinehurst development was under
construction. It’s a very vulnerable time. Even with erosion control practices, the amount of
rain that fell within that time period was in excess of 6 inches over 24 hours and I believe we had
back to back events so it was an extremely high volume of rain during construction so to respond
to Ms. Sauer’s concerns with erosion, we’re certainly in a position with this subdivision where
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
the infrastructure’s in place so it’s not like we have a large site that’s mass graded for utility
installation and street construction. We’re at a point where the utilities have been extended to
these properties and the erosion control that will be required with the building permit, we inspect
it for the building of the home solely so we won’t have that large amount of dirt exposed like
there was with the subdivision and we’ll certainly have that inspected. With regards to the long
term drainage in the area, the proposal is to maintain the existing drainage patterns which are
fairly straight forward with this type of, these type of lots. They’re called walkout lots where
essentially they drain, the front yard would drain towards the private street and the back yard
would drain to the back and over by the retaining wall area there so they would be maintaining
the current drainage patterns through there. Certainly the, I believe the building survey that was
submitted for the one parcel showed some drainage conveyance going along the retaining wall so
that it wouldn’t be pouring over the retaining wall. Staff will certainly take a look at the ravine
and see if there’s any erosion that needs to be addressed in that situation. But as I mentioned it
was a very large event during the time of construction and what they’re proposing here is more
of the building permit and we’ll have erosion control practices in place throughout construction.
And just to piggy back on that comment then. I apologize I didn’t catch your last name but the
gentleman from Brenden Court who was looking at the aesthetics of the hill, from what has been
provided to staff and looking at the retaining wall that’s currently in place, the area that would be
disturbed would be to the north and the west of the wall and so there’s, that’s kind of the cutoff
for where they’ve identified any improvements to these properties as far as the building pads and
so on. I’m not aware of any easements in place along the back part there but certainly there’s a
large topographical drop from the back yards to the bottom of that wall where I can’t guarantee
but I would be surprised if there was any mass clearing of trees or anything through the
individual properties.
Aller: Great, thank you for answering those. Any additional individuals wishing to come
forward at this time? Sir, come up. The applicant will close forward. Before you do that sir I’m
going to close the public hearing and if you’d like to go ahead and address some of the issues
that’d be great.
Todd Simning: Yeah I just actually wanted to say there will be no trees taken down on that back
hill. I mean the aesthetics of the lot is what the buyers are actually buying and from the existing
retaining wall nothing will be taken down. A new retaining wall will be built just for a
swimming pool but from the existing retaining wall to the south I guess it would be, gosh there’d
be nothing taken down at all so the aesthetics will be there and I think I just wanted another to
say that. And yes there were 2 events. 100 year events in 2005 and I know I was out there with
a Bobcat cleaning up.
Gina Sauer: Yep.
Todd Simning: Which was not fun and so we’ll be very cognizant of that.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
Aller: Thank you. Okay the public hearing has been closed so any comments or discussion from
the commissioners. Commissioner Weick.
Weick: Should we get clarification on recommendation number 4?
Aller: Yes.
Weick: Can we do that? Whether that can be.
Aanenson: Sure, typically I apologize that we didn’t get the answer for you from the building
department. We could have had that answer but typically when the subdivision is going forward
we do get those. I guess what I’d like to do, this has to go to the City Council but we would look
at that and see if it can be struck before it goes to City Council. If the reports have been
submitted for the pool, which does make sense, then we’re probably fine and typically they
would, if they’re going outside we typically do it on a building pad. Outside the range of that
existing building pad they would submit new ones but I’d like to get clarification on that from
the building officials so we would commit to the developer that we would work on that when this
item moves forward to City Council if that’s okay.
Aller: That sounds like the safe way to go. Any additional comments at this point in time.
Alright. To me it looks like there are adequate protections that are taking place and the plans as
we see them and as we know them don’t look like it would be anywhere near the movement or
soils movement or grading that has been brought to our attention as a concern. Although it
obviously is in the applicant’s mind as well and it will be on the City’s mind as we move forward
with these building permits and on each individual building permit there’ll be a new look at just
where the property is and the timing of the construction and the building permit. Whether it’s
granted or not would go forward at that point in time so.
Weick: I’m encouraged that we’re putting houses on lots that seem to fit this time. I know that
maybe in past hearings I have disagreed with sizes and things like that so this one seems very
straight forward. Plenty of room. Very little movement of land and trees. I think that’s a good
thing.
Aller: Because it was already done.
Weick: What’s that?
Aller: It was already done.
Weick: That’s right. Those are the kinds we like.
Aller: Hearing no additional comments or concerns, questions, I’ll entertain a motion. Would
someone like to make one?
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
Undestad: I’ll make a motion. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
nd
Council approve the preliminary plat for Pinehurst 2 Addition subject to the conditions of
approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion by Commissioner Undestad. Do I have a second?
Weick: Second.
Aller: Seconded by Commissioner Weick. Any further discussion?
Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
nd
Council approve the preliminary plat for Pinehurst 2 Addition subject to the following
conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1.Provide a 1:200 “clean” plat drawing.
2.Demolition permits are required for the removal of any existing structures.
3.Buildings may be required to be designed by an architect and/or engineer as determined by
the Building Official.
4.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits can be issued.
5.Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional
engineer.
6.Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
7.The applicant and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
8.Lot 15 shall be required to have three trees planted in the front yard.
9.Lot 16 shall be required to have two trees planted in the front yard.
10.All existing easements shall remain in place.
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
nd
11.Construction on Lots 15 and 16 shall follow the approved grading plan for Pinehurst 2
when applying for building permits.
12.Existing storm sewer on the west side of proposed Lot 15, Block 1 shall be owned and
maintained by the property owner.
13.The landscaping along Amberwood Lane must be partially removed to facilitate driveway
access to Lots 15 and 16, Block 1 prior to issuing a building permit.
14.Landscaping must be moved or removed to prevent landscaping features from crossing lot
lines prior to recording the final plat.
15.The applicant is required to obtain all necessary permits for construction of retaining walls,
and will be required to submit to the standard review process and fees in place at the time of
permit.
16.The City does not have the responsibility to maintain retaining walls on private property.
17.Partial hook-up fees are due with the recording final plat at the rate in effect at that time.
18.The remaining water and sanitary hook-up fees will be due with the building permit. The
fees will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 21, 2016 as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aanenson: Thank you Chair, members of the Planning Commission. The City Council update.
They did approve the Foxwood subdivision. We’re still waiting for the watershed district. They
are going to go for final plat so they can continue to work on the site. We’re anticipating the
watershed district approval and the wetland alteration permit to fall 2 weeks behind the final plat
th
and the final plat is going the 25 so next Monday. And then they’ll be on for the council 2
weeks after that. So that’s moving along. Bandimere Park was approved and the City Council
agenda coming up with the grading that’s involved there, they will be securing an encroachment
agreement from the Pipeline so they can be doing the grading for the activity for the hockey rink
and the like so. They won’t be out there grading right away. We’re waiting for some of that to
get in place. And then Arbor Glen, you had seen that over a year ago. Actually to the date pretty
much and so that did get final approval. If you remember Arbor Glen was at the corner of
Lyman and 101 so it’s kind of nice it ties in with that project. It’d be nice to get the continuous
trail going down 101 so there’s benefits to that. That’s due, the issue there was getting the storm
water, kind of back circling back to what our original recommendation was so needed to get
watershed district approval on that. Then that will come forward with final plat so it’s kind of
nice if we’re going to be in that area and disturbing, it’d be nice to get the trail done all at once
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
and some of the overall grading and bouncing so those are the items that went, that you saw that
went to the City Council. Next item would be your future agendas. There’s some changes if you
want to pull that out. We’ll kind of go through that. We do have our, oh first National Night
Out. So we’re not meeting that night so we hope you are all partying in your neighborhood.
th
Getting to know your neighbors. August 16 we do have a wetland alteration permit. That is the
one for Fox, go ahead.
Generous: No I just.
Aanenson: It’s Foxwoods.
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: Yeah August, oh we already jumped over that. And then the ordinance for drop
th
homes which we’ll talking about in a minute. So the 10, I did skip over that. The joint
commission tour. So the notices will go out on that. We’re planning on sending those out by the
st
end of the week. We don’t want to get too far ahead. Or Maybe it was August 1 but we’ll be
meeting here at 5:45. It will be the Environmental Commission. You’ll be getting an agenda on
that and then if you can’t make it to let me know. 5:45 and we’ll have the Planning Commission,
the Senior Commission, the Park and Recreation Commission and Environmental Commission
so we invited the seniors to come along too. So our 4 items that we’re going to look at, we’ll end
up back here for just kind of visiting. Some social time outside here. Snacks. We’ll bring water
with us. Dress appropriately for the weather but we’ll be doing a tour of the downtown kind of
talking about Market. Improvement potential for there. Great Plains. You know looking at that.
We’ve talked about traffic modeling in this area. What’s happening downtown. Walkability.
Some of those things. Some of the components of downtown. We’re going to go up onto
Powers Boulevard and Terry Jeffery just finished a spent lime project up there so yeah those of
you that have the engineering interest we’ll look at that project. And then we’re going to go
down to 101 and do the roundabout and talk about the Moon Valley and then we’ll also look at
the lifestyle center. Kind of talk about that a little bit more. Some of the issues there that are
kind of parochial to each group. You know the public space. Private space. The grading.
Preservation areas. That sort of thing. So having said that we were anticipating the Avienda, the
th
lifestyle center coming on September 6. That was the original program. So I found out today
th
that they’re going to move that back a month so your meeting on September 6 will include a
treatment plant, Maryam I’m just saying. West water treatment plant so that’d be the site plan
approval. So the discussion on how it’s engineered and the like, that would have to be discussed
within the engineering department but you’ll be looking at the site plan approval for that. And
then also I think we’ll have some other code amendments on for that meeting or the meeting
before. We’ve got a couple other things we want to clean up. For example the cul-de-sac length
clarified. We want to get, I think that came up with this one with the temporary. What does
temporary mean and how do we address that and why would it be temporary. Those kind of
things. Port-a-Potties. What else did we have on there MacKenzie?
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
Walters: I think the only ones that are going to be ready to go by then are going to be the cul-de-
sac and the Port-a-Potties unless I get a break this week and can get the multiple conditional use
one done but it’s.
Aanenson: Yeah we’ve got quite a few that are we just kind of put an abeyance and then we
want to get addressed so we’re going to try to get those through here yet this fall. So that’s what
we have right now for projects coming forward. There are some out there if you up on the top.
If you flip over on the first page there’s things that are out there. We’ve talked about potential
redevelopment of apartments in the downtown so from the very first page, if you flip it over it
says future items. Possible future items. Those are ones that are kind of floating out there. My
metaphor would be there’s a lot of plates spinning. We try to work on something. Engineering
gives them comments. Then they go work on that. Or planning gives them comments so there’s
still the potential for the redevelopment downtown of apartment buildings. We’re plugging away
on the Comprehensive Plan. The park and rec’s go their consultant onboard. They’re putting
together a committee if anybody’s interested on that. Being appointed to the task force for the
park study. And then Paul’s already been doing some work on the water plan so that’s coming
along. 7 and 41 they’re going to ask for another extension. There’s a commercial use there right
across from the middle school. Then we’ve got some potential code amendments there. The
Arboretum Boulevard office park potential. Not sure where that one’s sitting. The wetland
buffer ordinance. Again another code amendment. The Eidsness one was on Big Woods. That
was kind of the north of that. That was another one where we really wanted to look at how those
properties work together. It’s not just look at one piece and then you have other properties that
are, would be left out if we wanted to extend the road in the future so. And two other ones. The
Moon Valley one was going to come in and they’ve been working on some other issues and I’m
not sure if we have a date on that yet but we’re going to go down and look at that. We’ll explain
to you some of the complexities of that and then you know as we looked at the 61 corridor.
Looking at the, I’m trying to think of the right word. Restoration plan for the gravel pit and
revegetation is what they’re working on that so we’ll see how that works. And then finally 8601
Great Plains. That is where the existing farm is so, the Klingelhutz farm so I think we’ve been
working and trying to figure out the shoreland regs. It’s a very complex piece of property
between engineering and that. I think we’ve got from the planning and engineering side of the
project now. We just need to work with the underlying property owners. And then one other
change that you’ll be seeing too and it’s going to come up on your agenda. We’re not sure, we’re
waiting for a traffic study. We approved Mission Hills. I don’t know if I mentioned this or not.
Senior housing and so now they’ve actually modified their model. They’re actually going to
introduce a daycare into the model itself so looking at the plans they’re actually bringing the
building, compressing the building in a little bit and going slightly more vertical but for us when
we looked at the traffic at that intersection, and maybe Alyson wants to comment. Our biggest
concern was that you know with the senior housing you don’t have the same peak hours of
people coming and going. But with the daycare you’re going to have some of that so before we
would consider that because it is an amendment to the PUD so you’d take another glance at that
and make sure that we’ve done our, a good review on that. We want to see a traffic study so
that’s what’s holding that up and as soon as they get that done they’re ready to resubmit and
19
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
come back through the process. They’ve laid that all out but they’ve got one like that in St.
Louis Park and it’s pretty successful so we think it’s a great combination there so. So those are
the things that are out there kind of spinning and we’re trying to land them here but for sure
you’ll have a couple of big meetings coming up certainly on the lifestyle center anyway so.
That’s all I had for agenda items.
thth
Aller: Does that look like it will go the 4 or the 18?
th
Aanenson: It could potentially come in on the 6. The Mission Hills senior housing, yeah. You
know originally I didn’t want to put too, if you recall the last time we did that PUD we had a
couple hundred people in here so we always try to not have too much on it so we’re not over
packing the room and you guys can get out of here so we’ll see now that the lifestyle center
moved on that we might have that slot open if they can get their stuff in. So I think the
engineering as far as sewer and water availability to the site, I think that’s pretty much done.
The civil’s aren’t going to change that much so I don’t know how much, I don’t want to speak
for engineering but I think the biggest issue is just reviewing the traffic and everybody being
comfortable with that so. And then you did see the new business signs that were included in
there. There are some new businesses. A lot of them are infill. Moving to other places like
Mainstream Boutique. That sort of thing. Bethel Fellowship was the senior daycare so
MacKenzie’s getting the hang of doing those sign permits so it’s all good. So unless you had
any questions on that, that’s the status of that so. Again you will be getting a notice from us
regarding the meeting. I just keep telling you it’s 5:45. We’re going to depart or try to get here
so we can depart at 6:00. Get back before it gets dark and then we’ll have some snacks or
something when we get back but I will trust you all to dress for the weather to get in and out of a
van.
Aller: All those different sites sounds pretty ambitious on the agenda. For the number of sites
and the number of.
Aanenson: Yeah I think it will be okay. I think too you know we’ll look at a lot of stuff and talk
and maybe when we come back we can have more of a deep dive when we’re all kind of in a
group because it’s kind of hard when you have, when we’re all trying to gather together but if we
can just look at the site and make some notes of the high points and then we’ll come back and
maybe talk in a little bit more depth when we get back if that makes sense. We’re ambitious
people so. So with that Chairman, that’s all I had. We can adjourn the meeting and just go into
open discussion.
Aller: So we’re done with that. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Yusuf moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at
7:50 p.m.
20
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 19, 2016
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
21