Loading...
PC 2018 11 20 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT:Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT:Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; and Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Pete Moreau 411 Jefferson Avenue So, Edina Brady Busselman 12800 Whitewater, Minnetonka55434 Ed Farr 7710 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie PUBLIC HEARING: RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM) AND AMEND FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION ORDINANCE. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. This is a continuation of the work session that we had back in th October 16 just to talking about why the City is going through this process. Is that more helpful? There we go. So this is a public hearing and then this item will be followed up to the th City Council on December 10. We are in a short timeline to adopt to make sure that we meet the guidelines for staying within the requirements of the flood mapping. So again why are we doing this? Carver County is updating the FEMA maps. The City update and theirfloodplain stth ordinance have to be adopted by December 21 so this will go to the City Council on the 10 and then we have publication requirements and then there’ll be, we want to stay in the floodplain mapping. So the issues are now that there’s better data which means some properties that were not previously shown in the floodplain are now in and some properties that were previously shown in the floodplain are now out. So there’s a known mapping error on Bluff Creek and then the existing floodplain ordinance does not sync well up with the model ordinance so those are some of the ongoing issues which you are not the body to resolve that. Your authority then here tonight is to adopt the ordinance itself. So the federal regulated and/or insurance lenders must requite floodplain insurance for those properties in the flood areas and any portion of the house or attached deck or the structure is required so that’s, while your house may not be in there, we get this request from mortgage holders all the time. If part of their property’s in the floodplain but the way this requires is if any structure which would be a deck attached to the house or the like would be a part of that. So the new map versus the old map. So our flood maps go back to Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 the 70’s so we’ve got much better data so the new maps based on better data reflect the changes in the water behavior due to changing weather patterns and development. And the new flood maps more accurately depict the actual location of the floodplain area and then some houses have been added or removed from the area itself. So again we know there’s an issue on the Bluff Creek. These new maps show that the flood area and the elevations do not correspond to the creek’s base flood elevation. These residents may receive letters from their mortgage holder and then they would have to go through the process with their mortgage holder to resolve it again. That’s not your issue to resolve. Your role here tonight and that is to adopt the ordinance for the new floodplain. Againhomeowners can appeal through that determination. So many banks use outside firms to determine flood insurance requirements and they have 45 days if they’re outside of the area. If homeowners believe they were incorrectly included they can get their LOMA or either shown as using the GIS or some other data points to work through those surveys. Again that’s the responsibility of the property owner. The City would be willing to help if we’ve got technical information here such as our GIS information wherewe can help them with some data points that they can provide to their mortgage holder but otherwise it’s up to the bank to determine that. And just so you know we went the extra, and we mailed to 16 properties that we believe are mistakenly in the area so that’s up to them again to work with their mortgage holder on that. Aller: Just to break in. The City has no responsibility with regard to that? That was something that you did that was above and beyond? Aanenson: That’s correct, yep. So there was about 130 properties that we identified using the engineering department’s GIS specialist and then of those we kind of narrowed it down to the 16 affected properties. Some are in, some are out so we let them know and then they can work with their, those letters haven’t gone out. Once we adopt it they’ll be getting those letters but then they can work with that. Again we’re here to assess with some technical information but they would have to work on that their own. So in adopting, yes. Tietz: Just to follow up on Andrew’s question. If they were out, if they are now outside would it affect their insurance? Aanenson: They may be able to drop it. Tietz: So they have to notify their banker as well? Aanenson: Yes, that’s correct. Tietz: Not just the folks that… Aanenson: And I’m not sure the mortgage holder may not notify them so if they get notified then they could work through that themselves. If the mortgage holder doesn’t. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Tietz: It goes both ways. Aanenson: Correct, right. Yeah. So again the goal here is to adopt the new language. So there’s some terminology that we’ve added so there’s 2 sections of the city code. One is in definition so that’s Chapter 1 and that’s the model ordinance that we’ve attached so that would providing better definitions. And then Chapter 20 where we have the floodplain ordinance. We have an ordinance in place already when we review housing. It has to be so many feet above the lowest level. Opening has to be so many feet above the ordinary high water mark so this is clarifying some of those terminologies. So in adopting the ordinance we’ve met their qualifications. We did attach the most recent letter we got. We had the DNR review our draft ordinance. They just had a couple of recommended changes which we have made to the ordinance so our ordinance is in compliance. Again we’re kind of on this short timeline here so our ordinance does meet the requirements of the DNR so then the goal then would be after you hold the public hearing that we would sendthis onto the City Council for their recommended approval of the ordinance itself and then we would have it sent up to DNR. We’d have to officially publish the ordinance and then send it up to them. Again so the original 1979 ordinance is similar structure to this model ordinance but then we’re just modifying some of the terminology and incorporating into the city code and then we are recommending that the City adopt the modified version of the DNR. Again they give a model ordinance. We pick those things that are most appropriate for Chanhassen. Some of the terminology will be modified to make it consistent with the terminology that we use and then we did receive the conditional approval from the DNR as I mentioned. So again the key changes are the critical facilities. Again these are recommendations from ’79 to the current recommendations from the DNR. Critical facilities and just for the Planning Commission’s information before I read all these, this is also for anybody that’s watching this that may want to know kind of what this, how this affects them. So critical facilities. There are special provisions have been adopted regulating the placement of utilities in the floodplain. Sometimes that we’ve got lift stations that are close in proximity. Those sort of things. Again regulatory flood protection elevation increased from 2 feet. As I mentioned before we’ve used 2 feet. Not to say now 3 feet above the ordinary water mark. And then new performance standards for permitted and conditional uses. We have a process to go through conditional uses. We’ve actually processed subdivisions where they can ask for clarification or modification if they believe that the floodplain is in error or modify just portions of that. So there’s a process then for determining flood way, flood fringe and general floodplain which we have done on specific subdivisions and stricter provisions of regulating non-conforming uses within the floodplain. So if you recall when we did the 212 or the 61 corridor study there are some structures along that that are in the floodplain and so we’ve addressed those as we move forward with those non-conforming structures. We believe that when those properties are redeveloped that those will change. So with that I would recommend that you would hold a public hearing and then we are recommending that you adopt the ordinance as we have outlined in the staff report and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 th Aller: Okay I’m remembering that we had the work session October 16 and the materials which are well presented, are there any questions for staff at this time? Weick: I have one. Aller: Sure, Commissioner Weick. Weick: You mentioned before that a homeowner can appeal, who do they appeal to? It’s not to the City is it? Aanenson: No, it’s through their mortgage. Weick: That’s what I thought, okay. Aanenson: Yep. Weick: I just wanted to clarify that. And then also I think it’s just a typo right. An f-r-i-m is the same as an F-i-r-m in the report. Aanenson: Yes, yes. Weick: Because it kind of varies. Aanenson: Yes, yes. Weick: Okay. Just wanted to put that on the record. Aanenson: Thank you yeah. So along that same point so we, there were 6 that we thought possibly added 6 homes that were property that were added and then again like I said 10 that were possibly could be removed but that’s up to them. Again this gives them the opportunity to go through that federal program so a better rate for flood insurance. Aller: So it sounds like anybody that has flood insurance this is a good time to reassess. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: Take a look at it. Alright hearing no other questions I’ll open the public hearing on the item. Any individual wishing to come forward and speak either for or against this item may do so at this time. For those of you at home please remember that all these materials will be forwarded onto the City Council for final action on December 10, 2018. That’s your opportunity to look at these and any other materials that are presented to the City Council. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing and open it up for commission discussion, comment or I’ll request a motion. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Alright. Undestad: I make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a valid motion and second before us, do we have any further discussion? Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of theCity Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: HOLASEK BUSINESS PARK CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REZONING PARCEL, SUBDIVISION, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. Mark Undestad recused himself from this item. Generous: Thank you Chairman, commissioners. Holasek Business Park, Planning Case 2018- 18. There’s 4 parts to this request. There’s a rezoning, a subdivision request, a wetland alteration and a site plan review. The applicant is Eden Trace Corporation. I should note that Mark Undestad has left the council chambers. Recused himself from this discussion. Property owners is Holasek Farms Limited Partners. This is the public hearing. This is also scheduled to thth go to City Council on December 12. Or 10. The property is located at 8610 Galpin Boulevard. It’s on the south side of Lyman Boulevard at the intersection with Galpin Boulevard. The property will be accessing off of Lyman which is a county road. Again the request is a rezoning from Agricultural Estate District A2 to Industrial Office Park District, IOP. A subdivision review to create 3 lots and one outlot. A wetland alteration permit to fill wetlands on the site and impact additional wetlands, and site plan review ofa total of 449,350 square feet in 3 office industrial buildings so this will be a little industrial park.Office warehouse space primarily. The property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for office industrial uses. The rezoning is to industrial office park and that development, the proposed development complies with all the requirements of the IOP. Office manufacturing, light manufacturing and warehouse uses are permitted in the IOP district. The Comprehensive Plan specifies, and it was just the last sentence of this that office industrial uses are facilitated by the IOP industrial office park and PUD planned unit development zoning districts. Because this property complies with all the standards of the IOP district and they’re not looking for any relief from the standards, that’s 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 more appropriate zoning to go forward with and so staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to IOP. The second part of this application is for the wetland alteration permit. I’ve highlighted on the map in front of you, or the schematic in front of you where the wetlands that will be impacted are. There’s 5 of them that are shown. Four of them will be filled and the one along the south and west side will be, may be impacted and so we’re working with them. As part of this review they have to, oh did I skip the subdivision? Yeah. I’ll have to go back. As part of the development they’re filling these sites. The first one is impacted immediately with the access road that’s coming in. This, both access roads will be private streets and so there’ll be no public improvements as part of this subdivision. The second, the two middle ones will be impacted through the placement of the buildings and parking lot. It’s also between the Building C and Building B there’s a gas easement that runs down the middle of that parking lot area. And then finally the third one, there’s a small wetland in the ball pit site and the fill site that will be filled as part of the development. We’re looking at working with them. We just received a report on the type of wetland this is. They’re still proceeding through the Wetland Conservation Act process which is the Army Corp of Engineers is involved with that and they don’t anticipate to th have a final determination until the November 27 so that will be one thing that delays any development on the site that that be finalized. Sorry, excuse me. The subdivision of this property is, oh staff is recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit subject to the conditions in the staff report for the wetland alteration permit. Primarily that they meet all the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act and receive all those approvals. The subdivision creates 3 building lots. One for each of the buildings and an outlot which will contain stormwater ponds and it’s an excess material site. They’re going to be storing material in it. All the lots exceed the minimum requirements of the IOP district by substantially. And again they will be accessed via private streets at the intersection of Galpin and on the very westerly portion of the site. As part of the subdivision we’re requesting that they provide additional drainage and utility easements up in the northwest corner of the property and that they work in conjunction with Carver County to resolve some drainage concerns and issues that the Carver County has in conjunction with the Lyman Boulevard project. Additionally we currently show a drainage and utility easement between Lots 2 and 3 and this runs over the center of the Magellan Pipeline easement and so we want to have that removed. And finally as part of the subdivision we would request have the developer dedicate additional drainage and utility easements over any wetlands and that are remaining on site in the stormwater system. Staff is recommending approval of the plat for the Holasek Business Park. So and finally we can go to the site plan. It’s for site plan consists of 3 buildings. Building A and C are pretty much mirrors of each other. Their Building A is shown as 179,000 square feet. This includes a second story mezzanine of approximately 18,000 square feet. If the person, the tenant who comes in does not want that, or does not use that then they will shift that square footage down toBuilding C and that will be approximately 179,000 so those, each of those buildings can shift between 160,000 and 179,000 square feet in area depending on the final usage. Building B is slightly smaller. It’s 109,000 square feet. They are all, again they will have the same architectural detailing. On each corner of the building, on the front corners of the buildings they have these highly articulated entrance areas. The two levels of the vision windows. Canopies over the entrance as well as tenant space. They’re highlighted by a column to the left of the entrance as you’re going in and then they recess it. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Additionally in the middle of the building they have located for each of the buildings two additional tenant space entrances and they’ve articulated again with the columns and the canopy above the entrance area as well as two levels of windows. The window system is unique in that the upper panes are spandrel windows and the bottom panes will all be vision glass windows so. And this architectural and detailing continues in each of the buildings. Building materials. It doesn’t show up as well. Just go out a little bit. But the two primary, it’s tilt up pre-cast concrete materials. The primary colors are red and a buff color which is a tan in color. They have coping that is dark bronze. Dark brown in color. Champagne colored window framing and then they have dark window panes. Again this will provide a lot of architectural interest and articulation in the front of each of these buildings and break up the large expanse of these walls because they are very long buildings. Again the building is, will be designed to be multi-tenant areas and so they’ll be able to snap in additional walls on the interior. The bottom it’s a little hard to see but they, every 53 feet or so they have abreak in the building materials. Around all the windows areas they used the red. Exposed aggregate tilt up pre-cast and in the other areas of the building they have the buff and then again adjacent to the entrance areas they have the smooth, I don’t remember what we called it. Pre-cast without. An etched finish. Again Building B is a little smaller in size. It’s 109,000 square feet so it’s about 70,000 square feet less. Little shallower and it picks up, it shows that on the end of each of these buildings they have the highly articulated entrance areas with the vision glass and the canopies. And now I’ll turn it over to our engineering staff to discuss. Henricksen: Thanks Bob. Yep traffic. So Vernon Swing a professional engineer with Traffic Solutions conducted a trip generation analysis as requested by the City. From the proposed site usage trip generations were estimated using the methodology of the Institute of Transportation th Edition. As you can see from the table the Engineers, traffic, trip generation workbook the 10 key numbers to take away are the 185 a.m. peak hour trips and the 195 p.m. peak hour trips. This is what would be generated during those peak hours and then the daily trips of 1,649 trips. Additionally this report or the memo that was supplied to the City concluded that Lyman Boulevard is operating at 40 percent capacity and after the development Lyman Boulevard would be operating at 45 percent capacity. These are using current year numbers as well. The City in concert with MnDOT Access Management Manual guidelines does not find a need for a full traffic impact study. This is because those recommendations are for any development that would propose an impact of fewer than 250 a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips and fewer than 2,500 daily trips does not warrant a full traffic impact study. Based on these findings engineering doesn’t anticipate any extraordinary transportation impacts associated with the development and didn’t propose any conditions. However access is being had offLyman Boulevard which is a Carver County jurisdictional road. Therefore any conditions and all conditions shall be met by the applicant prior to any construction. The applicant has been informed by city staff that coordination with the county is mandatory along with the improvements that will be happening with Lyman Boulevard. We can go onto grading. Aanenson: Yeah I was just going to just add too. The County is considering the upgrade to Lyman Boulevard so this project is in conjunction with that so if there’s additional right-of-way 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 that would be required or the like they would be working with this property on that. I think one of the other things that they were potentially considering is a right-in/right-out on this side of the property so that’d be something again they’d have to coordinate with Carver County to make sure that it meets their requirements. Henricksen: Correct. Aanenson: I was just going to bring up one other point really quick. We kind of glossed over it kind of at the beginning of the whole project. Kind of the sitting of where this property is. So this was the Holasek Greenhouse. If anybody remembers the greenhouses were here and they had the growing fields in the back. There was actually some houses on the property at the time so if you look at where it’s sitting. When Galpin Boulevard was built access was provided to that property so this, since Holasek’s have closed the greenhouse and removed those structures, they’ve been working on trying to find a suitable users and it’s been challenging a little bit. You’ve got the railroad to the south. As we talked about there’s some significant wetlands so it would take some, to maximize the property or to make it work and to make a successful project you’d have to kind of maximize that so you’ve got the storage units over here in Chaska. So it is surrounded. It’s also got an industrial park to the north. Again some of those buildings would look somewhat similar. Probably more the Waytek building up here and I know Bob’s going to talk a little bit about a retaining wall in there so these buildings aren’t out of character. If you look at the last one we did, probably Federal Packaging was probably the last largest one. That was probably 140. That’s just on the other side of Powers Boulevard. Otherwise the last ones we probably did of this scale, I was trying to think. There was about 2 or 3 of them that were of this size but it’s been a little while since we’ve seen some industrial so there’s definitely some pent up demand. We’ve had some other users try to lay something out on this property but we know there’s users looking and I believe he’s got some users to final plat that but I just wanted to remind everybody kind of how we got to this point and it’s been worked on for a couple years so we’re excited to see a project that can come forward on this so. Past the traffic. Grading, back to that. Henricksen: Alright thanks. From the proposed grading plan, stormwater or drainage will be routed away from all the buildings and routed to a stormwater conveyance system where then it will be conveyed over to the 2 wet ponds that are located at the east outlot and then will go through the stormwater, which are to act as stormwater treatment facilities. Due to substantially lower grades from Lyman Boulevard and the proposed development and the proposed grading plans, as you can see on the north side these are, in red are the retaining walls that are to be constructed so due to that substantial grade change and on the southwest corner there’s also some substantial grade changes. Those retaining walls are proposed to be over 4 feet in height. Any retaining wall over 4 feet has to be constructed and plans submitted by a professional engineer or landscape architect for review by the City prior to construction. The plan also if you look to the south and the south outlot where that tiny little wetland is, the plan shows significant grading and fill in this outlot. As proposed the grading plan and stockpile area would create a bluff by definition by city code and all bluff regulations would therefore be enacted. Staff does 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 recommend the removal of the stockpile area or if it cannot be removed limiting the height to 20 feet and a slope less than 3 to 1. Currently it is over 30 feet and has a slope greater than 3 to 1 which makes it a bluff. Also about that stockpile area it must meet all other regulatory requirements for wetland hydrology. Erosion and sediment control. Surface water management. We have had correspondences with the applicant and they have informed us that this is something they’re taking into the design of their construction plans to reduce it based on our recommendations. We can move onto utilities. Aanenson: Can I just add one other thing? I just want to point out this retaining wall…different when we looked at the Avienda project we had a significant retaining wall on the north side of Avienda. I also want to remind there is residential homes over on this side and I know when the Waytek building came in that was a concern so the grade change is putting the buildings lower so the buildings are 38 feet tall and so you’re, with the grade change you’re looking not at the whole building when you’re in that residential area so it’s a benefit that you’re not seeing. It’s similar again to when we looked at that office building on the north side of, office buildings on the north side of Avienda that they’re actually recessed. You’re looking at not the whole 38 feet of significantly. Weick: Similar to the view across. Aanenson: Yep exactly. Yep, yep. That Waytek building, yep so those are also recessed so it’s not as severe so I think that’s a positive thing and with the landscaping so that is a large retaining wall. I know Erik mentioned over 4 feet has to be engineered but I believe it’s closer to 12 feet. Henricksen: I think at the highest point on the northern section it’s about 900 feet long and it’s 12 ½ feet at the tallest. Aanenson: So it takes the bottom part of that building which is a positive thing, especially for those residential areas. Henricksen: Looking at their site utilities on their site plans, the blue indicates the private watermain utility that would be installed and the red indicates the private sanitary sewer service. A 10 inch ductile iron pipe water service and an 8 inch PVC sanitary sewer service are currently stubbed to the property. Those stubs are located within the 50 foot wide access to the northeast corner just at the intersection of Galpin and Lyman Boulevard. The applicant has proposed connecting to the 10 inch water service. They’re going to be creating a looped system to service all 3 of the proposed buildings. Material type on the utility plan was not given. Engineering has recommended the use of what is typically our standard which is the PVC C900 material type for that installation. For the water installation all applicable permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies would have to be gained before construction could begin of the private water utility. While an 8 inch PVC sanitary service is stubbed to the site the applicant is proposing to discharge their sewer effluent to the neighboring city of Chaska. Currently at this time that approach is not approved. The applicant may be required to submit plans that utilize the 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 discharge to the existing sanitary sewer stub and because and based on the topographic conditions and the proposed grading plans this would require a lift station. A private lift station with a maintainable forcemain. This is something that public works would want to have an operation and maintenance plan on due to things that can happen with lift stations so we’d want to just ensure that it’s being maintained and properly operated. However the applicant can continue to pursue a connection with Chaska. That is something that both Chaska and Chanhassen would have to have formal approval of. This is something the applicant could, they’d have to facilitate a meeting to discuss some of the concerns that Chaska may have with their capacity. How sewer billing would work and any other additional analysis that either Chaska or Chanhassen would want to see for that connection. I did actually just get a meeting request for that meeting so I think they’re continually trying to spearhead that approach to discharge up their sanitary sewer effluent. Generous: And then finally the landscaping plan for the development. Based on our natural resource review they are deficit in, deficient in their parking lot landscaping. They have been working with city staff on coming up with a revision for that and they will, their intention is to provide a revised plan in time to go, to bring it to City Council. I should point out that up in the northwest, northeast corner of that site they have, they’re providing extensive landscaping to help buffer the residential neighbor to the northeast so eventually they probably won’t even be able to see these buildings because of all the trees. And because of it’s location the loading docks are sandwiched between the buildings and to the south of the building and they’re going to have landscaping on the east side so those areas will not be visible to the public. Good layout and design for providing those truck dock areas. And then with that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning, the preliminary plat, the wetland alteration permit and the site plan approval for the 3 buildings subject to the conditions within the staff report and we broke them down by type of development. The zoning doesn’t have any conditions but it will be contingent on final plat approval because the legal description would be Holasek Business Park Addition so. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Does anyone have any questions of staff at this time? Commissioner Randall. Randall: Were there any other issues with the City of Chaska being a bordering property like that? Did they have, or is the County pretty much taking care of that? Henricksen: There is some discussion about the storm water that’s going to come off Lyman from the project where they’re going to need to coordinate with Chaska and Carver County in conjunction. There’s going to be storm water improvements to a storm line that’s just abutting the property on the west portion. Right now we’ve been mainly working with, discussion on the sewer effluent. Randall: Okay thank you. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Bender: To maybe add to that is, they’re talking about you know a possible regional pond between the city of Chaska and Chanhassen and Carver County. Whether that you know gains any steam is yet to be determined. Randall: Okay. Aanenson: I just wanted to clarify. So there’s two moving parts here. One is getting the plat approval and what they need to do and the other is the County’s moving forward with the Lyman project and there’s things that they would like to desire as an opportunity now as this project’s moving forward if that makes sense. Aller: Any other additional questions of staff at this time? Tietz: Chairman, I have a question. Erik I just want to follow up. One question is just for my own education. The increase in traffic you said is probably about 5 percent? Henricksen: Correct. Tietz: I know from experience that where Lyman intersects with 41 that’s an extremely long light when you’re coming out. Obviously that’s two county roads. I suppose the county controls that for the speed and traffic on 41. But it is a difficult intersection to get up and if you start backing up a lot of traffic just a point and a question because I experience that. The other is, in ’95 there was a permit granted for 36,000 cubic yards of fill for Holasek. I assume that that’s creating some problems for the developer because I have no idea where it is and probably they don’t either. Maybe they do, the developer does now but Holasek’s I don’t know what kind of, it wasn’t probably clean fill. I’m just curious what it is, where it’s going and how much of a problem it’s creating for the development. Do we know? Bender: We might be able to let the developer’s engineer help respond to that question. We are still waiting for more information back as far as where soil materials of varying quality are probably going to be ultimately transported to and but that can be a function of which contractor is involved and what their connections are as well so it’s kind of preliminary to find answers to those questions. Tietz: Sure. Bender: Do you want to add anything to that Brady? Brady Busselman: Sure, thanks George. Brady Busselman with Sambatek. Civil engineering consultant. You’re correct that soils are a huge challenge on this site. We’re primarily finding a lot of organic material. Peat that’s not suitable for structural support and that’s why you see the large stockpile at the south end of the site and we appreciate staff’s willingness to work with us on that. We want to continue to work on you know determining the right height and the right 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 slopes for that because we want it to be as high as we can to avoid the need to truck a bunch of that material back off site so. Tietz: And some of the non-organic or whatever was used as fill you know back where the greenhouses were, I remember that was. Brady Busselman: Sure. Tietz: When the greenhouses were removed the soil and top looked like there was a lot of stuff in there. Is that going to be maybe the base of the stockpiled area? You’re going to try to use it as just? Brady Busselman: Yeah there is a certain amount of unknown fill there that could be structurally suitable to support buildings so that will have to be sorted through and determined whether it needs to, whether it has too much organic material to be useful or whether it can reused. You know there were a number of test pits dug out here this summer. I think somewhere in the order of 40 so we are, our geotech does have a pretty good idea now what’s going on out there. Tietz: Yeah okay. I’m sure it’s a challenge yeah. And Erik just a couple more. Sorry everybody but the water loop. Do we have adequate pressure for fire suppression and sprinkler system there or will they have to install additional pumps for fire protection? Henricksen: From the fire flow test and from our meeting with our utility superintendent it looked like pressures were going to be adequate for the system that was in place. One of the things that was not included on the utility plan were where the location of the valves were going to be. You know all kind of pertinences that go with the watermain system. Although this is private you know that’s something that we would like to take a look at in the event that at some point for some reason this would get dedicated to the City so as of right now yes. It looks like there’s the adequate pressure is there. Tietz: Adequate pressure, okay. One more for staff maybe on the wetlands. You talked about on site mitigation. Can you explain how we’re going to have on site mitigation with the loss of wetlands? Generous: I know that our Water Resources Coordinator has been discussing it with their engineer. They’re looking possible in that southwest corner of the site to see if there could be any expansion to that wetland area. However now with the Carver County also wanting to do regional ponding down there it may become a moot point so, but they’ll continue as part of the wetland conservation act reviewing this development to see if there’s any place on site that they can create the additional wetlands. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Tietz: So otherwise we’d be faced with like Avienda where they’re having to buy land or buy rights someplace else in, either within, hopefully within the watershed but I think we ended up outside the watershed with Avienda. Aanenson: Yeah well we got some that was on Lyman Boulevard. Actually Pioneer Trail on and so. Tietz: Yeah, oh we did end up with it? Aanenson: Yep, yep so yeah we’re working with the County on a project there too so I think there’s another opportunity to kind of add to that ponding area there so I think we’re trying to partner with the watershed district and the County to upgrade that on Pioneer and replace some of those homes so that’d be an opportunity maybe to buy another home there and increase that. Tietz: Okay thanks. Aller: Well Commissioner Tietz’s question dovetails with mine which was the bluff where we mentioned that you prefer it not to be a bluff but it’s presently a bluff. It’s going to be used for stockpile so what is the impact of stockpiling on top of the bluff? Why is it preferential to remove a bluff that’s already existing? Henricksen: So currently there is no bluff there. That’s from the existing site condition it’s a wetland and I guess you could call it concaved. What you’re seeing on this grading plan, those topo lines they’re really, really close and that’s actually a hill going up so this is actually the creation of a bluff where none existed prior to that. That does, would put additional regulations that we have in our code for bluff setbacks. All that kind of stuff which would impact the design as well, and then also I mean one of the concerns is the wetland that you were discussing as well as you know, is it necessary to fill it there? Again with construction and stockpiling there’s a lot of erosion and sediment control concerns when we have slopes that steep. One of our city code, I think it’s in Section 19 discusses where if you have slopes over 3 to 1 you know you can’t have an unbroken slope so it would have to be terraced so there’s just concerns about having that type of stockpile and then permanent stabilization afterwards as well. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I have a question about the petroleum pipeline and I just am not familiar, I haven’t seen one in a development recently and is it a common practice to put a parking lot over a pipeline? And the other question would be are there any other additional safety precautions during excavation and construction around that pipeline? Generous: The quick answers are yes and yes. From the City’s zoning ordinance we have additional 20 foot building setback from the edge of that easement. They have to get permission from Magellan to do any activity on top of it but parking lots are one of the things that they do 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 permit. It’s, they don’t allow other structures. Buildings, things like that. Arbor Glen is an example where the pipeline goes through the development. The private street coming in runs across that. Aanenson: The high school. Generous: And the high school property has it also. So but yes, it’s part of the report. One of the attachments. Magellan provided us with their standards and so we included that in there. So yes they’ll have to coordinate that with them. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Aller: Great. Commissioner Weick. Weick: As is often the case I gotmore confused and so I apologize. Down in that south corner where we were talking about where they want to stockpile, currently it’s a hill and they just want to make it a bigger hill or? Henricksen: No. Weick: It’s not. Henricksen: No. It’s currently from the existing conditions, topo lines it’s not a hill. It slopes I believe east to west. It’s semi gradual and then in the very center you have the wetland where you have that concave topo line. Weick: Yeah. Henricksen: It’s well surveyed on the existing conditions and when we’re looking at it through this lens it kind of is difficult to see. I can understand that so no currently there is not any type of hill. That would be the stockpile itself. Weick: Okay. And I understand the cost implications for the developer of removing you know, taking the dirt somewhere other than putting it there but say that wasn’t a consideration, would it be, in your opinion would it be an option to make that area a bigger, in other words keep it low and not stockpile at all and make it a bigger wetland? Or a bigger water basin or something. Henricksen: Yeah I believe that could be an option. We don’t have that I found through my research any ordinances or standards that say you can’t create a bluff so I mean is it an option? Yeah, I don’t know. Weick: Okay. Maybe you can help, yeah. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Aanenson: Yeah no, the challenge there is there’s a railroad tracks so you can see the change in grade. Weick: Oh that’s right. Aanenson: Then there’s Lake Hazeltine to the south so if we kind of go back. I think sometimes when we look so close we lose kind of frame of reference. I’m just going to go back. Weick: Yeah please. Aanenson: Yep, oops. I’m going the wrong way. Go back to this one. So if you go back, this is Lake Hazeltine right here. Weick: Right. Aanenson: And then you’ve got the raised bed of the railroad tracks here. So this is kind of where that ends up with that low area there. And then this is the other wetland over here so that’s kind of what, what came into play here is the shoreland regs and the wetland part of that for this area here but you can see now it’s, as Erik was saying, you can see now that it’s the lower area there. Weick: It’s low right, okay. Aanenson: It’s low yep so it’s dropping off from the tracks there, yeah. Weick: Okay. Bender: So to maybe add a little bit more to that. From the perspective of the public you know and finding good spots for regional stormwater which can be a significant challenge, especially you know when you get approach the edges of a jurisdiction, you know the proposal to leave it similar to it’s current functionality and maybe expand it would definitely be something that you know is an option and that’s kind of what Chaska and the Carver County, I’m under the understanding that they still want to have that discussion so. Weick: Okay. Bender: As part of that would probably bring with it you know some sort of give and take which could be a reduction in the stormwater fees. More of a partnership and, in addition to you know I mean the problem is the expense that comes with removal of the dirt and maintaining the viability of the site and you know the shared nature of that for you know I mean because the developer owns the site. Benefits from the site. You know improvements and you know I mean obviously the viability you know financially has to be maintained. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Tietz: But it does seem possible George and Erik that if there’s a way to make that borrow, or become a borrow pit because it’s organic material. Principally organic. If there’s some way of making some transition of that. Re-sculpting that area and working with the County to increase the size of that drainage area might be a possibility. You know it’s such an engineered looking mound right now. It’d be nice to have that you know change a little bit and if it came down a little bit maybe it could come in and come up and we solve a lot of problems that way potentially by, you know we’re not here to redesign but it seems like that corner, if there is a mutual interest in the corner and if there’s some way that the developer could benefit from removing some of that soil it may be, there could be a win/win. Aanenson: Yeah I think it’s safe to say that’s a consideration for negotiation that’s underway. Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: I think it’s as much as we’re going to say about that, yeah. Tietz: I think that helps. Aanenson: Yeah. I was just going to point out too, you can see where the pipeline comes through then, through the school. Right through there. Aller: Okay, any additional questions at this time? Hearing none we’ll open it up for the applicant to make it’s presentation. If you could please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Your representational capacity and tell us about yourproject. Ed Farr: Thank you. Good evening Chairman, commissioners and staff. My name is Ed Farr at Edward Farr Architects representing Eden Trace Company on this application. Aller: Welcome. Ed Farr: And with me tonight are two representatives from Sambatek, Brady Busselman who you already met, as well as Pete Moreau. I always have 2 to 1 engineers to architects. A lot of engineering questions going on here so they can save me when I misspeak. We’re very happy to propose this project to you tonight and frankly a lot of the talking points that I’ve had on my notes here have already been covered by staff so I’ll try and keep my comments additive and not redundant as best I can. So with that maybe if we could have the site plan up and I’ll just touch on some points that maybe haven’t been discussed yet. Thank you. That’s perfect. The building layout as it’s been told already is pretty much based off of this Magellan Pipeline route right through the middle of our site so we’re very happy to have a little back to back, like wagon trains huddling around the loading dock there to keep that from any visibility to the public way for A and B to the north side of the site and then of course Building C then to the south of Magellan Pipeline with parking over the top of it like you said. Along Lyman Boulevard there is the stop light already at Galpin for our main access and with the reconstruction of Lyman, the redo there 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 we are asking for the right-in/right-out on the far northwest corner of our property for additional truck circulation so the trucks can always enter the loading docks easily in a clockwise or counter clockwise movement depending upon which building they’re going to for ease of backing into the loading dock. So this project pretty much attacks the target market of office warehouse generally throughout that area of just north of this site in Chanhassen. A 28 foot clear product in the marketplace. 20 to 30 percent office finish. Warehouse manufacturing. Could be a variety of multi-tenant uses that we’re targeting so pretty standard stuff but there is market demand for that so. On the frontage of Lyman Boulevard and all the buildings architecturally, the buildings are tall enough. About 36 feet like staff said so we’re trying to make it look like a two story building by adding that clear story window up on top. That will let daylight in for warehouse manufacturing areas that only have single story space where we may have that mezzanine. It will offer windows up there on the second floor for the occupants to see out of the second floor as well as first floor. We’ve tried our best to have some architectural articulation, both in the step roof line as well as the in and out architecture of the front to back of the façade. All along the front as staff pointed out so we are excited about the palate of our architectural precast with some limestone, granite, and quartz chips in it. Real good rock selections with tinted precast and everything. The champagne anodized frames and so the materials look better than the colored renderings you have in front of you so I think it will look very handsome out there. We’re using LED lighting throughout. Very energy efficient lighting. There was a LED illumination plan in the packet and all of the rooftop units will be screened both by the parapet height itself despite the fact that the buildings are low on the site. We did a cross sectional view on one of our sheets to demonstrate the view angle from Lyman Boulevard so they’ll be set back from the front façade as well as the parapet. Anything that may be out of the ordinary that sticks up we would put an architectural screen in front of that as needed. Talked on the building size. Magellan Pipeline. Lighting. The parking. I think that’s about it. You covered everything else but we’re going to, we’re going to really do a really good job on landscaping. Sorry for the numbers that were short. It wasn’t our intent and realized the math problem. That’s going to get picked up and meet, probably exceed landscape requirements. Aller: Nobody likes to do math in public. Ed Farr: We’re not going to do it here either but we’re going to put our best foot forward there. So I’ll sit back. Again I’ve got 2 engineers behind me so if there are any further questions of us we’re more than happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you. Questions at this point in time of the applicant? For the water alteration. Most of the time we’re looking at a choice of A, B, C and we’re looking at the lesser of the evils to get to where we are. Can you explain the process that you went through in coming up with this design and the alteration request that you’re making? Brady Busselman: Sure I can take a stab at it. We do have a wetland expert in our office who isn’t here tonight who is helping us with the procedure but one thing I will point out is that the initial plan for this site had 4 buildings. I think we were over 600,000 square feet and as we got 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 into it we realized that the building on the south, we’d benefit more if we removed that building and utilize that area to mine because that had good structural material and then back fill the bad peat material in that excavation and then build out the berm in that area. We did focus on the wetland in the southwest corner and try to plan around that and make it work. The challenge with this site, besides the poor materials and the wetlands is also the pipeline and that’s really a non starter to try to move that. I think it’s on the order, I’m going to shoot from the hip but I think it was $200 bucks a foot if we had to move that so that really set where our buildings started from, from that pipeline and we went out from there so I don’t think we have the wetland exhibit up here that would, that would help because they fall in kind of unfortunate areas. Especially the one directly south of the pipeline. I will say that the one east of Building B we are continuing to work with the Corps onbecause that is a result of a topsoil mining operation in 2015 and we want to make sure that that’s appropriately labeled. I think the City would determine that incidental. Correct me if I’m wrong Bob but the wetland, and maybe I’m, maybe you’re not theone to answer but, but the Army Corps does not do incidental wetlands so we’re still working with them on yes, it was definitely created by this mining action but how, you know how does that get to the point where they acknowledge that. So really the prime motivator then was to preserve the wetlands in the south and southwest corner and that’s how we’ve laid out the site to help with those. Hopefully that made sense. Aller: It does thank you. I can see where economically it would be great if you could put 4 buildings on there but no one realizes without you making that explanation the process that you go through that this is a better plan for purposes of water and being able to preserve what we can. Brady Busselman: Yeah. Aller: And making the least request for alterations as possible. Brady Busselman: And I really, I really can’t overstate the impact of soils on this site. It is the number one challenge to getting this project to work. Aller: Thank you. Brady Busselman: Thank you. Aller: Additional questions at this time? Hearing none I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Again this is an opportunity for an individual to come forward to speak either for or against the item. Having heard the questions and the presentations and of course there are many items that are in the package that is presented and that’s on the website for your review and again you can look at those and then come in and ask any questions you have during this opportunity for the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing. Open it up for further discussion of the commissioners. If there is no discussion then I’d request a motion. Tietz: I’ll make a motion. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Aller: Okay. Tietz: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning from Agricultural Estate District A2 to IOP, preliminary plat approval creating 3 lots and one outlot. Approval of the wetland alteration permit and a site plan approval for a total of 449,350 square feet in 3 office industrial buildings subject to the corresponding conditions of the approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? I would just say that from review of the package it looks like it is a very difficult project and the soils and the water features will create some ongoing processes but I think that they’re working hard and are diligent and I think they meet the requirements of the OIP and I’ll be voting in favor. Alright hearing no additional discussion all those in favor should signify by saying aye. Tietz moved, Madsen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A-2, to Industrial Office Park, IOP; Preliminary Plat approval creating three lots and one outlot with access via a private street; a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill wetlands on site; and Site Plan approval for three office industrial buildings for a total of 449,350 square feet, plans prepared by Sambatek, dated 11-02-2018, and Edward Farr Architects, dated 10-19-2018, subject to the following conditions: SUBDIVISION Engineering All ingress/egress locations, including the right-in/right-out access located at the northwestern portion of the property, and subsequent impacts of trip generation by the development, shall be designed to Carver County standards and shall meet all Carver County’s requirements. Any requirements set by Carver County to improve the intersection shall be addressed by the applicant (if necessary). The applicant shall dedicate the 40’ x 120’ drainage and utility easement at the northwest corner of Lot 1 on the preliminary and final plat prior to recording. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 An executed agreement between the developer and Magellan Pipeline Company allowing construction over Magellan Pipeline Company’s easement shall be provided to the city prior to the issuance of grading permits. The preliminary and final plat shall not include the 5’ drainage and utility easements located at the south side of Lot 2, and the north side of Lot 3, prior to acceptance and recording. All retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height shall have plans and details prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect prior to issuance of building permits. At the time of building permit submittal, connection methodology to the existing stubs (sanitary sewer and water services), material type, and location of service valves and other appurtenances shall be identified for review. Prior to construction of the water and sanitary utilities within the development, all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required. An O&M plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Improvements to the existing manhole where the effluent will be received via the lift station. Parks Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the three proposed lots totaling 36.39 acres as a condition of approval for Holasek Business Park. These park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Planning A 40-foot access and maintenance easement shall be recorded over the private streets. The private streets shall be constructed to a nine-ton design with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet and a maximum slope of 10 percent. A street name for the private street at Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard shall be submitted to the Building Official and Fire Marshall for review and approval prior to recording the final plat. Water Resources Coordinator Stormwater Development Charges. Estimated stormwater development fees in the amount of $770,012.40 (36.39 acres x $21,160) shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Financial Assurance. To guarantee compliance with the plan and related remedial work, a cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished to the city before a building permit is issued. The escrow amount shall be $7,500.00 per acre. The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such noticeshall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. The assurance shall be maintained until final stabilization and removal of erosion and sediment controls. Drainage and utility easements will be required over all remaining wetlands and public stormwater utilities. This includes the western boundary of the project as well as the southwest corner of the parcel which should have a sufficient easement for the main drainage pipe for this area (required in conjunction with final plat). Private stormwater easements will be required over all private stormwater facilities using the city’s template (required in conjunction with final plat). The Holasek Business Park construction plans show areas of grading over the main stormwater pipe that runsnorth to south along the western property boundary. Construction on this pipe may be planned for the next couple of years. Please coordinate earthwork in this area with the city and Carver County Public Works Department. The plans show significant grading in the south outlot. Sec. 19-145 of City Code does not allow unbroken slopes greater than 30’ and slopes steeper than 3:1. Additionally, the proposed grading would trigger bluff regulations Sec. 20-1401 and Sec. 20-1405. Staff recommends removing the stockpile from the proposed plans. If the stockpile cannot be removed it will need to be reduced to slope less than 20’, 3:1 max. It must meet all other regulatory requirements for wetland hydrology, erosion and sediment control, and surface water management. Erosion and sediment control must meet the requirements of Sec. 19-145 including a dewatering plan. Erosion and Sediment Control Practices including temporary sedimentation basins, silt fence, the construction entrance, and ESC BMPs are shown in the legend on sheet C5.02, but not on the plans. Indicate the location of these practices on the Erosion Control Plan sheet. EOFs should be stabilized with TRM or similar. Include chosen stabilization measures in the construction plans. Temporary Sediment Ponds. The proposed stormwater ponds will need to be utilized as temporary sediment ponds during construction. A faircloth skimmer will need to be installed, and the outlets of the pond will need to be sealed off for the duration of construction until the site is stabilized. Skimming devices should be designed to remove oils and floatable materials up to a 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 one-year frequency event. The skimmer should be set 12 inches below the normal surface water elevation and should control the discharge velocity to 0.5 fps. Incorporate these notes and details into the construction plans. Topsoil Management a.Subsoil Decompaction.Please add a note about subsoil decompaction to the topsoil section on sheet L1.03. Subsoil must be decompacted to a depth of six inches in all pervious areas, prior to placement of six inches of topsoil. Contractor must identify the method used to decompact six inches of subsoil prior to placing topsoil. b.Topsoil Depth.Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 reads that a minimum of four inches of topsoil is required. CCWMO Standards require that six inches of topsoil be replaced in all disturbed pervious areas. Update this note to reflect the six inch requirement. c. Stockpiles. Please indicate the quantity of topsoil needed to restore six inches in all pervious areas of the development. Show location(s) where existing topsoil is to be stockpiled on the site. d. Soil Hauling. Describe topsoil hauling plans, including locations and estimated quantities. Note that if topsoil is exported or imported to the site, an additional permit may be required. e. Vegetative Cover. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 refers to a healthy stand of vegetation in all disturbed pervious areas of the development. Please note that 90% of the expected vegetative density is required. Stormwater Management Sec. 19-142. Plans required. All plans shall be reviewed and stamped “Approved by the City Engineer” and all applicable permits must be obtained prior to commencing construction. For all newly constructed stormwater facilities (ponds, retention areas, infiltration basins, storm sewer, etc.) or existing facilities that are modified, as-built plans shall be prepared by the developer. As- built plans shall be signed and certified by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota and record drawings shall be provided to the city. Standard details for many typical storm structures (e.g., storm sewer, outlet structures, catch basins, sump manholes, etc.) are available on the city's website. Sec. 19-144. Major facility design elements. a.For basins intended to have permanent water levels, a minimum of four feet of standing water (dead storage depth) and a maximum of ten feet shall be provided. 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 b. Separation between the inlet(s) and outlet shall be maximized to prevent short- circuiting. c. Outlets shall be evaluated for the need to dissipate energy so as to reduce velocities to permissible levels as allowed by the soil and vegetation. At a minimum, flared-end sections should be provided with riprap consistent with Minnesota Department of Transportation standards. For areas with high flows or where excessive erosion occurs or is anticipated, energy dissipation per Federal Highway Administration standards shall be followed. d. Riprap shall be provided below the channel grade and above the outfall or channel bottom to ensure that riprap will not be undermined by scour or rendered ineffective by displacement. Riprap consisting of natural angular stone suitably graded by weight shall be designed for anticipated velocities. Riprap shall be placed over a suitable filter material or filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not move through the riprap and reduce its stability. BMP Details. Include the following BMP details in the construction plans: a.BMP Cross Sections. Include site-specific elevations on the Bioretention Bench and Bioretention Trench details on sheet C4.02. b. OCS Details. Include Outlet Control Structure Details (attached) for the stormwater BMPs with specific elevations for inlets, outlets, and draintile (when applicable). c.BMP Profiles. Include profiles of the stormwater BMPs with draintile (Pond B Filtration Bench and Filtration Trench) showing draintile slope. Please note that all draintile must have a positive drainage slope of at least 0.5%. Include site-specific invert elevations for assistance with field construction. d. EOF elevations.EOF elevations should be set to at least 0.5 ft. above the HWL to allow for construction tolerance. Include cross-sections of the EOFs in the plan set. Impervious Acreage. The area (ac) of proposed new impervious is inconsistent between the application (25.10), stormwater report (27.5), project narrative (25.08), plan sheet C5.03 (28.4), and HydroCAD model (25.34). Clarify the correct area of new impervious and update components of the submittal to match. Elevation-Storage Tables. Include the Filtration Bench bottom (should be 928.5) in the elevation- storage table in the HydroCAD report so that the treatment volumes can be determined for the ponds, bench, and re-use system. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Filtration Trench. The filtration trench design is not compliant in the current design. a.Contributing Area. The filtration trench appears to receive runoff from pervious areas only. Stormwater BMPs should capture and treat runoff from impervious areas on the site. b.Tree Roots.The filtration trench is proposed in an area that is wooded on the landscape plan. Trees may be planted on the side-slopes or adjacent to the trench but are not allowed in the trench bottom. Tree roots may impact the draintile and prevent proper drainage. c.Model and Plan Details. The filtration trench is not included in the HydroCAD model and the construction plans do not show details (bottom, NWL, HWL, OCS, EOF) for this BMP. Please include the details listed in Comment #2 above and include information for this practice in the construction plans and HydroCAD model. Operation & Maintenance Plan (O&M). Provide a draft O&M plan outlining the responsibilities for inspecting and maintaining the stormwater BMPs on site. The O&M plan must be signed by all responsible parties. a.Reuse Maintenance Plan. Provide a draft Reuse Maintenance Plan as part of the overall O&M plan. Please include all details outlined in the corresponding section on the Stormwater Reuse Design Guidance document. Reuse Plan Sheet. Please add the following information to the stormwater reuse plan: a.Location of the following reuse system components: irrigation lines, irrigation zones, sprinkler heads, pumps, intakes from ponds, and usage meters. If applicable, include the locations of the potable connection, backflow prevention devices, filters, and debris collection sumps. b. Narrative describing operation of the systems. If the irrigated areas will be actively used during daytime hours, the irrigation needs to be scheduled for times when the areas will not be in use. c.Location of access for reuse system maintenance. d. Drawdown elevations of the reuse ponds. e.Volume reduction and/or water quality calculations. f. Other information relevant to the reuse systems. SWPPP. A copy of the SWPPP including soils/infiltration data within the perimeter of all infiltration/filtration devices is required prior to review for final plat. The SWPPP must also meet all requirements of City Code 19-145. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Basin. There is a bioretention basin south of Lyman Boulevard in the road construction plans. Please show this basin on the construction plans for Holasek Business Park and demonstrate that the road project plans don’t interfere with this project. Chloride Management Plan. A chloride management plan is required. Applicant will need to respond to the comments received by Twin Cities & Western (Wednesday, October 24, 2018 6:39 AM): “In response to this proposal Twin Cities & Western offers the following comment: Twin Cities & Western has concerns of stormwater and general runoff impacts with this land being developed making it non-pervious. What will happen to the stormwater runoff and will the increased runoff adversely impact the railroad roadbed?” SITE PLAN Engineering Must comply with the conditions of the Holasek Business Park conditions of approval for the subdivision. Environmental Resources The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to increase quantities to meet minimum ordinance requirements for parking lot trees. Additional tree species will need to be added rather than increasing quantities of existing selection. The applicant should consider limiting the number of lindens called for in the plant schedule and avoid planting elms and lindens in groupings. The applicant should designate snow removal/storage areas on each lot that do not conflict with proposedlandscaping. All parking lot islands and peninsulas that contain a tree planting must have an inside width of 10 feet. They also will be required to have proper planting soil as specified in the Planting Notes. Parking lot islands located in the pipeline easement shall be planted with small shrubs or perennial plantings, if allowed. Planning 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 The applicant shall enter into separate site plan agreements with the city for each lot and building and provide the necessary security to guarantee grading and erosion control, site restoration, stormwater and landscaping. Pedestrian ramps shall be added at each curb at the driveway entrance to Building A and included on the site plan sheet C3.01. Community features including benches, bike racks and picnic tables shall be incorporated in the site. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. Water Resources Coordinator Must comply with the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT a. Sec. 20-409. Decisions under this article must not be made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the city council, the landowner, or a member of the technical evaluation panel asks for such determinations. b. Any projects seeking a wetland alteration permit subject to this article will also be required to submit the following incomplete requirements: Existing and proposed drainage areas to wetlands; Buffer strip plan meeting the criteria of subsections 20-411(c) and (d) c. Sec. 20-416. Mitigation. Wetland mitigation shall be undertaken on-site. If this is not feasible, then mitigation may occur locally within the subwatershed. If this is not possible, then mitigation may occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be accomplished on-site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off- site, then the applicant shall be responsible for providing off-site mitigation within the major subwatershed, as designated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, or purchasing wetland credits from the state wetland bank. Staff believes mitigation can occur on site by expanding the wetlands in the south outlot. d. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by this Code. e. If a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland; (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation; (3) It shall not adversely change water flow; (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action; (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas; (6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures; (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning; (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland. f. The alteration shall not alter the hydrological patterns in the remainder of the wetland, if a portion of the wetland remains, unless exempted under Sec. 20-417. Please show how hydrologic patterns will not be altered for the remaining wetlands. g. Sec. 20-405. Wetland delineation. An electronic copy of the delineated wetland boundaries must be submitted in a format compatible with the city's GIS database. h. Sec. 20-406. Wetland classification. All wetlands delineated under Sec. 20-405 of this article that have not been previously classified shall be classified using the results from the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Version 3.0), or future versions. A MnRAM shall be completed by the property owner or applicant for each previously unclassified wetland. An electronic version of the MnRAM evaluation must be submitted to and approved by the city to establish the classification of each wetland prior to any alteration or impact to the wetland. i. An approved Notice of Decision (NOD) for Boundary and Type is required for a complete application, however, the applicant has been very involved, communicative, responsive, and fully participatory in the application process. Staff will accept the application in process as the TEP has met prior to deadline for completion. The NOD will be issued by November 27, 2018. j. Staff review will be conditional upon an approved NOD for Boundary and Type. k. Based on the submission the site will require at least one additional Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Application. A grading permit cannot be issued until the applicant has completed the WCA process. l. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the wetlands on-site. Please indicate wetland buffers widths and locations where signage will be placed on a plan sheet. Please find additional information on signage placement in the guidance document attached. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of materials. Alternative signs (by the city or applicant) are also acceptable provided they contain similar information. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. m. Sec. 19-146. Wetland elements. 1) Water level fluctuations (peak elevation and duration) for wetlands shall be limited to two feet and duration not to exceed 48 hours so as to prevent the destruction of wildlife habitat and wetland vegetation. 2) Sedimentation basins or sediment removal devices shall be provided prior to discharge into wetlands. 3) Variable bottom contours should be considered to provide deeper holes and flat shallow benches. This feature will provide habitat for diversity of plants and wetland inhabitants for wetland mitigation sites and stormwater basins. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 2, 2018 and the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission Work Session meeting dated October 16, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Aller: Anyone wishing to discuss any item or? Madsen: I just have one question. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I happened to see a sign when I was driving down Pioneer Trail. It was actually in Eden Prairie and the sign said future road expansion. Aanenson: Yep. Madsen: So it was a development where at some point there’s going to be a road coming through and I was wondering if that’s something that we ever used here to help communicate. Aanenson: Yes we do those now. I think the problem is some of those older subdivisions, they’re not there but yes. If you go put them back in now it’s still controversial so right now all subdivisions, I would say the last probably 10 years we’ve done that. Yeah, yeah. Madsen: Okay great, thank you. 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 Aanenson: Yeah it’s an ongoing source of consternation. Aller: The bigger the sign the smaller the project and people are in an uproar. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: Okay administrative presentations. City Council action update. Aanenson: I cannot find it on my, let’s see. Let me try one more time here. The Glendale Drive, got it. The Glendale Drive was approved without the extension but that may be back for revisiting on that one so again the staff’s position is you try not to landlock somebody or deter them so that one may come back. The council did approve it without, with the applicant’s request so we’ll see where that goes. We also, it was really at the council level there was a request from Mr. Halla who owns the Mustard Seed to do, modify his Stipulation Agreement. They were regulated in how they could use that property. They also wanted to enjoy some of the benefits of the temporary use permits similar to what we do to other events such as the Autoplex so we worked through, with the council on that one so that’s been modified so they can also have a number of temporary events permitted by ordinance that run through the planning office so that was approved. And then the downtown vision plan was accepted. I also want to note that it’s out on the website now. We’ve moved that so if you go to, this is for anybody else. If you go to the planning department and then you go special studies it’s listed in there and so there’s some key strategies that we’ll be working on. You’ll probably see those and some of the council will be looking at those. This year we talked about, a lot of it has to do with downtown walkability. Maybe some landscaping improvements. Some signature things as we move forward in the downtown. Some of the projects that are ongoing so you’ll probably be seeing a little bit more on that as the council moves forward on that and that’s all I have on the council update. Aller: Great. Future Planning Commission items. th Aanenson: Sure, so your next meeting, the last one of the year is December 4. There are two items on there. A variance and then there’s a PUD amendment for PPark. They also want to take the opportunity of special events with liquor so that’s being noticed for that so they were allowed one last year during the Super Bowl. They just had one last week regarding the Timberwolves but some of those they would like to have that liquor so that’s what the public hearing will be at. We have to amend the PUD ordinance. I do want to let you know in January st the first meeting in January is normally on the first Tuesday of the month is January 1 so we’re th not going to meet. So we only have one meeting in January the 15so we do have a couple big items. There might be a big follow up subdivision on that meeting so be prepared for that. Potentially kind of revisiting the Galpin property. I believe they’re having some neighborhood meetings and then we’ll revisit that with the council before it comes back to the Planning Commission so we’ll stay tuned on that. As much as updates I can give you on that I will be sharing that with you so just following up some of that information today so we’ll give you an 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 20, 2018 update on that. So I think that’s all I had for upcoming. There’s one more meeting and if you can’t be there I appreciate, thank you Mr. Tietz for coming in tonight. Tietz: Well I should have waited an hour because my plans changed an hour after I called you. Aanenson: I was just going to mention one other thing. Mr. McGonagill went to, there’s the government training service that does planning classes so he had actually signed up for the, not the introductory one but the secondary, kind of more comprehensive plan but he really enjoyed it. He sent me an email on that. I think he went tothat last week so always if there’s an opportunity that you want to I can sign you up for a class but he found it very helpful. I think it’s always good to hear from a different person but so that’s where that’s at. That’s all I had. Aller: Any last comments for anyone? Otherwise here’s wishing that all of you have a great Thanksgiving and may you spend it with family and friends and neighbors here in Chanhassen and when it becomes Black Friday at the end of the week remember to Buy Chanhassen so I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Weick moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 30