PC Minutes 4-4-06
Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006
good against the goals that we set back then? Did we not? So I guess I'd like to see as a part of
your plan, kind of set yourselves some goals. How we doing? Okay, and maybe have some kind
of reporting mechanism that we report it every year how we're doing against the goals. So
measurable things that we can try to hit. The other thing is, there are some action plans. They
tend to be, I thought they were pretty general and left a lot open for discussion and again I'm
going to volunteer myself and members of my group to, organization to maybe help with some
of that work. On how to turn these things into actual plans that we go do, and if we need the help
with funding or something else that we can help with, we'd obviously be willing to help. So I
guess that's kind of the comments. We would just like to be involved and set goals and let's
measure against them. Okay? And you guys are the Planning Commission. You have a real
challenge in trying to match the plans and the ordinances and make sure we stick with those
things as they go forward and as developers come in and try to do things. We need to make sure
we stick with our standards and maintain those so, up to you guys and all of us to make sure it
happens so thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Excellent comments. Anybody else who would like to address
our surface water management plan and update? This is your chance. If there's nobody getting
up, I'll bring it back here. We are leaving this hearing open, and as a matter of fact I'd like to
ask if somebody would want to make a motion formally leave this hearing open so that we
anchor that in.
Larson: I can do that. You want to do it?
Zorn: Go ahead.
Larson: The Planning Commission continues the public hearing for surface water management
plan update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Sacchet: So that's the motion that Debbie makes. Do we have a second?
Zorn: Second.
Larson moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission table the public hearing for
the Surface Water Management Plan Update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to o.
Sacchet: So this hearing stays open and I would expect that commissioners will have a chance to
make comment on the May 2nd when this is addressed again as well.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOT 2. BLOCK 2. CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK: REQUEST FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR REDUCED PARKING
SETBACK AT SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING. APPLICANT. EDEN TRACE CORPORATION.
PLANNING CASE NO. 06-11.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006
Commissioner Mark Undestad removed himself from the commission for this item due to a
conflict of interest. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions for staff here? Kurt, go ahead.
Papke: I'll start out. On page 5 of the staff report it delineates that we can reduce the public
right-of-way to a minimum 10 feet if the applicant can demonstrate that we get 100% screening
at least 5 feet above the adjacent parking lot. It wasn't quite clear to me from staff report that we
demonstrate where that's been achieved. Could you clarify that?
Metzer: That's what the code says in the industrial office park district.
Papke: Right.
Metzer: Allows for setbacks as little as 10 feet with.
Papke: Correct, so what I'm getting to is, if the code says we can reduce it to as little as 10 feet,
and it's on the, kind of a trade off here is that we get 100% screening up to a height of 5 feet, so
how did we achieve that in this plan? I didn't see where.
Metzer: It was given an example that this request for a 20 foot parking setback is less than what
you know, sometimes permitted by public... as an example.
Papke: Correct, but that permit stipulates that you, it's a give and take. Okay you give them a
little bit less setback and in return we get 100% screening at a 5 foot level. So how did we
achieve the 100% screening at 5 feet?
Metzer: We have, the code lays out a specific buffer yard plantings for in setbacks and one of
the conditions is that additional landscaping be planted because the proposal doesn't meet the
requirements.
Papke: So in the table we have here, is the required planting that we have on page 8 of staff
report, which the proposal does not achieve by the way, is the required planting column, will that
achieve the 100% screening at the 5 foot level? Without any berming, because unless I, you
know I didn't, the grading plans weren't real detailed. Do I take it there is no berm?
Metzer: There's on the south property line there is no berming.
Papke: Okay, so therefore it's strictly through the landscaping that we're going to achieve that,
and does this required amount here achieve the 100%? Is there additional plantings in here
above the normal for a 50 foot setback that achieves that 100%?
Metzer: No. This is.
Papke: This is the minimum.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006
Metzer: ... requirement for the setback that we have proposed for the 20 foot.
Papke: So, am I the only one that's confused here?
Sacchet: I follow you.
Papke: I'm not getting it. If the whole idea is we achieve 100% screening at 5 feet by additional
plantings, where's the additional plantings?
Generous: The required plantings would almost double the amount of plantings required in that
buffer yard.
Papke: Okay, so that's what I was getting to. What I was trying to find out was.
Generous: If you look at it you go from 20 shrubs to 52 and if you, initially...
Papke: So that's what I'm saying. So on page 8, the required plantings columns in the two
tables does achieve the 100%?
Generous: The only place that's open is with the rain gardens are proposed to go in.
Papke: Okay.
Generous: It's that column requirement. So then the rest of the stuff gets...
Papke: Okay so, just to finalize this, just to make sure I'm not confused. On page 8, the middle
column under required, that is double the typical. Double the amount typically required by code
and achieves 100%.
Generous: What they have is.
Papke: It's double what they have.
Generous: What they proposed but... believe that meets the intent. What meets the requirements
of the screening.
Papke: Okay.
Generous: If you look at the third column they have 28 shrubs. They're going up to 52 shrubs...
23 understory that can be evergreens or ornamentals. You put those in, you'll get your
screemng.
Papke: Okay. Alright, it just wasn't clear from reading the staff report how we had achieved the
thing that we said we would on, in the, on page 5. Okay. Next comment. Page 7, the hard
surface. The PUD standards is 70% average between the 8 developable lots and this one is
almost 80% which we make up for how?
9
Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006
Generous: Through Outlot C, which is the common open space within the development. This
lot will be allocated a portion of that green area.
Papke: Okay. Okay, so that's, it's the outlot.
Generous: Most the time what we do is.
Papke: It's the outlot that compensates for it?
Generous: Exactly, and that's how we got that in the first place.
Papke: Okay, good. Good, good. Last question. Page 9, the rain garden. To my recollection I
think this is the first time since I've been on the Planning Commission that I've seen a rain
garden, so this is a bit new for me. It's great. I think it's great that we're doing rain gardens. I
mean that's certainly goodness. But some of these stipulations are a little bit new. Could you
explain about this site plan agreement with the city to ensure the rain garden continues to
function, keeping it, you know how, is this more work for the city? What, can you color
inbetween the lines a little bit on this?
Generous: Basically it requires that the developer have some type of maintenance agreement in
place to maintain the function of that garden. We could take security to do it. That's something
we'll have to work out as we go. It's actually Carver County was the one that put that, asked us
to put that condition in. So it will be through both jurisdictions that we will enforce that. But the
agreement goes with the property so they'll have to keep, comply with that. It's like the security
for other landscaping.
Papke: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Okay, any other questions?
Larson: Yeah I have a question. On page 8, what says vehicular use landscape area, and the
required is 5,311 square feet. Proposed is 28,935. Can you explain to me what that means?
What the huge difference is? Does that mean hard surface area? I'm a little confused on that.
Generous: What it means that yeah, basically you're looking at all the driveways and parking
areas. We take that total area and there's a formula that we use to determine how many islands
they need to have and how much, it's 8% in your vehicular use area has to be in landscaping. So
they have, if you look all around their parking lot, they may have more green area but it's not
broken up. And that's why the commission is to add additional islands because our ordinance
doesn't want all the landscaping in one spot. It wants it scattered so that we get canopy coverage
over the parking area and eventually you have cooling. Shade on the parking lot cools it.
Larson: Sure. Okay, thank you for clarifying that.
Sacchet: Thank you. Any other questions? Deborah.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006
Zorn: Just had a quick question. Could you clarify what a rain garden is exactly, for those
maybe listening and don't really know and educate myself.
Metzer: Basically it's a way to treat storm water runoff immediately on site I believe.
Generous: The closest thing I know is it's like a swale with vegetation that's conducive to being
in more wet soils and it will take out some of the pollutants, but it's an infiltration area that
allows the water to percolate into the ground rather than run off into your storm water pond.
Provides some holding. But it's not as big as duration holding as a storm water pond.
Larson: It's like a filter.
Generous: Exactly. A natural filter. It's the buffer yard that we require all the time that you put
the natural grasses in. That will slow the water down and allow it to percolate in and evaporate
and, which will help us with the storm water.
Zorn: Thanks.
Sacchet: Jerry, did you have a question too?
McDonald: Yeah, I had a question on page 5 where you're talking about the setback and you
talk about Lyman Boulevard and I guess the County may be looking at extending that to 4 lanes.
What wasn't clear to me was that if they do that, does that encroach into any of this area or is
that already accounted for?
Fauske: Chair McDonald, the current right-of-way in 120 feet will allow for, typically for a 4
lane roadway of 12 foot lanes... Even with a center median, with constructing a trail, 120 feet is
sufficient to accommodate a 4 lane divided roadway. At the time that this was going through the
planning process, Carver County did not indicate...
McDonald: Okay, so it's not going to encroach into this area where all of a sudden we've got a
problem with the parking lot being too close and the berm area or anything.
Fauske: We don't anticipate...
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Before I open the, there is a comment in here that Carver County registered some
concerns. Why would they be concerned if there's no issue?
Fauske: At this point in time Carver County has no plans... for Lyman Boulevard. They
anticipate a 4 lane divided roadway at this location. It has, they haven't identified the exact
roadway site, therefore we don't know the exactly right-of-way needed at this point. And staff
again looking at the... it doesn't say anything above and beyond the... 120 feet of right-of-way.
That future right-of-way. . .
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006
Sacchet: Do they since they have concerns?
Fauske: Pardon me?
Sacchet: Does Carver County think they need more? Why do they have concerns?
Fauske: I think they just put it out there, it's not.. .just to put it out there that we know Lyman
Boulevard needs to be widened. We don't what it's time will be. We don't know when the
right-of-way needs to be... staff went back and looked at that and come up with a
recommendation we looked at...
Sacchet: So it's really more a trigger for staff to be more careful. It's not that they have
concerns. They just want to make sure you look at it carefully, is that a fair interpretation?
Fauske: Correct. They want to make sure staff was cognizant...
Sacchet: Okay. Then I have one more question, which is kind of at the heart of this whole
matter. And you pointed that out Josh. This was always a 20 foot setback in the plan, however it
was a mistake that it was worded to be 50?
Metzer: Yeah, it was overlooked I believe during the subdivision process.
Sacchet: Because that's significant because I wasn't quite sure from reading the staff report
whether it was actually, the... was 50 and we overlooked that they drew 20. So it's clearly the
other way around? That it was always 20 and it was a mistake at somewhere?
Generous: No one picked up that we wrote 50 in that because when the PUD was coming
forward, all the concern was on Galpin Boulevard with the residential across to the east and no
one really looked at that. We made the same for both arterial roadways but their concept plan
and the, all the plans were looking at a smaller parking setback for Lyman which is an arterial
road. To the south it would be additional industrial development.
Sacchet: Because that's an important distinction. I mean it's one thing if staff made a mistake,
what they were done versus the applicant agreeing to something and all of sudden deciding they
want it different.
Generous: Right, and it was never picked up on because the whole issue at the time was
installed on Galpin Boulevard.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright. That's all the questions I have. Any other questions? No? With that
I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward, if we have an applicant here. Yep, we do. If you
want to add anything to what staff presented or.
Ben Merriman: No, I'm happy to answer any questions.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006
Sacchet: If you want to see whether we have any questions for you. Do we have any questions
for the applicant? Kurt?
Papke: Yeah, staff has suggested this additional condition for the architectural articulation to
break up, is it the 40 foot span over there? What's your, what's your plan to follow through on
that or is this news to you or?
Ben Merriman: For the 40 foot, excuse me? Which?
Papke: There's a limitation of the 40 foot fa<;ade without any articulation.
Ben Merriman: Ah, yeah.
Sacchet: Also you may want to introduce yourself. Sorry, I didn't let you introduce yourself.
Ben Merriman: Okay, I'm sorry. My name is Ben Merriman and I'm with Center Companies
and also Eden Trace and I'm the developer of the property. What we'll probably end up doing
here is, is adding a bump out so it will be similar to what you see in the front of the building.
We'll have to add a parapet and then drop. For instance we take this feature here and drop it into
this area here. I think that will probably do it. That will break the ridge. What we don't want is
a long line because then it really starts to look well more industrial than our buildings generally
do look. We try to keep them in more of an office tech type of a building, and that's what this is
designed for. It's not designed for a heavy manufacturing use. It's designed for more office tech
warehouse type of a use. And so I think that will work quite well.
Papke: And so you don't have any issues with doing that?
Ben Merriman: None.
Papke: Okay. In regards to the increased landscape planting, particularly on the south side
there, do you have any issues with the increased requirements?
Ben Merriman: Not at all. We can add those shrubberies and we'll be careful in selecting what
type of shrubberies will do the best there. We'll have to take a hard look at that because of the
salt issues maybe from the roads and things but we'll select some shrubberies that will offer the
blocking of the view on, and hopefully we'll try to get some evergreens and those types of things
that block all seasons.
Papke: Could you add a little color to the rain garden design if possible.
Ben Merriman: I can although it's very new to me, I must say. So this is going to be a bit of an
experiment to, I think for all of us. Again as staff pointed out, it came from Carver County and
the purpose of the rain garden so to speak is, I think it was fairly well articulated. Instead of all
the water running on a hard surface into a pipe and straight into a pond, which is typically how
we've done it, and then the pond acts as a sediment feature and takes out some of the pollutants
and allow some of the, well what a holding pond does, it allows some of the petrol products to
13
Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006
evaporate. In this system it will run into these rain gardens or ditches and it allows for one,
filtration and allows two, for some of the water, instead of to just go straight in the pond, it
allows it to seep into the soils. And supposedly it's better for ground water, and it does make
some sense. So we're interested in trying to see how this goes. We don't know exactly. We've
never done it before but we're anxious to try to see how it works out. As far as maintenance,
it's going to be kind ofa wait and see. We've never, I've never dealt with any of these types of
vegetations and it's a different type of vegetation that you plant in there and so we'll have to
maintain it and watch it and we may have to change some of the vegetation as years go on.
Papke: One last quick one. IfI'm reading some of the drawings correctly, it looked like, since
some changes were made in the design of the parking for this building, that, am I correct in
assuming that more parking along the south side was added and there was at one point just a
drive along the south side? And if so, what was the rationale behind that?
Ben Merriman: Yeah, you're exactly correct. We did not have any parking on that side of it,
and as I pointed out, these buildings are less of a warehouse component and more of an office
and tech component. So they're more of a office building than they are a pure warehouse as
most people perceive warehouses to be. And we needed more parking. It's just that simple.
We have to run a higher ratio of parking in other words, the number of square feet to the number
of people has to increase and so we had to add a substantial amount of parking in order to satisfy
the tenants that are going to be in here, and tenants or owners so the, of the building. So we
increased the parking on that side. Actually we increased it on all sides.
Sacchet: Alright. Any other questions for the applicant? No? Anything you'd like to add from
your end?
Ben Merriman: No thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much.
Ben Merriman: Thank you.
Sacchet: Appreciate it. Now this is a public hearing. I'd like to invite anybody who wants to
address this item to come forward. Seeing nobody get up, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it
back to the commission for comments and discussion. Any comments? Discussion. If not I'll
take a motion. Actually multiple motions. Double motions.
Larson: What page?
Sacchet: Page 11.
Papke: Okay, I recommend that we adopt, I recommend that we approve the Chanhassen West
Business Park PUD amendment for a 20 foot parking setback from Lyman Boulevard right-of-
way for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen West Business Park and B. I recommend approval of
Site Plan number 06-11 for a 49,105 square foot office/warehouse building, plans prepared by
14
Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006
Schoell and Madsen, Inc. dated February 17 '06 subject to conditions 1 through 28 as distributed
by staff, with the addition in condition 6. Per SAC unit as determined by Met Council.
Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Zorn: I second.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Chanhassen West Business Park PUD Amendment for a 20 foot parking setback from
Lyman Boulevard right-of-way for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen West Business Park.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan #06-11 for a 49,105 square foot office/warehouse building, plans prepared by Schoell
and Madson, Inc., dated February 17,2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, landscaping and rain
garden function on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. Minimum maintenance and inspection shall
include maintaining rain garden vegetation with non-invasive species and ensuring that the
infiltration function of the rain garden does not fail. All rain gardens and associated
infrastructure on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 shall be maintained by the property
owner/association or property management company.
2. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
3. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used adjacent to the storm water pond along
the west side of the lot. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will
require an easement from the appropriate property owner.
4. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
5. Add the latest revision of City Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1004, 1006,2204, 3101, 3102,
3104,3106,3107,3108,5201,5203,5207,5214,5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, 5302 and
5302A.
6. The site has been previously assessed and each newly created lot will be subject to City
sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The
2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain per
SAC unit, as determined by the Metropolitan Council.
7. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not
limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Minnesota Department of Health and Carver County
Water Management Area.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006
8. On the plans show the stop signs per city detail plate # 5217, the driveway aprons per
detail #5207 and pedestrian ramps must be constructed per detail plate #5215.
9. On the utility plan:
a. Show all the existing utilities sewer type, size and class.
b. Show all existing storm and sanitary structures rim and invert elevations.
c. Add a note to maintain 18-in minimum vertical separation between the watermain and
storm sewer intersection on the western car park.
d. Revise CB5 to CBMH5.
10. On the grading plan:
a. Show all the storm water structures rim elevations.
b. Show the EOF.
c. Show the actual existing elevation contours for the site.
d. Show minimum 75-ft rock construction entrance.
e. Extend the silt fence to close off the northwesterly entrance.
11. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the Lots 1 and 2.
12. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Time
Type of Slope (maximnm time an area can remain nnvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3: 1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10: 1 21 Days
13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
14. Construction site entrances and exits shall be indicated on plans and shall have maintained
rock construction entrances as specified on City ofChanhassen detail plate 5301.
15. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
16. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
17. The accessible parking space at the northwest side of the building must be on the shortest
route possible to the northwest entrance.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 2006
18. A PIV is required on the building water service.
19. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
20. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
21. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xce1 Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
22. Yellow curbing and "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
23. Builder must comply with the following Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division policies:
a. #4-1991 Regarding Notes To Be Included On All Site Plans
b. #7-1991 Regarding Pre-fire Drawings
c. #29-1991 Regarding Premise Identification
d. #34-1993 Regarding Water Service Installation
e. #36-1994 Regarding Proper Water Line Sizing
f. #40-1995 Regarding Fire Protection Systems
g. #06-1991 Regarding Fire Lane Signage
h. #52-2005 Regarding Commercial Plan Review Submittal Criteria
24. Lighting shall be high-pressure sodium.
25. The applicant shall revise landscape plan to show 11 landscaped islands or peninsulas
within the parking lot area.
26. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show 15 overstory trees, 37 understory
trees, and 52 shrubs along the south property line.
27. Sidewalk connections to Galpin Court and Lyman Boulevard must be constructed. The
sidewalks shall include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
28. An architectural articulation shall be incorporated on the northern and southern
fa.;ades."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
17