Loading...
CC Minutes 8-14-06 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 1. Resolution #2006-54: Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08: Approve Change Order No.2 for Wells 2, 5 and 6. J. Resolution #2006-55: Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08-5: Approve Quotes for Security Contract. k. Resolution #2006-56: Approve Resolution Creating a Land Use Study Area at the Southwest Comer of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. 1. Accept Resignation of Councilman Steve Labatt. m. Resolution #2006-57: TH 212 Project 03-09: Approve Change Order for Turn Lane on Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: W A YTEK. INC.. 2440 GALPIN COURT (CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK). APPLICANT. EDEN TRACE CORPORATION: A. CONSIDER V ACA TION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT. B. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 100.000 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING). Public Present: Name Address Kelly Morlock Joel Lehrke 2325 Boulder Road 2329 Boulder Road Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. .. . related to the next item. This is the vacation of the utility easement and precipitated by the request for the subdivision... The subject site for Chan West Business Park is requesting a larger lot than was originally anticipated for the development. Subject site located off of Galpin Boulevard, just north of Lyman. It's this lot. This one here, so the current utilities, this was the original configuration of the lot, Lot 1... The current utilities and drainage easement runs through the middle of Lot 1. So with the reconfiguration of the subdivision, which can be done administratively, because you're not creating a new lot, you're just rearranging lot lines, will put.. .so this request before you is just to vacate the existing utility and drainage easement. The appropriate documentation is attached in the staff report and the staff is recommending approval. 3 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Now, I guess the question here is there may be some public comment or there are a lot of other issues we're going to talk about with regard to the site plan approval. Right now do you want us to address the vacation? Kate Aanenson: Whatever you're comfortable...if you want to hold that off, or whatever you're comfortable with. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: I can go right into the site plan. Mayor Furlong: Why don't we go into the overall project and then we'll be sure, just remind me that we don't miss the public hearing on the vacation of the easements. Kate Aanenson: I'll rely on the City Engineer to help me remember. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And part of the reason for doing that is you said the moving of the lot lines is administrative. That's just an administrative function. Kate Aanenson: As I mentioned before, there are 2 or 3 lots that could be...in this existing area. The applicant proposed a larger lot so the subdivision itself... So what the applicant's asking for is 110,000 square foot building. It says 2 stories but that's actually been.. .on 7.4 acres of property. The history of this is the property is guided office industrial for a number of years and the applicant.. . development but staff is recommending doing a PUD so... Another thing we did when we put together the PUD is increase the standards for the design... that would be in place for the office industrial. Specifically there was concern from the resident on the Trotters Ridge... The overall square footage for the entire industrial park hasn't changed... So the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this specific site plan on July 18th. They did recommend approval... One of the conditions that was added by the staff and the neighbors on that north side, they asked us to evaluate, would be condition number 11. We talked about breaks in windows based on the height, and they didn't want that as. ..so we're actually going to ask the applicant to do something architecturally... That is not reflected in your conditions of approval, so if you were to turn to your staff report on page 9 of 12, condition 11. We had added based on the Planning Commission...that high overhead windows be added on that northern elevation. We'd like that changed to architectural... be added on that northern elevation so... So again there's loading docks on this side.. .One of the other issues that was addressed at the Planning Commission in this site plan. .. the trees that we saved in that one outlot, there was some concern about the canopy. . . so that actually, if you look on the other side of the plan has been removed so those trees will be preserved. That is a parking, there's proof of parking, if they ever need they can go back and at this point it doesn't look like that will be necessary. So with that and architectural standards.. .look of the building itself. A lot of architectural relief. This does meet the standards that was put in place for that industrial park. This is... There will be the concrete. There will also be the copper window elements and then the burnish block.. .so again, giving architectural relief on the building. So in your staff 4 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 report we went through the architectural detailing of the building itself, and that's... standards. And as the Planning Commission did concur with that. The building has downcast lighting, and that was one of the issues that we talked about regarding lighting, and. ..security lighting and then... So with that, the one condition that number 11 is worded to modify the... staff and the Planning Commission did recommend approvaL.. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Great. Kate Aanenson: Any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? Couple. With regard to lighting, you mentioned that. Will there be the down lighting for security purposes around the entire perimeter of the building? Kate Aanenson: The majority of the lighting, there are entrances on both sides. There will be lighting. There is a change in grade but I think with that. Mayor Furlong: Where the road is higher than the. Kate Aanenson: Correct. I don't think there should be a lot of spill going that way, and based on the photometrics...that shouldn't be an issue. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess the question, I know this was an issue for residents on the north side of the building. Will there be lighting there? Kate Aanenson: No. There.. .on the back. And the other issue that was addressed too is they're increasing the wing wall for that. . . Mayor Furlong: Okay, and for security purposes, is the lack of lighting there even minimum lighting, is that? Kate Aanenson: Well you've got lighting on this side here, so I think that, and then with the entrance...I think if you recall when we went through the POO standards there was a question that was raised on whether we'd look at any lighting at all here... and we felt it was appropriate that that would be, appropriate lighting... at the Planning Commission the applicant talked about... the use of the building. Hours of operation. It seemed pretty typical. Not much... with the higher cost and... Mayor Furlong: Well and clearly wherever there's entrances, it sounds like there's security lighting. I'm not advocating lighting that's going to negatively affect the neighbors to the north. I guess the only question I raise, even though there are no windows there now, it looks like that's coming out, is whether or not some sort of lighting to avoid kids loitering in dark areas or something like that. If there's anything that will be there to. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's why we keep... 5 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the berming I know is also an issue. You commented a little bit about that but, has that been. Kate Aanenson: Yes, at the Planning Commission we asked that that issue be resolved before it came before you. Make sure that a definitive, what the expectation was. The applicant has met with them and to satisfaction of... Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Lundquist: Kate on this proposed usage here, what's the primary traffic flow in generated? Is it a retail outlet in and out kind of thing? Kate Aanenson: No, it's office. It'd be pretty typical what we have for the office showroom. Kind of office warehouse. Pretty typical. . . Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else at this point? If not, the applicant's here. Is there anything you'd like to address to the councilor comments to make? Ben Merriman: I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have and also I have the owners ofWaytek here and they'd be happy to answer any questions for the council. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions at all for the applicant or for the owners of the property? Or the business. Okay. Good. What I'd like to do then at this point is, officially open the public hearing with regard to the vacation of the easements, because of the lot line change and invite any interested parties on that particular issue to come forward and comment. And if there are others that would like to comment on something because of the change between the Planning Commission and now, we'll take up in a few minutes so at this point I'd like to just limit discussion to the official public hearing which we have to have by law with regard to the vacation of the drainage and utility easements. Any interested parties, please come forward at this time. State your name and address. Kelly Morlock: Just I may have two things. Mayor Furlong: This is only on item 2. Kelly Morlock: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Because we have some other ones so this is only on item 2(a) at this point, thank you. If not then we'll close the public hearing on item number 2(a) and now would invite, and the public hearing for this project, as with all projects, did occur at the Planning Commission. That's where it's appropriate for that but sometimes there are changes between Planning Commission and the council meeting, which did occur here because of the comments made at the Planning Commission, and that's part of the process, but if there is a desire by anybody to make public comment to the council based upon those changes, I would certainly invite you to come forward now. We have 6 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 all received copies of the Planning Commission minutes and had a chance to read those so there's no need to repeat that information, but if there's other information that you need us to be aware of, we'd certainly like to hear it at this time. Sir. Kelly Morlock: My name's Kelly Morlock. I live at 2325 Boulder Road in the Stone Creek Addition. I've got a number of different issues regarding this project, dating back to the beginning if I could. A lot of people are really pleased with this project, they're really happy about this project. Most of them don't live in Trotters Ridge and most of them don't live in Stone Creek. The developer is on the Planning Commission and yes, he does remove himself from the meetings but there's still an underlying influence there that I think that there is. Even though it appears that during the Planning Commission meeting, even though Kurt Papke thought that there was 150 foot barrier from the north, there was only 100 foot. The original plan was only approved on a 3 to 2 vote. It was tabled at council and then it was questionably passed back in August of 2005. .. .Planning Commission meetings minutes and the council meeting minutes. Recently a homeowner came to the city for a permit for a patio. They were told they didn't need a permit. They hired a contractor to build a patio and they went in for a permit and the contractor was told he didn't need a permit, so they built the patio. Well the patio changed in our impervious surface percentage. They asked for a variance of less than 5%. They were denied and they had to remove the patio, or about 25% of their... They never asked if they would need to be in compliance with the hard surface percentage or 25%. The homeowner didn't know but his contractor should have known the zoning. Mayor Furlong: Sir. Sir. I'm sorry, this is relating to this site plan approval? Kelly Morlock: Yes. I'll get back to it. Mayor Furlong: As quickly as you can then please. Kelly Morlock: Okay. Ijust need a few minutes. 5-10 minutes. I have... Mayor Furlong: 5 would be fine, thank you. Kelly Morlock: There's another story about a sport court. There's too much hard surface percentage and they must comply as well. Once again the contractor should have known. This is at the expense of the owners. And then there's another story going on right now about a gazebo and a fire pit up against the wetland conservation easement, but right now they haven't come to the end of that story. The developer knew a lot of things and it was stated at the commission or the council meeting that we as homeowners ask questions to get the results we want to hear. Do we need a permit for a patio? Well yeah, how much is my impervious surface percentage? We should know better or a contractor should know better. The developer... to get results that they want. They know better. We have a number of issues and concerns with this project. We all know.. . I'm not saying it's going to go away. We accept that and it does have a direct impact on us. But we just don't want this to be rubber stamped. It's going between two neighborhoods and once again they should know. Let me give you a little history on what we have seen and 7 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 experienced. One of our biggest concerns at the beginning and it was brought up at council and at planning and by everyone of the people at Stone Creek and Trotters was traffic and safety. We asked many times to pursue an access out of Lyman. You're probably all familiar with that. We were told by the developer and then the Planning Commission and City Council that the County said no. There were traffic studies and conversations and meetings and requests and they just won't change. We should have known better. Here's what happened. At the July 19,2005, the planning meeting last July, Dan Keefe asked about the access to Lyman. Staff said they had conversations with Bill Weckman, who was I believe the Carver County Public Works Director. Mr. Weckman said... the County prefers the access to be at Galpin. Staff said another reason was the standards where access... The access to Lyman didn't meet the standards. Asked if Galpin met the standard, the question, the answer was no but it's a lesser of two evils. Staff used the SRF 2020 comp plan, I don't know what that is... Staff also said they would ask the County Engineer what his thoughts are regarding a signal at Lyman and Galpin. Planning Commission didn't think trucks mixing with residential seemed very logical. At the same planning commission the developer said they looked at two access points and the County requested Galpin. Both were considered, but the developers said they knew what was going to happen. At the City Council meeting on August 8th of 2005, it was asked if the design was presented to the county staff or just a verbal conversation. The developer said it was just a verbal conversation. There was no maps. There was no plans. He should have known. The developer didn't want any access off Lyman because they would have had to move a pond they had. They used trees as a hostage by moving them to Outlot C if we didn't have that access. Council requested staff to revisit the access to Lyman with the County. Lyman and Carver are both county jurisdictions. It was tabled until August 22nd. When staff approached the county on the issue, the County requested a traffic study. The applicant or the developer is the one who hired the traffic study to look at this particular development and right-inlright-out issue of Lyman. We should have known. They did another vehicle count in August. The numbers might be a little high because of postal activity we were told. So this study was done in August, not during the school year so there's no mention of traffic due to the Bluff Creek school, the proposed high school, Lifetime Fitness, school bus traffic for the neighborhoods and other schools, parents, teachers, students driving, ball games, activities before and after school, pedestrians, bikes, the proposed use of the business park. There was no mention of a possible traffic light to connect the property south of Galpin, which could be developed. The stop light will eliminate the need for an acceleration lane that would interrupt the right-in/right-out. The apartments at 41 and Hazeltine Boulevard have a stop light, and they have two access points, so it can be done with the County. Based on the study provided, the County was not supportive but if the council was to choose to pursue it, they would have significant impacts. The right questions weren't asked. We believe that the developer should have known. Now about the building we're dealing with... the PUD was to have 8 lots with mid sized buildings in the 40 to 50,000 square foot range. Lifetime is considered a large building in an industrial area. At the July 19th, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the commission wanted Building 6 to be smaller than originally proposed to transition with the neighborhoods, Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge. Well now, at 110,000 square feet, this building is...the original PUD lot size. It's like putting a Wal-Mart between two 8 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 neighborhoods, and even Wal-Mart doesn't do that. It's twice the size of the Byerly's. It's 9,000 square feet. Less than Costco, Cub store. Lifetime is 109,000 square feet on two floors. Over half the size of the new, this is over half the size of the new W ai-Mart superstores. The building itself is not to exceed 30 feet. It's at 30 feet 2 inches. They should have known. You were talking about a sight line from Trotters. You can kind of see it here. This bottom line is from the edge of the lot I believe...1 believe it's from the edge of the lot looking up to the top of the building. If you go to the side of the house where the walkout is, this red line here, a 6 foot person, that's their sight line. Then if you're standing on the deck over on the main floor, which is where their quality of life is, that's their sight line. It's a little different. Now is their quality of life... I don't know. Is this an undue hardship? I don't know. There's not a lot of similar buildings within 100 feet. From this, the same people up north, this is what they'll look like. The neighbors up north in Trotters Ridge are going to look like. There's no brick like the rest of the neighbors to the north, or to the east or to the west. There's no brick at all. These are tilt up concrete panels. Not in the original spirit of the PUD. They should have known that too. Tilt up concrete with exposed aggregate that's ribbed and smooth is not an urban style design. The proposed site plan for this building is 322,447 square feet. With the building at 110,000 square feet, getting back to my patio story, the green surface is 28%. The hard surface is 72%. That's not in compliance. But like Building 2 that's already been built, the impervious surface percentage to comply will come out of Outlot C. So now that leaves one of the remaining lots doesn't have a 200 minimum depth included in the PUD. There's lots combined. They should have known that, or we should have known that. At the April 4th Planning Commission meeting the commission said the PUD standards for impervious surface is 70% between the 8 developable lots. Building 2 is about 80% right now. More than the patio. Outlot C is a permanent conservation easement. Therefore it is not developable and shouldn't be included in the impervious surface percentage like the 8 developable lots as stated. Getting to this berm issue, I'm just about through, thank you. The original berm was to be 12 feet and the setback was told at 100 feet. Now the building is higher and the berm is lower at 9 feet. The developer says it gets much higher with trees on top. Well there are plenty of high berms in the area with big trees. There's a large berm west.. .over by the Temple of Eck. There's a large berm between the ball parks at Lake Ann. There's a large berm west of Bluff Creek on the comer of Galpin. And there's also a large berm west of 41 by Hundtermark. The applicant should know, if he irrigates trees they probably won't die. And if they're not planning on irrigating trees, or maintain the trees in the setback, should that setback be included in the impervious surface percentage? The Planning Commission and City Council stated the applicant should preserve all trees shown on plans dated June 17,2005. The developer has done some quality projects in Chaska and Chanhassen regarding this issue. They should have known. They should have known, so finishing off I suggest, one more page. I've got one more. Back to the traffic issue. This could be between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning. This could be between 3:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon. This is 3 trucks going into the development. I mean here's 2 school buses planning on getting onto Galpin. We have a lot of school buses going back and forth. There's a lot of schools around there. The buses go back and forth. I'd much rather have the school buses on Galpin than with trucks on Lyman. So to finish off, I would suggest the City Council does not approve the application for a vacation of easements. I suggest 9 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 the City Council does not approve the design of Building 6. I would like more understory and overstory trees added to the east side and the north and the northwest side. On the east side all the way down to Lyman. I'd like Building 6 to be made of brick. No block, like the surrounding neighborhoods. I'd also like an updated traffic study to include the effects of the 2 schools, development, possible development south of Lyman. Employees of the business park and stop light. I know I took a little bit more time than I should have but I appreciate your time. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Ms. Aanenson, any comments on those items or questions. Kate Aanenson: Regarding the traffic study, I believe we did our due diligence as far as submitting a finalized site plan to Carver County that worked out. I think what you also have to look at is the background on traffic in this area. Just to the south of this area is a million square feet of industrial park in Chaska that also exits out onto Lyman Boulevard. We're also cognizant of working with the new high school site. That there will be additional signals and that's something that the county's looking at, the spacing. Not just of this property but the other traffic on Lyman Boulevard, including that industrial park that's also dumping a lot of traffic. As far as the additional standards of the PUD, it meets the standards of the PUD. I do believe I spoke that the applicant has raised the back of that berm to 14 feet on the back as far as the setbacks. As far as it being all brick, I don't think we have too many all, unless for office industrial, I can't think of a pure brick building. As soon as I say that there might be one that we have in town that's a brick office warehouse that's pretty, not typical. So, if it's an office maybe but not this type office industrial so. Mayor Furlong: And I guess to your point, design standards that are in the PUD. Kate Aanenson: It meets the design standards, right. Mayor Furlong: On all sides. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Exactly, and I did mention also condition number 11 that one of the things that we thought the neighbors wanted was the windows in the back, but they wanted instead of windows, they wanted architectural details so that was the condition I recommended you modify number 11. Mayor Furlong: Okay. On the impervious surface, that was an issue and a comment was made whether or not or, the opinion was made whether or not Outlot C should be included. Kate Aanenson: Of course, we always do that. That's exactly how we set up the Target PUD. Target's way over the impervious. We have green space that balances out. That's typical in a PUD where, I also want to comment on the comparison of Costco and the parking. This has office industrial parking standards. If this was a retail building of that size, it would take all that parking would be pretty much absorbed by the rest of the site. This has only 159 parking stalls. Significantly less than if you had retail. It would be 10 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 you know 2 or 3 times that for parking so the trips would be a lot different. The amount of traffic and the number of cars being parked and the trips being generated would be significantly different. If it was retail as opposed to office industrial. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the other issue raised was whether the, with the movement of the lot line, whether the, not this particular lot but the smaller lots now would be buildable under the standards of the PUD. Kate Aanenson: I don't have that in front of me to verify to check on. I'm assuming that someone on staff did but I could try to verify that quickly. While you're taking other questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay. If possible. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd just like to add. The point of eliminating a lot line. If you have 2 lots, you know the amount of square footage of building space is not going to change on the subdivision. We're not adding building space square footage. Overall I think we're at the same amount of building square footage that was originally approved with the subdivision. Just because the applicant is bringing one 100,000 square foot building in, he could have put two 50,000 square foot buildings in, which probably would have had the same parking requirements that the 100,000 square foot building had. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, are there any other public comments compared to the changes in the plan? Joel Lehrke: Joel Lehrke, 2329 Boulder Road, Chanhassen. Likewise with the building, I'm going to refer more to the tilt up concrete. When this came before the City Council, Brian, Mr. Lundquist you were actually one of those people that a big problem with tilt up concrete and the developer asked that it be added for a certain additive that could happen of some sort in the future. You guys all kind of nodded your head that you didn't really like tilt up concrete but you'd leave it here and you'd take a look at it when a project came before you. At this time it is finally coming before you. I can think of a handful of buildings that we think that will look pretty nice as I stated in my letter. You know the building there has got the Bumelle block and brick there, and that's located right along Highway 5. It's the Star Tribune building. And also I'd like to comment to you, as you're looking along a major roadway on one side and industrial park on still the other side, before it gets to the residential area in that area, and that area you deemed well enough with. ..conditions that it should look really nice to the people driving on a highway with that look of brick. But right now you're telling residential people that they should look at tilt up concrete. As I also stated in my letter, due to the fact of the way this building's going to look, that there needs to be more type of roof articulation to hide the air conditioning units. Yes, I know they're going to use low profile. Yes, I know they're going to use the color of sort that's the blue or the gray or whatever that blends into the sky, but anyway you look at it, most of what's going to happen even from Trotters, but also from Stone Creek, the people on that side are even at a higher elevation looking down, that they're going to see nothing but the roof top. Once again this is the 11 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 Ridgeview building that I referred to with my letter that I sent to you. This has to do with the way a roof, brick and also some tilt up cast concrete there, but I think that has a much better break up look to it. Another thing for you to remember is that I'm...is I had been told the fire is tilt up concrete. But with a brick interface. We do have a building that's pretty large. I think that has brick on the side of it. Also more pictures of the Star Tribune building heading south, even though one of you would say that for now, for brick, this has a much better look to it than something like this that I found, and I believe this is what I could find closest in the city that was going to look something like that. The biggest thing I have with tilt up concrete is the seam factor. That anyway you put up a tilt up concrete, unless you do that brick like a Byerly's has or something like that, you're still going to have that seam effect. Also once again, you're going to have a lot of people driving by this. This is your back entrance to Chanhassen. You've got this big new school that's going up that everybody wanted to be the marquee of Chanhassen. They want it to represent so the city would have a representation of a high school that represents Chanhassen. If you've ever driven down Pioneer during the morning when kids are being dropped out at school or all the parents are coming by. Yes, I know there's a ninth grade center so there's more traffic than there will be with others, but guess what? That place is just loaded with traffic and there's going to be a ton of people coming by this area, and this is what you're going to have people looking at as they go to the new high school. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Thoughts or comments? Anybody else who would like to make a comment this evening? Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the comments made. Sir? Joel Lehrke: I'll be more than happy to let you guys have these. Mayor Furlong: What is it? Joel Lehrke: These are all pictures. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay, thank you sir. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Just a brief comment. Just so we're clear. We're here tonight, we're looking at a site plan review. A site plan review is essentially a check list to make sure there is compliance with all our ordinances. This is not a conditional use permit application. Mayor Furlong: And by the ordinances, that includes the standards set in the PUD. Roger Knutson: That's correct. So the question is, do they meet the standards in the PUD? Do they meet the other standards in the zoning ordinance? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. At this point then I would ask if there's any other comments or questions specifically here, I'm going to, unless somebody stands up now, I'm going to close the public hearing with regard to the vacation for the utility easements, since that is 12 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 something that we do have to take public comment on at the council meeting. Seeing nobody then without objection we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for additional questions or thoughts and comments. Any additional questions at this point for staff? Councilman Lundquist: So to Roger's question Kate, does it meet all the standards of the PUD and the conditional use? Kate Aanenson: No, just the site plan. Councilman Lundquist: Or the site plan. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It meets all the conditions of a site plan. Mayor Furlong: Which is the architectural standards and. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And all the issues there. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And there is the opportunity to, as we have in other PUD's, to balance the impervious. And it also meets that standard, correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And I guess the question, and again if you don't have the information you know with regard to the smaller lots, there's no relief being requested at this time for anything on those lots. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So the existing PUD standards would be required for any future site plan approval on those lots. Kate Aanenson: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Do you have any idea Kate, just the fact the envelope gets, it doesn't do us any good to create a lot that can't be built on... Kate Aanenson: I know that, Bob Generous who worked on this did ask for a footprint to be shown on that additional lot to show that... Mayor Furlong: And I guess point of clarification. Before us this evening is not a question of whether that lot line's changed. Ben Merriman: It's 185 feet. 13 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: So maybe that's a question for the applicant. Roger Knutson: A comment on lot line adjustments. By state law a lot line adjustment, that's when you're not creating any additional lots. You're just moving an existing lot line so you're making a lot smaller or bigger, is not a subdivision by definition and we are not authorized to regulate that lot line adjustment. We basically sign off saying it's not a subdivision and if you're not creating a new lot, you're just moving a lot line, it's not. So we really lack discretion. And if, and not reference to this but to any such situation, if as a result of what you're doing you create a non-conformity, that's a self created hardship and you've created yourself a real big problem. You may not get building permits for that unbuilt lot if you aren't careful. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, and so then what will happen is we'll be back in here talking about an amendment to the PUD and all kinds of other stuff when they come back to build it so, that's... Roger Knutson: They certainly could ask for that, and then it would be your decision as to whether it's appropriate or not to grant it. Mayor Furlong: And I would expect some of the residents have an opinion on that matter as well. Councilman Lundquist: As they should. Mayor Furlong: Indeed. Fully agree. Fully agree. So the question here then, and you stated it but the question is, does this site plan. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, typically when they do a, yeah I'm not sure where that 130's, or the 200's coming from. Typically when you do a PUD, once you've created the PUD, you have to have, there's a 1 acre minimum to create the zoning but after that it's, I wasn't aware of a minimum but I don't have that in front of me at this point. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Any other questions or comments and thoughts? Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Well I guess I'm a little troubled by the potential that we might be creating a non-conforming lot or something. I can't remember the specifics of that from a year ago and I don't remember where we were at or where all that came from. I didn't study that ahead of time so that troubles me a little bit that I'd like to have an answer to that I guess. As we heard Bobber say, I guess they're kind of in a bind to bit or maybe personally I'm in a bind to bit about the tilt up concrete piece that's, there isn't anything we can do about that tonight. It meets the standards so our hands are tied there. We can't deny the building for that anyway. The higher berm and some of the other stuff I think are good pieces and overall it's good I believe to take a business that's in town right now and allow them the opportunity to expand in town. It's a wonderful thing. 14 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 Keep those jobs here in town and that so I'm in favor of that. I guess really the only sticking point for me now is the rest of those issues I think that were raised this evening are issues that we talked in length about a year ago. And I do feel like we did do our due diligence on some of the traffic and things there. There's no doubt that all of our roads will have more traffic as the area grows and things happen so, but there's no doubt that you know that's going to happen all over that area and it's not just a burden of this single development but of all the development that's going on in the area, and as well with the high school I suspect that we're going to have to look at when that gets built some improvements and upgrades and all kinds of stuff is going to happen around Galpin and Lyman and Audubon and all kinds of stuff is going to happen around there when that goes on, and we've got, you know we'll deal with that at that time. So I guess I'm in favor of the development and in favor of going through with this but I'm, I don't know whether it even matters I guess or not about the possible creation of a mess to deal with down the line. I guess I'd like to have an answer on that before I would decide one way or the other. Roger Knutson: I'm a little hesitant to jump in but as I read page 7 and 8 of your planning report, it appears that you'll end up with two lots. They refer to as parcels A and B. One being 7.40 acres and one being 2.65 acres. Am I reading that right Kate? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: What page is that Roger? Roger Knutson: That's pages, at the bottom of page 7 and top of page 8. It says you're going to end up with two parcels. Councilman Lundquist: That's in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Top of 8, 8 of 12. Electronic 305. Roger Knutson: Oh I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: Top of page 8. Councilman Peterson: Certainly means they're buildable. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Councilman Lundquist: Then we had the question of the 200 foot and 185 foot that the. Kate Aanenson: I don't know the context of that. I'm not, you know we just have a setback but there's no generally, I'm not sure where that's coming from. I don't have the entire PUD. 15 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: I guess part of it, does this meet the standard of the PUD? I think there was an issue on the parking and they're we're allowing proof of parking in order to. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Have less impervious surface or less. Kate Aanenson: Just less parking. Not the whole park based on the use. They could put the additional 55 in if necessary. I think we always review that when we do projects, not to over park. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess the other comment with regard to sight lines and views, the building setback would be allowed to be 50 feet from Galpin, if I'm looking at this correctly and it's 120. The parking is up there so there's. Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and move the building back further. Mayor Furlong: And moving the building back further than where it was. Okay. Other council comments. Thoughts. Councilwoman Tjomhom: You know I think this has probably been through the Planning Commission twice, if I'm correct. Once last year and now this year, and so I'm not prepared to have a Planning Commission meeting here tonight and try to redesign a building and undo.. .Planning Commission did very well at the last meeting. My job tonight is to make sure that it does meet the standards of the PUD and we've been told that it does and so I'm willing to and ready to move forward with this project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I feel the same way as my peers and I think there isn't much for us to decide tonight.. . You always want to leave a meeting with everybody being happy, and it sounds like the majority of the neighbors are. You know you'd like to have 100% and Councilperson Lundquist thoughts on the tilt up concrete, again I think what we can do here tonight is to you know at least at a minimum send a signal to the developer and the building owner to continue to work with your neighbors because they're going to be neighbors a long time, and if they can do anything, whether it's increasing the berm higher than 14 feet and/or do something that's more articulated in back is, as staff is recommending, that they do what they're already going to do, maybe there's something more that they can do. That they would voluntarily do to be good neighbors, and I guess that's what I would send them off with, with the concept of look harder for better ways to integrate the building. It's a big building you know, and there are some neighbors are going to say I'd rather look at a big building than 3 small ones, and there's going to be some that say the exact opposite so again you can't necessarily meet the needs of everybody but I think that making the big building the best it can be is what I'd like to close my comments to the developer and the building owner. 16 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and I think that's well put. Since the Planning Commission, I know the developer has worked with residents in the neighborhood to the north to try to change the plans to accommodate. If there are some other accommodations that can be done, I think that's a reasonable request that we can make of the developer. And I think too, looking down the road, this is the second building in this development and you know continuing to look to find ways to meet and/or exceed the standards in the PUD, which I think is the desire of everyone here as well as the neighbors to the east and to the north so, other than that I think the other comments made by fellow council members with regard to the question before us is pertinent. Some of the issues raised this evening were issues that were well vented when the PUD went through and I agree with Councilman Lundquist in terms of the efforts taken both through the Planning Commission and again here at the council chambers to try to accommodate as many requests as possible when we considered the PUD and I know we made changes since then, and we asked questions that had already been asked again to try to see if we can get a different answer so, with that I think it makes sense for us to go forward with the comments with the request of the developer that was made here this evening and this summer as well to try to see if we can accommodate some of the lingering requests of the neighbors to the best of their ability. So with that, I believe our motion starts. Is there any additional comments, questions at all? If not, I think the motions start on page, bottom of page 8. And there was one request with regard to amending condition 11 to the architectural detail be added and striking the first words but with that is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I would move that the City Council approve Planning Site Plan #06-27 for two story, approximately 110,000 square foot office/warehouse prepared by Bouwman Architects, subject to conditions 1 through 31 with the addition of the one noted. Mayor Furlong: Before I ask for a second, do you want to incorporate the motion for item l(a) too with regard to the vacation? Councilman Peterson: I would love to do that. Mayor Furlong: So we don't forget that part as well, I believe, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: What page is that on? Kate Aanenson: That's a separate report. 2(a). Mayor Furlong: 380 in our electronic. Kate Aanenson: The motion on that was recommend approve the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements, Lots 1,2, and 3, Block 1, Chanhassen West Business Park. 17 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is that the motion you made? Councilman Peterson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: As stated in the staff report, thank you. And do those two motions cover what's being requested of us this evening? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Combined motion. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the combined motions of item 2(a) and 2(b)? Resolution #2006-58: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements within Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Chanhassen West Business Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves Planning Case Site Plan #06-27 for a two story, approximately 110,000 square foot office-warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated 6-16-06, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The developer shall extend the sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk on Galpin Court and include pedestrian ramps at all curbs. 3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 4. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 5. The developer shall heighten the retaining wall on the south side of the northerly drive-in overhead door to create a wing wall that is a least 10 feet above the grade of the loading dock area. This wall shall extend from the building westerly at least 15 feet then may be stepped downward as it continues west. 6. A temporary cover of seed and mulch shall be established on all areas of exposed soils not actively worked within a 14-day time period and within 14 days of achieving final grade. 18 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 7. The plans shall show temporary inlet control details for all proposed catch basins, including beehive catch basins. Existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project shall be protected as well. Plans shall indicate that inlet protection shall be installed within 24 hours of inlet installation. 8. All sediment tracked upon paved surfaces shall be scraped and swept within 24 hours. Plans shall include a designated concrete washout area and/or plans on how the development will handle the concrete wash water. 9. An NPDES Construction Site Permit shall be applied for and received from the MPCA by the owner/operator of the site. 10. The area in which the rain garden is proposed shall be part of a project sequencing plan that will protect the rain garden site from compaction. The rain garden shall not be built until at least 70% of the contributing area is stabilized. The applicant shall submit a planting plan for the garden. 11. Architectural detailing shall be added on the northern building elevation between the smooth bands. 12. Overstory trees shall be added every 40 feet along the north building elevation. 13. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 39 overstory trees within the vehicular use area. Trees may be added to the west side within Outlot C if their installation does not damage root systems of existing trees within that area. 14. A row of four conifer trees shall be added north of the parking spaces in the northwest comer of the loading dock area. 15. Tree preservation fencing is required to be installed prior to any construction around existing trees along Galpin Boulevard, Outlot C and any trees preserved along the north property line. 16. All landscape plantings along Galpin Boulevard shall be field located as to not damage existing plantings. 17. The bufferyard plantings along the north property line shall be spread out between the property line and the building to provide screening in depth. 18. Areas proposed for the preservation of existing trees shall not be sodded. 19. The developer must install a storm sewer stub south of CBMH 6. 20. The storm sewer downstream of CBMH 6 will not be owned or maintained by the City since it will not convey runoff from a public right-of-way. 19 City Council Meeting - August 14,2006 21. The developers of Parcels A and B must enter into a maintenance agreement for this segment of storm sewer. 22. The outstanding balance of the Park Dedication Fees for Parcels A and B must be paid with the building permit. The amounts are $82,600.14 for Parcel A and $29,579.78 for Parcel B. 23. The height of the berm shall be increased and extended to the west to provide additional screening for the existing single-family homes to the north. 24. A revised grading plan must be submitted with the building permit application. 25. Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 26. Eight-inch watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be privately owned and maintained. 27. Sanitary sewer and water hookup are due for this site. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. These fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 28. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel 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. 29. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 30. Builder must comply with Fire Prevention policies numbers 4,6,7,29,84,36,40,49 and 52. 31. Drive aisle widths shall be a minimum of 26 feet." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER V ACA TION OF ROADWAY EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 29-31. BLOCK 1. RED CEDAR POINT. LAKE MINNEW ASHT A. Public Present: 20