Loading...
1e. Planning Commission Minutes dated 4/2/97 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 2, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Kevin Joyce, Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad and Bob Skubic STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 35.000 SQ. FT. OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 2.74 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDUBON ROAD AND LAKE DRIVE WEST ON LOT 6. BLOCK 1. CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION. CH & C BUILDING. EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions for staff? For Sharmin. Blackowiak: I have a quick question. Page 11, in the top, in the first paragraph it talks about the building may have to be shifted slightly to the east. How much and how will that affect the setbacks that are currently barely, I mean met 20 foot. AI-Jaff: Right now they are right at the required setbacks. If that should happen, what they will need to do is actually reduce the width of the building rather than shift it to the side. Blackowiak: Is that something that the applicant is comfortable with? Mark Undestad: Mark Undestad with Eden Trace. One ofthe things that if you look at, because the applicant... possibly the issue of moving the building has to do with storm drainage for the front lot and the back lot. Because... We could probably still get that storm... The other issues.. . working with staff on. Peterson: Why don't we hold those comments until you make your presentation. Anymore questions for staff? Sidney: ... the location of the berm. From verbally or if you have a diagram. AI-Jaff: Sure. The proposed berm along Audubon Road. There are some... taking place between. . . building located in front of the park. Other grading will be taking place along the northern portion of the site... additional berming along the south. When I mentioned there would be a.. . Audubon Road and this area of the site. There will be a retaining wall right along the southeast portion of the parking lot. Does that answer it? / e. Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 Joyce: Where that retaining wall is Sharmin, it seems that berm stops about halfway up that retaining wall. Would you be continuing the berm toward Lake Drive West? Al-Jaff: As long as we don't block any sight distances, you could do that. That was one thing that we're working with the applicant on. Joyce: I noticed that it stopped a little short of there. Al-Jaff: It's because of the sight distances. Joyce: Okay. l?" Peterson: A couple questions Sharmin. I noted that there's extra parking, more than what would be required. Is there a specific reason for that? Al-Jaff: The tenant that will be occupying the majority of the building needs additional parking spaces. They are under the 70% hard surface coverage which is required by ordinance but as stated in staff's report, these are the loading docks right here. We believe that the applicant could add an island in this area to increase the green space on the site. Peterson: Well changing your subject now for a second. A question, leave that back on. Have you talked at all about the trash site? As far as where that might be potentially. Al-Jaff: No. They haven't showed it on the site plan and no, we have not discussed that. Peterson: Second question. You talk about lowering the parking lot by approximately 4 feet. Are you talking about lowering the whole building structure or would there be steps from the parking lot then up to the building or how would the elevation look from the parking lot to the building itself? Al-Jaff: It is graded in a fashion where this portion is still higher and it's graded down to the south. Basically in this area you are at the same elevation as Audubon Road, but as you get further down it will be at a 4 foot difference in elevation. Peterson: So what you're going to see then is, you'll see the cars closer to the building than the ones that are closer to the berm. Al-Jaff: Correct. About a month ago some staff members went to survey different communities to see what they do about parking lots because it seems to be the one issue that is constantly coming up whenever we review applications. We visited Opus II, as well as different places in Edina and Eden Prairie and what we found to be successful is lowering the parking lots so you know that it is there but it's concealed by retaining walls or berms or landscaping. It's reduced in size. Visibly not to see the entire parking lot. When you go behind the berm or when you go into the parking lot itself, it's amazing how large they are. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 peterson: Thank you. Any other questions for stafTI With that, would the applicant like to make a few comments? Mark Undestad: I guess I don't have much to add to that. .., work through most of the issues here and taken care... The berm along there, the Audubon there. Our intention is, rather than your typical. .. that we create a little more contour and a little character there. The retaining wall and parking lot... We're doing one across the street where we're going to tie the same type of. . . Again, we've done a couple projects iu Chauhassen and enjoy workiug with staff and putting up projects here. Hope to do some more. If you have any questions, I'm available. Joyce: You dou't have any disagreement with what the staffhas suggested about puttiug that landscape island back there? Mark Uudestad: No. The two issues that the architects aud engineers are still workiug with right now, which... One is where the storm line will go. And the other is the traffic flows for the island hack there and how we can. .. Most of the teuant space is laid out. .. As far as truck traffic aud maueuvering hack there, we have to, the architects get their little trucks to drive around back there to see where we can.. .have that all resolved here shortly. Peterson: Other questions for the applicant? Just had a couple. We talked about earlier about the trash. Have you. Mark Undestad: Right now... the tenants, they're all in the loading dock areas and... Peterson: Okay, thank you. As far as the roofing equipment, I'd just assumed, it really wasn't addressed in here but I assume it's all standard? Mark Undestad: Yeah. We'll probably do something that will match the building... Peterson: One of the items on the exterior of the building, as you look at the plans itself, there's a brick accent. It looks to seemingly be a square style accent. Can you give me some sense as to what size they are and how far apart? They seemed like they were quite far apart in a rather small proportion. Mark Undestad: On the old, or not the old building. The existing building they used brick with the soldier course across the top of the window. ., In this one we're splitting up, using the darker rock face all through the bottom and the lighter burnish to the top and then an accent band. What we're trying to decide on the top of the windows... What they did between there... Peterson: I was more talking about horizontally the distance seems to be rather expansive. I don't know whether it's. Mark Undestad: For the accent band? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 Peterson: No, for the brick itself. There's a singular brick. Mark Undestad: Oh no. He's probably showing a couple rows of brick on there. Generally what is shown here. . . Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. I'd like to hear a motion to open this meeting for a public hearing a second. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was open. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so now. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Discussion. Bob, do you have any comments? Skubic: I think it looks fine with staffs recommendations. I certainly, one thing that I agree especially with is that the southeast corner needs a little berming and more landscaping there to the parking area. One way of getting rid of that visual, getting the parking out of visibility would be to put it behind the building, which isn't the case here but on the other hand, with the parking you also have an entrance and the entrance is the attractive portion of the building so I think that will look much better off of Audubon Road there. So I don't have anything to add. I think staff is right on track here. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: Yeah, I agree. It seems as if it's a very thorough recommendation. I do like the idea of having some type of an accent band continued on the back as well, simply because although it's not your primary focus of the building, it's still a large portion of the building so we really need to do something back there to make it a little more interesting, but other than that it looks good. Peterson: Okay. LuAnn. Sidney: I agree. I think it's a good report. A very thorough and as Bob said, I guess I still am concerned about the southeast corner that, you know that be looked at for additional landscaping and berming. Peterson: Kevin. Joyce: Really nothing more to add. I'm fine with the project. Peterson: Ladd. 4 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 Conrad: No. I agree with the staff report. I just want to make sure that Sharmin thinks that condition 16 is worded the way she'd like it to be. That covers your, you made a comment earlier on. Good. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: I have nothing further to add. It looks fine. Peterson: And I don't really either, other than the fact that I like the opportunity to really compare the two buildings that we can add and accent each other. You don't often get the opportunity to do that in a commercial setting so I think it's nice we have the opportunity to do that here. So with that may I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of site plan 97-3 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition as shown on the plans dated Received February 28, 1997 and subject to conditions 1 through 16. Peterson: And a second. Skubic: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #97-3 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building, located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, as shown on the plans dated Received February 28, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. Rock construction entrances shall be used at all access points. 2. Drive aisles in the southerly parking lot shall be increased to 26 feet face-to-face wide. The drive aisle access from Commerce Drive shall be reduced from 36 feet wide to 30 feet wide face-to-face. The applicant shall construct an industrial driveway apron at the Commerce Drive access point in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5207. 3. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed stormwater calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. The southerly parking lot shall be redesigned to drain into the existing storm sewer from Commerce Drive. 4. The applicant shall incorporate a green space in the northerly parking lot adjacent to the building between loading docks. Additional berming should also be considered in the southeast comer of the south parking lot. Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 5. The applicant shall install pedestrian ramps at the sidewalk in conjunction with construction of the drive aisle from Lake Drive West. 6. Erosion control fence shall be extended along the northwesterly property line and along Lake Drive West. 7. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Add hydrant located at south side of building. The options for an additional hydrant are: a-I. Tap into water line from Lake Drive West and have hydrant at entrance. a-2. Tap into water line on south side of building and install hydrant off of southeast comer of building (refer to plan for specific location. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991, Appendix 3-b). b. Show location of post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on plan. c. Fire department connection (F.D.C.) will need to be placed on south side of building by front entrances. Please contact Fire Inspector for specific placement. d. Fire lane signs will need to be installed in south parking lot. Please refer to plan areas noted in red. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-] 991 (attached). 8. The applicant shall enter into a site development agreement/contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 9. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. 10. The freestanding sign shall be limited to one monument sign. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site. 6 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 11. Revise the site plan to show code complying accessible parking. The spaces must be eight feet wide, and at least one space must have an eight foot wide access aisle. Other required access aisles may be five feet wide. Revised plans shall be submitted prior to final site approval. 12. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A decorative shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than Y2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no street glare is directed off-site and no more than Y2 foot candle of light is at the property line. 13. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements. One third of the fee was paid at the time of platting. At 1997 rates, remaining park fees equal 2.74 acres x $3,000 per acre or $8,220. This amount shall be paid at the time a building permit is granted for the CH&C building. 14. Existing trees planted by City and developer will remain on site as is and be incorporated into the proposed landscaping plan. To meet buffer yard requirements, 12 additional understory and 23 shrubs must be added to the landscaping along Audubon Road. The red maples proposed in the parking lot island will be changed to a species recommended in the City's Approved Tree List for planting in parking lots. A revised landscape plan will be submitted to the City before final approval. 15. The applicant has not shown the trash enclosure location. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of block used on the building. 16. The applicant shall utilize white scored burnished concrete masonry along the north and west elevations. The accent bands shall be continued on all four elevations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: A. ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR. Peterson: It sure seems as though we just did this. We need to elect Chair and Vice-Chair. I would entertain nominations from the peers. Conrad: Well Craig you haven't suffered enough so I'd nominate you for Chairman. Joyce: I second that. Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 Peterson: And your Vice-Chair. Right now Kevin is the Vice-Chair. Conrad: Kevin ran probably the shortest meeting I've ever been at so I'd nominate him for Vice Chair. Brooks: I'll second. Peterson: Do we need to formally vote on that? I assume we do. Al-Jaff: Yes. According to your By-laws, you're supposed to vote on it. Peterson: I would need to hear that in a motion then. Ladd, if you could put that in a motion, I'd appreciate it. Conrad: For the adoption of the By-laws? Peterson: Adoption of the By-laws and Chair and Vice-Chair. Conrad: Okay. I would make a motion that the Planning Commission adopt the By-laws as presented. Period. Peterson: And a second? Skubic: Second. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to adopt the By-laws of the Planning Commission as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: I'll need a motion for the electing Chair and Vice-Chair also. Please. Blackowiak: I have a quick question as I'm reading through this, the By-laws and it talks about secret ballot. Do we want to modify that perhaps and say. . . Peterson: That may be a question for Kate, unless you have some advice on that one. Joyce: We've never used the secret ballot before I don't think. Al-Jaff: Never used the secret ballot. Ladd's been on the Commission. Conrad: We've never done that. Yeah, to my knowledge we've never done that. It's a strange deal. That should be public. I think the nomination, the big concern is when you vote for Chair and Vice-Chair, and sometimes that has been secret. But not the By-laws so I'm not sure what that means, and it's probably something that. 8 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 Blackowiak: Oh no, it just means that the election of officers shall be done by secret ballot and that's why I'm saying that maybe we want to modify the By-laws to accurately reflect that we can have the option of doing a secret ballot or verbal. Conrad: That's a good point. Yeah, we probably should. Peterson: We've already completed this year's so we'll have to put it on for next year's. Note that for Kate if you would and we can put that on for next year's adoption of the By-laws. So with that again I would ask for a motion for electing the Chair and Vice Chair. Conrad: I would make the motion. Are we making this motion to the City Council? AI-Jaff: Yes. Conrad: Okay. I would make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that Craig Peterson be Chairman and Kevin Joyce be appointed Vice Chairman. Brooks: I'll second. Conrad moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council appoint Craig Peterson as Chairman and Kevin Joyce as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Joyce moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 19, 1997 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: AI-Jaff: A quick update. Last City Council meeting there was an update on the Postal Service. A sound study has been completed. One of the recommendations that they made was an 8 foot fence go on top of with berm to block any noise. To block noise. And they also recommended that the berm and the fence be extended onto the National Weather Service site. The outstanding issues right now are 350 feet of an existing trail are under the berm so who's going to move that berm, or who's going to replace that trail or move it. The City Attorney is in negotiation with the Postal Service on that one. The second issue is placing the berm or extending it onto the National Weather Service site. The legal advice right now for the National Weather Service is to, or for the Postal Service is do not go onto other individual's property so again the City Attorney has that piece. The second item was in regard to the tower. One of the towers which was to be located behind the business building, the... were going to be up for rendering a decision and the applicant appeared before the City Council and waived the 120 day limit. And that item will be before you I believe on the 14th on a special meeting to look at a different. Joyce: Is that the only item then on the 14th? Peterson: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 Joyce: That's before the City Council meeting once again, right? Al-Jaff: Special meeting. You will be notified in more detail as to what is going to happen on that one. Joyce: Is there another special meeting then in April? AI-Jaff: On the 14th. Joyce: What about the 21st? It just says in here, goals and affordable housing scheduled for April 21, 1997. Al-Jaff: That is your meeting with the City Council I believe. Joyce: That's a Monday meeting though, isn't it? Peterson: That was in your packet for this weekend? Joyce: Right here. Look at this little administrative section. Peterson: I didn't get one. Well we may want to just verify that is the case. . . there will have to be an agenda on what time it starts, etc., etc. So we just need to make a note that we send it out. Joyce: What I'm curious about is that we're going to meet on the 14th. We're going to meet on the 21st and then we're going to meet on the 23rd also? That's my question I guess. Brooks: I think we meet on the 16th. The 14th and 16th. Joyce: Ah, you're right. The 16th, right. The 14th, 16th and 21 st. That's what I meant. Peterson: Let's just verify times and places. Whether it's here or where else. Anything else from the City Council? Ongoing items? Open discussion. OPEN DISCUSSION: Conrad: Just one. How did everybody like the Bluff Creek Watershed Resource Management Plan? Peterson: Kind of an open ended question. Conrad: Yeah. I could any way on this one. Peterson: I mean my reaction is, are you looking just for general thoroughness or just the feel of where people. 10 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 Conrad: Do you understand it? Like now do you know what we're doing? Peterson: I think I understand it more since the last meeting when I went back and really looked through the plan. I don't necessarily feel as though we've got a good direction of where the specific types of housing and zoning is being requested because I think that's still very, very fluid. I guess I would like to see more specifics as to what the preference of staff and the City is in a specific area so that I can say whether I agree or disagree. I don't think I want to put in a position of saying I think this should be zoned here and I think that's where we're at to some degree. I don't know whether you felt that same way but. Conrad: Yeah, that's, yeah. There's a little bit of openness to that. Anybody else have? Brooks: I actually haven't seen it. When did you get your copy? Conrad: This last week. In the packet. Brooks: Oh! In the packet? No. Conrad: Do I have the only copy? Peterson: But that's the same thing we did when, yeah we did that 2 months ago. Blackowiak: But has it been updated since then? Conrad: Yeah, there's the letter coming from Philip dated March 19th. Skubic: Are there color maps in it? Conrad: Yeah. Skubic: Okay, we have the black and white maps in the previous edition. Peterson: Do you want to make a note that. Conrad: Nobody got it, yeah. My only comment, and the intent is terrific. It's exactly what we should be doing. This is such a good exercise in protecting the positive stuff. And the detail. There's some great details in here where they analyzed terrifically. And the reason I brought it up this time though is twice I asked for an overview, because there's so much stuff in here. I don't get it. You know I read it and then I say whoa. Now what did I just read. I still don't know where trails are going. And I still don't know where stuff is happening. I asked just to have this overview type document and maybe it would have been so big it couldn't fit in here but that's still, after I read the details to say I agree with them, and I do, I still don't know what we just, I still don't have the big picture again. Other than that we have a green space moving from Minnewashta down to the river. I know that but you know, I was always looking for something Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 that really visually helped guide me. That was my only negative comment on this. I don't want it to over shade the whole work but it was one thing I asked the consultants to do and I didn't see it done. And so again my point is not for me. It's for somebody, it's for people who come in the future and say well what does this mean. They're not going to read through this but if you saw a visual of here's the interpretative side that we see and here's the you know, the setbacks to what we believe the setbacks are going to be. And on one map, and here's the restoration area for the low lands and here's the, you know that where we have typed it in to those areas so you could visually kind of get a clear picture. I can't integrate all this stuff so what's going to happen to me is I've read it and it's going to be hard for me to manage it. And obviously staffhas to manage it but I don't have a chance right now other than relying on staff to make those interpretations. Brooks: Does it have an executive summary? Conrad: At the very end. It's not the type of, you know it may be more of a document for politics. Giving a lot of credit to who did it and how we did it and the process and where I'd like to get in the very front, say here's what we're trying to do in brief goal oriented statements and they're there. Brooks: So a good management summary in the beginning. Conrad: Yeah. There are goals and there are visions and I like some of the stuff that's in there. The visioning is pretty good but it's not a quick read by any means. There's just a lot of data and that's good. That means they did their job. It's just hard to come in and get a quick update. Peterson: I think what it's going to force us to do is take it section by section and try to zone one area and not knowing what the impact is next to it necessarily. That was kind of my point of, it's going to force us into a pocket. This is going to come up. We're going to zone that. This one's going to come up. We're going to zone that. That's my worry. Joyce: You have to have it like the comprehensive plan where you can see the whole visual and say what are we doing with all the zoning. Conrad: Yeah. Joyce: I can see Ladd's same remark is that, if we have a problem with it, what about the average person that doesn't deal with this. Conrad: Well again, we should be the advocates and staffwill do the implementation but, and we're the ones that said this is exactly what Chanhassen should be doing but still it's just going to fade. That vision that we might have had for the further away we get from it, we won't know what we asked for. And we'll never go back to this book. But anyway, that's just when you get your book. I don't know that we need to do anything. Joyce: We still have to pass the ordinance though don't we? We still have to pass the ordinance don't we? 12 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 2, 1997 AI-Jaff: Yes, and I'll forward all of those comments to Kate. Conrad: And primarily to the consultants too because I specifically twice asked them to do that and maybe that was a financial consideration but. Peterson: Other discussion points? Hearing none, do I hear a motion to, and a second to close the meeting? Brooks: I have one other thing before we close. It talks about the liaison attendance at City Council meetings. I don't know, were we going to talk about that? Whether we're going to elect one person or rotate. Peterson: Well we could do that after we close and talk about it. Brooks: Okay. Peterson: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim