Loading...
4 Chapel Hill Site Plan AmendMEMORANDUM ! CITYOF CHANHASSEN 7700 M. arket Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen. MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 F~: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fa:<: 952.227.1190 Engineering ?h.y~e: 952.227.1160 Fa: 952.227.1t70 Finance rp~: 952.227.1i40 ~52.2LJ...110 Park & Recreation Pac:e: 952.227.1 i20 Fa:,:: 952.227.1110 P..esreati~.n Center 2,3. i0 Cou;ter Bsdle':ard . ,,.~,,~,. 952.227.1400 Fa:,:: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 r~. 952.227.1110 Public Works 159! Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.i110 Web Site v:,'.'w, ci.chanhassen.mn.us To: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager From: Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner Date: Re: August 7, 2002 Clarification / Amendment to Site Plan for Chapel Hill Academy Gymnasium Building, Phase I SUMMARY The applicant is requesting the use of jumbo blocks on the exterior walls of the gymnasium with a height of 27 feet and on the elevation facing West 78th Street. The colors are proposed to match the new classroom addition. The elevation facing West 78th is proposed to utilize smooth face jumbo block and be painted the same color as the building since this wall will become an interior wall at some point in the future. In summary, the entire gymnasium building is proposed to utilize jumbo block with the exception of the one story elevation facing west. The applicant is also requesting to delay the installation of an entry way located along the west elevation, delay the installation of a sidewalk surrounding the gymnasium, and add unscreened rooftop equipment. The plans were approved with a 4 x 12 inch brick and rock face block. The only wall that was permitted to utilize the jumbo block was the easterly wall of the gymnasium. This wall will become an interior wall as the second phase of the project gets built. The size of the blocks located below the windows was permitted to be increased to the jumbo size (see minutes dated January 10, 2000, page 9). The applicant is under the impression that the gymnasium was approved with jumbo block. Staff repeatedly pointed out that this type of material is acceptable in industrial parks, however, when buildings are immediately next to residential single family homes, the buildings need to blend in. The 4 x 12 inch brick and rock face block was a compromise. The applicant entered into a dev.elopment agreement with the city agreeing to these conditions. The gymnasium is proposed to be built in two phases. The lockers will be added at a future date. As such, the applicant is proposing to paint the wall that faces West 78th Street to match the building until such time the locker room is added. -' Staff's main concern is that there is no timeline indicating when the locker room will be added. The applicant has added a large air-conditioning unit above the lower section of the gymnasium, facing West 78th Street. This unit is not screened and will be visible from West 78th Street and Great Plains Boulevard. Staff is recommending the applicant utilize materials consistent with the classroom addition (block on the lower 3 feet and brick on the remainder of the building, with the exception of the portion of the east elevation which will become an interior wall). The City of Chanbassen. A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live. work, and play. Chapel Hill Site Plan Amendment August '7, 2002 Page 2 Existing classroom addition utilizing brick with block below the windows. Proposed gymnasium location. Single-family homes are located to the north of the proposed gym. Mature trees separate the single-family homes from the proposed gym. Three apple trees will be removed in the process. BACKGROUND On August 28, 2000, the City Council approved Site Plan review #98-12 and a front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy Master Plan, as shown in plans dated received July 24, 2000, with conditions. Condition # 19, which addressed the exterior materials on the building stated "The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 inch brick and rock face block as indicated in the staff report, for exterior material." The section of the staff report, which discussed the exterior materials, is as follows (staff left the language in the same format as presented to the City Council.): "The applicant prepared a master plan to reflect the ultimate expansion and the final appearance of the building and site layout. The overall plan is proposed to be completed in three four phases. It is possible for this project to be completed in 5 or 10 years. At this time, the intent is to complete phase one within the next two years. This phase has to blend in with the existing building, provide a transition and set the framework for the ultimate expansion. The proposed addition uses rock face block along the base of the building (below the windows) and brick over the remainder of the structure. The colors Chapel Hill Site Plan Amendment August '7, 2002 Page 3 include the same shade of red brick used on the base of the western elevation of the existing building. The applicant will then introduce a gray projecting windowsill topped by beige Meek brick. The color combination will blend in with the existing building since the west wall adjacent to the proposed phase one expansion is glass. The "'"~'~'~ .... ~,~o ,,. ,r,,, ~;~.....c ,~ ~. ~;o,~.+ ~,,+ .~ ;. ~ ~ ~ '~"+;~ .... W ........ ~ +~ The size of the block~ ~ is proposed to have dimensions o~ 4 x 12 inches and have a smooth face. Entrances into the building are well defined with a projecting pitched element. Windows su~ound the building with the exception of ~eas screened by trees. ~e g~asium was discussed at len~h. The school is a one sto~, low profile building, which is propo~ionate to the residential ~ea. The gymnasium is equivalent to a l~ge box two-sto~ building. The applicant located the g~ along the no~hwest comer of the building. This location sits 8 feet below the single fa~ly homes located no~h o5 the subject site. The applicant also introduced projecting colu~s and w~dows to break up the wall mass on the gymnasium. The landscape plan shows 4 evergr~n tre~ along the side o~ the ~mnasium to br~k the wall mass. The ~asium is proposed to utffize block along the 27 ~oot high wall portion o~ the b~lding (w~t and north) and brick along the south elevation. The ~st ~asium wall is proposed to have a smooth pa~ted finish. At this time, the gym is proposed to be a clenched budding. When Phase II (the cafeteria and new main entrance addition) is completed, the gap between the ~m and the main bulldog wffi be dosed and the ~st g~m wall will become an internal wall. The use o~ block on the w~t and south elevations is accep~ble since the appB~nt is provid~g seree~ng through the use o~ ~cr~s~ landscaping and added arcMteetural elemen~ suer as eolu~s and w~dows. There is an existing Service Driveway via West 78th Street. This driveway will be closed and replaced by two service drives via Frontier Trail and Great Plains Boulevard. show ,ha,,,~ ,w,,,,v,,"-'~'~'*; ~- v,Ac ,~,,,~ ,,,~o,,~, ,~,,,.,,,o~,,..'~"~" ...... The trash enclosure is proposed to be located along the north side of the property and utilize block as the exterior material with wood doors to match the building." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following conditions: "The City Council requires the applicant to incorporate the following conditions to be consistent with the plans dated received July 24, 2000 and approved August 28, 2000: 1. The applicant shall utilize exterior materials that are consistent with the classroom addition (block on the lower 3 feet of the building and brick on the remainder of the building). The only exception is the easterly portion of the wall that will become an interior wall in the future. 2. Painted block along the south elevation is prohibited. 3. All rooftop equipment shall be screened. 4. The entrance canopy facing Great Plains Boulevard shall be added. 5. The sidewalk along the perimeter of the gymnasium shall be added to the plans as approved on August 28, 2000." Chapel Hill Site Plan Amendment August 7, 2002 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes dated January 10, 2000 (refer to page 9). 2. Elevation and site plan. City Council Meeting- January 10, 2000 do Resolution #2000-01: Accept Utility Improvements in Springfield 7th Addition - Project No. 99- 18. eo Resolution #2000- 02: Accept Utility Improvements in The Woods at Longacres 5~ and 6th Additions- Project Nos. 99-15 and 99-16. Resolution #2000-03: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Springfield 2nd, 3rd, and 40' Additions, Project Nos. 97-20, 98-7 and 98-6. o Resolution #2000-04: Receive Feasibility Study; Set Public Hearing Date for Grandview Road Area Utility Improvement - Project No. 97-11. h. Resolution #2000-05: Approve Temporary Permits to Construct for TH 5;West 78th Street Improvement Project No. 97-6 amended to add Parcel 215A. i. Approval of Bills. j. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 13, 1999 - City Council Minutes dated December 13, 1999 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Comlnission Minutes dated December 1, 1999 k. Resolution #2000-06: Approve Resolution Establishing Procedures Relating to Compliance with Reimbursement Bond Regulations Under the Internal Revenue Code. mo Resolution #2000-07: Approve Resolution Designating Signers on City Bank Accounts. Resolution #2000-08: Approve Resolution Modifying Personnel Policy Regarding Comp Time for Exempt Employees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A 16,680 SQUARE FOOT CLASSROOM AND A 2~000 SQUARE FOOT LIBRARY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY. Public Present: Name Address Dan Blake Steve Barnett Dan Plowman Kathy & Larry Schroeder Sherry & Bob Ayotte 306 West 78th Street 8709 Chanhassen Hills 6490 White Dove Drive 7720 Frontier Trail 6213 Cascade Pass City Council Meeting- January 10, 2000 Sharmin Al-Jarl: Just a brief background of the application. In June of 1998 the City Council approved an application for temporary classrooms. It was an Interim Use Permit format and as a condition of approval xvas that one year after the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the modular classrooms, the applicant for Chapel Hill Academy needed to submit a complete site pIan application. And five years after Certificate of Occupancy the modular units would need to be removed or when the expansion has taken place, whichever comes first. So the site plan is before the City Council. The applicant is requesting a site plan review application approval for the construction of a 16,680 square foot classroom units and a 2,000 square foot library addition. And a 5 foot front yard setback variance to allow the addition to be located 30 feet from public right-of-way. This is the first phase of a 77,260 square foot expansion. This addition is proposed to be located, Phase I, located to the south of the site and facing West 78th Street. The site contains an existing church, temporary modular classroom buildings, two houses, two garages and a playground. There has been numerous studies done on this site and this area of the city. It is within the area that is referred to as Old Town. It is within the 2002 Vision for the city so again there has been a lot of concepts and studies done in this area. The existing building was built in phases and as each phase was constructed, a different building material was introduced to this site. That was one of the challenges that we had to deal with as we started working on this expansion. Materials that you can find on the existing building include brick, wood, fluted block, and glass block. The goal of the expansion was to give the building a new image, improve the appearance and build an addition that blends in with the area. Tile applicant prepared a master plan to reflect the ultimate expansion and the final appearance of the building and site layout. The overall plan is proposed to be completed in three phases. It is possible for this project to take 5 or 10 years but at this present time tt~e intent is to complete the classrooms over tile next 2 years. The proposed addition is proposed to utility rock face block and I can pass these around for the City Council to look at. The colors include same shades of red brick that can be found on the existing building_. Specifically on the base of the western elevation of the existing building. The color combination will blend in with the existing building. Especially when the area located west of the site is, this is the area we're talking about. Right now this area is mainly glass. Therefore it will blend in. Councilman Senn: Just a point of, these are the rock face block, right? Sharmin Al-Jarl: Correct. That is tile material that tile applicant is proposing to utilize. Councilman Senn: These are? Sharmin Al-Jarl: These are. What you're holding. Councilman Senn: Okay, so these are the rock face block. Sharmin Al-Jarl: Correct. Councihnan Senn: Okay, and this is basically the roof color and the flashing color. Sharmin Al-Jarl: Correct. Councihnan Senn: Okay, and what's this? Shannin Al-Jarl: Nothing. Decoration for. One of the issues regarding the materials that we need to bring up deals with the size of the block. This is an established area of Chanhassen. The applicant is proposing to use block that is 8 x 16 inches, and this is the size of an 8 x 16 inch block. Typically you'll City Council Meeting- January 10, 2000 find those on warehouses. This is the size of a typical brick that you might find in the surrounding area. The church across the street utilizes this size brick. What we're suggesting to the applicant is maybe they can utilize what we call a utility size brick. It is pretty much the height of a siding that you might find within that neighborhood. It is also twice the size of a brick that you would find in that neighborhood as well. Councilwoman Jansen: Do you know what the actual dimensions are of your jumbo, your utility brick? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. They are, with the mortar it would be 4 inches by 12 inches. Councilwoman Jansen: That one's 4 by 127 Shannin AlOaff: Yes. Mayor Mancino: I think that's one of, that's on condition 19. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you. Sharmin AI-Jaff: So this is the only issue that xve really have with the materials on the building. The size, it needs to be a smoother face. It needs to be compatible with the surrounding areas. Entrances into the building are well defined. There is a projecting pitched element on them. Another issue that required quite a bit of discussion deals with the gymnasium. Overall this building is a one story building. It is in a residential neighborhood. As you get to the gynmasium portion, you're going to a two story box basically and there isn't any other word to describe it. What xve agreed upon was to locate it, locate the gym to the northwest comer of the site. This area is 8 feet lower than the existing residences to the north. There will be quite a bit of vegetation. There are some mature trees in this area and that will create that building. As far as location on the site, it is probably the best location for a gymnasium. One of the questions that was raised at the Planning Commission meeting was the parking. To date there are 132 parking spaces. With this plan the building will pretty much double in size, yet they will lose half of their existing parking. Remember that this site used to be used as a church. Now it is a school. We calculated the number of parking spaces that they would need with their ultimate expansion and as per figures that were provided by the applicant they would need 72 parking spaces. They are providing 84 parking spaces. So they have more than they need as far as parking. One issue that might become a problem would be special activities. If there were concerts, then there are parking spaces, public parking spaces around that area that the school could utilize. Final issue we'd like to touch upon deals with the setback variance. The ordinance requires a 35 foot front yard setback. This site is located within an established neighborhood with buildings that maintain substantially reduced setbacks. We wanted to reinforce and reflect the setback of the existing building and reinforce the established character of the neighborhood. The setback would be 30 feet from West 78th Street. 32 feet from Frontier Trail. There isn't a hardship. We're not going to try and.justify one. It's purely an aesthetic reason. And with that staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much Sharmin. A couple questions that I have, and if other council members have questions. Could you go over our review tonight is on the addition of Phase I, but you want us to also review the entire kind of site plan and give general comments to it? Shannin Al-Jarl: Yes, please. City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Could you review with us the Planning Commission's general review of it? What, did they have any concerns? Again, not just on Phase I but of the master plan. So that we don't need to be redundant if the Planning Commission has already given some. Sharmin Al-Jarl: They liked Phase I. They liked how close it's going to be to West 78°~. It will provide a pleasant, which is something that they have been looking at, and wanting to see with this application. Parking was an issue in their mind. They couldn't understand, well they questioned the reason why they are doubling the size of the building and reducing the parking in half and I explained that earlier. The size of the brick was extremely important to them. They unanimously agreed that this is a large size block that does not belong in the residential neighborhood. They indicated that it is preferred. However, this is a compromise that will blend in ,,,,,ell within that neighborhood. Mainly as staff mentioned earlier, it is the same width as the siding. They were extremely concerned with the elevation Facing the residential area. As far as future phases go. As well as the gymnasium. They wanted to see more relief and more architectural features on the elevations facing the residential neighborhood. Mayor Mancino: So they xveren't so concerned with location and what was going on there, but they just wanted more architectural interest on that north elevation and on the gym? Is that, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Sharnain A1-Ja££: That's an accurate statelnent. They thought overall the layout of the site plan was very good. Commissioner Conrad raised the question of the location of the music room and when the kids practiced they might disturb the neighbors, but the neighbors that were at the meeting thought it amusing. Mayor Mancino: Wait until they practice and they're out of tune. Just kidding. Okay. I just ',','ant to make sure that we understand their concerns. $tmrmin A1-Jaff: One of the things that the applicant did a good job with was they tried to leave the area that faces Frontier Trail neighborhood in it's present condition to the extent possible. There's minimum tree removal in that area. One of the original thoughts we had ,,',,as to push the building in this direction towards Great Plains Boulevard. Basically that will result in screening in the parking. However, they would be short of parking and would need to locate some in the area facing Frontier Trail and we didn't think that would be a good option. Planning Commission agreed that the current layout is the best. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council? I'm sorry. Excuse me Dan. Were there any other questions for staff at this point? From council members. Councilwoman Jansen: Not right now. I can wait with mine. MayorMancino: Okay. Dan, Dan Blake: Thank you Mayor Mancino and Council members. My name is Dan Blake with Chapel Hill Academy. I also brought with me a couple other parents who happen to be on the Board of Directors and city of Chanhassen residents here tonight. If you have any questions regarding our school in general, we'll be glad to try to address those and obviously specifics of this plan when we get to it. Chapel Hill Academy is a non-denominational Christian school that has been operating for I think 28 years now in the southwest metro area. We moved to Chanhassen a couple of years ago in the old St. Hubert's school and church building. We currently have 323 students in kindergarten through 8°* grade. 53 of those students are Chanhassen residents so we're generally Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka kind of areas where our students come from. We are planning a building to accommodate 450 students, and that would equate to two classes per grade from kindergarten through 80, grade. I'm going to review City Council Meeting- January 10, 2000 from our perspec'tive this whole master site plan and then I've got two issues that I'd like to focus in on. Obviously you're all, well it's reasonable to assume that you're all familiar with the location of this site on the east end of downtown. What we are proposing, minor correction to the staff comment as far as the building size. The property is about 4 ½ acres. We're proposing a total expansion that gets the total building to about that 77,000 square foot number. It's roughly 38,000 square feet now and we're coming close to doubling it to 77,000 total square feet. I think you all have a picture like this. I like this better than the site plan. I don't know if it works good on the overhead. How far can we zoom in on that? I'd just like to review the existing building. This is the existing classroom building that was actually built first on this property. The church addition generally sits down in this end. Our plan is for a classroom wing, one story addition along West78th Street. A gym building fronted by a one story locker room, office area. And administrative addition in front of the existing church building and some expanded and reconfigured classrooms along the back side. When this master plan is completed, nearly every bit of the old building will be covered up or rebuilt. This area is the area that most remains in it's existing condition with the existing roof but the outside walls are proposed to be reconstructed to match the existing building. As Sharmin mentioned, xve have not identified exactly what our time frame is to make all this happen.., the modular classroom buildings. The gym is somewhat substandard and we'd like to see that improved and that's why a nexv gym addition is desired. I'd like to point out some of the, how we envision the site plan in this master building xvorking is that facing diagonal across the street from the old, I don't knox,,, what you'd call it. The Village Square and Town Hall and the Dinner Theater, we've got what will be our kind ora main entrance. Highlighted with a peaked roof, canopy. We've got a secondary classroom entrance into the classroom wing. We've got an activity entrance into the gym building. Included in this master site plan in our mind but nothing that you're reviewing today is our desire eventually to acquire the rest of the properties on that block for additional open space. We designed a plan that fit on the land we own, but have been xvorking with the neighbors to acquire on a longer term basis some of those additional properties that would eventually expand the open space on the property for just recess and you know when we talk about transition to the residential, at some point space will be quite a bit of the transition. The first of the two issues that I want to talk about is clarification on the master plan versus Phase I. When we submitted this application it was my intent that it was for the master plan and Phase I. And really all the phases. There are some details in the phasing that made it difficult for staff to review it and we, our answer to that was that we weren't prepared to tell you exactly how each phase was going to work. You talked a little bit some general comments. I guess I need as specific as xve can be because this plan is what we'll now go to with contractors and architects to figure out costs and figure out how we can go about building it. You know some of the details are potentially minor and not cost issues but if they're much more than that, it is a significant issue so as ~nuch direction on the overall plan as we can get, and if that's difficult, I guess I would ask what additional information do we need and I'd rather extend this process if we had to to get clarity on what's acceptable and not acceptable on those future phases. Second item, and appears to be the issue of the day is the exterior materials. The existing facility, as Sharmin mentioned, I counted seven different materials, including wood siding. Including glass block. Translucent glass panels. Painted metal panels and two different types of brick on that building. One of the criteria laid for us in the ordinance would be to be consistent or compatible with the existing building. I don't know how you do that when there's so much variety other than it's all kind ora dated, dark brown color. That's the only thing that's a little bit consistent. We have proposed two different colors plus accent of rock face block on this building. And architectural detailing in the form of some roof elements and some columns that stick out. Things like that. Those architectural details I guess where I attempt to comply with what we understood to be the city's vision for their Highway 5 corridor and pitched roof elements and things like that. Serves very little function for us but something that we showed in an effort to comply with what we believed to be the regulations. The property is zoned office institutional. It's zoned, this is a school is an allowed use in that zoning. The zoning district is not specific with regard to material types or anything like that. It does require an additional setback adjacent to residential and I believe that would be the attempt in the City Council Meeting-January 10, 2000 zoning ordinance to deal with the transition issue is a greater setback adjacent to residential than office institutional against another type of use. The property is also within the highway corridor overlay district which I believe all of downtown Chanhassen is. My understanding is that the standard in the code that we're expected to comply with, and I'm going to read it and you've probably all read it but, is the creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features with special attention to the following: materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses. The word I pull out of all that is compatibility. Obviously a very subjective term because it's different than consistent. The surrounding materials range from very old, detailed brick work in the old church building. There's also a garage on that church property that has siding. The old Town Hall has siding. The Medical Arts buildings to the west had rock face block at the base and siding above. The existing Kenny's strip mall center, xvhatever you call that has some brick but mostly siding. The Country Clean building has siding. As you get to the south, excuse me, northwest part of the site we get into the residential and there's an apartment building. That's a stucco building with a brick on the comers. At the north edge we have three single family properties that are all wood siding. Most of the siding in this area is 8 inch siding and not the, maybe the more charming, smaller lap siding. As you go around to the east, again the entire single family neighborhood is primarily siding. Some stucco houses. Some have brick or stone trim accents on the houses. The highway AC1 or Highway Corridor District speaks about high quality design. Tilings like that. It also states that specifically that major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally textured concrete, cast in place or pre-cast panels, decorative block, or approved equivalent. Tile code then goes on to say the following may not be used in any visible exterior application and provides a list of materials that are not allowed. It specifically does not not allow a decorative block. Or rock face block or any other term for block and materials of those sizes. Why do we care? Well it's mostly because of cost. We are a parent run, volunteer, primarily based organization. Like most of those kinds of organizations, certainly don't have any extra money to deal with. We're trying to provide a quality education at as reasonable price as possible and cost is a big issue. And I think one of the things that we're able to instill in our students is that, while the facility isn't totally unimportant, it's not the most important thing, or not even close. We spent many years in a building over in Eden Prairie that at first glance people might have said, well this is barely suitable for a school. How does it work? Yet I don't think the students ever noticed that they were in a building like that. And I don't, also don't fault the city for wanting to see as good looking of a product as they can in their downtown or any area of town. But I would ask that the city consider very seriously what the ordinances say and how we comply or don't comply and not just what the city would like to see down there. If the city would like to see something more than we're required to build, and can figure out a way to help us do that, well we'd love to do that. We have no problem with any kind of upgrades, but we need to be fiscally responsible to our people. One of the biggest issues in the cost of a block construction versus a brick construction is how the building gets built. A block constructed building is basically laid up blocks with decorative face on the outside and a finished face on the inside. And you've got an inte~al masonry wall. Typically one single wall construction. If you build, if you put brick on a building, you build a wall either out or wood or metal with sheathing or masonry, and you lay up a brick wall next to that. And you basically are building a double wall. In the case of a taller wall like a gym, you'd build a block wall and you'd build a brick wall attached to it so it's not just the difference of attaching a big square versus a little square. It's building one wall versus two walls. I'd also like you to consider seriously that there, to my knowledge, is no neighborhood opposition to the block type of material. I believe that the Schroeders are here today and may, if given the opportunity, speak. They've told me that they're not opposed to the block material. Actually Mr. Schroeder said well that's really what's next to o~r house right now. The back half of that building is an 8 x 16 block. It's fluted. It breaks up that size a bit but that's what's there, rough face block. The city has approved rock face block all over the place. Certainly this site is unique but every site in Chanhassen is unique for one reason or another. I prepared a handout. I don't know if you have it. I don't want to read through it but if you all City Council Meeting- January 10, 2000 tell me you have at least have this sheet that talks about, gives some examples of existing materials. I'm going to focus on a couple. To me the most obvious is the CSM office warehouse that's under construction right now. That building is between 24, it's about 24 feet high, 27 feet high at the corners, 100% rock face block. It's adjacent to single family. Fairly high priced single family. Happens to be across the city line but I don't think the city would ignore those people just because it's across a city line. There is berming inbetween. There's about 70 feet to the property line and berming between the parking lot and the property line. The berming shields the lower third of the building roughly, but standing on the ground most people can see the upper two-thirds. I'm sure from their deck or second floor building window they can see just about all of that building. And they're comparable distances to residential as we are. The town square, Oasis Market center, the rear of that building is 25 feet or less I would guess from the property line of single family homes. There they put up a fence and some bushes or some old bushes that existed for a long time as the buffer so to speak but that's an uncolored rock face block base with some siding at the top. The St. Hubert's gym, comparable size to wall heights as we'd be building for our gym. Those are pre-cast concrete panels with 16 inch squares. They're also right next to single family. The same kind of distance as we are. So I think the City needs to treat us the way they've looked at other applications in the past. We believe that we meet the standards called out for in the ordinance. This is clearly not a PUD and therefore additional negotiations on these kind of items is maybe less appropriate than it might be under a PUD situation. The staffdid recommend a 4 inch by 12 inch brick alternative. I guess I think that that's kind of the normal size brick used in most buildings these days other than a single family house with brick trim and a fireplace in the inside and the wall right behind you there. But that jumbo brick is pretty common place and I don't think if you looked at the Byerly's center you'd ever say oh that's where that really big brick. Those kind of buildings typically have that size brick and again that's spelled out on that little handout. Some of the areas around town. I guess I'd like to summarize by saying, I think it's unfair and a bit punitive to ask Chapel Hill Academy to establish a trend or a set of standards for that end of the redevelopment of that end of downtown. At our expense at least and that's a burden that we're not sure we can handle. Given all that, you know we ask for your approval as submitted tonight and if not, xve would ask for the opportunity to re-look at this with some other alternative, material such as siding, which clearly would be the most similar and compatible but I don't think is really what makes the most sense. And the second alternative would be some kind of a stucco exterior, which is also quite common in the city and could reasonably be considered compatible with some of the adjacent uses. We have stucco buildings on a couple of sides of us. Given that long and winded spiel, I'm open for any questions. I hope you'll look at this as fairly as you can. Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Dan? Councilwoman Jansen: Mayor, I do have one if I could. Dan, when you were speaking to the Planning Commission within the Minutes, going again over building materials. At one point you had proposed an alternative that you could potentially look at as far as doing the big blocks along the lower portions of the building and alternating that with the smaller blocks then above. Is 'that something that you're still open to looking at as far as an alternative? Dan Blake: Certainly if you told me that, if that or all brick, absolutely. That wouldn't be our preference but I think that the gym wall is the highest concern for us because of the way that construction works there. It's also quite a bit back from the main street. A couple of scenarios that I could think about that would work, if we want the rock face block band along the bottom, the dark red all the way around, and then the one story building with a brick material and the two story building, part of the building that half of it's shielded, is with ail block, I think a scenario like that would, I guess to me that's a reasonable compromise. I have trouble quantifying the cost of that I think from a construction standpoint. A scenario like that makes sense so would we consider it? Yes. It's not again our first choice. What we proposed is our first choice but sometimes yon... City Council Meeting-January 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Sometimes you don't get that. Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: So you would look at other alternatives. I'm concerned more about you. Not the materials tonight but what you said at the very first, your first point. And that is about the master plan. The master site plan. That really has me concerned right now because the Planning Commission did not go into any sort of real look at the master site plan and I'm just wondering if this should go back to them because when I read here, and I'll just read you a couple comn-tents that Ladd Conrad made about the gynmasium and Matt Burton made about not feeling comfortable with the north elevation, etc so what I would hate to have us do is to go ahead here and give a few general comments as a council, and then when you come in to bring in your site plan for another phase, let's say it's the gym and they're going to ,,,,'ant windows added and they're going to want articulation against that north elevation. That concerns me because that goes right to your bottom line. So I'm, my inclination, and talking about it with council but you also need to tell Dan is that, you -knox,,, reading the Minutes, the Planning Commission did not really take a real good look at the site plan. And in fact said they didn't feel comfortable with it, the master site plan, especially that north elevation. So I don't want you being ed in the wrong direction and then coming back and you know having all these changes. So I'm wondering, what's your feeling first? Dan Blake: \Veil I think to some degree you're absolutely correct. That the Planning Commission. Mayor Mancino: There are ,,'er.,,' few comments. Dan Blake: They looked at it. Certainly when we talk about things like parking, which obviously is a master plan issue. And they did make SOlne cornlnents like I'm uncomfortable with, or I'm comfortable with the sides I can see but I'm uncomfortable with the back side. And if you look at, you -knox,,, what'.~ in your packet, this kind of elevation, it's very difficult to tell what that building's going to look like. There's a lot of relief that you can see on this little three dimensional rendering that you can't tell on that picture. Mayor Mancino: So what I'm asking is, if you bring in those site plans and they say we want you to add windows, like I know Ladd was talking about the windows on Bluff Creek Elementary that are higher there. They were also talking about, I mean Matt Burton says I'm not very high on the other parts that aren't before us tonight. So you 'knot,,, I read comments like that and again, we don't want to mislead yOU. Dan Blake: Well, as much as I never want to delay anything, timing is not the most critical .item to us right now. We were hoping to get a building under construction this spring/summer. It all depends on our financing. Whether we will or not anyway. You ~know when they make those -kind of comments, and at the Planning Commission meeting there's not a lot of time, sometimes there's not a lot of interaction. The Planning Commission is just discussing things. You know I guess I would ask the follow-up question. Well what kind of additional architectural detailing do you expect on a back side that's up against mostly trees and who are we trying to protect? If my neighbors don't care, you know that it looks any better than what we're showing, does the city really care and things like that? So. Mayor Mancino: Well, obviously neighbors move and we as you know have to think of long term and we have to think about the conmmnity and the neighbors that are here no,,,,, or are going to move, etc. So Scott, do you have ansething? i0 City Council Meeting- January 10, 2000 Scott Botcher: I agree with the Mayor. I think there's some concerns from the members of the Planning Commission as to the long term plan and you know I'd hate for it to come back and kick you in the rear, quite honestly. And so would you. Dan Blake: Right. Scott Botcher: I mean you've got a financial plan you're trying to put together. And I think what you said is probably very true. I mean you're more financially driven than calendar driven. The thing that I ;vould say, and Sharmin has heard this many times, and it's premature but I'll say it now so I can say that I said it. Especially in a residential neighborhood, and that is an attractive drive there from, well I believe it to be, from 101 to the clock, you know towards the Dinner Theater. We need to make sure that we ratch it up instead of set our standards to what's there. I respect the economics of it but you know we want to constantly work to raise the bar, and unfortunately that does involve everybody, including the school. But I guess to get back to my point, I don't want to see any HVAC as I drive by. I just noticed on the rendering there and on this stuff here, there's none of that contemplated and I know we're a little premature but when you're doing your calculations and you're doing yoUr planning, have a parapet roof. Have them hidden. Have them somewhere. Keep that in the back of your head. Dan Blake: For the record, that's what we're showing on our one story building is, I don't 'l, moxv what that top height is. 15 feet or something. So we're showing a parapet all the way around it as opposed to a specific roof top screening. Scott Botcher: Again, because that's the kind of stuff that's really simple and it's pretty basic for any city and if you guys haven't planned for it, that can be another economic hit. Mayor Mancino: Dan, do you think you could give more specifics to the planning department to bring it in front of the Planning Commission in some of those areas where they felt uncomfortable, etc? Can there be some more specifics that you can deal with? And have this go back in front of them as a real master site plan review: And they can review at that time materials and maybe you can show them alternatives to those materials also. Dan Blake: I can do that. I'm willing to do that. However, I don't think we would show them, I think the specifics are there. It may be hard to visualize on a plan view elevation, or a elevation view what those elevations look like. We felt it was a need to dress up the side you see from main street. I guess I don't think adding some of these decorative roofs and things like that on the back sides of the building, you 'know it's not a service drive kind of back of the building like your Oasis Market center. It's just windoxvs and a couple emergency doors and probably some sidewalk connections. We do have a service drive back there to get to just a back side of the building but it's not like a loading dock. Mayor Mancino: Dan, I don't know what all their concerns are and that's w, hat I'm trying to say. Dan Blake: I understand. Mayor Mancino: That I don't want to assume they're just thinking of one or two things, when we don't know as a council. And again, we're just trying to be proactive so that you don't come in front of them on each site plan and say, now wait a minute. And they can come back to the minutes and say but we told you we didn't feel comfortable about it. Any suggestion from council members? Dan Blake: Okay. We're xvilling to do that. City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Do you feel comfortable with that direction? Dan Blake: Well I think, I guess I can agree that it's a good way to bring it back in front of the Planning Commission and further discuss that issue. I think that the size of the brick took up the entire discussion and therefore it didn't, there was no focus on those other issues. Maybe now that you've had that discussion, now we can talk about what is the issue of the back side and what exactly would they expect to see on any other elevation. That's fine. Mayor Mancino: And a general. Councilman Senn: I think that really makes sense. One of the very difficult parts of looking at this is when you start trying to compare what you're approving with the first addition with the whole, it's very, ,,'er5' difficult. Whether it be landscaping and trees. Whether it be building materials. Whether it be hard surface coverage. I mean all those issues. I mean a lot of them really aren't spelled out here as to where we are and where we end up. So it's real difficult to sit here within creating I'm going to say an endless number of surprises... Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: It does seem like the prudent thing to do and I know that they did speak to a considerable number of issues that more so addressed the master plan, just in general to give you a feel for it bu~ realizing that you really do need the specifics. If it is windows, work that through with them and so forth. So I certainly appreciate your patience with the thought of needing to go back through the system but I do think it might I0e best. Mayor Mancino: And I also think at that tilne you cain_ address some of the materials in more detail with them. If there are other suggestions that you have. Okay. Councihnan Engel, ansrrhing? Okay, thank yOU. Sharmin A1-Jaff: We need an extension on the time line to process this application. Mayor Mancino: Dan, could we have an extension? Dan Blake: Itereby grant you whatever it takes. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much and thanks for everyone who came tonight. And so it will go back and be reviewed by the Planning Conm~ission in a little more detail for the master plan. Appreciate that. Roger, do we need to do anything more formally? As a council. Roger Knutson: Not on that other than postponing, you'd be postponing or tabling action. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we need a motion to table? Roger Knutson: Yeah, I think a motion to table and refer it back to the Planning Commission would be in order. Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I please have a motion. Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to table and move it back to the Planning Commission. 12 City Council Meeting- January 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Councihvoman Jansen moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the site plan review to allow a 16,680 square foot classroom and a 2,000 square foot library addition to an existing building and a variance to allow a 30 foot front yard setback for Chapel Hill Academy and to review the item back to the Planning Commission for master site plan review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN TO ALLOW A FREE STANDING, 105 FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR U S WEST WIRELESS TO BE LOCATED ON A CHURCH SITE. Public Present: Name Address Steven Mangold Pat Conlin Mike Reyer Eugene Sigal Mike Dalton Pete Keller 426 No. Fairview, St. Paul 416 No. Fairview, St. Paul 426 No. Fairview, St. Paul 426 No. Fairview, St. Paul 4153 Hallgren Lane 6760 Country Oaks Road Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. First thing I would like to do if I may is outline the ordinances that govern this application. The ordinance states that in residentially zoned districts the maximum height of a tower may not exceed 80 feet. Whenever there are multiple users on a tower within a residential district, then we have an exception and that exception basically states that the limitation of the height may be increased by 25 feet. The third section that governs this application deals with locations of towers within residentially zoned districts and it specifically points out that it may be placed on church sites when camouflaged as an architectural feature such as...the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and a site plan approval for the construction ora 105 foot cross designed monopole communication tower. The tower is proposed to be situation south of Holy Cross Lutheran Church. This is the church site. It is proposed to be located south of the church site and west of Highway 7. The actual pole height is 93 feet and is proposed to have two 6 foot tall tubes. These tubes will be vertically stacked and inside them the antennas will be located. The overall height of the tube again is 105 feet. When we looked at this site we looked at the surrounding area and the setbacks of the residentially zoned units in this area. What you see highlighted in green is existing vegetation. It's a natural buffer. This is the proposed location of the tower. The setback is proposed to be 105 feet from the neighborhood to the south, and it exceeds 380 feet from the neighborhood to the east. Our first, there isn't any buffer within this area. It's really wide open. When we looked at this site overall, we thought the best location would be inunediately behind the church. What happens as you go behind the church is the grades begin to drop substantially. Two things that the ordinance highlights. Number one, you cannot have a structure between a main building and a right-of-way. So that would have required a variance. Second of all, as you move the tower down the hill you're going to need a height variance. So that's m,o variances that you would need to grant for this application. And what this location would have done would have been to screen the base of the tower. With the proposed plans they're not proposing to remove any of the existing vegetation. And they are proposing a landscape plan. Staff is recommending that the trees be 10 feet in height at a minimum at the time of installation. You can't screen a structure City Council Meeting - Augukt 28, 2000 occun'ed betxveen Chan View and Santa Fe. There are no solid leads, but some suspect names have been provided. Extra deputies were out in the early morning hours on two nights attempting to locate youth out after curfew. Beth Hoiseth distributed a crime alert to neighborhoods. John Wolff, Fire Chief, was present to update the City Council on the Chanhassen Fire Department. He reported the fire department staffing is at 45 and that summer has been very quiet in terms of calls. The fire department is developing a dive team to respond to water related emergencies. John \Volff answered questions regarding the recruim~ent process and the progress of the dive team development. Priority Medical Dispatching (PMD) has reduced medical calls by almost 20%, but the year-to- date call volume is still at 1999 levels. The fh'e department's operation budget is in. and a CIP is being developed. SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A 39,910 SQ. FT. EXPANSION FOR CLASSROOMS, GYMNASIUM, AND LIBRARY/OFFICES~ ETC. TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. 7707 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. CHAPEL ItILL ACADEMY. Public Present: Name Address Frances Jacques Jen'v Armhen Dan Blake Bill Laxwence Greg Benedict Kathy & Lan'v Schroeder Dan Plowman Steve Barnett Ten'v No,on 308 Chan View Victoria 306 \Vest 78~h Street 9521 \\.'est 78tl~ Street. Eden Prairie 812 Roundhouse Street. Shakopee 7720 Frontier Trail 6490 \Vhite Dove Drive 8709 Chanhassen Hills Drive 1108 Pond Curve. \Vaconia Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item and outlined the changes that the applicant had made since the last time they lind presented their plan. Dan Blake, representing Chapel Hill, went over tlie expansion plans and explained the different phases of construction. Jerry Armhen, the son of Frances Jacques who lives adjacent to Chapel Hill Academy, stated his and her concerns with this proposal. He raised questions regarding procedure and public notification on this project. The Council discussed condition 24 and tile phases that should be included in that condition. They also discussed the size o£ trees proposed by the gymnasium and that the applicant should increase the size to provide better screening. After public input and council discussion, tile following motion was made. City Council Meeting - August 28, 2000 Councihvoman Jansen moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan #98-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy Master Plan as shown on plans dated Received Jul), 24, 2000, with the following conditions: 1. Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior to grading. 2. Any trees removed in excess of the submitted plan without City approval will be replaced on site at a rate of2:l diameter inches. 3. The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre- and post-development storm water runoff calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system itl Great Plains Boulevard can accommodate additional runoff being generated fi'om tile proposed expansion. 4. The applicant shall obtain fi'om the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work within City right-of-way or easement areas. 5. Ifutility connections and/or relocation/extensions are required with the proposed additions, the City will need to further review in greater detail and approve the utility service proposal. 6. The applicant shall be responsible fox' sewer and water hookul) fees in accordance with Git), ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Enviro~menlal Services Commission. 7. Buildino Official Conditions: a. The building will be required to bare an atttomatic fire protection sprinkler system instal led throughout. b. l-~xisting portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost of xvbich need not exceed twenty percent of the total project cost. c. Meet xvitb the Inspection Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to Building Code. d. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits. 8. Fire Marshal Conditions' a. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. b. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine if additional hydrants will be required. 9. The sidexvalk along Frontier Trail shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down in width as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail. 10. The ox'trail parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved. City Council Meeting - August 28. 2000 I 1. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances. 12. Show location of trash enclosure for Phase I. Materials used to build the enclosure shall be the same as those used on the new building. 13. Show type offence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use a decorative fencing. 14. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee site improvements (landscaping. utility extension/relocation, grading, and erosion control measures). 15. All rooftop equipment must be screened i~ accordance with city ordinances. 16. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 brick a~qct rock face block as indicated in the staff ~'epo~'l ibr exterior material. 1V. Chai~ link l~nce along the south and SOtltheast core,er shall bo removed. 18. The exisling dl'iVexva5' along West 78t~' shall be removed a~d the ct~'b cut ~'eplaced with ~exv cui'b to ~z~tch existino curb on West 78'~' qtreet. 19. .-X detailed sign plata i~acltldi~qg liglatilag hat, st bo st~biaaittect a~ad co~a~t>l5' xvitla city ordinances. Fo~' ~he classroom additio~q along X~'est 78tl~ Street. ~ 1 No ime~'ior remodeling, which would require a buildino permit, except l~r li~hlin~ and tqVAC upgrades, will be permiued xx ithin any oFthe areas as designated as Phase IV unless lhe exterior walls are included xx'ilh tho ~omodel. 22. The applicant al~d staff xvill study whether xvindoxvs o~ ~he set,th side of the g>'m~asium a~'e visible fl'o~q~ tl~e parking lot and fi'om West 78'~' Street. 23. The applicant will consider' changing the color of the ~'ooF n~a~erial when replacemen~ of the roof is necessary. 24. The applicant will work xvith staff in determining tho place~e~qt oFtrees along the g>,mnasit~na wall. The trees planted shall be at least 12 foot in height. All voied in favor, excep~ Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. CITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN PERMIT #98-12 SPR SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated August 28, 2000, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and Chapel Hill Academy (the "Developer"). 1. Request for Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Site Plan Pmmit (refen'ed to in this Permit as the "project"). The land is legally described in Exhibit A. 2. Conditions of Approval. The City hereby approves the Site Plan Permit on condition that the Developer enters into this Permit. 3. Development Plans. The project shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the following plans (the plans shall not be attached to this Contract). If the plans vary from the written te~xns of this Permit, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A--Plat of Survey, dated May 25, 1999, prepared by Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson Inc. Plan B-Master Plan Elevations dated December 20, 1999, prepared by DLR Group. Plan C-Master Plan Interior dated July 6, 2000, prepared by DLR Group. Plan D-Site Plan-Master Plan, dated July 6, 2000, prepared by DLR Group. Plan E-Phase I Floor Plan dated July 6, 2000, prepared by DLR Group. Plan F-Site Plan-Phase I, dated July 6, 2000, prepared by DLR Group. Plan © -Preliminary Grading, Drainage, Utility and Erosion Control Plan dated July 14, 2000, prepared by Westwood Professional Services Inc. Plan H-Tree Inventory/Preservation Plan dated July 21, 2000, prepared by Westwood Professional Services Inc. 4. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required screening and landscaping by June 15, 2002. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. $. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Permit, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ("security") for $15,750.00 (Landscaping, Grading and Erosion Control). This amount has been calculated at a rate of 110% of the actual value of improvement. 6. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Mr. Ten'y Norton Chapel Hill Academy 306 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)949-9014 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall, 690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 937-1900. 7. Other Special Conditions. On August 28, 2000, the City Council approved site plan 1998-12 and front yard setback variance for Phase I of the Chapel Hill Academy Master Plan as shown on plans dated Received July 24, 2000, with the following conditions: a. Existing trees to be preserved shall be protected. Fencing shall be installed around trees prior to grading. b. Any trees removed in excess of the submitted plan without City approval will be replaced on site at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. Co The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed pre- and post-development storm water runoff calculations and verify that the existing storm sewer system in Great Plains Boulevard can accommodate additional runoff being generated from the proposed expansion. d. The applicant shall obtain from the City a construction right-of-way permit for all work within City right-of-way or easement areas. eo If utility connections and/or relocation/extensions are required with the proposed additions, the City will need to further review in greater detail and approve the utility service proposal. The applicant shall be responsible for sewer and water hookup fees in accordance with City ordinance. The number of hookup fees shall be based on the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission. o Building Official Conditions: I. The building will be required to have an automatic fire protection sprinkler system installed throughout. 2. Existing portions of the building will require accessible upgrades as necessary. The cost of which need not exceed twenty percent of the total project cost. 3. Meet with the Inspection Division as early as possible to discuss issues related to Building Code. 4. Obtain a demolition permit and secure any necessary permits. h. Fire Marshal Conditions: 1. The entire building will be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. 2. Submit utility plans showing locations of existing fire hydrants in order to determine if additional hydrants will be required. i. The sidewalk along Frontier Trail shall maintain a minimum width of 5 feet and be tapered down in width as it connects with the existing sidewalk along Frontier Trail. j. The overall parking will be evaluated as each phase of the master plan is approved. k. Submit a detailed parking and building lighting plan that incorporates the city's 90 degree cut off requirement and meets other city ordinances. 1. Show location of trash enclosure for Phase I. Materials used to build the enclosure shall be the same as those used on the new building. m. Show type of fence used around the relocated play area. Applicant is strongly encouraged to use a decorative fencing. n. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee site improvements (landscaping, utility extension/relocation, grading, and erosion control measures). o. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. p. The applicant shall use a smooth face 4 x 12 brick and rock face block as indicated in the staff report for exterior material. q. Chain link fence along the south and southeast comer shall be removed. r. The existing driveway along West 78th shall be removed and the curb cut replaced with new curb to match existing curb on West 78th Street. s. A detailed sign plan including lighting must be submitted and comply with city ordinances. t. The modular units must be removed within 6 months after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the classroom addition along West 78th Street. U. No interior remodeling, which would require a building permit, except for lighting and HVAC upgrades, will be permitted within any of the areas as designated as Phase IV unless the exterior walls are included with the remodel. v. The applicant and staff will study whether windows on the south side of the gymnasium are visible fi'om the parking lot and from West 78th Street. w. The applicant will consider changing the color of the roof material when replacement of the roof is necessary. x. The applicant will work with staff in determining the placement of trees along the gymnasium wall. The trees planted shall be at least 12 foot in height." 8. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Permit are attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. CITY OF CHANHASSEN (SEAL) BY: Linda C. Jansen, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Todd Gerhardt, City Manager ( SS COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ., 2001, by Linda C. Jansen, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DEVELOPER: BY' Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( SS COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was aclq~owledged before me this __ day of 2001 by NOTARY PUBLIC CONSENT Owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Permit, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by them. Dated this __ day of ,2001 By. Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( SS COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of 2001,by NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)937-1900 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN PERMIT EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL CONDITION 1. Right to Proceed. Within the site plan area, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the site plan has been recorded with the County Recorder's Office of the County where the project is located, and 4) the City P}anner has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer may proceed. 2. Maintenance of site. The site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved site plan. Plants and ground cover required as a condition of site plan approval which die shall be promptly replaced. 3. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perfo~Tn all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with site plan development. 4. Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan G, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be cm~tified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action, as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless there is full compliance with the erosion control requirements. Erosion control shall be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion control, the City will authorize removal of the erosion control measures. 5. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 6. Warranty. All trees, grass, and sod required in the approved Landscaping Plan, Plan C, shall be wan'anted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the time of planting. All trees shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer or his contractor(s) shall post maintenance bonds (Miller Davis Company Form No. 1636 or equal) or other security acceptable to the City to secure the warranties at the time of final acceptance. 7. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from site plan approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Pe~nit, including engineering and attorneys' fees. C. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Pe~Tnit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. 8. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be perfo~Tned by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incmTed by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act. and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for pe~Tmssion to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 9. Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the. local Postmaster's request. C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Permit. 10 D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Permit by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits. E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Permit is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. Occupancy. Unless approved in writing by the City Engineer, no one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the utilities tested and approved by the city. G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. H. Recording. This Permit shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. I. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or othem, ise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. 11 J. Construction Hours. The normal construction hours under this contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, fi'om 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Operation of all internal combustion engines used for construction or dewatering purposes beyond the no,Trial working hours will require City Council approval. K. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the site plan process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. L. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the site plan the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities: 1. City of Chanhassen; 2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions; 3. United States Army Corps of Engineers; 4. Watershed District; 5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions. M. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers too enter into this Development Contract. 12 N. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City. O. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. 13