1o. Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 1996.1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 21, 1996
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Bob Skubic and Kevin Joyce
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson and Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer,
Bob Generous, Senior Planner; John Rask, Planner I; and Phillip Elkin, Water Resource
Coordinator
s
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMNARY PLAT REOUEST OF LOTS 805 -811 AND LOT 853 -859, CARVER
BEACH INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND LOT AREA AND DEPTH
VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT 900 HIAWATHA
DRIVE, STEVE SCHMIEG.
Public Present:
Name Address
Charles W.
2653 Eitel Road
487 Ridge Lane, Chaska
1001 Western Drive
921 Western Drive
900 Western Drive
900 Western Drive
960 Western Drive
Steve Schmieg
Wallace Christensen
Matt Jacobs
Cosmo Kappenman
Gayle Odette
Carol & Donald Zalusky
s
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
I �)
Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? I have a question. John, can you put
that back up? Where will the driveway go off of, is it Westin?
Rask: Yeah, it's actually in this location here. There will be some trees. I think it's the
applicant's intent to move those trees. They aren't very large so they will need to be relocated.
There may also be some tree loss due to utilities being extended to the house.
Mancino: Will utilities go underneath the driveway or besides the driveway?
Rask: Yeah, that I'm not sure of
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Hempel: Typically the utilities are extended along the sides of the driveway. They periodically
will settle...
Mancino: And do it all in one place. Rip out, etc. Okay, thank you. Another question that I
had. In your recommendations, one of the recommendations is that the deck on the existing
home, number 4 shall be removed to comply with the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement. Is
that the entire deck or does that mean that they could construct or take out part of the deck and
still meet the rear setback?
Rask: No, that would pretty much be the entire deck. The house, the actual home itself sits I
think it's 33 -34 feet from the rear property line so they would lose the deck as a result of the
subdivision.
Mancino: Okay. And obviously the fence is moved also.
Rask: Yes. That would also have to be moved.
Mancino: Thank you.
Joyce: I have one minor point. There was, I saw on the proposed property a little shed there. Do
we need to mention that at all there in the conditions? It didn't look like a very permanent
fixture or anything like that.
Rask: Yeah. If there is one on Parcel B, it would have to be removed prior to recording of the
subdivision.
Joyce: Is it necessary to put that in with the conditions?
Skubic: John, the properties to the east and west, are they, is there a potential that there will be
two homes on those also? Or is that already subdivided?
Rask: Yeah, that's a good question. There are, if you look, the properties across the street on
Western Drive on the north side, there's about five of these 20 foot wide lots wide so there's
about a 100 feet of frontage. They have about 20,000 square feet in lot sizes. That would be all
of these so it would be difficult to further subdivide those. In addition, they only had the frontage
on the one street. This street was vacated or right -of -way was vacated so if they were to
subdivide, they would be looking at a private street situation. The parcels to the west here, again
Western Drive, where Hiawatha Drive currently stops about right here. This portion has been
vacated. Because of topography.
Audience: What portion has been vacated?
Mancino: Where the asphalt ends?
Fa
C
1
i
1
0
' Planning ommission Meeting - August 21, 1996
g g i�
' Rask: Where you see these striped lines here. It has all been vacated. The street is actually, it
ends at about this portion...
' Mancino: Excuse me. Can you wait for just one second for the public hearing and then you can
come up and ask any questions that you have.
Rask: So it is, there may be some subdivision potential in here but it appears that because the
way the houses are situated on those lots, that it would be difficult to further subdivide. Some of
' these parcels are only six wide, or five wide so you're looking at 100 -120 as opposed to 140. So
you'd be dealing with probably 12,000 square foot lots. And this one does the frontage on both
streets. On improved streets so you do get that access point right there without doing a private
street.
' Skubic: Would not the property immediately to the east also have frontage on both the streets?
Rask: Yeah. That one, actually there's a house. This is a lot here and this is a lot right here. So
' you're dealing with three lots and no they wouldn't be able to further subdivide.
Skubic: Okay, thank you.
' Mancino: Would you keep that, you can certainly turn off the light but obviously we're going to
have some questions on this. Thank you. Is the applicant here, and do you wish to address the
' Planning Commission?
Steve Schmieg: My name is Steve Schmieg and I am ... proposing the subdivision. I've had the
property listed for sale ... and honestly we got more calls for the vacant lot than the house... We
do intend to remove as few trees as possible. There are a few trees in the driveway that would
have to be removed, although they're smaller and there are a couple of other smaller trees that are
' small enough... As far as where the house pad goes, there is one tree that will definitely have to
be removed. Possibly two but as such the property itself, a house will fit in there really very
nicely without changing the ... much at all. As far as ... if it conforms to the neighborhood, I know
' there was a concern that... The existing house was vacant so it is currently rented and... And the
new house that's proposed...
' Mancino: So you're not selling the lot, you're going to build on it and then sell the house and
lot?
Steve Schmieg: Yeah, that's correct.
' Mancino: Those are your intentions?
Steve Schmieg: And I believe that's ... just under 1,200 square feet. A split entry. Wanting to
keep it around the 130, between 130 and 135 range.
Planning ommission Meeting - August 21, 1996 '
g g gu
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions at this point? Thank you very much. Can '
we have a motion to open and second for a public hearing please?
Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was '
opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission, please come up now. Ask any questions. Make any comments that you may have
on this proposal. '
Matt Jacobs: I'm Matt Jacobs and I live 921 Western. I would be the property just to the west of
the proposed subdivision. First of all I want to try and clear up the issue of the road behind you.
...understand that...
Mancino: John, could you go into that more specifically about where the road, Westin. No, '
Hiawatha actually ends.
Rask: Actually the road, the right -of -way is still in place behind this gentleman's property, ,
here's 921 right here.
Mancino: That's Mr. Jacob's property?
Rask: Correct. It's been vacated up to this point where you see the stripe. This part of the
road's been vacated. This ... public right -of -way. The road itself, the pavement itself goes just
past the park land here so beyond this, it is... This home right here receives access from
Hiawatha. There was a variance granted for this person to construct a home here. Probably
within the last couple years. We did give access over that public right-of-way.
Matt Jacobs: You did give access but when we went to the meeting...
Mancino: It's still existing gravel. Yes. That's what I saw too. Dave, can you comment on
that? Do you know the situation?
Hempel: Madam Chair, yes...
Matt Jacobs: The other thing ...I've been out here for 26 years. The reason I moved out here was I
for the larger lots and I don't feel... selling their homes and everything... For somebody to come
in there and subdivide... I don't see why we should be subdividing... property that's been in '
the family for years and years and the amount of...
Mancino: It does look to me John as if there are some properties to the west that even could be ,
subdivided. That are lots. I want to say two doors down or something that are big enough so
they could have 15,000 square foot lots. And that is correct isn't it? I
a �
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Rask: Well, it depends on the house placements. Also again, with the other, the current street
located behind them, they would have to bring in a private street or with flag lots so again you're
going to lose a lot of property for the driveway access. Also some of them are just smaller.
They're not as wide. They're 5 or 6 lots wide whereas this one is 7. This one was at 14,000 so
you take away another 20 feet, you're down to 12.
Mancino: So between size and infrastructure, it will limit the amount of subdivision that's going
to happen in the neighborhood?
Rask: Yeah. Mr. Jacobs may have some subdivision potential. It's kind of tough to tell. And
his house is located further back on the lot so it would be hard to split it right down the middle as
this one is occurring.
Matt Jacobs: ...where do we stop it? 60 x 100 or 100 by...
Mancino: That's a good question. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. It's before us
tonight. Anyone else wishing to ask any questions. Please come up. State your name and give
us your address please.
Wallace Christensen: My name is Wallace Christensen. I live at 1001 Western Drive... We
moved out there in 1960. At that time the whole Carver Beach was subdivided or was all platted
by 20 x 100 lots. That was the size of the lots. All through the whole area. Everybody that had
5 or 10 lots or something like that to make a buildable area ... east of us, east of Nez Perce there
are quite a few smaller properties. Now west of Nez Perce ... and every lot had to be a minimum
of 150,000 feet. 1,500 feet. Now I hear you're debating this ... and I have no use for that at all. I
sat here when they had the Council meeting on moving that house in and a woman on the
deal ... and she'd just come from Florida, well this is just... Is this the same way? I'd like an
answer.
Mancino: No it isn't. Thank you for your comments.
Cosmo Kappenman: My name is Cosmo Kappenman. I'm at 900 Western Drive. Directly
across the street from this property. We moved in about 3 months ago. We just bought the
house and we really like looking at all those trees. I'd hate to see if one of them would go. I've
looked at the lot, looked at the space. I'm an engineer myself. ...the way I see it, and the
weather that we've got, those trees have to be 20 feet from the structure. You're going to lose
more mature pine trees that have been there for years. The other question is, is $130,000.00 in
that area, I know we wouldn't sell that house for $130,000.00. Our house. I know that the
neighbors to the west... I think it's depreciating the value because of the cost of the house. I
think the houses from that point on, it's kind of the dividing point right there on Nez Perce to the
west. As you go west, you've got some beautiful homes in that area and $130,000.00 on that
small lot, I don't think, I think depreciates the neighborhood. I don't care if it's me or not. The
other thing is, I think I've probably had as many people turn around in my driveway looking at
this lot when it was for sale as he's probably had call him and their comments were too small.
Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 '
Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate your comments.
in
Don Zalusky: I'm Don Zalusky. I live at 960 Western Drive... I lived in a neighborhood
Plymouth that was an older neighborhood that was kind of disorientated when they were
planning it. And there's a lot of lake cottages and really what it turned out to be after a certain
'
amount of time was it turned out to be a hodge podge of new homes, old homes. People
squeezing a house in anyplace they could because there was some land there... So and it didn't
really improve the neighborhood. It actually... affordable housing. I wouldn't even include my
house... I looked for a large lot. Something I could, if I wanted to add on to, where I could buy it
reasonably and then I could add onto it you know as the family grew. And I have a lot big
enough to do that now. I won't have to bother with any City Council meetings or anything like
that to get a variance. Recently I did some... I see this here as, it's obviously to everybody... I
mean there isn't anybody here that can deny that. Now what you have here is you have two
homes, both under the minimum requirement for land square footage. And now supposing a
,
family moves into either one of those homes, and I understand that the existing home is a small
two bedroom. I can be corrected, if I'm wrong. If these people wanted to add onto that
home—we're to have all assemble again. I need an extra bedroom or I need a family room
'
going
and you know chances are you'd have compassion on the guy... Well either one them, it could
happen to either one. I guess for those reasons, I guess I'm not in favor of it because I've seen
that sort of thing from the... in Plymouth. You're going to find people that maybe don't want to
include their own... Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you.
Gayle Odette: Hi. My name's Gayle Odette. I live at 900 Western Drive. I'm the person... The '
people that live here, they care about their surroundings. They care about the upkeep of their
homes and these are all homes that... If you put a small home on this lot directly across from
where I live... Also if you look at the research about people that live in small areas ... so I'm
concerned...
Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come up in front of the Planning
Commission at this point? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close, and a second, the public
hearing please.
Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was ,
closed.
Mancino: Comments and discussions from commissioners. Jeff. '
Farmakes: I don't see anything new here. You see this with large developments and you see
this with subdividing lots. Some older developments ... opportunity to subdivide based on ... in
the last few decades with the minimum requirements allowing them to subdivide their lots. I do
have I guess a concern ... staff has looked at this. It is one of the criteria in the variances is that
they... profit from the variance and that's a condition that... reasonable use of developing their
6
u
U
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
land. Again that's legalese and that's the reason... I don't see that issue addressed here in my
report. I would be inclined to say that this meets the code and the rules with the exception of
that. The fact is in Chanhassen, if you have 15,000 square feet, or in close proximity to that,
you're best to ask a variance if it fits in with that criteria. It seems like a reasonable use of the
property. That area's an older area so it isn't, it's quite... Different sized homes. I'm going to
let the City Council wrestle with this because there is no solution. The issue of a small house
next to a large house, all you have to do is read the paper and see how that ... and the City is going
to have to find a way to resolve that.
Mancino: So you would be in favor of granting the variance at this point?
Farmakes: Reluctantly.
Mancino: Reluctantly.
Farmakes: Yeah.
Mancino: Thank you. Kevin.
Audience: Could you explain that a little bit louder here so we can hear. Did he say he was in
favor of this?
Mancino: Yes. Yes he did.
Audience: What's his name?
Jeff Farmakes: My name is Jeff Farmakes. I live at 7100 Utica and I don't have a dog.
Audience: I'll make sure you don't get on the Council.
Joyce: Generally I'm pretty leery of variance requests. I'd like to try to keep things as ... to our
comprehensive plan and what kind of rules were set aside. I was going out to this property. I
think it is a unique situation that you have here with the placement of the property. I think that
vacant lot really doesn't do much to the character of your neighborhood either, is my opinion.
Mancino: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed, and there are no comments please from the
audience at this point. While we make our comments. Thank you.
Joyce: And I feel that the staff has looked at this. They're going to make sure the setbacks are
adhered to. The density of the area fits into the comprehensive plan. The only property I can see
it actually impacting would be the property just east of there at 881 Western Drive, which can
actually see the house. There's some excellent buffers there ... north of there is looking at their
garage. So what you're talking about is whether you want another home in your neighborhood or
not. I guess I just don't have a problem with putting another home in that neighborhood. It is a
7
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
variance that I sort of have a variance using the variance but like Jeff said, the property owner has
a right to ask for it and I think I would give him the go ahead to allow the variance.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I agree with the previous commissioner's comments. I'm reluctant to see a variance
because I think the point was made, where do you draw the line. Next time it might be a little
smaller and how do we decide what's too small and what's acceptable and what's not. I don't
know how to do that. However, I think staff has made the point here that this is not a
precedence. That it does fit the character of the neighborhood so anyway, there isn't a great deal
of potential for further subdivision. I don't hear that there won't be any but it sounds like it's of
a limited subdivision. So I am in favor of this.
Mancino: Okay. Any other comments? My comments are much the same. I did go out and
spend some time walking around. It is a small variance. It's 14,000 and I thought that it felt to
me as I walked around the neighborhood, compatible in the area. I think that if the builder,
developer keeps as many trees as possible, and we do have a conservation easement, that it will
not detract from the lot. But I also very seriously and sincerely hear the concerns of the other
neighbors in the area. And I know that when you buy a home in an area and there is a lot size,
you expect the others to be at that lot size, except if someone does come in and ask a variance.
And this is one very subjectively I do think works. With that I have a couple more questions and
that is for John. In the conditions. Number 2. It says full park and trail fees shall be paid at the
time of the building permit. What are full park and trail fees at this time? Just so we have an
idea.
Rask: Park I believe is $1,200.00 and trail is four, four something.
Hempel: Madam Chair, the total combination of park and trail fees are $1,467.00.
Mancino: Okay. So they will be paying that, or whatever is current at the time of the building
permit. My other question John is for utilities we're asking for a $3,500.00 guarantee payment
on condition number 10. I'm assuming that that is the sewer hook -up and the water hook -up,
which totals right about 2575. And the additional thousand is for the road work? Is that correct?
Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that. We placed this condition in there to guarantee
the extension of the sewer and water ... which is located approximately in the center of the street.
We will extend it at that point to the property line so at that point the property line... That's to
guarantee that work and also the street restoration. As part of the building permit application, the
applicant will also have to pay a hook -up charge for the sewer and water ... $1,075.00 for sewer
and $1,475.00 for water. Those will be collected at the time of building permit issuance.
Mancino: Okay. And also street repair is part of that?
Hempel: The $3,500.00 escrow that we're requiring...
1
F1
1
F1
n
' Planning ommission Meeting - August 21, 1996
g g
' Mancino: Thank you. I needed that amount clarified for me. Those are all the questions that I
have, and comments. May I have a motion please?
' Farmakes: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
subdivision and lot area and depth variances based on the findings presented in the staff report
and subject to the following conditions in the staff report dated August 21, 1996. 1 through 10.
Mancino: Is there a second?
'
Joyce: I'll make a second.
Mancino: The motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
' the subdivision and lot area and depth variances based on the findings presented in the
staff report and subject to the following conditions:
' 1. A tree conservation easement shall be granted over Lot 805. Tree removal limits shall be set
at 20 feet from the proposed building pad. A tree removal, erosion control, and drainage plan
' shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for Parcel B.
2. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in
force at the time of building permit application for Parcel B.
3. The existing fence shall be relocated onto Parcel A or removed from the property.
' 4. The deck on the existing home shall be removed to comply with the 30 foot rear yard setback
requirement.
' 5. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile
on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or
1 relocated.
6. The applicant will be required to clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from
vehicles tracking. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until
the site has been fully restored, re- vegetated, and removal is authorized by the City.
7. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
disc - mulched seed, wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of grading in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook.
8. The applicant is responsible for water quality fees of $256 and water quantity connection
charges of $634 as per the City's SWMP plan.
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
9. Construction hours shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity shall take place on Sundays or
holidays.
10. An escrow shall be submitted to the city in the amount of $3,500.00 to guarantee payment for
extending utility services and repairing the street.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mancino: The motion does pass. This goes onto the City Council, and when is that meeting?
Aanenson: September 6 th
Mancino: September 6` For those of you that were here tonight, September 6th will be the date
that it goes in front of the City Council.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOTUS REALTY /ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH IS REQUESTING SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR A 96,288 SQ. FT. CHURCH AND SCHOOL FACILITY ON 8.03
ACRES AND A SOCCER FIELD ON 2.48 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN
THE PROPOSED VILLAGES ON THE PONDS PROJECT WHICH IS REQUESTING A
REZONING TO PUD AND IS LOCATED EAST OF GREAT PLAINS BLVD. AND
SOUTH OF HWY 5, PROPOSED LOTS 10 AND 11, VILLAGES ON THE POND, ST.
HUBERTS CATHOLIC COMMUNITY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dave Bangasser
St. Hubert's
Al Klingelhutz
8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Dave Nickolay
8500 Tigua Circle
Greg Larsen
8151 Grandview Road
Al Herzog
1191 Homestead Lane
Fr. Steve Ulrick
St. Hubert's, 7707 Great Plains Blvd.
Richard Anderson
8210 Grandview Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this issue.
Mancino: Thank you. I just want to clarify that recommendation 14 is on page 21 that says, site
grade shall not exceed 2 % to 1 slopes unless a retaining wall is being used. Is that correct?
Generous: That's correct.
10
n
J
C
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Mancino: Okay. So that is one. At this time, are there any questions with staff? To staff.
Joyce: Bob, did you say you were going to seek some alternatives to the soccer field? Are you
going to show that tonight?
Generous: They don't have alternatives. What they're showing, they could slide it over and it
might fit on Lot 11. That one where it's located now. But the trade -off is to save the wetland
area.
Joyce: You're talking about not using Lot 11. You're saying there are other locations for it that
you're considering?
Generous: We had seen the sketch plan. I don't know if the applicant has it now and if he's
done the engineering the detail work.
Joyce: So I guess I'm confused on, the condition seems kind of open ended. Are we going to
make a decision on whether the soccer field's going to on Lot 11 tonight? Is that correct? On
condition number 4.
' Mancino: Or make the recommendation that we send up an alternative to the City Council to see
it on the north side of the trail, which is up in the parking lot area. Because we haven't seen that.
Bob, what is the hard surface? Oh excuse me. Did you want to reply to what I just said?
Generous: No.
' Mancino: What is the hard surface coverage of the site plan?
Generous: Oh I didn't calculate that. It was consistent with what we had for the entire
' development.
Mancino: I know that 70 is an average we have to keep in that. I just want to make sure that
what we don't do as we're reviewing these site plans to put the onus on the last property, etc. so
if we could please have that available for City Council. I think after we hear the applicant and
their presentation, Dave I'd like you to respond a little bit to the road and closing down the old
TH 101 and Great Plains Blvd. How that will work, etc. That would be helpful. Thank you. Is
the applicant here and do you wish to present?
Dave Bangasser: Good evening. I'm Dave Bangasser. I'm a member of the St. Huberts
Building Committee. We've also got ... other members of St. Hubert's. My intention would be to
' be somewhat brief. I would like to walk you through to get a feeling for... particularly our site
plan and elevations. And after that... questions. I think this is a plan that you're all very familiar
with... As Bob's already pointed out, the location of the church and school and gymnasium area.
' I just want to talk a little bit about where we see parking happening and therefore... We only see
three major parking areas, which is a combination of parking that's owned and pretty much
exclusively St. Hubert's parking and then shared parking. That parking is this southerly flat area
11
Planning Commission Meeting m August 21, 1996 '
off without blocking up traffic.
Mancino: What's your expected enrollment?
Dave Bangasser: We are currently at about 320 children. We have 18 classrooms and we've got '
about 25 students per classroom would be our intention. At some point if things continue to
grow in Chanhassen as they have been, it's possible that we may need to have this education
center. If that does happen we've tried to design that into the site plan so we're not in a similar
situation now where we can't expand to meet our needs. '
Mancmo: So this building will be fulfilling your current needs?
Dave Bangasser: It will fulfill, currently we're at 320. We think that once we build this facility
it would take us up to about 500. Really we're talking about the day school and that's just a
12
,
here. The northern lot area and then a west lot area across church plaza here. The parking which
St. Hubert's would own and would not be intended for shared parking is approximately this area
here. This area here and that's it. The balance would be shared parking. So with that we really
have three major approaches to the facility. So we've tried to design each of those entrances so it
doesn't feel like the back door. We've really tried to make it feel like you're approaching a
prominent entrance from all three facades, and you'll see that in the elevations here in a minute.
,
On our particular site plan we've got, and it's shown in a little bit more detail, the entrances we
talked about. The west entrance that is off of church plaza here. We intend to highlight the
entrance with a trellis feature that our actual entrance is back off of the west wall of the church,
and the primary purpose of that is we want all three of the major church entries to basically allow
traffic to flow into the narthax gathering area and then the entire congregation would go into the
church together in one location. So we've got that end is tucked back in where the narthax is and
,
we're expressing that entrance with a trellis. It's a wood trellis. It's intended that we're going to
plant Boston ivy and clematis... summer time, spring, summer time, fall create kind of a natural
entry into the last entry. The very outer portion of that trellis is going to be constructed with...
stone pillars on either side. The balance of the trellis would be, we envision a cedar type of an
open structure. We are again we're following that same trellis entrance feel on the north
entrance. However this area is intended to be expansion area. It's planned to be a future
t
fellowship hall which we had hoped we're able to construct in perhaps 3 to 5 years. And because
of that future expansion area, our intention would be not to go ahead and carry that trellis all the
way to the entry but again to express that with essentially two sections of that trellis. The west
'
entry is really at the base of our bell tower, which I'll explain in a minute when we talk about the
elevations. We talked about three major entrances. That deals primarily with church. We do in
fact have a fourth entrance which is related to the education center in this area. Our final review
as far as circulation goes, we envision buses coming in from this southerly access point and
lining up along this sidewalk to drop the kids off. We also in addition to that got a car drop off
so parents that are dropping off their kids can be separated from the bus parking. Our intention,
our thought would be that we try to control traffic in a manner similar to what we currently do
with directional signage, such that this area where the buses are going to be located would be
'
strictly for buses that during our school day we'd try to keep car parking out of that area. We do
have drop offs at each of our other entries here as well so that it's convenient to drop individuals
off without blocking up traffic.
Mancino: What's your expected enrollment?
Dave Bangasser: We are currently at about 320 children. We have 18 classrooms and we've got '
about 25 students per classroom would be our intention. At some point if things continue to
grow in Chanhassen as they have been, it's possible that we may need to have this education
center. If that does happen we've tried to design that into the site plan so we're not in a similar
situation now where we can't expand to meet our needs. '
Mancmo: So this building will be fulfilling your current needs?
Dave Bangasser: It will fulfill, currently we're at 320. We think that once we build this facility
it would take us up to about 500. Really we're talking about the day school and that's just a
12
' Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
portion of our education needs. We've got a much larger religious education program with kids
that don't go to St. Hubert's day school are encouraged to attend the religious education
' programs so in the evenings, primarily Wednesday evening, we've got a very large need for
religious education classrooms so each of the typical classrooms will be divisible with an
operable type partition into two religious education classrooms. Other points that are probably
worth noting, we talked some as part of the PUD discussion about the playground area. We
really envision this entire area right here as playground area. If we were to expand this area,
we'd use that as playground area so we'd basically see this as green space that playing for the
time being we'd locate any equipment off that area. I think the area down here that we had
talked about, I think in Dave's report about 2 %2 to 1 versus 2 to 1. I think in our site plan, it was
hard to tell exactly what our intentions were but our intentions would be to maintain a 2:1 slope
' and let grow natural and once we establish our vegetation we feel that that would work very well.
We were able to ... you can see in the grading plan, save some additional trees between the school
and the Anderson home right here. This landscaping plan does not depict that but the grading
' plan that we submitted does depict that so we were able to maintain some additional trees along
with that buffering in this area. Are there any questions on the site plan?
' Mancino: Any questions? I think I will wait until you're done, thank you.
' Dave Bangasser: These are preliminary elevations which I think you've seen in your submittal
packet.
' Mancino: Not in color.
Dave Bangasser: Color makes a little bit of difference in trying to describe what we're trying to
' do here. We are trying to create some identifying features, some landmarks if you will with the
facility and clearly one of the foremost landmarks is our cross and lantern area here. We are in
the middle of a development that is surrounded by 2 and 3 story buildings and that we have
' identified what the purpose of this facility was, it's a church and so we've got a cross basically
centered in the middle of the church facility. That cross also lines up with the main access of the
park and drive across church plaza. So the access of that plaza in which the developer intends to
make a feature, a strong access, we lined up with our cross. This lantern area is an area that is
really used initially to support our cross and then we intended to infill within that support some
translucent glass. Callow, if you're familiar with that product. It's a product that you can't
' visually see and distinguish what's behind it but it does allow light through. Our plan would be
to provide back lighting so that at night you can light that up and it will just provide somewhat of
a beacon for the community, kind of identify the church again. The bell tower's another
' significant design theme that we've incorporated. It's really the central focal point for all three of
the entries that come into the church. If you line up the access with all three entries, it leads you
to the bell tower. These are three of the original bells from 1903 -1904. They are currently sitting
' on that church property and it's been a goal for quite some time to mount those in a bell tower
and we're counting that in this design.
Mancino: And when are you going to play the bells?
13
Plannin g Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 ,
Dave Bangasser: I don't know that we've figured that out.
Mancino: Okay.
Dave Bangasser: Beyond that we are looking at, although this diagram might lead you to believe
otherwise, the roof of the church area is intended to be a cedar shake roof. We do have sky lights ,
over the baptismal font at the entry of the church, as well as over the sanctuary area. The bell
tower is a feature that we intend to create as a dominant solid foundation for those bells. We
hope that if...allows to construct that bell tower out of the same... field stone that we're looking
at using as an accent to the entry points at the trellis entries, as well as an accent inside of the
church. Beyond that another prominent feature in our design and a focal point for our school,
which is a circular type feature with the kindergarten on the lower level and the library and the '
computer room, media center on the upper level. With that..
Mancino: Do you have samples of the materials? ,
Dave Bangasser: ...they're rather large. I'll start with the brick which we intend to use on the ,
church. We intend to have the same brick on the inside of the building and the outside of the
church and therefore we are looking for a fairly light brick so we can maintain a bright and airier
interior of the church. So we are tentatively looking at brick in this range. The secondary brick, ,
number two, which we intend to be primarily for the education center, would be a brick in these
hues here, and I think if you put them together you'd see some of the lighter bricks start to tie
into our other school brick. Our hope is that to be able to accent both of these with that ... stone '
similar to this. In addition to that, as I mentioned, we're looking at a cedar shake type roof.
Accented by a copper eyebrow feature which we have located and actually is not depicted in
these earlier elevations but is shown on your submittal package. It would be over the media '
center. It would be located over the narthax. The south entry as well as the north entry. And the
glass, the same color that we're considering is a champagne anodized.
Mancino: And your cross is going to be out of what? '
Dave Bangasser: To be determined. If it was an ideal world, copper. We don't know if we'll be
able to afford that.
Mancino: Actually how tall with it be? How tall will it sit up? 1
Dave Bangasser: Approximately 80 feet. And that's with, we're looking at the surrounding
three story buildings that probably have roof heights of 55 feet. That type of range. We want to '
be up high enough so that you can see over the top of the three story buildings. Clearly you
won't be able ... but we wanted to get up above the roof lines. ,
Mancino: You want to demonstrate that you're the soul of the village.
Dave Bangasser: Right. ,
1
14
�
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Mancino: Okay. Any questions on the materials? Thank you.
Dave Bangasser: If I could comment briefly on a couple items. I think, I appreciate your
comments on the architectural review committee that would allow us time to discuss their
comments. Or really understand what their intent is so I'd appreciate some kind of language that
allows us, until the City Council, we've got some time to maybe discuss that. Now on the issue
of the ballfield. I thought that we had addressed that issue as part of the PUD. The portion that's
new is that we are impacting some wetlands that we hadn't anticipated. I'd like to say rather than
the ballfield, you know if the ballfield is moved, that's great. But we can't, we'd like to know
that we can work it out there as long as we meet all the regulations of the wetlands, so on and so
forth.
Mancino: I can respond and just say I would just like City Council to know all the options that
there area and that is, if we go in and fill the wetland, where it will be mitigated and how it will
be mitigated versus shifting it to the east or on the Lot 11. How many trees it will take down and
thirdly, if it is moved north of the trail, what will happen there? So that they can do, and we can
give them some sort of an executive summary, the pros and cons of each and have them decide.
Dave Bangasser: Sure. I think that we have, up to this point we haven't developed a plan north
of the trail that would seem to work and we talked about that before. There may be some other
avenues that we're going to attempt to pursue but at this point, there's a lot of issues to address
and we don't know that that's an option.
Mancino: Okay.
Dave Bangasser: That's all the comments that I have.
Mancino: Okay I have, then I have a few to ask you. And that had to do mostly with, the one
area Dave I didn't feel real comfortable with was knowing about the retaining walls and how
they are going to look. What they're going to be made of, etc. You know this is the first
structure there. It will set a precedent for the whole village and the landscaping is so important in
this and there may be some other retaining walls in the area. What kind of material are we going
to use? Are we going to be able to replicate that in other places? So I would like to see you also
give a little more information to the City Council. Whether it is a rendering of the retaining
walls. What they would look like, and it can be just a cross section. You know how tall they
actually will be, because they're going to have a very big visual impact on that east side and also
on the south side. So I would like to see some more detail on that. And as I said, the material
being used for that also.
Dave Bangasser: I think at this point the, what I consider the primary retaining wall being on the
' east property line and the south property lines are retaining walls which are currently being
provided by the overall development. And coordinated with the overall development and at this
point I don't know exactly where we're at on those retaining walls. Whether it's a keystone
' block, which I guess is what I've envisioned but I don't know if the folks at Lotus have had other
things in mind, but clearly that is something we can work out between now and Council.
15
Planning Commission Meeting m August 21 1996
Mancino: And City Council, good. So we can see kind of a comprehensive plan on that. And I
also want to make sure that the parking lot lighting is again a comprehensive plan. Not only in
here but in the rest of the developable area. Any other questions at this point? Okay, thank you.
Is anyone else coming up to address the Planning Commission from your?
Al Klingelhutz: I don't think it's necessary. Dave knows it all.
Mancino: From your point of view, okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. May I have a motion to
please open this for a public hearing and a second.
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission, please do so now. Comments. Questions. Seeing none, may I have a motion to
close the public hearing and a second please.
Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Mancino: Comments. Questions from commissioners. Bob.
Skubic: Well some of the gaps that I saw in the report have been basically filled in so I don't
have much to add to this. I agree that the architectural detail. We talked about, this is the corner
stone of the development here and we did want the Midwestern, European type architecture and
in looking over the plans, I didn't see a lot of that. Certainly it took on a whole different
appearance looking at the color rendering but I agree with staff that we should try to enhance
that. I also felt that north and east elevations of the gym provide some detail that might need to
be filled in or might need to be some trees or shrubs in those areas. I don't know if I have
anything else to add here. I think it's all been nicely covered.
Mancino: Kevin.
Joyce: I really don't have much else to add either. My concern was the soccer field. I hope that
it works out that everything can be done properly with that. That you'll be satisfied with what
the City Council comes up as far as a decision on that because obviously it's important to your
development. You feel it's part of the importance of getting this thing done. But we'll have to
wait and find out that I suppose so...
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: I don't have much further to add to that. I think the staff recommendations covered
it.
16
LJ
n
n
L
� I
lI
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Mancino: Okay. No questions? Okay. My only comments are ones that I think I've already
made and that is that I just want to make sure that there is a comprehensive lighting plan for the
entire Villages on the Pond PUD. And that has to do also with color of lights. You know
sometimes you see the yellow ones. Sometimes you see the white ones. Just so that it is
consistent. I don't know what they're called, phosphorous, potassium, something lights. I don't
know what they are but anyway, just so that's consistent. Parking lot and landscaping. Bob, is
there anything in the conditions that need to be changed? I had for condition 1 that the applicant
must provide four more islands or peninsulas in the south parking lot and add perimeter
landscaping in the north parking lot. In order to meet city ordinance requirements.
Generous: It's actually it will be three in the southern end because we're taking one area of
island out and making that a pedestrian access area.
Mancino: Okay. So number one would be provide three more islands, and do you understand
what I mean, add perimeter landscaping in the north parking lot?
Generous: Sure.
Mancino: Okay. Also I would like to add a condition that the applicant should prepare some sort
of a color rendering of the landscape retaining walls with details of materials to be used for the
City Council review. I mean the details as in fencing, chain link fence, etc. I'd like to see some
of those details worked out. And lastly the soccer field. Obviously when we approved the PUD
conceptually, etc., at our, two meetings ago, I don't think we were aware that we would have the,
as you know, very openly and honestly, the wetland problem and filling in on the wetland. So I
would like to see you give the City Council the options that are available. Moving it on Lot 11
and showing them exactly what will happen. Leaving it where it is and how you fill the wetlands
on site to mitigate. And three, an honest look at moving the soccer field north of the trail and
what that does. And lastly, it's going to be a beautiful church. Congratulations. I mean it is just
exciting to see it and I'm sure exciting for you. Wow. Very, very nice. What a wonderful site
plan to review for the first one on this. Exciting. Is there a motion?
Skubic: Madam Chair, did you want Dave to comment on the TH 101 and the turn back?
Mancino: Thank you very much. So what's going to happen with the road? How long will it be
closed?
Vemelle Clayton: Excuse us. We have some later news.
Brad Johnson: Dave doesn't know about it.
Aanenson: Yes he does.
Vemelle Clayton: Oh, you do? Okay.
Hempel: Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Mancino: And if he doesn't get it all, we'll let you fill in.
Hempel: I've been updated today by the City Engineer, Charles Folch, as far as the status of
Great Plains with MnDot. Apparently there's some conversation of turning back, or I should say
redesignating Great Plains Boulevard that right now is built as temporary Trunk Highway 101
according to MnDot. First of all they will establish, or Market Boulevard as the new Trunk
Highway 101. Turn back Great Plains right -of -way to the city...will vacate and close off the
road between Lake Drive East and what's the Market Boulevard/Trunk Highway 101. So that
will permit the applicant to streamline the process and hopefully start grading their parameters.
Mancino: So this is happening immediately?
Hempel: That's my understanding.
Aanenson: Next couple of weeks.
Mancino: I don't know with government how long immediately means. So did they sign a
contract and what's the process?
Hempel: Not as yet but it is in the works...being processed.
Mancino: Okay. Do we put up temporary signs so that people know, you know that it's going to
be closed? I mean what happens at the time of giving it up and etc.?
Hempel: There will be, the street signs will be removed and the new Trunk Highway 101 signs
will be installed along Market... There's some already on Highway 5 as you're coming north, or
as you're south bound over by Dakota. By McDonald's there. Re- routes you to Trunk Highway
101, I don't mean south. If you're north bound on TH 101 going onto Great Plains, that's signed
there as well. All that's going to be relocated.
Mancino: And discuss a temporary signs. And does it also help temporary signs with the
businesses that are on Lake Drive East at this point? You know that used to get a lot of traffic
from the old TH 101.
Hempel: There's a little bit of traffic yet from Great Plains but the major traffic movement is up
the new TH 101 to Market Boulevard and you can see the businesses from Highway 5 fairly
easily.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion please.
Skubic: I'll make a motion. That the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan
#96 -11 for a 96,288 square foot school/church facility for St. Hubert Catholic Community, plans
prepared by Opus Architects & Engineers, Inc. dated 7/19/96 subject to the following conditions
Conditions I through 36 with some changes and additions. Number 1. Condition number 1
Fi
"I
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
should read, three more islands or peninsulas in the north and south parking lots in order to meet
city ordinance requirements. Is that correct?
Mancino: May I add a friendly amendment?
I Skubic: Yes.
f
Mancino: The applicant must provide three more islands or peninsulas in the south parking lot
and add perimeter landscaping in the north parking in order to meet city ordinance requirements.
Skubic: Okay, thank you. Condition number 14 is crossed out. Conditions are replaced in
condition number 5 to add vegetation to that slope. You may be adding a condition number 37.
That the applicant shall provide plans for City Council review for ultimate soccer field location
and for effects on wetland mitigation and tree removal if the soccer field remains south of Riley
Creek. And it also provides City Council with the effects of locating the soccer field north of
Riley Creek. Condition number 38. The applicant shall meet with the architectural landscape
review committee to review the additional architectural details of the building before the City
Council meeting. And number 39. The applicant shall provide details of materials and color
renderings of the retaining walls for City Council review.
Mancino: Friendly amendment. I would say on the east side and both retaining wall areas. The
east side and the south side.
Skubic: Okay. And condition number 40. And correct me if, we may not want to include this in
this proposal here but comprehensive lighting plan for Villages on the Pond shall be compiled.
Any friendly amendments beyond that?
Mancino: Should we include in the recommendations the impervious surface percentage?
Generous: I can give you those numbers. I found them. It's 58% if you just look at the church
site. Or 45% if you include the soccer field site and the church site.
Mancino: Okay. And we would just include that in the report to City Council, thank you. Is
there a second to the motion?
Joyce: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Skubic moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan #96 -11 for a 96,288 square foot school church facility for St. Hubert Catholic
Community, plans prepared by OPUS Architects & Engineers, Inc., dated 7/19/96, subject
to the following conditions:
19
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
1. The applicant must provide three more islands or peninsulas in the south parking lot and
add perimeter landscaping in the north parking lots in order to meet city ordinance
requirements.
2. The applicant must provide four more overstory trees within the parking lot areas in order to
meet city requirements,
3. The seven Black Hills Spruce south of the school are to be relocated outside of the future
expansion area.
4. If it is feasible to relocate the soccer field north of the trail, the wooded area south of
Highway 101 shall be placed under a conservation easement. If the soccer field is to be
constructed in the proposed location, grading shall be modified to avoid filling of any
wetlands on the site.
5. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan south of the school site on the steep slope.
This area shall be revegetated with sumac, live willow and dogwood stakes, and other fast
growing materials to improve soil stability and reduce potential erosion.
6. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width will require the installation of aeration piping
7. All new planting areas, including parking lot islands, peninsulas, and boulevards, shall have
an irrigation system installed.
8. The applicant is required to incorporate street furniture in the plaza area west of the church.
9. A bicycle parking area and bicycle racks shall be provided on site,
10. A minimum of 50 percent of the parking for the St. Hubert Catholic Community must be
provided through shared parking agreements. Cross access easements and the joint use of
parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
11. A separate sign permit must be submitted for all site signage, except for traffic control
signage.
12. Site plan approval shall be conditioned upon the developer of The Villages on the Ponds
receiving final plat approval by the City of Chanhassen. Once the developer has supplied the
City with an executed PUD /development contract and financial escrow to guarantee site
improvements, the site grading may commence upon receipt of the appropriate permits from
other governmental agencies.
13. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height shall be engineered and will require a
building permit from the City's Building Department. All retaining walls in excess of six
feet in height shall have safety fences installed above them.
20
1
FJ
u
1
Planning ommission Meeting - August 21 1996
g g �
14. The grading plan shall be revised to take into account an additional 17 feet of right -of -way to
be dedicated to the City for Grandview Road in the northeast corner of the site. The parking
lot configuration shall be revised accordingly. Parking lot grades in the easterly side of the
building shall be modified to eliminate the isolated storm sewer line south of the secondary
access point. Landscaped islands shall be provided at the ends of the parking aisles. The
' parking stall in front of the trail shall be striped and a pedestrian ramp installed.
15. Final grading and drainage plans shall be modified to be compatible with the overall
' comprehensive grading and drainage plans from The Villages on the Ponds development.
16. A sanitary sewer line shall be extended around the southerly end of the building to the
easterly property line for future extension along Grandview Road.
' 17. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
' formal approval
18. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed
' and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity
in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Slopes steeper than 3:1
shall be restored with erosion control blankets.
19. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will
' charge the applicant $20 per sign.
20. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year storm
' events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance
with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre- developed and post developed stormwater calculations
for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing
basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch
basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In
addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
21. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
' financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the agreement.
22. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section
404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation
work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the
proj ect.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply
with their conditions of approval.
24. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. A ten foot clear
space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP,
US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly
located and safely operated by firefighters (pursuant to City Ordinance 9 -1). An additional
fire hydrant will be required -- the location to be on the southwest corner of the property.
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location,
25. Yellow painted curbing and No Parking Fire Lane Signs will be required. Contact Fire
Marshal for exact location of signage and determination of curbing to be painted. Pursuant to
1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10 -206 and Section 20 -207a. and Chanhassen Fire
Department Fire Prevention Policy 06 -1991.
26. A post indicator valve (PIV) will be required on the 8" water line coming into the building.
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
27. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #01 -1990, Fire
Alarm Systems (copy enclosed).
28. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #04 -1991 (notes
to be included on site plans) (copy enclosed).
29. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #07 -1991, Pre -
Fire Plan Policy (copy enclosed).
30. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #29 -1992,
Premise Identification (copy enclosed).
31. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #36 -1994, Water
Line Sizing (copy enclosed).
32. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, Policy #40 -1995, Fire
Sprinkler Systems.
33. Comply with Inspection Division, Policy #34 -1993, Water Service Installation.
34. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a
building. After constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the
facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than
150 feet, fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
22
0
1
1
Ll
J
L�
l _J
u
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
building or facility. With regards to the school wing, either provide fire apparatus access to
within 150 feet of all portions of the building or install Class I stand pipes within the
stairways of the school portion of the complex. This is taking into account the future
expansion of the school.
35. Submit turning radiuses of Fire Department access routes to City Engineer and Fire Marshal
for review and approval."
36. That the applicant shall provide plans for City Council review for ultimate soccer
field location and for effects on wetland mitigation and tree removal if the soccer
field remains south of Riley Creek. And it also provides City Council with the
effects of locating the soccer field north of Riley Creek.
37. The applicant shall meet with the architectural landscape review committee to
review the additional architectural details of the building before the City Council
meeting.
38 The applicant shall provide details of materials and color renderings of the retaining
walls on the east and south side for City Council review.
39. A comprehensive lighting plan for Villages on the Pond shall be compiled.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mancino: The motion carries, and it goes in front of the City Council.
Generous: September 9
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST OF APPROXIMATELY 10.95 ACRES OF
PROPERTY INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT; SITE PLAN REVIEW OF TWO OFFICE
WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS WITH AN AREA OF 64,000 SO. FT. AND 40,600 SQ. FT.
ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
DELL ROAD AND HWY. 5, CSM CORPORATION.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions? A question I have on page 13, under the conditions. It says Fire
Marshal conditions, and then it's blank. Did I miss? Number 5 Kate.
Aanenson: Yeah, I was just seeing if it's attached. It should say as per memo dated August 14
They should have been pulled in. There's actually 8 conditions.
Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Is the applicant here, and do
you wish to address the Planning Commission?
23
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Tom Rocheford: Yes. Thank you Chairman and members of the Commission. My name's Tom
Rocheford and I represent CSM Corporation. We're the owners of the property off of Highway 5
and Dell Road and we've been interested in this property for a number of years. Probably going
back to 3 years we were pretty dogged in our pursuit of the property with the former and
subsequent owners of it. One of the major reasons that we were so interested in it, we felt it
would be perfect opportunity to present a master plan project that would encompass and
emphasize a campus like setting. I think at the gateway of Chanhassen, if you consider it's kind
of a hodge podge of architecture and uses to the north of Dell Road. As well as further along
west on Highway 5, I think this will, this project in our mind will provide a very unified, strong
architectural statement for the city. We did finally close on the property back in June and started
construction on phase one shortly thereafter. As you know we're building 128,000 square feet
there. Two 64,000 square foot buildings and it's coming along quite nicely. Acceptance from
the marketplace has been good. We expect to have about half the project leased within the next
couple weeks or so. So that led us to wanting to get kicked off on phase two so that we're ready
when the demand shows that it's there. I think I'm going to let my team get further into the
architectural and design elements, and with me tonight are Mark Kuesenerick, who is a staff
architect with CSM and John Dietrich connected with RLK and Associates, who is our civil
engineer. And at this time I guess I'd like to turn it over to Mark and he can go through the
architectural part of the project.
Mancino: Thank you.
Mark Kuesenerick: Good evening commissioners. My name is Mark Kuesenerick. I'm the
project architect for CSM Corporation. What we have developed through this site plan before
phase one was even brought in, we had in mind a campus. How that would complete the site.
We brought across the same look and feel for the buildings creating this main corridor down the
center of the site... Therefore we'd like to keep the structures and the colors remain close to the
same, or those same colors creating a harmonious and unified look to the entire site and to the
gateway to the city of Chanhassen. We had done various ... is different from the other three...
same type of architectural detailing as phase two. Or previously, excuse me. The landscaping
done by RLK and Associates and John Dietrich will speak more to that ... as in phase one. We've
tried to keep this very ... type site. The signage for the building itself would be the same as
previous for phase one, which is one color. The logos would be no more than 30 inches high and
letters would be no more than 24 inches high. And they would be placed in the same areas as
phase one ... around the building. There are certain... We do not expect a large number of tenants
in these buildings. So far the demand has been a large square footage so that has cut some the
number of signs... Other than that I think I'll let John Dietrich...
Joyce: Could I ask one question please?
Mark Kuesenerick: Sure.
Joyce: You're using the term campus. Could you elaborate a little bit on that?
24
0
1
11
C
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Mark Kuesenerick: It's more of, the campus look is similar to that like you see at St. Thomas.
Joyce: That was exactly what I was thinking. I'm from St. Thomas and I can visualize what
you're saying as far as the similar buildings, but these buildings are all going to look alike. Is
that my understanding now?
Mark Kuesenerick: Right. They will have a similar feel to them. Throughout and the same type
of structure. Same color.
Joyce: Same size?
Mark Kuesenerick: The three main buildings are the same size, same height but each one will
have a different elevation as the site goes higher. So it provides a stepping effect...
Joyce: Then I'd have to beg to differ on the campus effect because at St. Thomas you have
varying sizes of buildings and shapes and things like that. They all have the same facade, same
type of brick and that sort of thing but it's a different feel.
Mancino: And a different architectural design on the outside?
Joyce: Well it's the same. They keep the same rhythm or whatever you'd like to call it.
' Mark Kuesenerick: They produce similar detail throughout. And that's what we're trying to
accomplish with this project is putting the same feel throughout the entire project. There are
throughout the metro area there are a number of office campuses that produce this effect...
Mancino: Thank you.
J
John Dietrich: Good evening commissioners. John Dietrich from RLK Associates. I'm
privileged to be able to present the ... landscape and sign elements of phase two, as it would relate
to the arrangement of the master plan for CSM Corporation along Highway 5. With us tonight
we have made two modifications to the landscape and building architectural plans and...
addressed some of these ... the staff report for the landscape plantings as conifers and also for
locating of these building's roof elements that were inadvertently... As part of the overall design
and the campus feel we are looking to have a calming effect along Highway 5. We've looked
very closely at the elements at that Highway 5 overlay district and have looked at putting the
building structures on varying planes. Stepping up from a 923 elevation at the corner of Dell
Road as phase one. 934 and 936 elevations so we do have elevations of height difference. And
secondly we have indentation of the building with corner elements that will provide that relief
and that very visual effect as the viewers come along Highway 5, both east bound and west
bound. The planting plan looks at heavily planting along the Highway 5 corridor, with a
combination of deciduous and ornamental trees and shrub masses. Together with a berming of
the setback area that will provide approximately a 4 to 5 foot high berm above the parking lot so
that the areas that are adjacent to the Highway 5 parking, the two bay parking, will be screened
from view. I think you can look at phase one right now and see where that rough berm is.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Granted it doesn't have any plant material on it but it starts to cover about one -third of the
building as you're driving and that's the effect that we were looking for in phase one. That's a
similar effect that we will be looking for in phase two. In terms of having that berm screen the
parking. Pick up the facade of the building as they begin to step back from the Highway 5
property right -of -way. In terms of, we mentioned we're approximately 31 feet south of the
property line. 38%2 feet south of the property line in building three, and that also compares to
building two which is approximately 40 feet and building one which is approximately 42 feet so
there is a varying of topography. There's a varying of where the buildings are. They're not in a
straight plane. They're not on a flat site. When you look at the landscape architecture, we are
feeling that consistency of the architecture along with the varying topography and the variety of
plant materials to provide a very strong presence for this entry element of Chanhassen. We were
very careful in preserving the visual corridors through the site in terms of between buildings 2
and 3 and phase one and two. And providing that corridor again between buildings 3 and 4. In
terms of the.
Mancino: Excuse me John, the visual corridor is a parking lot, right?
John Dietrich: The visual corridor between.
Mancino: 2 and 3 is the parking area, correct?
John Dietrich: Between 2 and 3, it is a parking bay for each building. You also have a 23, or
excuse me, 25 foot wide green band running down between the two and there is an elevation
difference of approximately 7 feet between the two. So we are providing plant material with
peninsula islands between the areas ... but that was also another element. Part of the Highway 5
overlay. Provide that visual corridor. There are other properties that are south of East Lake
Drive and we want to make sure that it was not a straight... And with the screening of the truck
and service corridor away from Highway 5, we wanted to try and look at having a variety of
parking for the office users so that we could provide a good mix that would be well received.
And as Mr. Rocheford has indicated, it is being well received. With the site we've also done a
couple of cross sections that look at how the site would look. I have three cross sections. One,
cross section A through building 4. Cross section B between buildings 3 and 4. And cross
section C between, from the loading docks out to Lake Drive East. And we are looking at
essentially the building 4, the top of the berm is 939. State Highway 5 is at a 934 elevation so
elevation wise it's 5 foot high. In terms of your visual height in the car, you're at approximately
a 3 foot height so you still have 2 foot of berm that you would be looking at so consequently your
line of sight would be approximately 1/3 up on the building. The same would be for building
number 3 where we have a floor elevation of 934. State Highway 5 between the buildings is at
933.5. Top of berm is 939. As we then move down towards the phase one, the highway starts to
drop down and our berm also steps down from the 939 to 937 so the berm does step down with
the highway. Along East Lake Drive and building 3 you have an elevation of 931. Top of berm
approximately 935 ... at 929 and building floor elevation at 934. So again, we're going to use
some screening. We've drawn the trees at a mature size but the intent is that with the berm the
plant material, that we will provide that type of screening. As the staff report indicated, there is
the additional conifers as a part of the landscape plan. We have redesigned the plan and have
NR
�I
�I
t
u
F1
I I
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
added conifers both behind buildings 4 in two clusters and building 3 in a cluster of 7. We now
have 134, excuse me, 136 overstory plant materials, including conifers on the site with a mix of
104 deciduous and ornamental and 32 conifers, which would bring up the percentage to 30 %.
We also have met the criteria of 30 foot on center spacing along East Lake Drive where we
would need at ... code' 34. We have met 34. Along Highway 5, the code would say 32 and 35 to
66 plant material along Highway 5 so keeping that consistency with phase one. With those
comments I would like to say we are pleased with the staff's report. We are excited about
maintaining the CSM presence along Highway 5 with the consistency of a master plan, this is
following where we started designing this site over a year ago. Phase one is in and building
phase two we feel will be well received also. We concur with the elements of the staff report and
the subdivision...2 Addition versus Lot 3 and we request your approval ... and we're available
to answer any questions, either myself, Mr. Rocheford or Mark Kuesnerick.
Mancino: Any questions?
Joyce: Was there any mention about the pitched roof? Did I miss that? We were talking about
putting a pitched roof on.
Aanenson: Yes.
Mancino: This is ... I want to ask John. What we're seeing here is exactly the same as on phase
one, the first two buildings. The pitched roof...
John Dietrich: ...architectural design, yes it is.
Joyce: So there's no difference between the two then really.
John Dietrich: In terms of architectural design.
Mancino: All four buildings will be similar.
John Dietrich: Will be similar in materials. Similar in color. Similar it pitched roof element.
We are aware of your concern about looking at variation. However, we feel looking at that
Highway 5 corridor there needs to be some sense of consistency for this area where right now
there is not a consistent sense of architecture and each of the sites have been somewhat
piecemeal and broken up. Especially as we move west towards more of the last two and the
automotive center.
Farmakes: Why do you, why? Why do you feel that?
John Dietrich: We feel that we're looking to present a prominent presence to the tenants who are
looking to rent in these buildings. That they would be part of an overall campus. We feel the
consistency of the architecture and the variation of the site will present a strong presence and a
better image along Highway 5 than a variation of the buildings because the materials are high
27
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
quality. The landscape architectural design is of high quality and we would prefer to see a
consistency among the CSM development.
Farmakes: So you feel that, it's easier to lease to that if all the architecture is similar?
John Dietrich: We find that it will be a better presence to have a consistent product along the
Highway 5 corridor.
Mancino: Obviously, you haven't convinced me yet only because where I see the warehouse
industrial areas on the freeways, on the limited access freeways. On 494, north of 394, etc., they
all look exactly alike. It's monotonous. It is not distinctive. It is not what I would like or I see
for the Highway 5 task force as a gateway distinctive look on Highway 5. So I'm not, I'm still
listening and trying to hear you and be very open but I'm not quite there yet.
John Dietrich: I appreciate your candor on that. Part of this development was long term.
Looking at what would be a quality product, what would be a cost effective product. We're
looking to meet the standards of the Highway 5 district, which are quite stringent and I think
that's why this property has sat in it's current state for so long. And so Tom Rocheford has
worked tirelessly to close this deal with the DataSery and ... people. One of the comments from
the Highway 5 overlay district is that the design standards recreate a unified, harmonious and
high quality visual environment and as part of our site development we have always looked at the
CSM site as a harmonious development. That it would be distinctive from it's neighbors to the
west. From the neighbors to the north. We anticipate some buildings would go south to East
Lake Drive. That they would have a different flavor than what is being presented. There is a
standard that CSM likes to ... that says a quality project and with this type of element, we do feel
strongly that a common element of the building architecture will create that harmonious theme.
A high quality visual environment... with visual corridors between this building and the quality
of the landscape architecture and berming.
Farmakes: As I recall, and I'm not sure if everybody was on here when... My concern on how I
would vote on this would be the issue of, you may have a good building, which you replicated
from the ... and what that brings us back to is the issue of having a campus. If you're using that
word, how I see that is the same building is being duplicated over and over again. You can have
an campus of architecture. It doesn't mean all the buildings are the same shape and size, which
basically we've got here so the crux of my question to you is that, if you base this as an economic
issue and you're doing this because it's easier for you to sell to your tenants, then that's why I
asked you to elaborate on it. Because I'm looking for a reason to vote for it ... or it was the way
you were requesting it. If there's a way to do that and so far I'm not satisfied with, I've gotten
some public relations speech. Words like harmonious and these are vague words. They're not
hard reasoning for voting for that based on there's an economic need or something's being
accomplished, because aesthetically I think it's an easy out. I think if you look across the street
on the other end, across the highway, you see a townhouse development where they're all the
same. They've got 900 units in the same building. That's somewhat a concern.
W'?
1
� I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Tom Rocheford: I guess I'd like to respond to that if I may. If you look at the site and a lot of it
does have to do with economics because when we looked at entering into a purchase agreement
with the seller, obviously we had to make the numbers work for the project to work. And
especially when you look at the deeper part of the site, which is in here, the L shape building is
going to allow you to maximize the usable square feet on that site, which is how you generate the
revenue. When the site gets narrowed down, then we have to be a little more creative and the
building configurations allow the loading dock at the rear. So economics do come into play.
Certainly any investor, any bank or lending institution that we'll deal with, will want to see some
consistency in the building components and also the size because that will help them feel better
about our ability to lease the project and to pay our mortgage. Like I did mention, I think the first
two buildings have been very well received by the market place and I think you all agree that
they're quality buildings. They're quality products. Quality landscaping and you know a lot of it
gets back to, you know if it's not broken, don't try to fix it. So that has a lot to do with how we
proceed on these deals.
Mancino: So Tom what is, what's happening with Outlot B then? I mean will that also come in
with.
Tom Rocheford: Outlot B?
Mancino: Yes.
Tom Rocheford: We're not sure what that will be, other than it's probably going to be a single
user kind of a builder. Because of the size, I think we've got about 3 %2 acres remaining and quite
frankly we haven't really thought a lot about how that building's going to look. It's probably
going to be a build to suit kind of a building. Where someone will come to us and say they need
a 30,000 foot building and they'll be a lot more involved with the architecture and design than
these other buildings that we're doing now which are pretty much spec... buildings. So that
remains to be seen what that will look like.
Joyce: What is the make -up of the leasing space as far as warehouse and office in these
buildings?
Tom Rocheford: We're fairly flexible on that. Again it all depends on the needs of the
individuals.
Joyce: You must have an idea. I mean is the majority of it going to be warehouse? It can't be
office because obviously you don't have the...
Tom Rocheford: No, it's probably about a third office and 2/3 warehouse.
Joyce: On all four buildings basically, ballpark?
Tom Rocheford: That's probably how it's going to shake out. That's been our experience over
the years is that these kinds of uses have that kind of requirement.
09
Planning Commission Meeting a August 21, 1996
Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a
public hearing and a second please?
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission on this issue, please do so now. Seeing none, may I have a motion to, and a second
to close the public hearing.
Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Mancino: Thank you. Comments. Jeff.
Farmakes: I don't think that it would be a good idea to repeat this five times down the highway.
Not so much the first two buildings. They're fine for what they are. They're nice warehouse
space. But this isn't a military base. I think if we keep on getting the same building up and
down the highway, I think it flies in the face of what we're reviewing on the Highway 5
recommendation. ...of architecture on that end of town is pretty consistent. Like I said, those
townhouses are all the same. We've got some of these big blocks going on the north side and
these ... five repeated buildings. That's the thing that disturbs me about this thing. The rest of it,
I don't have a problem with it. The architecture...
Mancino: Kevin. Any other comments?
Joyce: ...the real true gateway to Chanhassen. I mean if we have a gateway, this is it. I
personally would have no problem with replicating this buildings if it was up in the business
district up on Commerce Boulevard on the next issue. I feel that there's a definite heaviness with
the buildings that are there right now and to replicate, I just think of coming into Chanhassen and
seeing a bunch of warehouses and I'm kind of in a quandary here because I don't know what the
alternatives are. They've made a nice gesture here to try to develop this land, and I think that's
important to consider. But I just ... back to heaviness. I can't see a campus look there. I don't
know what that term means but from what I see, it's exactly what Jeff says. It's warehouses.
Come into Chanhassen from the east going west and see warehouses. The first thing you see
coming into Chanhassen. I've got a problem with that. I don't know how to resolve it. I don't
know what else you can put in that area, and I can certainly commiserate with you fellows that
it's kind of a difficult plot of land. So maybe this is really the only type of thing that you can put
there but I sure would like to take a look at something else. That's the way I...
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I pretty much agree with everything said. This seems inconsistent but with a lot of
things we're doing in town here... for instance, we're trying to building a unique character in the
011
7
L
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
area, and we have a townhouse developments where we have seen this and we've had some
moderate success in rearranging them. The geometries and elevations. There's still a lot of
sameness here. I don't know how much this would differ. I sure would like to see a different but
complimentary architecture here. I'm not sure that the high quality of the landscape sameness
isn't better. I've always felt that the mall that Byerly's anchors is quite the same, and that's an
award winning architecture so I'm not sure I'm an authority on that. But I agree with the
previous commissioners that I'd like to see something different.
Mancino: Okay. My comments are much the same, however I do think that your phase one, the
quality of the building, the landscaping, etc., that came into us, is excellent and I would just like
to see you come back with the same quality that you've done on phase one but with some
distinctive, different architecture. Warehouse, the office warehouse seems to be selling well. It's
very, it's fine in that location. But I too would like to see something visually different and
distinctive in that area and to the same degree quality that you've done in phase one. And I think
that we did allow, even on the Highway 5, where would I say that. The Highway 5 corridor study
as for no parking on the Highway 5 side looking back with a very good resolution to that and
how it could be dealt with the berming and the added landscaping, etc. So we certainly don't
have a problem with that. It has more to do with the architecture. The only other component
that I would change or that I would add to, which you already have done, is on the south side
where we have the frontage road. The Lake East Drive. That will be, as we know it's going to
happen with that Lundgren, the single family development south of it, there's going to be much
traffic going on that Lake East Drive west to Villages on the Pond, and our new downtown south
of Highway 5 area, and because there are going to be, or what we've seen tonight, the dock area
facing that drive, we're probably as concerned about what that looks like as far as berming and
adding maybe arborvitae bushes you know where the deciduous trees are that really won't do any
sort of deciduous trees, will not do any sort of screening for, in Minnesota I say 10 months of the
year. But if that could be added to the berming on that Building 4 in the area where there isn't
coniferous vegetation, that would be very helpful. Other than that, those are my comments. May
I have a motion. In fact, Kate we are looking at both the site plan review and the subdivision so
we can take them separately and vote on them separately?
Aanenson: Yes.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: That's how the motions are established. Yeah, as two separate motions.
Mancino: So the architecture, or concern with the architecture would be under site plan review?
Aanenson: Correct.
Mancino: Okay. So may I have a motion on the site plan review? And we may want to add
some wording for the City Council as they review it.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Farmakes: I'll make a motion. That the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan Review #95 -18 for CSM Phase II, as shown on the site plan received July 23, 1996, subject
to the following conditions 1 through 9, with the addition of 10. That staff work with the
applicant to change the facia details of the architecture so as not to duplicate the existing
structures' look.
Mancino: Question. And that is, will 3 and 4 be different from each other? As long as we're
getting some.
Farmakes: 3 and 4, you mean the conditions 3 and 4?
Mancino: No. Buildings 3 and 4. Because we're looking at two buildings here.
Farmakes: Because of the size of the buildings.
Mancino: We have two that are the same and now we have 3 and 4.
Farmakes: I would leave that up to staff to work out. We already have two buildings that are
almost identical. Two buildings that actually are identical. Then we have two more buildings
coming in. The shape of the building, the actual piece and how it's utilized with the property
will be dictated by the plot. But the facia, structurally how it appears on the outside basically
on... the materials and detailing is something you can change. You add to the structure and I feel
that...
Aanenson: Let staff work on it. With 3 and 4. Whether they should look alike.
Farmakes: Yeah... professional ... so I'll leave it at that. Unless you would like to add.
Mancino: I would just like to add a friendly amendment to 1 and that is that buildings 3 and 4 in
front of the dock area, where there is not year round screening, vegetated screening, that that be
added. A 5 foot height, a green wall exists. Do you accept the friendly amendment?
Farmakes: Yes. On number 10, because I may not have verbalized my intent. Maybe the words
distinctively different should be, the buildings from 1 and 2.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: The motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion?
Joyce: Yeah, I have a question. Are they going to have to show elevations and things to the City
Council, or is this just, with this motion, are they going to have to come back to us or are they
going to the City Council as far as, you're happy with the buildings themselves. You just want
something different on the facia is what you're saying, correct?
32
7
1
in Commission Meeting - August 21 1996
Planning g gu ,
Farmakes: I think they should be distinctively different...
' Mancino: And he is not asking to table it and have it come back. You're asking it to be different
and to be shown to City Council. Or do you want.
' Farmakes: Unless you want to see it. Do you want to see it again?
' Joyce: Is somebody going to see it?
' Skubic: City Council.
Joyce: City Council will see the changes?
' Mancino: And do you feel comfortable with that? Or do you want them to come back to us with
those changes?
' Joyce: I'm not real comfortable with the project.
' Mancino: So you would like to see it come back?
Joyce: I don't know. I'm not going to vote in favor of it I guess.
Mancino: Kate, is there a way with this that it could come back for just the architectural and...
landscape before it gets to City Council.
' Aanenson: You'd have to change your motion.
' Mancino: And just deny it.
Aanenson: No, you could table it.
' Mancino: Table it and have it come back with those changes.
' Aanenson: Otherwise I mean when it goes to City Council, they certainly have to submit a new
set of plans. I mean the footprint isn't going to change. They're going to maximize the footprint.
That's a given. The landscaping and parking, that's a given. I think you're all comfortable with
' that so what you're asking for is a facia difference. I think we understand the direction that
you're asking and I think the applicant understands the direction. That you want to see the
' different, materials different and... distinctively different. I think that's been well articulated and
we understand that and we'll get a complete set of plans to go to Council. So if you feel like you
want to see that again, then I think you need to table it but I think we understand the direction.
t Joyce: ...they're trying to sell us on the idea of this campus... I have a whole different attitude
towards it.
33
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Aanenson: But if it's a different material then, if it's distinctively different.
Joyce: But it's going to be the same building isn't it? I mean if all buildings are the same,
you've got different materials.
Mancino: You get the same footprint.
Joyce: The footprint I'm not as concerned about but.
Mancino: But architecturally, Jeff is asking to use different materials and have a different
design.
Joyce: A different design?
Mancino: Yes.
Aanenson: Right, ultimately the outside of the building would look different.
Joyce: Do you feel comfortable with this going to City Council like that?
Aanenson: Staff is capable of doing that. It's up to your comfort level. Certainly I think we
understand what the issues.
Joyce: That's my...
Farmakes: I'm not adverse to seeing this again...
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: Well I don't mind sending it on to Council. They might have an entirely different
feeling on this. They might prefer to have the whole campus effect.
Mancino: Okay. Personally yeah, I feel comfortable sending it on. I think the recommendation
is to them to make it different and I think that that can be done with staff so. Is there, let's see.
We've had a motion and a second. We've had discussion.
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan Review #95 -18 for CSM Phase 11, as shown on the site plan received July 23, 1996,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall increase the number of evergreens in plant schedule to 20% of the
total number of trees. Also, increase the number of trees used along street frontage by 22.
These additional trees shall be evergreens and used along Lake Drive East to maximize
34
r
J
I
r
i
t
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
screening of the loading docks and along the western edge to create a windbreak for the
neighboring parking lot.
2. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on
the building.
3
Signage criteria:
a. Each building shall share one monument sign. One monument sign per lot.
Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign
ordinance.
b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The letters shall be
located within a designated sign band.
C. All signs require a separate permit.
d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential
section south and west of the site.
g. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
h. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet and logos may not exceed 30 inches in
height.
i. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on
the sign.
j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site.
A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff
should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit.
k. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of both
sites.
El
41
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
Fire Marshal conditions:
psi
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
• A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants
can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters, pursuant to City Ordinance 9 -1.
• Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 29 -1992 (premise
identification), copy enclosed.
• Fire lanes will be marked with appropriate No Parking Fire Lane signs and yellow painted
curbing. Fire Marshal will determine fire lanes during the building plan review process.
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted.
• Post indicator valves (PIV) valves are required. Indicate on plans location of post indicator
valves for review and approval.
• Fire Department sprinkler locations shall be located in the following areas; building #4 in the
southeast corner of the building, building #3 in the southwest corner of the building. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations.
• Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04 -1991 (fire department
notes to be included on site plan), copy enclosed. Comply with Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Policy 07 -1991 (pre -fire plans), copy enclosed.
• Comply with inspection division installation policy 34 -1993 (water service installation for
commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed.
• Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 36 -1994 (combination
domestic fire sprinkler supply line), copy enclosed.
6. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall
be submitted.
7. Revise plans to provide one additional accessible parking space, for a total of five, at
building three as requested in the Building Official's attached memo.
8. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
9. Submit revised building elevation drawings showing two pitched roof top elements per
building.
10. Staff shall work with the applicant to add distinctively different architectural details
to the facia and exterior of the buildings in Phase II from the buildings in Phase I to
present to the City Council.
All voted in favor, except Joyce who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
36
C
J
I
' Planning ommission Meeting - August 21, 1996
g g :�
Mancino: And would you give your reason for saying nay so that we have that in the.
Joyce: I just would like to see it again.
' Mancino: Okay. The second motion about the subdivision. May I have a motion on the
subdivision please.
' Farmakes: I'll make that. I'll.make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the
City Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95 -18 for Chanhassen East Business
' Center Second Addition as shown on the plat received July 23, 1996 with the following
conditions, 1 through 13.
' Mancino: Is there a second?
Skubic: Second.
' Mancino: Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion?
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95 -18 for Chanhassen East Business
Center Second Addition as shown on the plat received July 23, 1996, with the following
' conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance.
2. The name of the subdivision shall be changed to Chanhassen East Business Center
Second Addition, and Block 3 shall be changed to Block 1.
3. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All
catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved.
' 4. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post - developed stormwater
calculations for a 10 -year and 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour duration. Individual storm
sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if
' sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
' 5. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities.
6. The applicant shall dedicate a cross - access easement over Lots 2, Block 1, Chanhassen East
Business Center, and Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan permit with the City and provide the necessary
37
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
financial security to guarantee compliance with the permit.
7, The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook and Surface Water Management
requirements for new development. Erosion control fencing shall be installed around the
perimeter of the site. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be
immediately restored with seed and wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook. The applicant will be responsible for all boulevard restoration or damage to
existing City utilities or street improvements as a result of construction.
8. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event,
24 -hour duration for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post - developed storm water
calculations for 100 -year storm events. Individual storm sewer calculations between each
catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being
utilized.
9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Waste Water Services, Minnesota Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of
Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
10. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within street right -of -way.
11. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain the found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
12. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is
expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost
participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full
development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume on Dell Road. The
developer and/or property owner shall waive any and all procedural and substantive
objections to the special assessment, including, but not limited to, hearing requirements
or any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
13. The applicant shall consider realigning the middle driveway access to avoid relocating the
existing fire hydrant on Lake Drive East." I
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mancinoe Motion carries and this goes to City Council on?
Aanensone On the 9 That's assuming that we can get some architectural...before that.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
' Mancino: And I would also suggest that commissioners that would like to go to that City
Council meeting and obviously the City Council has our Minutes and sees our recommendations,
' but you may want to follow this to the City Council meeting too. Great, thank you.
' PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW OF AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH AN AREA OF
' 16,704 So. FT. ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD -IOP AND LOCATED WEST OF
AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC
RAILROAD, AND NORTHEAST OF COMMERCE DRIVE, CHUCKS GRINDING.
' Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item and asked for any questions.
' Farmakes: On the south elevation. We would be seeing the pitched roof ...on the other side, you
visually have...
' Aanenson: Yes.
Farmakes: It'd be the north elevation.
Aanenson: Right. This is the north elevation.
' Farmakes: That...visual element on the south elevation and it's much smaller.
Aanenson: Yes. Narrower. Yeah, narrower. Right. The other thing I did mention is the sign.
' They are allowed the one free standing sign, which they have submitted. Again the sign is,
architecturally all the signs in this development are allowed the wall sign and the free standing
monument sign. The sign is consistent with the architecture of the building and we would
' recommend approval of that as part of the site plan.
Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Is the applicant here, and do you wish to address
' the Planning Commission please.
Tom Hill: Good evening. My name is Tom Hill and I'm with a firm by the name of Dunbar
' Development. I am, we are the project developer for a group called Pegasus L.L.C. which is the
owner of this project. I'd like to just quickly introduce the three team members I have with me.
' Jim Winkels from Amcon Corporation who has done a lot of work here in the city, and Frank
Wilson from Miller-Hanson-Westerbeck ... architectural firm who also did Centennial Hill. I
could just walk you through the site quickly and give you an idea of what we have here. As Kate
' mentioned, we're located in the Chan Business Park. In the 2 nd Addition. We're at the end of
the east cul -de -sac on Commerce Drive. We have a site that we have under control with the
Audubon Partnership. Just about 2 % acres...right to the west of the church at the end of that
' cul -de -sac and currently we have a lease with one user for the building, that's Chucks Grinding...
We are finalizing with Amcon the construction schedule and the costs. Architectural plans are
about 90% complete, not including some of the suggestions that staff has made. That we really
39
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
have no problems with them and we're anxious to work with staff to go through those final
details. We are in the process of doing our final review of the development... Our construction
schedule is approved. We would go ahead and probably start in September and hopefully...
sometime in February. The building itself...
Mancino: Do you have materials?
Tom Hill: Yes I do. There's one block piece I'm missing which is the lower block.
The ... block. I don't have that... As you come in the cul -de -sac, this is the face of the building
you'll see. The entry that we've been working with Sharmin on. We spent a lot of time with her
on the landscaping issues as well as the entrance and design of the exterior of the building. So
we do have an entry into the building and this, of course is all the office space. About 2,600
square feet of finished office space. The building, the back portion of the building is about, I
think it has about 18 foot clear. 22 foot clear exterior height in back. The building is designed
with a corduroy concrete block. The lower section of the building entrance... extends around the
entire building. That's a smooth faced score. It gives this small detail throughout it. And that's
also highlighted by these sections up on top. The top of the building, the metal flashing along the
roof here, also ties in with the roof scheme here in front. So it pulls it all together. You can see
here with, our user, Chucks Grinding had asked us to look at with some windows in the shop
production area so we did include windows and I think if you look through the plan, you'll see
the windows do surround the entire building so it does break up, although this is not a seemingly
large building, it does break up the look of the building. Also it provides a nice environment for
the employees inside. In the building itself, Chucks Grinding is a company that's based in
Minnetonka right now. It's been in business for 25 some years and they were looking, they came
to us and they were looking for ... so they will bring about 20 production people to the city and
then there's, I think I'd call it 3 %2 office.
Joyce: Is it grinding tools I take it?
Tom Hill: No, it's precision machine. And like I said, Chuck Reuter is the family. Chuck just
passed away just a few months ago unfortunately but his family still owns the business. His wife
is involved and his son and a daughter so it's a family held business. It has been... They're very
excited about being out here. They've very excited. They're in Minnetonka now and they want
to get away from a multi- tenant situation and control their own destiny... This is the color that
will be the metal roof and the facia. The metal facia goes around the top end of the building.
This is the metal window frames and door frames. This is the color of the block that goes,
there's a smooth face for it. It's that band that goes around the entire building. And then the
bottom base block is a tan color block, and it's pretty close to what you see here ... better idea
since I don't have a sample of that... But we feel it's a fairly attractive building. Our user is very
happy with it. As I said before, we worked I think fairly closely with staff to get to where we
need to be in this. We have 31 parking stalls on the site. Those include employee parking and
also staff parking, for the office staff in front. There are three dock doors in the back. The dock
doors all face the north over the railroad. We have worked with staff to provide the appropriate
amounts of screening. To screen those from future houses that ... and also from the traffic that's
on Audubon. As I mentioned before, we're very comfortable with what staff has worked with us
M
I
I
' Planning ommission Meeting - August 21, 1996
g g gu
' on. We're, as I mentioned before, excited about moving forward and finalizing those details.
Finalizing our plans and I guess I would just be ready to answer any questions.
' Mancino: Okay. Any questions from commissioners at this point?
I Joyce: What is sludge?
Tom Hill: I'm sorry?
'
Joyce: What is sludge?
Y g
Tom Hill: Sludge is a by product of the grinding process. They use a coolant in grinding metal.
So when they're grinding the metal, they use a coolant that runs over the metal and it picks up
' metal particles that are ground off the material. It's not a hazardous material in any way but they
do collect it and then store it in a dumpster and then a company like BFI comes up and picks it up
every couple, I think it's twice a month.
Joyce: Just like a regular sized dumpster like a garbage.
Tom Hill: Yes. Just like a box.
Mancino: The next question is, what happens next?
Tom Hill: It is a quite an issue just for Chucks just purely by it's weight. Because we have a
dumpster that holds metals instead of trash so it's quite a process ... come in the building. There
' was one other issue in the staff report they mentioned a condition about trash storage and you
mentioned screening. All trash storage will be inside.
Mancino: Tom, could you explain to me a little bit, when I went out there to the site, one of the
things that I noticed on that north property line is that ... explain a little bit of the grading to me.
Is that you can see the view shed from your north property line, you can see all the way to
' Highway 5. I mean you can see the Bluff Creek. You can see the whole valley when you're
standing up there.
' Tom Hill: From this site?
Mancino: Yes. From the north, from your north property line or from...
Tom Hill: On the railroad tracks.
' Mancino: Out of the building. Where the railroad is. So my question is, how will there be year
round screening of, number one parking to some degree. And most assuredly for the dock area.
' Tom Hill: Well I think the, I'd have to.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Mancino: Is there a berm that is going to do it?
Tom Hill: No, I don't think your plans have a berm as such and we worked with staff pretty
closely about what to put in the area and I think we had, in the original plan we submitted we
increased the number of evergreens up in that area.
Mancino: There are three.
Tom Hill: And there was also some discussion about using sumac in that area, which is very fast
growing. That does... screening for the winter though but there are still some evergreens in that
area and our understanding was that staff was fairly—around the docks. Towards that area to the
north...
Mancino: Okay. So there is going to be no berming at all? I know that's what Pillsbury did. I
would then, will suggest adding some more year round screening in that area just to add to the
three trees that are there. Thank you. Is there anyone else from your team that wishes to
approach, to present to the Planning Commission?
Tom Hill: I think we're all done. Thank you very much.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing.
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission, please do so. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close, and a second, the public
hearing.
Skubic moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Bob.
Skubic: I don't really have anything to say here that's already been said except... welcome
another business into the city. I'm just glad to have a professional business.
Mancino: Kevin.
Joyce: Nothing more.
Mancino: Jeff. Okay. I don't really either. The only condition that I would like to add, oh wait
one question. I would like to add more screening on that north side. I would not like to see the
sumac used, because it won't be year round screening and you do have just a wide open view
shed of that whole area. The Bluff Creek area. So I would like to, it could certainly be a
combination of the trees that are already there and then some arborvitae hedge on the perimeter
42
J
ILI
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
' of the parking lot. Right there. So those are my only additional comments. Kate, I do have a
question on a recommendation, just because I haven't seen this before in staff's writing. On
number 4, all roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing
material. And then it says all exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by
compatible materials. As an alternative the applicant can use factory applied panels to the
' exterior of the equipment. What is that?
Aanenson: We have some industrial users in the city that need cooling tanks outside the
buildings, such as Rosemount... and what we found in the past is they can't apply certain
screening materials to them because they come from the manufacturer in a certain way and they
are large. Sometimes they're 20 -30 feet high. So we've kind of just put that as a standard
' condition now. That if they can't be manufactured with, you know painted to match the building,
that they come with some other type of applied panel that would work to screen it, because
' sometimes as the use may change in a building, and they need to add, that sort of thing, we want
to make sure that that's covered. For example Pillsbury which has large coolant systems for the
freezers. What we decided there is actually just to let them disappear in the sky. Actually dust let
' them come from the factory unpainted because then it becomes a maintenance problem, and to
try to put fencing up there, the wind load is.
Mancino: It will blow off.
Aanenson: Yes, right. So I guess we wanted just, it's kind of a catch all. We're starting to put
that in now.
Mancino: Is there any planning for outdoor storage at all?
Tom Hill: No. There is no outside storage.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thank you for that.
Joyce: I do have a question... Condition 15 Kate. The applicant should re- evaluate the need for
berms along the east property line. Do we need to do something with that?
Aanenson: I think that ties back in to Nancy's comment. The year round screening.
Hempel: That detail was actually mine. My condition.
Aanenson: Oh sorry.
Hempel: They were placing a berm on a very steep side slope on the east side which really had
no effect. May I suggest relocating that berm to the northerly side to help improve the screening.
Aanenson: Right. So it ties back in to Nancy's comment, right.
Mancino: Great.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Aanenson: And that goes back to the prairie thing where we were saying, you know you're really
basing the topography, not accomplishing anything trying to do that there so.
Mancino: Okay, good. Boy, I drove around that complex, that business complex today and it's
really, really looking good.
Aanenson: It's coming along.
Mancino: Yeah. Everybody takes such good care of the buildings and I don't know, it's a good
looking complex. So we're happy to have you. May I have a motion?
Joyce: I'll make a motion. That the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#96 -6 for Chucks Grinding Inc. as shown on the plans dated received July 29, 1996 and subject
to the following conditions 1 through 16. I think we should strike 15 though and I'll put in 16
which will state, relocating the berm from the eastern property line to the northern property line
and also on that berm, maybe working with staff to help with the screening of the parking lot and
dock area. Consider coniferous type of trees, as an example arborvitae hedge, that sort of thing.
Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion?
Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan #96 -9 for Chucks Grinding Inc. as shown on the plans dated Received July 29, 1996,
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall meet with the Fire Marshal.
2. The applicant shall meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo.
3. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
4. 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.
All freestanding signs shall be limited to monument signs. 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
MjA
CI
Commission Meeting - August 21 1996
Planning Co g gu ,
' 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. 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 %2
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 direct glare is directed off -
site and no more than %2 foot candle of light is at the property line.
' 7. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements.
8. The applicant shall provide documentation that the variety of elm specified on
' landscaping plans is Dutch Elm Disease resistant. Also, the applicant shall work with
staff to explore options for alternative lawn plantings.
' 9. All construction vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances
only. Haul routes shall be pre- approved by the City. The applicant will be required to
maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles
tracking. Any damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the
responsibility of the applicant.
' 10. The maximum allowable slope on berms shall be 3:1.
11. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along the west property line.
Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has
been fully restored, revegetated, and removal is authorized by the City. Failure to
maintain the erosion control measures will result in the issuance of stop work orders.
' 12. Revised storm drainage calculations which include the stormwater runoff from Lot 1
Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Addition shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for review and approval. Conveyance of storm drainage in the sludge pick -up area needs
to be addressed. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the
' drainage plan to address the additional runoff from the lot to the east (Lot 1, Block 1,
Chanhassen Business Center).
' 13. The perimeter of the paved parking lot shall be bordered by B612 concrete curb and
gutter with the exception of a portion of the west side which is slated for future parking.
Along the future parking area a bituminous curb is acceptable at this time. However,
45
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 1
15. The applicant shall move the berm from the east property line to the north property '
line to help screen the parking lot and dock area. The berm shall be planted with
coniferous trees, i.e. arborvitae hedge to provide year round screening.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Mancino: The motion carries and goes to City Council. '
Aanenson: The 91h.
Mancino: On?
Aanenson: September 9 th . '
Mancino: September 9 Thank you. '
PUBLIC HEARING: '
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO REPLAT THREE LOTS AND THREE
OUTLOTS INTO THREE LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND PHASING
CONSTRUCTION /REMODELING OF THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX INTO ,
TWO PHASES, IN AN AREA ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND CBD,
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS,
EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF WEST 78 STREET, '
CHANHASSEN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, LOTUS REALTY.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. '
Mancino: Is the applicant here?
Vernelle Clayton: I'm Vemelle Clayton, 422 Santa Fe Circle... should probably say is, just to ,
review this a little bit more. As you know several months ago we approved this from a
complex... facade, boardwalk, and parking ... are coming back in for subdivision. When we '
started, so we're back in for a subdivision. Everything's taken a little bit longer than we thought
it would but it's not that things haven't been happening for the project. At the time we started ,
this project, back when we were thinking it would be all developed as one entity and we brought
it in as one entity. As it evolved and before we went through the planning process, planning
46
F
LI
'
when the future parking is added B612 concrete curb and gutter will be required. The
parking stall corners shall have radii of five feet. The west and south sides of the
warehouse building shall provide a buffer area between the drive aisle and the building.
'
14. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
'
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
15. The applicant shall move the berm from the east property line to the north property '
line to help screen the parking lot and dock area. The berm shall be planted with
coniferous trees, i.e. arborvitae hedge to provide year round screening.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Mancino: The motion carries and goes to City Council. '
Aanenson: The 91h.
Mancino: On?
Aanenson: September 9 th . '
Mancino: September 9 Thank you. '
PUBLIC HEARING: '
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO REPLAT THREE LOTS AND THREE
OUTLOTS INTO THREE LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND PHASING
CONSTRUCTION /REMODELING OF THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX INTO ,
TWO PHASES, IN AN AREA ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND CBD,
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS,
EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF WEST 78 STREET, '
CHANHASSEN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, LOTUS REALTY.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. '
Mancino: Is the applicant here?
Vernelle Clayton: I'm Vemelle Clayton, 422 Santa Fe Circle... should probably say is, just to ,
review this a little bit more. As you know several months ago we approved this from a
complex... facade, boardwalk, and parking ... are coming back in for subdivision. When we '
started, so we're back in for a subdivision. Everything's taken a little bit longer than we thought
it would but it's not that things haven't been happening for the project. At the time we started ,
this project, back when we were thinking it would be all developed as one entity and we brought
it in as one entity. As it evolved and before we went through the planning process, planning
46
F
LI
r
I
I �
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
approval process, it became apparent that it would be three entities but the groups always worked
together in retaining the same architect and ... and so forth to work together to present one project.
It probably should have occurred to us that three entities would probably not get their financing,
their planning, everything done at exactly the same time and as it happened, it hasn't. So we are
here now tonight and the request was initiated primarily by folks that are working with the
cinema group. That might be somewhat confusing... who those folks ... as well. Currently the
Bloomberg Company owns the Frontier portion of the building, which was approved as a
separate phase. Initially that was approved ... to be done as a separate phase. Bloomberg
Companies also owns the building which sometimes is called a warehouse. Sometimes it's
called the city building and recently it's been called the cinema building. That's all separate
buildings. It's under separate ownership now. The other, the third entity is the Dahlin group
who, because he is sort of functioning as the mortgagee and possession of the bowling alley, that
used to be owned by another group that didn't make the payments on things, including payments
to him, he has taken over control of the bowling alley and is the third portion of this project.
Third entity in this project. That currently is a separate building too. So we're already dealing
with three separate buildings. The platting tonight cleans up, as she says, allows them an
entrance. Allows an entrance into the cinema building by adding a little bit to that, to each side
to allow them... It cleans up the separation to the north. Separation from that building with the,
what's called the Animal Fair building which is part of the hotel complex or... It also cleans up
some problems at the south side, as she said. There's some, what's been called ... Outlot that is
actually right in front of the door. That's got to become a part of the bowling complex. So what
we're doing is cleaning up areas. Providing areas of land that will provide access and creating
two separate lots. Two separate plats. So we're asking for approval of two separate plats
tonight. That is, before I go into the architecture, there's been a lot of confusion as we've talked
here about who owns what and what kind... Did I clarify it?
Mancino: Yes, I think you did. But there still is one outlot so we're going to end up with three
lots and one outlot.
Vernelle Clayton: The reason we're ending up with an outlot is that it's Bloomberg Companies'
request that the parking lot be considered an outlot. Which exists as an outlot.
Mancino: And that is Outlot A.
Vernelle Clayton: And that will be the parking lot that is required to serve both... projects as was
approved by the Planning Commission and Council.
Mancino: And I'm sorry I'm so, I want to say dense but Block 1 is a parking, or the open area at
this point.
Vernelle Clayton: No.
Mancino: It goes between the buildings?
Vernelle Clayton: I can't see where... Block 1 on the new plat?
47
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Mancino: Which says entertainment complex. Vernelle, this is what we have.
Aanenson: You're right Nancy, that's between the Frontier building and the, right.
Mancino: Okay. So Animal Fair was right here? Animal Fair building.
Vernelle Clayton: Bowling alley is here. This is the theater. Animal Fair is up here.
Aanenson: That'd be this area right here.
Mancino: And then this is all ... and this is that open area. Then this is, okay. Thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: Any other questions? I just brought along the two renderings so you can see
what we're talking about... The bottom one is the one that you're familiar with. It was the color
rendering that was done during site plan approval, and subsequently we had Truman Howell, the
same gentleman that did this, put together another plan that was kind, put it all in a package. The
boardwalk, the facade and the... perspective rather than a front elevation. And so what is
occurring then is this is the dividing line. This is the theater up front from here over to here and
this is the... Well this is all entertainment but... This is the bowling building here. This would
be Pauly's from here to here. This is the primary entrance. This is the small retail section here.
And from here over it's the theater. So if you put your hand across there, if these folks went first,
that's what you'd see. That part would be improved over there. Cover this up and these folks go
first, then that's what you'd see is approved here, and the way it is now for the other area.
So ... we like to think, and I guess as we've been talking with staff and so forth, and I think the
staff ...is that worse case you'll get part of a building first and... Best case, they'll all get their
act together and we'll be able to start the process at the same time. And both parties are making
great strides and moving in that direction... But there is a very important time issue involved
here in that ... for some of these buildings that are currently leased... They're currently vacant and
they just can't afford to let them stay vacant much longer and so they need to know if they're
going to be able to have, these folks that are here tonight... cinema. Bob Copeland I think you've
met, is involved in the cinema. And Herb Bloomberg and Clayton Johnson from the Bloomberg
Companies are involved in the transition with the building for the cinema and if that transaction
can't be assured of going forward ... so we have a time problem and...
Mancino: Any questions? Vernelle, does the replatting affect any TIF funding at all?
Vernelle Clayton: Any what?
Mancino: TIF funding.
Vernelle Clayton: The replatting is a condition of approval of the project so it has to occur for
the project to go forward ... your approval and Council approval and that approval...
1
1
r
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Mancino: And you will be coming back to us soon, if we go ahead with this, and show us, we'll
be doing a site plan review of the cinema?
Vernelle Clayton: The site plan of the cinema has occurred.
Mancino: So it's completely done?
Vernelle Clayton: The project has been completed approved, right.
Mancino: So how much of this is going to be done if we approve this? Is it just the building? Is
it the landscaping?
Vemelle Clayton: ...but one of the things I want to make clear is what you're doing. The staff
report is written from the perspective that the cinema folks came in and said they want to get
going. The bowling people weren't quite ready to go. And it's written from that perspective.
But approving this means either one can go. You're approving two separate plats can be
recorded separately. So either one can go. Just to make that clear. If, from the perspective of the
staff report and ... that the cinema folks want to get going, their facade ends here.
Mancino: So they do a third of the landscaping now? I mean how does this all work?
Vernelle Clayton: The other thing that would occur that is of benefit to the total appearance is
that Bloomberg's have this going, Bloomberg would then proceed with, number one the parking
lot which is over here. So we would have, instead of a rough road back there, we'd have a...
parking lot and they would ... which they would not be able to do if they couldn't do the parking
lot in conjunction with the cinema. So it's very likely that we would get this building...
Mancino: And will there be a temporary entrance be put on that building? On the cinema
building?
Vernelle Clayton: They have their permanent. They do all of their, all of the work...
Mancino: Okay. Because I wondered if you were entering the cinema because to be quite frank I
can't remember if you're entering it from.
Vernelle Clayton: From the corner.
Aanenson: The corner, yeah. There's a little marquee facade.
Mancino: Okay.
Vernelle Clayton: It's probably easier to relate to that ... with this one.
Mancino: Okay. Any other questions at this point?
..
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Joyce: How about if they never get the financing?
Vernelle Clayton: You mean the bowling alley?
Joyce: Well it sounds like you're going forward with the cinema.
Vernelle Clayton: Well they're both moving. I mean they're both working.
Joyce: Either one. Let's say either one doesn't get the financing.
Mancino: Worse case.
Joyce: Worse case scenario.
Vernelle Clayton: Ever?
Joyce: Yeah. I mean it just falls apart.
Mancino: Yeah. What would happen worse case scenario.
Aanenson: Then it stays the way it is.
Vernelle Clayton: That's right. You'd have part of it improved.
Joyce: You'd have part of it approved and but part of it would stay the same.
Vernelle Clayton: Which is bottom line what we've been saying, worse case is the building
would look partly better.
Mancino: So then if you had someone else come in and wanting to divide and do something
differently, does this, does our site plan review, what we have approved carries with the land or it
would be?
Aanenson: It carries with the land. They'd have to come back to you to amend that.
Joyce: I guess that was one of my questions...
Mancino: Okay, any other questions? Jeff? Any questions? Bob. No. Thank you. Anyone
else from your team presenting?
Vernelle Clayton: No.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing.
50
t
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission at this time, please do so. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close
the public hearing.
Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Mancino: Okay, comments. Jeff.
Farmakes: I have no comments on this.
Mancino: Okay, Kevin.
Joyce: I think I made my concerns. I don't have any problem with this.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: It looks fine to me.
' Mancino: Okay. I don't have any either at this point. May I have a motion please.
Farmakes: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of subdivision
' #96 -17 for the Entertainment Complex and Frontier Cinema Addition as shown in the plans
submitted July 15, 1996 and subject to the following conditions, 1 through 2.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Subdivision #96 -17 for the Entertainment Complex and Frontier Cinema Addition as
shown in the plans submitted July 15, 1996, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Existing buildings shall comply with the requirements of Uniform Building Code Chapter
34, "Existing Structures ".
2. Engineering Department Conditions:
FRONTIER CINEMA ADDITION PLAT
51
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
a. The final plat should dedicate a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement along the
south side of Lot 2 and Outlot A.
b. The final plat should also show existing easements of record across the parcel. The
City has a sanitary sewer easement which intersects the parcel.
c. The applicant should supply the City with a $400 escrow for review and recording the
documents for the City Attorney's office.
ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX PLAT.
The final plat should show the existing easements of record across the parcel. The City
has an existing sewer and water line that intersects the parcel that should be denoted on
the final plat. The easement width should be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
b. The applicant should supply the City with a financial escrow in the amount of $250 for
review and recording of the final plat by the City Attorney's office.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mancino: The motion carries and will go in front of the City Council on September 9 Thank
you.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: I hope everybody received a copy of the Bluff Creek Watershed plan. We have that
set for kind of a workshop on the next meeting. September 4 th and we will have one other item
after that meeting. It will go from 6:00 to 8:00 -8:15. We need to give 15 minutes to get the
meeting set up. We do have one other interim use we need to address so hopefully in your next
meeting we'll have an opportunity to do a field trip. Maybe go out and look at a few projects and
start the hearings at 8 :00. That gives us some time to go out and look at a few things.
Mancino: That second meeting in September?
Aanenson: Right now it looks like we've got a light agenda so we might be able to go out and
look at a few things.
Mancino: Great. Wonderful. Now we also may be, talking about old business, we have
applicants. Has that hit the newspaper for the new applicants?
Aanenson: Correct. I talked to the City Manager. I think he felt like what we should do is that
we should just recommend the one that you wanted and tell them that you didn't feel comfortable
with the others and let them at that time make the decision to re- advertise. You felt we should
just strongly go with, that you wanted to go more and send that one forward.
52
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
Mancino: So then they will get back to us and say whether they want us to advertise any more or
not?
Aanenson: Right.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson; So I'm forwarding that onto the next packet.
Mancino: Okay. And when will that come up to them? At a meeting?
Aanenson: I'm hoping the next Monday night Council meeting ... make a decision what they
want to do next Monday night.
Mancino: And will that be during the open agenda or will that be a consent agenda or?
Aanenson: Staff presentation.
Mancino: At the end of the meeting?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Mancino: Because somebody should actually be there and explain that. Okay. Any other new
business?
Aanenson: No. I didn't have anymore.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated August 7, 1996 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: Actually there was quite a few items on August 12` Melody Hill subdivision was
approved. The Villages was also approved. They do have to come back. That was a preliminary
approval so they have to come back one more time. Obviously there's some things that you
wanted addressed that we'll have to carry forward such as the lighting theme and the retaining
wall that we'll make sure we pick up because the church ... And Paws and Claws. At first it was
recommended for denial and then they reconsidered that vote and made a recommendation that
the buildings at the ends be architecturally compatible with what's in the ordinance but they
would allow the barn to be.
Mancino: The stables.
Aanenson: Yeah, the stables. They could have metal siding. So that's how that will be
forwarded back to the Council for their consideration. And in case anybody hadn't heard, the
53
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 '
Council did recommend denial of Town & Country, which was the, actually it was the industrial
park plus part of that PUD. Multi- family.
Mancino: And they also, did they go ahead... They gave the go ahead?
Aanenson: Yeah, they didn't say that they were opposed to that, yeah. I
Mancino: Okay. What else is on the agenda tonight. Ongoing items. Oh, I'm sorry, you said on
Bluff Creek we were going to do two things. We were going to do the Bluff Creek. Review that '
and then you had one other item on.
Aanenson: Yeah, it was an interim use permit for grading that we wanted to get back before you
and I think that's something we probably should do right away.
Mancino: Open discussion. Discussion of cellular towers ordinance amendment.
Aanenson: Yeah, if you want to move to that part of the meeting, you can adjourn the formal '
part and then...
Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to adjourn the public portion of the meeting. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
t
7
54