8. CSM Corporation: Preliminary & Final Plat, Site Plan.CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
� STAFF REPORT
P.C. DATE: 8-21-96
C.C. DATE: 9-9-96
CASE: 95-18 Site Plan
95-18 SUB
BY: Al-Jaffv
PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for the construction of two office warehouse buildings
with an area of 64,000 square feet and 40,600 square feet
2) Preliminary and final Plat to Subdivide 10.95 acres into 2 Lots and 1
Outlot, Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition
LOCATION: South of Highway 5, West of Dell Road, and North of Lake Drive East.
APPLICANT: CSM Investors, Inc.
2575 University Ave. W. Suite 150
St. Paul, MN 55114-1024
646-1717
iPRESENT ZONING
' ACREAGE:
ADJACENT ZONING
I
I AND LAND USE:
SEWER AND WATER:
IOP, Industrial Office Park
10.95 acres
N - Highway 5
S - Lake Drive East and Data Serve
E - CSM Phase I
W - Abra/Highway Business
Services are available to the site.
Action by City AQministratol
Endorsed
Mod"ia.
Rejected
Date_
Date Submitted to Commissiog
Date Submitted to Council
9-l-T 6-
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is .an old farmstead. The majority of the site has
been disturbed by grading activities relating to CSM Phase I
2000 LAND USE:
Office/Industrial
CSM Corporation Phase R
August 26, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
There are two actions being requested with this application, a subdivision and a site plan review
for two office warehouse buildings. The site is zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and bordered
by Highway 5 to the north, CSM Phase I office warehouse buildings to the east and Lake Drive
East to the south. The lot areas of the office/warehouse sites are 4.40 acres for Lot 1 and 3.25
acres for Lot 2. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and has full access from Lake Drive
East.
The subdivision request consists of subdividing 10.95 acres into two lots and one outlot. Lots 1
and 2 will contain the proposed office warehouse buildings. Outlot B will be reserved for future
development. Staff is not aware of any pending developments for the outlot. The subdivision
request is a relatively straightforward action.
The site plan is for two office warehouse buildings. The buildings (referred to as Buildings 3 and
4) are well designed. Building 3 is "L" shaped, and a mirror image of the two buildings,
currently under construction, from CSM phase I. Building 4 has a rectangular shape. Both
buildings are proposed to utilize face brick on all four corners of both buildings, as well as areas
surrounding entrances into the buildings. Decorative pre -colored rockface block will be
integrated into the walls, accented by pre -colored masonry bands. Two pitched roof elements
adorn each building. The enclosed plans do not reflect the pitched elements. Staff diseussed this
isstie with the applieant andwas infoFmed that the intent was to have them on the buildings. The
rrl' r will b showingthe buildings at the Planning ( � oot:.g . :'it the pitehe l
roof elo,Y,e . A second issue that staff and the applicant discussed at length dealt with the color
of materials proposed to be used on the exterior of the buildings. The applicant's goal is to
achieve a campus effect with a unified architectural theme to the buildings. The first option was
to utilize identical colors to those used at the CSM phase I buildings. The second option was to
provide colors of the same family but different shades. Staff has not seen the second color
scheme. The applicant will be presenting the materials at the Planning Commission meeting and
ask for direction on this mater. The Planning Commission recommended the applicant revise
the exterior architectural facia of the phase II buildings. Please refer to the Planning
Commission update section for details on the issue.
The buildings can be divided depending on the needs of the tenants. Loading dock are proposed
for those tenants that would need them. These buildings will serve office/industrial tenants. The
applicant has proposed have the parking surrounding the building. Staff went through this
discussion and analysis in phase I of this proposal. The office space which is located along the
north, east, and west portion of the buildings, will generate customer parking space. Requiring
all parking to the rear of the buildings causes a conflict between the loading dock and customer
space. This area is in the highway corridor which uses the underlying district for setbacks. The
parking as proposed including the screening does meet the Highway 5 zoning district
requirements. These buildings will require 204 parking spaces. Rather than concentrating all
spaces in one area, the spaces were designed surrounding the buildings. They are broken by
CSM Corporation Phase 11
August 26, 1996
Page 3
'
landscape islands and screened from views from Highway 5 and Lake Drive East by berms and
vegetation. There is a maximum of two rows of parking at any given location.
The site landscaping is generally of high quality, however, there are certain areas such as the
south portion of the site, where the loading docks are located, that could use a variety of trees and
bushes for additional screening. A meandering berm of 4 to 6 feet in height runs along the entire
edge of the site that does proved additional screening of the paring area.
,
Staff s re ardthe project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the
g P J
Highway 5 corridor's image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the
site plan, without variances, and the subdivision request, with conditions outlined in the staff
'
report.
BACKGROUND
'
On May 6, 1996, the City Council approved the final plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen
East Business Center, CSM Investors, Inc. and DataServ, Inc., to subdivide 61.6 acres into 3 Lots
'
and 2 Outlots. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, will contain office/warehouse buildings. These buildings
are currently under construction. Outlot A was reserved for future development. With this
proposal, the applicant is subdividing Outlot A into 2 lots and one outlot. The parcel located
south of Lake Drive East contain the DataSery building. Outlot B will contain a pond. The pond
is also under construction.
,
At that same meeting, the City Council approved a site plan review (#95-18) for the construction of
two 64,000 square foot office warehouse buildings. These are the buildings that are under
'
construction today.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE I
The proposed office/warehouse buildings, with an area of 64,000 square feet and 40,600 square
feet, will be situated parallel to and south of Highway 5. The site is bordered by Highway 5 to ,
the north, and Lake Drive East to the south. Access to the buildings is proposed from Lake Drive
East. Parking will be scattered around the buildings. A meandering berm with landscaping, 4 to
6 feet in height, is proposed to be installed along the perimeter of the site to provide screening.
The buildings are located 73 feet from the north, 52 feet from the east, 75 feet from the south,
and 75 feet from the west property line. ,
Materials used on the both buildings are face brick on all four corners of both buildings, as well
as areas surrounding entrances into the buildings. Decorative pre -colored rockface block will be
integrated into the walls, accented by pre -colored masonry bands. Two pre -colored pitched roof
elements adorn each building. The pitehedelements are of st,^.,,,, on the u::''mitte la
1
CSM Corporation Phase 11
August 26, 1996
Page 4
them. Revised arehiteeWfal elevations will be pr-esented at the Plafming Gammission
The building's architecture is tastefully designed and meets the standards of the site plan
ordinance requirements. The different colors and materials give the building the desired visual
appeal. A second issue which staff and the applicant expanded a great deal of time on deals with
the colors of the materials to be used on the buildings. One option is to duplicate the same colors
used in Phase I. The second option is to provide the same materials with different shades. Both
options will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting for direction from the
commission. The applicant wishes to achieve a campus effect by providing a unified
architectural theme through out the development.
This development falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay and must comply with the district's
design standards in addition to the Industrial Office Park Standards. The purpose of the overlay
district is to promote high -quality architectural and site design through improved development
standards with the corridor. The design standards should create a unified, harmonious and high
quality visual environment. The plan and design of the proposed development meets the intent
of the overlay district with the following features:
The building will be one story and the architectural style is unique to the building but will
fit in. The building will provide a variation in style through the use of brick, block, glass,
and pitched roof elements. The building is utilizing exterior materials that are durable
and of high quality. Samples of the materials will be available at the meeting.
The site slopes easterly, and grading of the site is required. The landscaping plan
provides a variety of plant materials that are massed where possible, particularly along
Highway 5. The berms and landscaping materials will be continuous along the perimeter
of the site. The plant materials are repetitious in some locations and variable in others.
Proposed plant materials are indigenous to Minnesota. A curb is required along the
perimeter of the green space area. All planting areas are adequate in size to allow trees to
grow. Additional plantings along the south portion of the site to further screen the
loading dock will be required.
A parking lot light plan is required. The plan should incorporate the light style and
height. A detailed sign plan which include lighting method has not been submitted.
However, in the project narrative, the applicant stated that they intend to use the signage
criteria previously approved for Phase I. Facade signage will be raised backlit letters,
within a consistent band above the face brick entries. All signage will be uniform color
with letters at maximum of 2 feet and logos at a maximum of 30 inches.
• The site plan fails to show the trash enclosure location. The dumpsters must be screened
by a wing -wall and doors with siding and trim to match the building. Current state
statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the
recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code
' (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be
CSM Corporation Phase lI
August 26, 1996
Page 5
provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space.
Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the
same enclosure.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
1
I
1�
11
LI
II
ICSM Corporation Phase H
August 26, 1996
Page 6
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
' for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Ll
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's Highway 5 corridor
design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan
review requirements. The site design is compatible with the surrounding development. It
is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area.
IWETLANDS
1
n
n
A wetland delineation report was prepared by John Anderson with Wetlands Data as part of the
first phase of this project. The applicant has indicated on the plan sheet that no wetlands exist on
this site. These findings have been reviewed and confirmed by both City staff and a Technical
Evaluation Panel.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect,
preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the
stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place
and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the
plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for
storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet
model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions
model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use and,
therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the
optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be
constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
Storm Water Quali Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on
land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the
phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction
shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.75 per cubic
yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge for industrial
developments is $4,633/acre. The water quality fee for the proposed development will be $35,442
which does not include Outlot B. This lot will be charged SWMP fees upon development.
P
CSM Corporation Phase H '
August 26, 1996
Page 7
Storm Water Quanti Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average '
city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage.
Industrial developments will have a connection charge of $4,360 per developable acre. The total
area of the proposed development is 7.65 acres. Therefore, the applicant would then be
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $33,354.
As part of Phase I of this development, a regional stormwater pond has been designed for both
water quality and quantity SWMP credits. Due to the construction of this over -sized regional
pond, the City currently owes the applicant $100,309 in SWMP credits. The SWMP fees
incurred due to this proposed development total $68,796. This leaves the City owing a balance ,
of $31,512 to the applicant upon completion and acceptance of the pond by the City.
By over -sizing this NURP pond the applicant has provided water quality treatment for existing '
runoff, runoff generated as the result of this proposed development and storm water generated by
future development. As the remaining area becomes developed the City will recover the SWMP
Credits given to the applicant.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The grading plan proposes minimal grading in order to prepare the site for the building and '
parking lot facilities. Landscaped berms are proposed along Trunk Highway 5 and Lake Drive
East. ,
The site is designed to drain via storm sewer to the southeast where the storm water will
discharge into the existing storm drainage system in Lake Drive East. As a part of Phase I the
applicant is constructing a regional pond on the southwest corner of Lake Drive East and Dell
Road. The storm water from this development will be conveyed via storm water pipes in Lake
Drive East to the regional pond for pretreatment prior to discharging into Eden Prairie.
The applicant's engineer will need to submit to the City for review and approval detailed storm
drainage calculations for the storm sewer for a 10-year storm event, 24-hour duration. Upon
review of these calculations, additional catch basins may be required.
It appears some site grading may encroach into Trunk Highway 5 right-of-way. This work will '
require a permit from MnDQT. As a part of site grading, the existing monument sign for
DataSery will need to be relocated.
1
CSM Corporation Phase U
August 26, 1996
' Page 8
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The final grading plan shall incorporate erosion
' control fence (Type I) around the perimeter of the grading limits. Some of the erosion control
fence has already been installed. Rock construction entrances are proposed at the access points.
Erosion control measures shall be maintained until the parking lot areas have been paved with a
bituminous surface and the site restored with sod, seed and landscaping. Hay bales and/or rock
dikes shall be installed around all catch basins until the parking lots have been paved.
I
UTILITIES
Individual sewer and water services have been extended to the lots from Lake Drive East. All
' utilities installed outside the City's drainage and utility easements or right-of-way shall be
considered private and not maintained by the City. These utilities will be inspected by the City's
Building Department. The applicant and/or contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the
' appropriate permits from the City's Building Department. The plans propose on relocating an
existing hydrant on Lake Drive East. Staff recommends the applicant consider realigning the
' driveway access to avoid impacts to the hydrant and using the existing water service available
from Lake Drive East. Since this development is not installing any public improvements, it is
not necessary for the applicant to enter into a development contract with the City; however, staff
' does recommend that a site plan agreement be prepared.
STREETS/PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION
' The site is proposed to be accessed from three driveway access points off Lake Drive East. The
easterly access drive is proposed to be shared with the site to the east (Phase I) which is under
' construction. A cross -access and maintenance agreement will need to be recorded against the
parcel.
In conjunction with Phase I of this development, a traffic study was prepared for the intersection
of Lake Drive East and Dell Road. The traffic study revealed acceptable levels of service
through Phase I of the development and eventually a level of service `B" for the forecast year
' 2005, assuming a signalized intersection. Based on the traffic study, it appears a traffic signal
may be required in the future at Lake Drive East and Dell Road. The developer shall be
responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this traffic signal on a percentage basis
' based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic
volume of Dell Road. A condition will be placed in the site plan permit accordingly.
' A 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk exists along the north side of Lake Drive East. In conjunction
with driveway curb cuts, pedestrian ramps will need to be constructed at all access points.
J
CSM Corporation Phase R
August 26, 1996
Page 9
MISCELLANEOUS
The preliminary plat proposes replatting all of Phase I which is not necessary. The final plat
should only replat Outlot A, Chanhassen East Business Center into three lots (Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1 and Outlot A). In addition, the plat name shall be changed to Chanhassen East Business
Center 2nd Addition.
STREETS/PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION
The site is proposed to be serviced from three driveway access points off of Lake Drive East. The
easterly access drive is proposed to be shared with the site under construction (CSM Phase 1) to the
east in the future.
The City's parking ordinance for office warehouse buildings requires a total of 204 spaces for
both buildings combined. The applicant is providing 207 spaces.
The Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) requires that handicapped parking spaces be
provided at the rate of one handicapped space per every 25 spaces in the lot(s). This calculates
out to 8 spaces. The submitted site plan includes eight handicapped parking spaces. The
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has specific requirements for van spaces which currently
are not part of the MSBC. These requirements are not enforced by the Inspections Division, but
should be incorporated into the site plan. Site approaches are regulated by the MSBC, and are
not detailed on the site plan. Curb cuts, width, texture and slope are details that must be included
on the site plans.
LANDSCAPING
The landscaping plan submitted by the applicant includes plantings mirror landscaping done as
part of the first phase. Similar species are used along with spacing patterns and locations. The
plant schedule includes a total of 123 trees, 108 deciduous and 15 evergreen. To meet city
ordinance applicant will need to increase the number of evergreens to 20% of the total number of
trees planted. With 123 trees total, 25 will need to be evergreens.
The applicant has met parking lot requirements for the development by providing landscaped
peninsulas and boulevards along the lots. The city requires that a tree be planted every 30 feet
along street frontage and landscape plans do not meet the number needed. A total of 22
additional trees are needed to satisfy the ordinance requirements. Staff would like to see that the
additional trees be evergreens and used along East Lake Drive in order to more effectively screen
the loading dock areas and along the western edge of the property in order to create a windbreak
for the parking lot.
I
7
'J
1
CSM Corporation Phase H
August 26, 1996
Page 10
LIGHTING
Lighting locations for the parking lot have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded
fixtures are allowed and the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no more than %2 foot candles
of light at the property line as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be
submitted when building permits are requested. Accent lights are located above entry ways into
the buildings. Street lights consistent with Lake Drive East will be at 200 feet intervals,
staggered from one side to the other.
SIGNAGE
The applicant has not submitted a signage plan. One ground low profile business sign is
permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet.
Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display
area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are
mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square feet. Staff is recommending the same criteria be
followed as Phase I.
Sign Criteria:
1. All businesses within a single building shall share one monument sign. One
monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument
standards in the sign ordinance.
2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The letters shall be
located within a designated sign band.
3. All signs require a separate permit.
4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
6. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential
section south and west of the site.
7. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
8. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet and logos may not exceed 30 inches in
height.
CSM Corporation Phase H
August 26, 1996
Page 11
9. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on
the sign.
The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be
posted on the driveway at the exit point of both sites. A detailed sign plan incorporating the
method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit.
COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT
Ordinance
Building 3
Building 4
Building Height
2 stories
1 story
1 story
Building Setback
N-30' E-10'
N-105' E-85'
N-80' E-40'
S-30' W-10'
S-80' W-35'
S-80' W-75'
Parking stalls
123 & 81 stalls
123 stalls
84 stalls
Parking Setback
N-25' E-25'
N-38' E-NA'
N-31' E-NA
S-25' W-10'
S-30 W-NA
S-30' W-10'
Hard surface
70%
69.5%
64%
Coverage
Lot Area
1 acre
4.40 acres
3.25 acres
PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES
The City is requiring that park and trails fees be submitted in lieu of park land. Fees are to be
paid in accordance to city ordinance. One-third of the fees will be required at the time of final
plat recording.
SUBDIVISION
The subdivision proposal will subdivide 10.95 acres into two lots and one outlot. Lots 1 and 2,
will contain office/warehouse buildings. Outlot B will be reserved for future development. The
applicant should change the name of the plat from Chanhassen East Business Center Block 3 to
Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition. Also, Block 3 should be changed to Block
1. The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action. Standard drainage and utility
easements around the perimeter of all lots are illustrated on the plat.
I
�I
F
F-j
CSM Corporation Phase U
August 26, 1996
Page 12
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On August 21, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application with a
vote of 3 to 1. The main issue discussed at the meeting dealt with the architectural design of the
buildings. The applicant was striving to emphasize a campus like setting by using the same
design, color, and materials as phase I. The rationale is that phase I contained quality design and
materials. The Highway 5 standards require design standards to create a unified, harmonious and
high quality visual environment. The Planning Commission was concerned that the final product
will look exactly alike, monotonous, and not distinctive. This is the real and true gateway into
the community. A campus setting consisting of warehouses is not the image the Planning
Commission envisions for the gateway of the community. The City has attempted to build a
unique character. The phase II buildings should have a different, distinctive, but complimentary
architecture.
Following the meeting, staff met with the applicant to investigate different options. The
applicant presented two new styles. Staff and the applicant have met and agreed upon one new
design for the building. The proposed changes will compliment the phase I buildings yet remain
distinctive. The revised site plan is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the following motion:
I. SITE PLAN REVIEW
"The City Council approve Site Plan Review #95-18 for CSM Phase II, as shown on the site plan
received September 5, 1996, subject to the following conditions:
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
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.
CSM Corporation Phase 11
August 26, 1996
Page 13
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.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
5. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. 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.
b. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 29-1992
(premise identification), copy enclosed.
C. 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
C
J
J
CSM Corporation Phase H
August 26, 1996
Page 14
review process. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and
curbing to be painted.
d. Post indicator valves (PIV) valves are required. Indicate on plans location of post
indicator valves for review and approval.
e. 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.
f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04-1991 (fire
department notes to be included on site plan), copy enclosed.
g. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 07-1991 (pre -
fire plans), copy enclosed.
h. Comply with inspection division installation policy 34-1993 (water service
installation for commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed.
I. 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.
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."
II. SUBDIVISION
"The City Council approves the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #95-18 for
Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plat received September 5,
1996, with the following conditions:
CSM Corporation Phase II
August 26, 1996
Page 15
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
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.
17
u
11
CSM Corporation Phase H
August 26, 1996
Page 16
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 tile 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."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated August 15, 1996.
2. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official, dated August 14, 1996.
3. Narrative.
4. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated August 14, 1996.
5. Planning Commission minutes dated August 21, 1996.
6. Plans received July 23, 1996.
I
g:\plan\sa\csm2
HI
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner H
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer " j, s-r-1
Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator
DATE: August 15, 1996
SUBJ: Review of Site Plan for CSM Corporation -Phase II and Preliminary Plat
Documents for Block 3, Chanhassen East Business Center, File No. 96-27 LUR
Upon review of the preliminary plat documents prepared by RLK & Associates dated July 19,
1996, we offer the following comments and recommendations:
WETLANDS
A wetland delineation report was prepared by John Anderson with Wetlands Data as part of the
first phase of this project. The applicant has indicated on the plan sheet that no wetlands exist on this
site. These findings have been reviewed and confirmed by both City staff and a Technical Evaluation
Panel.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect,
preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the stormwater
quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize
its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-
year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The
water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.°s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus
concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each
drainage area based on the projected future land use and, therefore, different sets of improvements
under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority
water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
Surface Water Management Plan.
d
Sharmin Al-Jaff
CSM Corporation - Phase H
August 15, 1996
Page 2
Storm Water Quality Fees
' The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land
use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the
phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall
' be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated
using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.75 per cubic yard for
excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge for industrial developments is
' $4,633/acre. The water quality fee for the proposed development will be $35,442 which does not
include Outlot B. This lot will be charged SWMP fees upon development.
Storm Water Quantity
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-
wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed
SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Industrial
developments will have a connection charge of $4,360 per developable acre. The total area of the
proposed development is 7.65 acres. Therefore, the applicant would then be responsible for a water
quantity connection charge of $33,354.
' As part of Phase I of this development, a regional stormwater pond has been designed for both
water quality and quantity SWMP credits. Due to the construction of this over -sized regional
pond, the City currently owes the applicant $100,309 in SWMP credits. The SWMP fees
incurred due to this proposed development total $68,796. This leaves the City owing a balance
of $31,512 to the applicant upon completion and acceptance of the pond by the City.
' By over -sizing this NURP pond the applicant has provided water quality treatment for existing
runoff, runoff generated as the result of this proposed development and storm water generated by
future development. As the remaining area becomes developed the City will recover the SWMP
' Credits given to the applicant.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
' The grading Plan proposes minimal grading in order to prepare the site for the building and
' parking lot facilities. Landscaped berms are proposed along Trunk Highway 5 and Lake Drive
East.
' The site is designed to drain via storm sewer to the southeast where the storm water will
discharge into the existing storm drainage system in Lake Drive East. As a part of Phase I the
applicant is constructing a regional pond on the southwest corner of Lake Drive East and Dell
Sharmin Al-Jaff
CSM Corporation - Phase H
August 15, 1996
Page 3
Road. The storm water from this development will be conveyed via storm water pipes in Lake
Drive East to the regional pond for pretreatment prior to discharging into Eden Prairie.
The applicant's engineer will need to submit to the City for review and approval detailed storm
drainage calculations for the storm sewer for a 10-year storm event, 24-hour duration. Upon
review of these calculations, additional catch basins may be required.
It appears some site grading may encroach into Trunk Highway 5 right-of-way. This work will
require a permit from MnDOT. As a part of site grading the existing monument sign for Datasery
will need to be relocated.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The final grading plan shall incorporate erosion
control fence (Type I) around the perimeter of the grading limits. Some of the erosion control
fence has already been installed. Rock construction entrances are proposed at the access points.
Erosion control measures shall be maintained until the parking lot areas have been paved with a
bituminous surface and the site restored with sod, seed and landscaping. Hay bales and/or rock
dikes shall be installed around all catch basins until the parking lots have been paved.
UTILITIES
Individual sewer and water services have been extended to the lots from Lake Drive East. All
utilities installed outside the City's drainage and utility easements or right-of-way shall be
considered private and not maintained by the City. These utilities will be inspected by the City's
Building Department. The applicant and/or contractor shall be responsible for obtaining the
appropriate permits from the City's Building Department. The plans propose on relocating an
existing hydrant on Lake Drive East. Staff recommends the applicant consider realigning the
driveway access to avoid impacts to the hydrant and using the existing water service available
from Lake Drive East. Since this development is not installing any public improvements it is not
necessary for the applicant to enter into a development contract with the City; however, staff does
recommend that a site plan agreement be prepared.
STREETS/PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION
The site is proposed to be accessed from three driveway access points off Lake Drive East. The
easterly access drive is proposed to be shared with the site to the east (Phase 1) which is under
P
F
n
Sharmin Al-Jaff
CSM Corporation - Phase II
August 15, 1996
Page 4
construction. A cross -access and maintenance agreement will need to be recorded against the
parcel.
In conjunction with Phase I of this development, a traffic study was prepared for the intersection
of Lake Drive East and Dell Road. The traffic study revealed acceptable levels of service through
Phase I of the development and eventually a level of service "B" for the forecast year 2005,
assuming a signalized intersection. Based on the traffic study, it appears a traffic signal may be
required in the future at Lake Drive East and Dell Road. The developer shall be responsible for a
share of the local cost participation of this traffic signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic
generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road.
A condition will be placed in the site plan permit accordingly.
A 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk exists along the north side of Lake Drive East. In conjunction
with driveway curb cuts, pedestrian ramps will need to be constructed at all access points.
MISCELLANEOUS
The preliminary plat proposes replatting all of Phase I which is not necessary. The final plat
should only replat Outlot A, Chanhassen East Business Center into three lots (Lots 1 and 2, Block
1 and Outlot A). In addition, the plat name shall be changed to Chanhassen East Business Center
2°d Addition.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan permit with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the permit.
2. 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.
3. 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.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
CSM Corporation - Phase H
August 15, 1996
Page 5
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within street right-of-way.
7. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tile found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
8. 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.
9. The applicant shall consider realigning the muddle driveway access to avoid relocating the
existing fire hydrant on Lake Drive East.
10. A cross -access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded against Phases I and II for use
of the common drive access on the east end of Lot 1, Block 3
11. The plat name shall be changed to Chanhassen East Business Center 2nd Addition
ktm
c: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works
g:�eng'dave1pc1csmii.spr.doc
I
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: August 14, 1996
SUBJECT: Preliminary plat approval of approximately 10.95 acres of property into two lots
and one outlot, site plan review of two office warehouse buildings with an area
of 64,000 square feet and 40,600 square feet on property zoned IOP and located
in the southwest corner of Dell Road and Hwy 5.
I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/police
requirements. Site plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As
' additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed.
1. A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants ie. 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.
I
2. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 29-1992 (premise
identification), copy enclosed.
3. 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.
i4. Post indicator valves (PIV) valves are required. Indicate on plans location of post indicator
valves for review and approval.
5. Fire Department sprinkler locations shall be located in the following areas; building 44 in the
southeast corner of the building, building #3 in the southwest corner of the building. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations.
6. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04-1991 (fire department
notes to be included on site plan), copy enclosed.
CSM Phase II
Plan Reveiw
Page 2
7. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 07-1991 (pre -fire plans),
copy enclosed.
8. Comply with inspection division installation policy 34-1993 (water service installation for
commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed.
9. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 36-1994 (combination
domestic fire sprinkler supply line), copy enclosed.
gAsafety\Fn Khwy5&dell
E
1
1
1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: August 14, 1996
SUBJECT: 95-18 SPR (CSM Corporation)
I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY of CHANHASSEIy RECEIVED, JUL 2 3
1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT- for the above referenced project.
Analysis:
The Uniform Building Code regulates the number of required accessible parking spaces in Appendix
Chapter 11, Table A -I I -A. Building 3 is shown on the plan as having 123 parking spaces four of which are
accessible spaces. Table A-11-A requires five accessible spaces.
Recommendation:
The following item should be included with the conditions of approval:
1. Revise plans to provide one additional accessible parkingpace, for a total of five, at building 3.
g: \safety�sak\m em os\plan\csmcorp2
CSM CORPORATION
CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER
PHASE II
State Highway 5 and Dell Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
PROJECT NARRATIVE
July 19, 1996
Introduction
This project narrative is being submitted on behalf of CSM Corporation for the second phase of a
proposed office/warehouse development abutting State Highway 5 and west of Dell Road. The
parcel being proposed for a subdivision and site plan review is the 11.0 acre Outlet A of the
recently platted Chanhassen East Business Center. CSM Corporation, previous submittal, which
was approved by the City earlier this year, (Block 1, Lots 1 and 2 for two buildings totaling
128,000 s.f) is now under construction. The subdivision proposed for Outlot A will add two
additional lots and an outlot. The proposed buildings and site design are similar in nature and will
compliment the high quality design CSM Corporation adhered to in the original subdivision of the
Chanhassen East Business Center.
CSM Corporation, formerly Colonial Services & Management, Inc., was incorporated on
December 3, 1976 under the laws of the State of Minnesota. It is engaged in the acquisition,
development, leasing, financing, property management, and sale of real estate in Colorado, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North and South Dakota, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Oregon.
CSM Corporation is a licensed real estate broker in the State of Minnesota. CSM Investors, hic.
was incorporated October 28, 1981. It's primary purpose is to acquire and/or develop real estate.
CSM Investors relies on CSM Corporation for property management services.
CSM and its affiliates are currently the owner, management and leasing agents for over 3,900
apartment and townhome units. In addition, CSM Corporation and its affiliates, own and manage
eighteen shopping centers totaling a leasable area of over 753,600 square feet, 54,000 square feet
of office space, and 989,700 square feet of office/warehouse/showroom space, and 1,410,500
square feet of warehouse space, and a 162 unit hotel.
Tom Rocheford will continue his active involvement in Phase II as the project manager and
representative of CSM Corporation, and Mark Kuesnerick of CSM will also continue as the
project architect.
RLK Associates, Ltd. will continue serving as site planner, landscape architect and engineering
consultant for this project. RLK Associates is a planning, design and engineering firm located in
Minnetonka. The firm has extensive previous experience in working with the City of Chanhassen,
and was fortunate to have worked on the original CSM submittal currently under construction.
John Dietrich and Steven Schwanke are the pruicipal contacts for this project,
I
1
I
J
J
Chanhassen East Business Center ,
Project Narrative
July 19, 1996
Page 1
1
Submittal
The submittal is for a preliminary and final plat, and site plan approval for the 11.0 acre Outlot A
of the Chanhassen East Business Center. The subject property is zoned IOP, Industrial Office
Park, and is guided for "Office/Industrial" land uses. The Highway 5 corridor overlay district has
been adhered to for site design, screening of parking areas, architectural variety and quality of
building materials. The application for Block 3, Lots 1 and 2 will provide an additional 104,600
s.f. of high quality office/industrial space. The application will continue to enhance the entry to the
City of Chanhassen by complimenting to Phase I development and promote the public/private
partnership which was essential in Phase I.
The material submitted with this application includes a completed application form for a
' preliminary plat subdivision and site plan approval, a list of property owners within 500 feet of the
property and a check for $1,448.00. In addition, the following plan sheets are being submitted.
f
F
• Sheet 1 of 9: Cover Sheet
• Sheet 2 of 9: Existing Conditions/Approved Plan
• Sheet 3 of 9: Preliminary Plat (Chanhassen East Business Center Block 3)
• Sheet 4 of 9: Preliminary Site Plan
• Sheet 5 of 9: Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
• Sheet 6 of 9: Preliminary Utility Plan
• Sheet 7 of 9: Preliminary Landscape Plan
• Sheet 8 of 9: Architectural Building Elevations
• Sheet 9 of 9: Landscape Detail Sheet
This preliminary plat application for CSM Corporation is the second application submitted by
CSM on the former DataSery site within the last nine months. CSM is committed to continuing its
relationship with the City developed throughout the Phase I submittal. It is RLK's understanding
with the application being submitted on July 19, 1996, the preliminary plat will be before the
Planning Commission on August 21, 1996, and before the City Council for a preliminary and final
plat and site plan approval on September 9, 1996.
Existing Conditions/Approved Plan
The existing conditions/approved plan identifies the entire Chanhassen East Business Center plat
which includes approximately 60 acres. The property ownership north of Lake Drive East is now
under CSM ownership and consists of approximately 21.3 acres. DataSery continues to occupy
and control the remaining 39± acres south of Lake Drive East, which is now identified as Block 2,
Lot 1 of the Chanhassen East Business Center. The approved Phase I developments on the
Chanhassen East Business Center includes two 64,000 s.f buildings occupying Block 1, Lots 1
and 2, regional stormwater retention pond within a public drainage and utility easement, dedication
of right of way for Lake Drive East and the western half of Dell Road and the completion of Dell
Road from Lake Drive East to the Eden Prairie city limits. The plan sheet has merged the
improvements approved in the original Chanhassen East Business Center plat with the existing
topographical and utility information. Outlot A currently occupies the western half of the CSM
property and has direct access to Lake Drive East and is serviced by utilities. The topography has
a high point in the center and slopes to the east and west. The proposed development has been
Chanhassen East Business Center
Project Narrative
July 19, 1996
Page 2
anticipated and the regional stormwater pond under construction will receive the stormwater and
pretreat the runoff, prior to discharge to the City of Eden Prairie.
Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat for the CSM Phase II development focuses on the existing 11.0 acre Outlot A.
Outlot A will be subdivided into three parcels.
• Block 3, Lot 1: Consisting of 4.40 acres and accommodating a 64,000 s.f. structure.
• Block 3, Lot 2: Consisting of 3.25 acres and accommodating a 40,600 s.£ structure.
• Outlot B: A 3.30 acre outlot occupying the western 1/3 of the current Outlot A.
The plat focuses on the internal subdivision of 11.0 acres and will provide the required drainage
and utility easements for the platted lots. There is not a perceived need for any additional public
right of way, and the existing sidewalk along Lake Drive East will remain. Outlot B will remain
undeveloped throughout the plat application of Block 3, Chanhassen East Business Center.
Preliminary Site Plan
The site plan for Block 3, Lots 1 and 2 will follow the same criteria which was previously
approved for Block 1, Lots 1 and 2. The structures A411 be setback approximately 100 feet from
Highway 5. The parking along Highway 5 will be screened by creating berms 3 to 4 feet in height
above the parking lot surface. Both lots will continue the quality landscaping and architectural
treatment consistent with the previous approval. The parking ratio of 1.9 to 2.0 stalls per 1,000
s.f. for the combined office/warehouse structure is also consistent with the previously approved
development. The north/south visual corridor centrally located between the two developments has
been widened and enhanced by landscaping as required. The site plan provides for a realigned
entrance at the southwest corner of Block 1, Lot 2 which will simplify the turning movements and
present a green belt running north and south between the two phases. A second access between
Phase I and II is being proposed along the north portion of the site which will promote internal
circulation flow without utilizing the public right of way. All code requirements have been met,
and no variances or conditional use permits are required for this development.
Preliminary Grading Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
The Phase I development provided the necessary stormwater ponding requirements for this district
within full compliance of the City's stormwater management plan. The proposed plan identifies a
pervious ratio 30.5% for Block 3, Lot 1 and 36% for Block 3, Lot 2. The grading plan proposes
finished floor elevations (FFE) of 934 and 936 for Lots 1 and 2 respectively. For reference, Block
1, Lots 1 and 2 FFE's were 923 and 926. The decision to step the FFE will create added visual
interest and respect the existing topography of the site. The stormwater flows from each site will
be directed to Lake Drive East which will utilized the new regional treatment pond.
Located along Highway 5 and Lake Drive East is a 30' setback. Within these areas, undulating
berms which will screen the parking and service areas are proposed. Locations of the access to
each lot has been placed between the buildings to allow smooth vehicular access and an increased
screening quality of the actual parking and service areas.
Chanhassen East Business Center
Project Narrative
July 19, 1996
Page 3
J
Preliminary Utility Plan
The utility plan provides for the proper connection to the public services of water and sanitary
sewer. The sanitary sewer will utilize existing stubs provided from each sanitary sewer manhole
along East Lake Drive. The water system will interconnect with Phase I and provide a loop system
to service the building. Two connections are also proposed for the water system at East Lake
Drive. The hydrants are proposed to be placed at approximately a 300' spacing. The watermain
'
system and all fire hydrants will be installed acceptable to the Fire Marshal's recommendation.
Preliminary Landscape Plan
The plan as designed will continue with the same pallet of plant materials which were well received
'
in Phase I. The plan proposes to essentially match the design and placement of plant material
which will blend and integrate the entire CSM development.
'
The plan utilizes a linear row of overstory trees along the perimeter and incorporates clusters of
plant groupings for year round color and interest. An expanded viewshed has been established
between Block 3, Lot 1, and Block 1, Lot 2 for the primary viewshed to the DataSery property.
The plant material selected utilizes ornamental, coniferous, and overstory trees with a strong
emphasis on sugar maples and species from the City's recommended list.
Architectural Building Elevations
The building facades are proposed to have recesses and projections on the corners to present an
undulating multiple plane surface. The main entries will be setback from the corner facade with
sidewalks and foundation plantings, providing a transition between the building and site.
'
Exterior materials for all buildings have been chosen with low maintenance and long term
in accents, and striping are face brick/ The background walls
attractiveness mind, corner pergola's
are integrally colored decorative masonry with a clear sealer applied. All glazing will be
prefinished colored aluminum frames. Sloped metal roofs will highlight the corners and flashing
finish.
will be factory finished galvanized steel with a 20 year painted
The color pallet for the two buildings will be in a similar color vein as the existing development.
An architectural material sample will be submitted for approval by staff, Planning Commission
and City Council.
Signage
The signage criteria previously approved for Phase I is proposed to be incorporated into the two
buildings on Block 3. Facade signage will be raised backlit letters, within a consistent band above
'
the face brick entries. All signage will be uniform color with letters at a 2' height, logos may be
increased to a height of 30".
Site signage will have one monument sign per lot. The monument sign will be constructed of a
base material consistent with the building material. The monument sign will be internally lit and
the locations are shown on the site plan.
Chanhassen East Business Center
Project Narrative
July 19, 1996
Page 4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, August 21, 1996
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project:
State i
I
Chanhassen East Business Center=
Second Addition
Developer: CSM Corporation
Location: SW Corner of Dell Road and
Highway 5
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. '
The applicant, CSM Corporation, requests preliminary plat 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 sq. ft. and
40,600 sq. ft. on property zoned IOP and located in the southwest corner of Dell Road and Hwy. 5.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about
the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting,
the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public. '
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone
about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit written '
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide
copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 8, 1996.
Tom Redmond
Lotus Lawn & Garden
yman Lumber
�.
18930 78th Street W.
78 West 78th Street
O. Box 40
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Excelsior, MN 55331
The Press, Inc.
DataServ, Inc.
Cheryl Pieper
West 78th Street
Attn: Legal Dept.
18250 Coneflower Lane
T8780
hanhassen, MN 55317
19011 Lake Drive E.
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
C"hanhaccPn MN 55117
1harlene Salverson
Robert & Joelianne Smith
P & D Relick
18248 Coneflower Lane
18246 Coneflower Lane
18244 Coneflower Lane
den Prairie, MN 55346
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
1 & S Getty
T & K Strauss
Troy & Melinda Reller
18242 Coneflower Lane
18240 Coneflower Lane
18272 Coneflower Lane
den Prairie, MN 55346
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
ctoria Lueck
Barbara Stratmann
Elizabeth Gelino
t.270Coneflower Lane
18268 Coneflower Lane
18266 Coneflower Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
1
Robyn Andrea Riley
G Regnier & L Schueller
Tandem Properties
8264 Coneflower Lane
18262 Coneflower Lane
2765 Casco Point Road
den Prairie, MN 55346
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Wayzata, MN 55391
tary
Smith
Arleane Erickson
Y McKnse
B. Boyle & R.
8320 Cascade Drive
18322 Cascade Drive
18296 Cascade Drive
den Praire, MN 55347
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
gonna Castagneri
Edward & Margaret Requet
Jimmie & Cynthia Henley
18294 Cascade Drive
18292 Cascade Drive
18290 Cascade Drive
den Prairie, MN 55347
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
1obin & Kathy Wales
Clifford, Jr. & Helen Potter
Marjorie P. Allman
8266 Cascade Drive
18264 Cascade Drive
18262 Cascade Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
1
Bevan & C. Mondyke
Nicholas C. Olsen
William & Barbara Burg
8260 Cascade Drive
18258 Cascade Drive
18256 Cascade Drive
den Prairie, MN 55347
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Gerard & Lindsay Amadeo Alex & Marilyn Krengel
8007 Cheyenne 8009 Cheyenne Ave.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Paul Sjorgren & Sandra Wagner Russell & Virginia Hamilton
8017 Cheyenne Spur 8019 Cheyenne Spur
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Wayne & Michelle Williams Terry & Margaret Lewis
8023 Cheyenne Spur 8013 Cheyenne Cir. SW
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen Holding Co.
McDonald's Corporation
14201 Excelsior Blvd.
PO Box 66207
Minnetonka, MN 55343
AMF O'Hare
Chicago, IL 60666
Kahnke Bros. Inc.
Clifford L. Whitehill
P.O. Box 7
7001 Dakota Ave.
Victoria, MN 55386-0007
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Thomas & Patricia Redmond Donreed Properties
18930 West 78th Street 337 Water Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331
Alice L. Sieren
8011 Cheyenne Ave.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Glenn & Bonnie Hageman
8021 Cheyenne Spur
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Marilyn M. Stewart
8015 Cheyenne Ave.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Systems Control, Inc.
Suite 220
9555 James Ave. S.
Bloomington, MN 55431
Lotus Lawn Garden Center
78 West 78th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Wednesday, August 21, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the
application of CSM Corporation for a preliminary plat 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
sq. ft. and 40,600 sq. ft. on property zoned IOP and located in the southwest corner of Dell Road
' and Hwy. 5.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall
' during regular business hours.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions
' with respect to this proposal.
Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
Phone: 937-1900, ext. 120
I
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on August 8, 1996)
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
building or facility. With regards to the school wing, either provide fire apparatus access to
tY
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 fixture
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 Meld 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 I
walls on the east and south side for City Council review.
39. A comprehensive lighting plan for Villages on the Pond shall be compiled. 1
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mancino: The motion carries, and it goes in front of the City Council.
Generous: September 91h. '
PUBLIC HEARING: I
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 SO. 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 Date.
Aanenson: Yeah, I was just seeing if it's attached. It should say as per memo dated August 14`h. '
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 1
' 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.
1 Joyce: You're using the term campus. Could you elaborate a little bit on that?
24
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.
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.
I,]
1
1
n
J
25
IPlanning 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% 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?
IJohn 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
i
' 26
PlanningCommission Meeting - August 21 1996 1
g bm 9
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 staffs 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°d 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? I
Joyce: Was there any mention about the pitched roof? Did I miss that? We were talking about
putting a pitched roof on. I
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. I
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 I
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,
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
FJ
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.
J
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% 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.
1
J
29
Planning Commission Meeting - 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...
P
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
30
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.
L
31
J
J
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
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 ,
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.
Council will see the changes?
,
Joyce: City C es? g
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? I
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. I
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.
Joyce: ...they're trying to sell us on the idea of this campus... I have a whole different attitude ,
towards it.
33
' 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 onto 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.
rFarmakes moved, Skubic seconded 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. 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
Planning Commission Meeting e August 21, 1996
2.
0
4.
screening of the loading docks and along the western edge to create a windbreak for the
neighboring parking lot.
The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on
the building.
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.
go 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.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
5. Fire Marshal conditions:
W
' 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.
Indicate location indicator
•
Post indicator valves (PIV) valves are required. on plans of post
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.
36-1994
•
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy (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
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996
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.
1
I
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 t
I
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 tile 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."
' All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mancino: Motion carries and this goes to City Council on?
Aanenson: On the 9`h. That's assuming that we can get some architectural ... before that.
I
1 38
Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 1
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: 1
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_ I
Aanenson: Yes. harrower. 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 Date
mentioned, we're located in the Chan Business Park. In the 2"d 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 1