1i Site 7811 Great Plains Blvd.CITY OF
PC DATE: May 1, 2001
CC DATE: May 29, 2001
REVIEW DEADLINE: 6-3-01
CASE #: 2001-4 SPR
By: A1-Jaff
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Site Plan Review for an 8,450 square foot office building and a parking lot
setback variance.. '.
7811 Great Plains Boulevard, east of Great Plains Boulevard, South of Village
Hall and north of the Twin cities and Western Railroad.
Derril Burger
18001 Highway 7
Minnetonka, MN 55345
(952)470-7623
A1 Klingelhutz
8600 Great Plains Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 934-8915
PRESENT ZONING:
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
Office Institutional, OI-
Commercial
ACREAGE: 1.04 acres
DENSITY:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan Review for an 8,450 square foot office building with
a parking lot setback variance. Staff is recommending approval with conditions.-
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed
project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must
then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
77th
Cnan v!
78th St Proposed Office Building
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 2
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
This staff report has been edited to reflect changes. All new information appears in bold.
All impertinent information is struck out.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting site plan approval for the construction of an 8,450 square foot office
warehouse building. The site is located east of Great Plains Boulevard, South of Old Village Hall,
west of Saint Hubert's cemetery, and north of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad and has an area
of 1.04 acres. It is zoned OI, Office Institutional and office buildings are a permitted use in the
district. Access to the site is gained via a driveway off of Great Plains Boulevard.
The walkout office building will utilize brick as the' main material. Windows are located on all
four elevations. The design of the building provides variation and meets the requirements of the
site plan design standards. Parking will be located north of the building and will require a
setback variance. The ordinance requires a 50 foot setback when an Office Institutional zone is
adjacent to a Residential Single Family zone. Staff is in agreement with the spirit and intent of
this requirement, however, in this case, the parking lot is adjacent to a site occupied by a
cemetery. There are mature trees that separate and buffer the sites. The applicant is adding
additional landscaping within this area and we do not foresee any adverse affects to the adjoining
property. The applicant could reduce the size of the parking lot to meet the required setback,
however, in an effort to save two 24" oaks, and at staff's request, staff is requesting the
applicant eliminated two parking spaces along the sides of the north center island of the parking
lot. The revised plans reflect this change. The applicant has agreed to this request. This will
brings the total number of parking spaces to 38, which is also the number required by ordinance.
Also, the ordinance requires a 15 foot setback along the north property line. We investigated the
option of locating the parking along the railroad track where no setbacks are required, however,
there are two gas mains on this property, one of which is a high-pressUre natural gas main located
along the south portion. All structures must maintain a 10 foot setback from the gas main. If all
required setbacks were met, the buildable area on the site would be limited to an average depth of
75 feet for both building and parking, which would make the site difficult to develop. We
concluded that this was not a viable option. We also note that there is an existing accessory
structure located over the north property line, which the applicant intends to remove. This will
reduce the level of nonconformity. In summary, we find that approval of the parking lot setback
can be justified since the intent of the ordinance will still be upheld. A parking lot light plan is
required. The plan should incorporate the light style, height, and photo-metrics. Also, a detailed
sign plan which includes the lighting method has to be submitted.
Burger Office Building
Ma>, 29, 2001
Page 3
The site plan fails to shows the trash enclosure location at the easterly edge of the parking lot.
It is proposed to utilize the same wood siding material used on the building. Rooftop
equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. The applicant stated at the
meeting that all equipment will be located on the ground along the easterly portion of the
building. All equipment must be screened from views.
In summary, with the incorporation of staff recommendations the proposed site plan application
would meet ordinance requirements, and staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined
in the staff report.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The proposed office building, with an area of 8,450 square feet, will be situated east of Great
Plains Boulevard. The site is bordered by Historic Saint Hubert's Church to the north, Great
Plains Boulevard to the west, Saint Hubert's cemetery to the east, and Twin Cities and Western
Railroad to the south. The surrounding property is zoned Office Institutional with the exception
of the cemetery site, which is zoned Residential Single Family. Access to the building is
proposed via a driveway off of Great Plains Boulevard, across a city owned parking lot, and
into the site. Parking is proposed along the north portion of the building.
The site falls within the most historic areas of the City of Chanhassen. Saint Hubert's Church,
which is located to the north of the subject site, was constructed in 1887 and is on the National
Historic Registrar. Old Village Hall (located northwest of the subject site) was constructed in
1898. The subject site contains a structure, which was built in 1888 as a carpentry shop. In
1998, the City conducted a study of this area titled "Old Town". This site was included in the
study area. One of the findings concerning the site and its development stated, "If the utility of
the building diminishes and another use is proposed for the site, the building should reflect a
unique historic architectural design that complements the sun'ounding area to the north." With
this background in mind, the applicant designed a walkout building in a Jeffersonian style of
architecture. The main material on the building is red brick, (reflective of the church building),
and white wood siding projections (reflective of Village Hall). Windows are found on all four
sides of the building. Soldier Course, tan in color, with a projection of 1/3 of an inch will be
used above each window. The combination of the color contrast, projection and orientation of
the bricks, accentuate the windows. The design of the building is attractive, provides variation
and detail on the facade of the building.
The site plan fails to shows the trash enclosure location along the easterly edge of the parking
lot. The ordinance requires dumpsters to be screened by a wing-wall and doors with siding and
trim to match the building. The structure will be constructed of white wood siding to match
the wood used on the building. Cun'ent state statutes require that recycling space be provided
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 4
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 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.
Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must
be screened from views.
The building is located 73 feet from the north, 65 feet from the east, 35 feet from the west and 37
feet from the south property line.
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:
ao
An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site' and
provision ora desirable environment forroccupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 5
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
do
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 an'angement
and amount of parking.
(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.
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, the
zoning ordinance (if the parking lot setback variance was approved), 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. Minor
revisions are required and are outlined in the conditions of approval.
WETLANDS
Upon review of the plans, it is concluded that there are no wetlands on this.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL
The current plans show a walkout office building with a proposed first floor elevation of 974.5.
The plans also show the building and parking area draining towards the east and west to two
proposed catch basins in the parking lot. The parking lot and building drainage is proposed to be
conveyed via two storm sewer lines to the south and then outletting to the railroad ditch.
There is an existing 30-inch diameter oak tree on the west side of the proposed building which
the applicant is trying to save. As such, staff would recommend that grading within the drip-line
of the tree be minimized through the use of a retaining wall on the north side of the tree. Also,
the proposed storm sewer along the west side of the tree should be relocated. This storm sewer
could be rerouted to the west and connect into the existing system in the adjacent City-owned
parking lot or it could be routed to the east and connected with the other proposed storm sewer.
Revised plans have moved the storm sewer line an additional 10 feet to the west as
recommended by staff.
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 6
Proposed erosion control consists of silt fence around the perimeter grading limits of the site. A
rock construction entrance will not be required, provided that the contractor utilizes the existing
southerly entrance during construction. Additional erosion control or rip-rap rock may be needed
at the outlet of the eastern storm sewer to prevent a gully from being formed. Also, tree
protection fencing should be installed around all trees in the construction zone that will remain.
UTILITIES
The existing building has a sewer and water service from the west. The plans for the new
building proposc on cxtcnding ncw scwcr and water services from Great Plains Boulevard. Staff
recommends that, if possible, the applicant utilize the existing sewer and water lines to serve the
proposed building. This would alleviate the need to open cut Great Plains Boulevard and
minimize the disturbance to traffic. The revised plans are now proposing to utilize the
existing services as recommended by staff. New service lines to the building need to be
sho~vn on the plans.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City's Building Department.
STREETS AND PARKING LOT
The plans propose utilizing the existing southerly access to the site. This access would require
three turning movements to be completed by each vehicle entering the proposed parking lot. In
order to promote better traffic flow and to decrease the number of direct accesses to Great Plains
Boulevard, staff is recommending that the existing southerly access be removed and that the
applicant utilize the existing access to the north. The shared portion of the access drive, which
goes across the City-owned parking lot, must be contained within a private easement.
The minimum drive aisle width in an office district, which is permitted by ordinance, is 26-feet.
Thc plans show 2'i foot widc drivc aislcs. These drive aisles s~all have been revised to meet
ordinance requirements.
MISCELLANEOUS
It should be noted that Minnegasco has contacted the City requesting the creation of a 50-foot
wide private easement for the existing gas mains, which run just south of the proposed building.
Staff has reviewed Minnegasco's request with the City Attorney's office and it has been
determined that this request is not permissible under the site plan review. It is up to Minnegasco
to negotiate their own easement with the applicant.
The city's parking ordinance requires 4.5 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of office (33 stalls)
and one stall per 1,000 square feet of warehouse/storage area (2 stalls). The total parking spaces
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 7
required by ordinance is 35. The applicant is providing 40 spaces. Staff is requesting requested
two parking spaces along the north central parking island be eliminated to save two 24 inch oaks.
The applicant revised the plans accordingly. This will bring brings the total number of
parking spaces down to 38, which still exceeds parking requirements.
LANDSCAPING
Minimum requirements for landscaping include 1,089 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the
parking lot. 4 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along Lake Drive, as well as
neighboring property lines. The applicant's proposed as compared to the requirements for
landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table.
Vehicular use landscape area
Trees/parking lot
Islands/parking lot
Required
1,089 sq. ft.
4 overstory trees
2 islands or peninsulas
Proposed
17,668 sq. ft.
4 overstory trees
1 islands/peninsulas
The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for landscape islands/peninsulas in the
parking lot area. Staff recommends that the appliCant increase the number islands/peninsulas in
the parking lot to meet minimum landscape requirements. The applicant eliminated two
parking spaces along the north central portion of the parking lot, to increase the size of the
island surrounding the two 24 inch oak trees. This revision fulfills the parking lot island
requirements.
Of special concern are the five existing, very large, mature bur oaks trees on site. Three are
scheduled to remain, and the applicant has increased the areas of protection around the
trees, but according to submittcd plans they have lcss than adequate protection and space for
root growth. Two of the trccs will be includcd in a 10' widc pcninsula and the third will be in an
open area, however according to the grading plans all threc trees will have grading impacting
75% 90% of their root area. Trees of this age and species will not survive that amount of
impact on their root structure. Staff recommcnds the following actions be taken to preserve these
significant trees: enlarge the parking lot peninsula to a minimum width of 30' (remove parking
spaces on either side of the peninsula) and Staff is recommending the applicant create a 'no
grading/no touch' zone around the 30" oak near the western property line and the two 24 inch
oaks along the northern property line. Ideally this area would be at least 30' in diameter.
These trees are a part of the 'Old Town' atmosphere and contribute a significant aesthetic appeal
to the site as well as the downtown area. By following staffs recommendations they can be
preserved adequately and still allow for the development of the proposed building and parking
lot.
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 8
LIGHTING
Lighting locations have not been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as
required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted.
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 24 square feet and a height of 5 feet.
Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The site has one
street fi'ontage along Great Plains Boulevard. The applicant is showing signs along the north and
south elevations. Since the main entrance into the building is along the north elevation, we
would recommend the applicant place their wall mounted sign along the north elevation of the
building, and eliminate the south facing sign. At the Planning Commission meeting, the
applicant requested keeping the south facing wall mounted sign and eliminating the north
facing sign. Staff recommends the applicant be permitted to locate the sign along the south
elevation with the understanding that the building may have one wall mounted sign only.
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 following
criteria be adopted:
o
All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be
subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
2. All signs require a separate permit.
o
The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
o
No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential
section north of the site.
6. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
°
Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on
the sign.
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 9
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 the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the
method of lighting, acceptable to staff shall be provided prior to requesting a building permit.
COMPLIANCE TABLE - lOP DISTRICT
Ordinance
Proposed Building
Building Height 2 stories
1½ story
Building Setback
N- 15' E-50' N-72' E-65'
S-15' W-35' S-35' W-35'
Parking stalls 35 stalls 38 stalls
Parking Setback
N-15' E-50' N-5'- El0'
S-0' W-0' S-75'- W- 10'
Hard surface 65% 39%
Coverage
Lot Area I5,000 SF 45,302 SF
VARIANCE
The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance
unless they find the following facts:
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by
a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is
not to allow a proliferation of variances but to recognize that and develop
neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-
existing standards without departing downward from them meet this Criteria.
The nature of this variance is to allow this site to be developed in a reasonable
fashion. The buildable area on the site is limited. There is a high pressure gas line
along the south and west portions of the property. All structures need to maintain
10 feet setbacks from this gas line. Also, a 50 foot setback is required from the
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 10
cemetery which is zoned Residential Single Family. We believe that the intent of
the ordinance will be upheld even if this variance was approved.
be
The conditions upon ~vhich a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
generally, to other property within thc same zoning classification.
The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are not applicable
generally to other properties within the same zoning classification.
Ce
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of thc parcel of land.
The purpose of this variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship.
The difficulty or hardship is not self-created. The applicant owns sufficient area. It
is encumbered by a high-pressure gas line along the south portion of the property:
The Residential Single Family site located east of the subject site is occupied by a
cemetery and is separated from the subject site by mature trees. The applicant could
meet the required setback along the cemetery and lose 4 parking spaces, however,
there are two 24" oaks located within the north center island. Staff wishes to
eliminate the parking spaces along the landscape island to protect these trees. We
believe that promoting the safety of these trees by eliminating these parking spaces
is a higher priority than eliminating the parking spaces along the east portion of the
property.
ee
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is
located.
The proposed variation ~vill not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent'
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 11
The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. It
will not increase the traffic.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On May 1,2001, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application with a vote
of 4 to 2. The main issue discussed at the meeting dealt with the protection of the oak trees.
Colnmissioners asked if the recommended measures would guarantee the survival of the trees.
Staff explained that it will increase their chances to survive but we cannot guarantee survival. If
the trees died, the applicant xvill be required to replace the total inch calipers.
The second issue dealt with the architecture of the building. Staff was directed to examine the
size/height of the roof and its relationship the building. We went through an in depth study and
looked at different options such as lowering the pitch of the roof, adding dormers, skylight, etc.;
however, they all looked out of character. We also looked at the proportion of the roof to the size
of the building. The east, south, and west elevation are proportionate to the roof, however, the
north elevation has some limitations. The building will be located approximately 4 feet below
the elevation of West 78th Street. The applicant is required to provide landscaping around the
parking lot, which will screen an additional 3 feet of the building. Due to the topography and
landscaping, the roof will appear larger than the north building elevation.
A third issue discussed at the meeting dealt with the dimensions of the parking lot isle. The
ordinance requires parking spaces with a depth of 18 feet and drive isles with a width of 26 feet.
The previous plans showed a 24 foot drive isle. Dimensions were not shown on the depth of the
parking spaces. When the spaces were measured after the meeting, they reflected 19 feet. This
exceeds ordinance requirements and the plans were revised to reflect 18 foot parking spaces on
both sides of the isle and an isle width of 26 feet.
Commissioners that voted against the project voiced concern to the health of the trees and did not
approve of a 24 foot drive isle in the parking lot.
RECOMMENDATION
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 2001-4 for an 8,450 square foot
office building with a parking lot setback variance to allow a 5 foot setback along the north and a
10 foot setback along the east side of the property, as shown on the plans dated received April 4,
2001, subject to the following conditions:
to
Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event.
Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 2001, 3101, 3107, 3108, 5203, 5215,
5234, and 5300.
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 12
o
,
o
go
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the state of Minnesota.
Grading within the drip-line of the 30-inch oak tree shall be minimized through the usc of
a retaining wall on the north side of the tree.
Reroute the proposed storm sewer along the west side of the 3 O-inch oak tree.
Thc applicant shall, if possible, utilize the existing sanitary sewer and water services for
thc new building.
Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees in the construction zone that
will remain. Final grade shall be done with low impact equipment in the treed areas.
Increasc the minimum drive aisle width to 26 feet.
Remove the existing southerly access and utilize the existing access to the north. The
shared portion of the access drive, which goes across the City-owned parking lot, must be
contained within a private easement, and relocate the sidewalk to the north entrance.
Any offsite grading will require temporary easements.
On the utility plan:
- Show thc cxisting water and sewer service lines.
- Add a legend.
-Undcr thc Scwcr& Watcr Notes add, "All sanitary sewer services shall be 6" PVC SDR
- Add a storm sewer schedule.
-Show all existing utilities with invert, pipe size, pipe type, etc.
On the grading plan:
-Show all existing utilities
-Show all existing and proposed easements
-Add a lcgcnd
Enlarge thc parking lot peninsula to a minimum 30' in width by removing parking spaces
on cithcr sidc of thc peninsula.
Establish a tree protection area around the 30" oak near the western property line. The
area should shall be at least 30 feet in diameter as large, as possible and no grading or
other construction activities will be allowed within it.
One ground Iow profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not
exceed 24 square feet and a height of 5 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. All signage must meet the following criteria:.
a. All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall-be
subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
b. All signs require a separate permit.
c. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
do
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 13
16.
17.
18.
20.
21.
22.
e. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential
section south of the site.
f. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
g. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the
sign.
h. 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 shall be provided
prior to requesting a building pe~Tnit.
Building Official Conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing the existing structures on
the site.
b. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in
the State of Minnesota.
c. The access aisle between the accessible parking spots must be a minimum of eight (8)
feet wide.
d. The plans were reviewed for allowable building area, exterior wall protection and
basic exiting only. Detailed building code requirements cannot be reviewed until
complete plans are submitted.
e. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as
soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Meet with Fire Marshal prior to building permit submittal.
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the City. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as
required by ordinance.
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. Cun'ent state
statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the
recycling space must be dedicat~ at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code
(MSBC) 1300.~700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be
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.
Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All
equipment must be screened from views.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
New utility service lines to the building need to be shown on the plans."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application & Notice of Public Hearing and mailing list.
2. Memo fi'om Matt Saam, Project Engineer and Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer, dated April 25,
2001.
Burger Office Building
May 29, 2001
Page 14
3. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated February 2, 2001.
4. Memo from Steve Torell, Building Official, dated April 23, 2001.
5. Memo from Minnegasco dated April 19, 2001.
6. Planning Commission minutes dated May 1,2001.
7. Plans dated received April 4, 2001.
g:\plan\sa\burger building.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
,¢u~P~CANT: DERRIL B URGER
g~.DDP~ESS: 18001 HIGHWAY 7
MINNETONKA, MN 55345
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 952-470-7623
OWNER: AL KLINGELHUTZ
ADDRESS: 8600 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TELEPHONE: 952-934-8915
Cemprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
interim Use Permit
__ Non-conforming Use Permit
__ Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Permits
--. Sign Plan Review
' Site Plan Review'
' ,. 250.00 + 90.00 = $340.00
Subclivis]on*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
variance
NORTH PARKING LOT
SETBACK
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
__ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
$150.oo
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 C U P/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEES 565.00
$75.00
,A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
.Bu3]ding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
"Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2'' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NDTE-VVher~ multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME BURGER OFFICE BUILDINC,
LOCATION
7811 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE SUMMARY
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
1.04
01
01
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
YES XNO
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application sUbmittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that ! am making application for the described actiOn by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or i am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. ..
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
,,,.extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
[~,,~sions are approved by the applicant..
Si'gn~ture o pplicant' -- ,-,// .
· Sigr~ature of Fee Owner //' Date
Application Received on Z.~ ..Z-/.~ / Fee Paid ?~5~ Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
NOTICE Of PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review and
Variance APPLICANT: Derril Burger
LOCATION: 7,811 Great Plains Blvd.
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Derril Burger,
is requesting Site Plan review for the construction of a two story office building (8,450 square feet) with a parking
setback variance on property zoned Office Institutional, located at 7811 Great Plains Blvd., Burger Office Building.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. Dudng the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public headng through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public headng is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall dudng
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Fdday. 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 ,~oril 19, 2001.
Smooth Feed Sheets TM
Use template for 5160®
IILBAR PROPERTIES [NC
YO AL KLINGELHUTZ
600 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
iHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS & CHRISTY STODOLA
21101 OAKDALE DR
ROGERS MN 55374
HOLIDAY STATION STORES [NC
4567 80TH ST W
BLOOMINGTON MN 55437
;LOOMBERG COMPANIES INC
PO BOX 730
HANHASSEN MN 55317
CHRISTOPHER & D ANNA COX
222 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
· L B PROPERTIES LLC
g31 KOEHNEN CIR PO BOX 474
XCELSIOR MN 55331
JOHN W & PAULA J ATKINS
220 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MOCO AMERICAN OIL CO
~OPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT
)0 EAST RANDOLPH DRM C 2408
HICAGO IL 60601
ANNA IVERSON
BOX 1
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE
~99 DABNEY DR
EXINGTON KY 40509
CHANHASSEN REALTY CO
C/O THIES & THALLE MGMT - PAM
PO BOX 250
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
qURCH OF ST HUBERT
:01 MAIN ST
~-[ANHASSEN MN 55317
RALPH G MOLNAU &
RONALD F DUBBE
356 3 1/2 ST W
WACONIA MN 55387
ICHAEL J SORENSEN
',625 58TH ST
AYER MN 55360
HEATHER P THOMPSON &
LAURA ANN R FRIDGEN
7720 GREAT PLA[NS BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
~I_APEL HILL ACADEMY
6 78TH ST W
tANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLARD & KATHRYN PAULY
7721 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
?EVEN R NELSON
RR 3 BOX 233
[UK CENTRE MN 56378
KEITH R & LISA KUPCHO
7723 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
kUL G EIDEM &
qDREA F GRIFFITH
27 FRONTIER TRL
/ANHASSEN MN 55317
GARY L BROWN
1831 KOEHNEN CIR W PO BOX 474
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)937-1900
Date: April 12, 2001
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Plmming Department
By: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
Subject:
Site Plan review for the construction of a two story office building (8,450 square feet) with a
parking setback variance on property zoned Office Institutional, located at 7811 Great Plains
Blvd., Burger Office Building, Derril Burger.
Planning Case:
2001-4 Site Plan
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on April 4, 2001.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
sn'eet extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 1, 2001 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than
April 23, 2001. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and
assistance is greatly appreciated.
.
City Departments
(~ City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c;,,City Park Director
~d,-Fire Marshal
.~Bmldmg Official
~'::' Water Resources Coordinator
ge Forester
2. Watershed District Engineer
~? Telepho~t!_e-~pany
'~US(~~I~ or Sprint)
(~9~Electri~C~pany
'~,~or MN Valley)
10. Triax Cable System
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
3. Soil Conservation Service
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
12.
Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
13. Other
~? Minnegasco
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
G~5'o'PLAN ~
J LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE
..
..
,lee NO.
Q ~N~ I~LFVATION
Q,V~.S,L~£L£yATION
DESIGN
A3
Development, Inc.
3GlO County Road 101
wayzata, MN 55391
(952)4-73-5650 Fax (952)4-73-7058
April 18, 2001
Shamtin A1 - Jaff
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Dear Sharmin:
As a follow up to our recent phone conversation I am sending you updated information and materials on the Burger
Office Building Project.
Attached is a grading plan Sketch A which incorporates your comments on enlarging the parking island, lowering
grade at the west oak tree and reconfiguring the parking lot on the east property line to save the two Box Elder trees.
We are proposing to project the header course brick and add three arched clear story windows in the in the gabled
projected area on the south elevation as indicated on drawing Sketch B.
We have also included photographs of a similar building that incorporates dark red brick with white panted wood
siding and trim in a similar style to Jeffersonian architecture. A reprint of Thomas Jefferson's Montecello is also
included for your reference in con junction with brick and roof shingle samples.
Please contact me if you need any additional information for the May 1 Planning Commission Meeting.
Copy: Dan'il Burger
Page 1 of 1
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/j effersn/monticl..ipg
4/10/01
Page 1 of 1
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/jeffersn/montic5.jpg
4/10/01
Monticello Page 1 of 2
Boston College. Color slides copyright Prof. J~effery Howe.
Table of Contents [ Quick Index: 117th century ] 18th century [ 19th century [ 20th century I Architecture li~ks I
Fine.. Art?. depm~tmen/t?me page
18th Century Architecture
Thomas Jefferson' Monticello, Charlottesville, VA
1770-96; 1809
Monticello,
Charlottesville, VA
Monticello,
Charlottesville, VA
Thomas Jefferson: Monticello, 1770-1796; 18091
Monticello,
Charlottesville, VA
Monticello,
Charlottesville, VA
Monticello, Monticello,
Charlottesville, VA Charlottesville, VA
Monticello,
Charlottesville, VA
1. Thomas Jefferson: Monticello, 1770-1796; 1809 1990 photograph.
2. Thomas Jefferson: Monticello, 1770-1796; 1809 1990 photograph
3. Thomas Jefferson: Monticello, 1770-1796; 1809 1990 photograph
4. Thomas Jefferson: Monticello, 1770-1796; 1809 1990 photograph
5. Thomas Jefferson: Monticello, 1770-1796; 1809 1990 photograph
6. Thomas Jefferson: Monticello, 1770-1796; 1809 1990 photograph
http ://www. bc. edu/bc, org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/18house monticello.html 4/10/01
690 Cio, Center Drive
PO Box I47
Cha',d;assen, Minnesota 55317
Pholle
952.937.I900
General Fax
952.937.5739
Engineering Deparonent Fax
952.937.9152
Building Depamnent Fax
952.934.2524
Web Site
www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer~,~,
Matt Saam, Project Engineer 9~t
DATE: April 25, 2001
SUBJ:
Review of Site Plan for 7811 Great Plains Boulevard
Burger Office Building - Land Use Review File No. 01-08
Upon review of the plans dated April 4, 2001, prepared by Otto Associates, we
offer the following recommendations:
GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL
The current plans show a walk-out office building with a proposed first floor
elevation of 974.5. The plans also show the building and parking area draining
towards the east and west to two proposed catch basins in the parking lot. The
parking lot and building drainage is proposed to be conveyed via two storm sewer
lines to the south and then outletting to the railroad ditch.
There is an existing 30-inch diameter oak tree on the west side of the proposed
building which the applicant is trying to save. As such, staff would recommend
that grading within the drip-line of the tree be minimized through the use of a
retaining wall on the north side of the tree. Also, the propos&d storm sewer along
the west side of the tree should be relocated. This storm sewer could be rerouted
to the west and connect into the existing system in the adjacent City-owned
parking lot or it could be routed to the east and connected with the other proposed
storm sewer.
Proposed erosion control consists of silt fence around the perimeter grading limits
of the site. A rock construction entrance will not be required, provided that the
contractor utilizes the existing southerly entrance during construction. Additional
erosion control or rip-rap rock may be needed at the outlet of the eastern storm -
sewer to prevent a gully from being formed. Also, tree protection fencing should
be installed around all trees in the construction zone that will remain.
UTILITIES
The existing building has a sewer and water service from the west. The plans for
the new building propose on extending new sewer and water services from West
Shamin A1-Jaff
April 25, 2001
Page 2
78th Street. Staff recommends that, if possible, the applicant utilize the existing
sewer and water lines to serve the proposed building. This would alleviate the
need to open cut West 78th Street and minimize the disturbance to traffic.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections
through the City's Building Department.
STREETS AND PARKING LOT
The plans propose on utilizing the existing southerly access to the site. This
access would require three turning movements to be completed by each vehicle
entering the proposed parking lot~ In order too promote better traffic flow and to
decrease the number of direct accesses to West 78th Street, staff is recommending
that the existing southerly access be removed and that the applicant utilize the
existing access to the north. The shared portion of the access drive, which goes
across the City-owned parking lot, must be contained within a private easement.
The minimum drive aisle width in an office/industrial district, which is permitted
by ordinance, is 26-feet. The plans show 24-foot wide drive aisles. These drive
aisles shall be revised to meet ordinance requirements.
MISCELLANIOUS
It should be noted that Minnegasco has contacted the City requesting the creation
of a 50-foot wide private easement for the existing gas mains which run just south
of the proposed building. Staff has reviewed Minnegasco's request with the City
Attorney's office and it has been determined that this request is not permissible
under the site plan review. It is up to Minnegasco to negotiate their own easement
with the applicant.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
2. Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 2001, 3101, 3107, 3108,
5203, 5215, 5234, and 5300.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a
professional civil engineer registered in the state of Minnesota.
4. Grading within the drip-line of the 30-inch oak tree shall be minimized
through the use of a retaining wall on the north side of the tree
Shamin A1-Jaff
April 25, 2001
Page 3
C'.
5. Reroute the proposed storm sewer along the west side of the 30-inch oak
tree.
6. The applicant shall, if possible, utilize the existing sanitary sewer and
water services for the new building.
7. Tree protection fencing should be installed around all trees in the
construction zone that will remain.
8. Increase the minimum drive aisle width to 26-feet.
,
Remove the existing southerly access and utilize the existing access to the
north. The shared portion of the access drive, which goes across the City-
owned parking lot, must be contained within a private easement.
10. Any offsite grading will require temporary easements.
11. On the utility plan:
- Show the existing water and sewer service lines.
- Add a legend.
- Under the Sewer & Water Notes add, "All sanitary sewer services shall
be 6" PVC SDR 26.
- Add a storm sewer schedule.
- Show all existing utilities with invert, pipe size, pipe type, etc.
12. On the grading plan: - Show all existing utilities.
- Show all existing and proposed easements
- Add a legend.
Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer
g:\eng\mahmoudh~nemos\7811 great plains bldg sp.doc
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
dQO City Ce,to' Drive
PO Box I47
Cha,hasse,. ~.[i,,esoz 553
Phone
952.~37.1900
Ge,eral Fax
~52.93~5739
E~t~,eeri,g Depar~,e,t
Q52.~37.9152
Buildi,g Depa~m,e,t F~r
Q52.934.2524
I~3b Site
u,wu~ ti, cha,hasse,.m,.,s
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior planner
Steven Torell, Building Official
DATE: April 23, 2001
SUB J:
Site Plan review for an office building located at 7811 Great Plains
Blvd., Burger Office Building, Derril Burger.
Planning Case: 2001-4 Site Plan
I have reviewed the plans for the above building dated: April 3 and March 30,200'1
and received by the Planning Department on April 4, 2001. Following are my
comments, which should be included as conditions of approval.
1. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing the existing
structures on the site.
2. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals
licensed in the State of Minnesota.
3. The access aisle between the accessible parking spots must be a minimum of
eight (8) feet wide.
4. The plans were reviewed for allowable building area, exterior wall
protection and basic exiting only. Detailed building code requirements
cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted
5. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections
Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
G/safety/st/memos/plan/Burgerofficebuilding
T]Je Ga, of Cha,hasse,. g ~, ;'owi,~. to,mm,itl' with c/e,?,/akes, oua/itl, schooh. ~ cham~i,~ dow,towJ~, thrivi,~ b~d,esses, a,d bea,tift;l va;'ks. A ~reat v/ace to live. work.
R eliant
Enersy ,.,
Minne asco
Sharmin AI-Jaff
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
700 West Linden Avenue
P.O. Box 1165
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440-1165
April 19, 2001
RE:
Proposed Development plan
Planning case 2001-4
Dear Mr. Al-Jaff:
With reference to the proposed plat for Steiner Development at 7811 Great Plains
Boulevard, Reliant Energy Minnegasco currently has two gas mains in this property.
One of these is a high-pressure natural gas main installed along the old railroad
corridor. This gas main is a large part of our distribution system in this area and utility
easement rights must be maintained.
Most often when the railroads sell property a utility easement is created within the
Warranty Deed for all existing utilities. However, please create a general utility
easement to insure this transmission line is protected to insure a constant supply of
natural gas to this area. Because of the size, pressure, and importance of this
transmission line a 50.O0-foot easement is necessary.
When natural gas service is required please call Minnegasco Resource Management at
61 2-321-51 23.
Respectfully,
Reliant Energy Minnegasco
Steven Von Bargen
Right-of-Way Administrator
p.c. Cherie Monson, Sales Associate
RECEIVED
APR 2-3 2001
CITY OF CHANHA$$EN
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
21.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
22.
The developer shall revise the roof drainage on the west elevation of the building to
discharge to the north and/or south of the building.
23.
The applicant shall ~vork with the neighboring property o~vner to screen the mechanical
boxes and address the drainage issue.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Craig Claybaugh abstained.
Blackowiak: Kate I have a question. It says City Council date is May 29th. Is that Memorial Day?
Generous: It's the day after. It's a Tuesday.
Blackowiak: It's a Tuesday, okay. That helps. So City Council is Tuesday, May 29th. Don't come on
Monday, there won't be anyone there. Alrighty.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY
OFFICE BUILDING (8,450 SOUARE FEET) WITH A PARKING SETBACK VARIANCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL, LOCATED AT 7811 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, BURGER OFFICE BUILDING, DERRIL BURGER.
Public Present:
Name Address
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Fred Richter 3610 So. Co. Rd. 101
Derril Burger 18001 Highway 7
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackoxviak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for staff?. Jay, do you want to stat1?
Karlovich: I'm going to pass for right now.
Claybaugh: Yes, I have some questions for staff.
Karlovich: I'm sure you're going to hit ever3,thing that I was.
Claybaugh: I'm just going to take it in the order that it comes up on the documents. I don't want you to
read into my priorities I guess. First tiling thatjumps out is tile existing 24 foot oaks. Those 2 that are
there. It seems like you compromised with respect to the number of peninsulas that were going to be
required and you're only asking for 1 when the ordinance requires 2.
15
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1, 2001
Al-Jaff: The ordinance requires a 10 foot island. In this case we will gain a 30 foot island. We talked to
the City Forester, Jill Sinclair at length about this. It was her recommendation that if we are to get a 30
foot island around the existing 2 oaks, that would be the preference.
Claybaugh: Yes, agreed. So what you're saying this compromise was relative to size.
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. And the forester has looked at that and is comfortable with the drip line on those
trees?
Al-Jarl: Yes.
Claybaugh- Okay. How's the health of those trees during construction going to be monitored?
Al-Jarl: We will have construction fencing, the orange fences around them. The City Forester
typically...
Claybaugh: Specifically my question is not to be suspicious but things happen during the construction
process and don't want to get to a point where we go oops, it's too late. The trees are dead. We might as
well take them down. Okay. It needs to be monitored during the construction process. I just want to
know what's in place to, that pertains to that. That would be one of my concerns. The other question I
have, they identified the parking was adjusted to reflect 1,000 square feet of warehouse storage, is that
correct?
Al-Jarl: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. Maybe a question for the petitioner but was anything raised with respect to wanting
to expand office space in 2 years, 5 years, whatever that's a typical thing that we say is, you know we do
this to meet the requirements for parking or because there isn't a great demand for it but 5 years down the
line or whatever the time table might be, it's convenient to finish off that warehouse space and it's cost
effective, at which time the parking's over burdened so I just want to make sure that the staff had
addressed that on some level.
Al-Jarl: We would have to come back. If they decided to convert this space, they would need a building
permit and...
Claybaugh: Yes, I realize that but when people come back later, 5 years down the line, it's a lot easier at
this stage to head it off and say, you need to be cognizant of the fact that if we are going to make
variances at this Point now, they're not going to be redundant varianceS down the line. Rather than
having them back in front of us in 5 years, not that we'd all be here but, rather than postpone it til that
ti~ne and it seems to me to be easier to address it at this point and get a firm recommendation from staff
with respect to that because I don't see any room for expanding the parking lot.
Blackowiak: Excuse me, can I just jump in? I did some quick math while you were making that
comment and it appears that if we have 1 stall per 1,000 for warehouse and we require 4.5 per 1,000 for
office, if that were converted, they would need an additional 3.5, okay. At this point the requirement by
ordinance is 35, and they have 38 so they'd be halfa spot short.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Claybaugh: I'm lacking on the 38 because I'm seeing 33 and 2. I've got 35. So help me out, correct me
if I'm wrong.
Blackoxviak: Oh, the total is 35. That's what I'm looking at right now. So if we have 35 total and we
needed another 3.5 to meet the ordinance requirements then we would need 38.5.
Claybaugh: Okay, is that accurate?
Al-Jaff: Yeah.
Blackoxviak: So I think that's not.
Aanenson: That was our position.
Biackowiak: That was your position?
Aanenson: Right, and also the city has a parking lot next door and there's always a potential the city can,
depending on tile frequency do a lease or something.
Blackowiak: Okay, I had tile same question so.
Claybaugh: Okay. Yeah, I didn't pick up on tile 40 down here. I picked up on tile 33 and 2. Can you
comment on the 24 foot wide drive aisles ill lieu of the 26 feet and with that configuration of parking,
that's one of the pet peeves in some of the developments that's been done within the city limits is the
tendency to be excessively flexible with respect to aisle widths and parking stall widths and number of
parking stalls so on and so forth so. DO you, you said that the minimum standard here, if I'm reading
correctly is 26 feet. They're looking for' 24 feet. is that correct?
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. How big a concern do you feel that is or isn't?
Aanenson: I don't think it's a concern at all.
Claybaugh: Okay. What are we running over at Market Square for aisle widths over there? Does
anybody happen to know off hand?
Aanenson: Well I think the difference there would be frequency and the volume of trips there as opposed
to this. When you've got a single tenant and a single user as opposed to that would be.
Claybaugh: I'd agree with that with respect xvith an inlet and an outlet but you have one inlet,
combination outlet with this parking lot so that kind of gets that. So that's why I would be concerned
about 24 foot width. Okay. Are they able to increase that to the 26 foot and still meet some of the
requirements for parking stalls and setbacks, or does that?
Aanellson: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay. I guess I would just comment that a lot of the elements are there to capture a lot of
tile historical elements with respect to the type brick that was selected and tile rest of it, and the extensive
17
Planning Co~nmission Meeting- May 1, 2001
use of brick certainly lend itself to the historical character, but I didn't get the impression in looking at
the elevations, at least at this stage, that they really capture those elements. I think that the materials are
there, but I don't think that it's articulated in the design. At least to the degree that I would personally
like to see. Besides that I like how the building sits on the property. I like the elements of the lot being
out front. I don't have any problems with the setback off, needing a variance for being setback off the
street for the parking. That's a minimal concern to me. I think they've incorporated fairly extensive
landscaping. I think that how, like I said, sits on the site and how it would be perceived off Great Plains
Boulevard, I like the look of that so. I simply restrict my comments to that at this time.
Blackowiak: Deb, do you have any comments?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Going back to the 24 versus 26 foot. I'm struggling to find a condition for
that. Did we leave that out or are we okay with the 24 foot?
Blackowiak: Number 8. Condition 8.
Kind: Thank you Alison. Okay, and then my question is, how important is that? I'm worried about
encroaching into the trees more and making it more difficult.
Aanenson: The ordinance is 26 feet so, I mean it's.
AI-Jaff: You would have to grant a variance.
Kind: And what is our experience with 22 foot drive aisles. Is that adequate for a smaller parking lot
like this?
Saam: i guess I would recommend 12 foot lanes is a standard design. So that's 24, yeah. However like
Kate said, the ordinance is 26. That's strictly all I'm going by. I'm just checking that it's per ordinance.
It didn't meet the ordinance. That's why it was mentioned in the staff report. Sure, 24 would work.
Kind: And then do we need to, if we prefer the 24 foot, do we need to actually grant a variance as part of
this process?
Aaneilson: Yes.
Kind: Yes, okay. I'm just concerned that, I mean 2 feet doesn't sound like very ~nuch but when you're
talking about oak trees, it's a lot. And that would be pushing it more into that root system of those
important oak trees. Also my question, I do wonder how many city owned parking spots there are and if
we can give them more relief on total number of spots because they're city owned parking right there.
Al-Jarl: I believe there are 87 parking spaces. They're entitled to 2 parking spots that they lease from
the city. Now one of the concerns would be, should the city ever decide to develop the property on, we'd
be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Kind: By counting too many spots for this particular building, yeah. Okay.
AI-Jaff: We just want to make sure that the city leaves it's options open.
Kind: So the size of the lot right now is what you're comfortable with, or deleting those 2 spots.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Aanellson: Yes.
Kind: Okay. Let me quick check to see if there's anything else here. Materials wise there's no sample
of the roof. You know Roofs are Deb. And I mean one little piece of fiberglass shingle doesn't help me
too much. Can I be reassured that this is not a fiat shingle that will ripple in the heat?
Aanenson: We can pass this around. This is a sample.
Kind: And I'll ask the applicant that. That's it Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, any questions?
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I have a brief comment and a couple of questions. You know it sounds
awfully good on that page 3 when you talk about the historical part. l'm glad you addressed that
Sharmin. But you call this thing a building in the Jeffersonian style. That's an awfully big term. I mean
it's a nice building but when I hear Jeffersonian I mean I see columns. I see a dome. Yet, the rest of the
building is brick and has windows and so does this one but Jeffersonian is a little bit ora stretch there.
My question for staff is the following. You say they can only have one wall mounted sign so they cannot
have a sign on both sides of the building, is that the interpretation of that? I want to be clear about that.
AI-Jaff: The ordinance states l sign per street frontage and at this point they have 1 street frontage
facing Great Plains Boulevard.
Sacchet: That xvill be tile north side or tile west side?
Al-Jarl: That would be the xvest side.
Sacchet: The west side, okay. Okay is that, I was a little fuzzy there. Then I have a question of, can or
can't they use the existing sanitary sewer and xvater service? That's a question for you guys because in
the condition it says it's possible and that doesn't do anything for me. A possible. Can they? And then
they should. If they can't, they can't.
Sweidan: We see it that they can.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. That answers my question.
Sweidan: ...that is possible because we see it that they can.
Sacchet: I'm going to ask it to the applicant too. Okay. And then I have a little bit of a disagreement
with staff here on the statement that there's a lot of buffering to the cemetery. I was just out there and I
was actually struck by the lack thereof. And I was a little disappointed because it reads real well and it
looks good on the map but if you go out there, you're basically parking in the cemetery. I mean to me
that's obnoxious. That doesn't work for me. So I mean yeah, there are some trees that are awfully big
and a couple of them get hurt by the parking lot and I specifically would want to ask those two big trees
at the southwest comer. I mean there's not even a parking spot. It's just a part of hard top so cars can
turn around easier. Is that necessary? I mean would they be better to keep the trees?
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
AI-Jaff: That's one of the points that we discussed with the applicant and again they are open to that.
There is some tweaking we need to do to the plan and we believe that we can do all of that
administratively at staff's level. By the time it gets to the City Council, all those issues will be resolved.
Sacchet: Okay, and has there been a consideration of putting some significant screening buffering to the
cemetery to the north as well as to the east?
AI-Jaff: We could do that. I mean you're granting a variance.
Sacchet: Well ~naybe I should ask that of the applicant then. It looks like the applicant has something to
say when we get to that so I'll save that question for them. That's fine, thank you.
AI-Jaff: Thank you.
Sacchet: That's it Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, do you have any questions for staff?.
Slagle: Just a couple. We noted, or it was noted in the proposal that there'd be a couple of spots, parking
spots in an effort to save the two 24. The trees. Inch trees. My question is, is it one on each side?
Al-Jarl: Correct.
Slagle: Okay, and have we gotten an opinion from the city.
AI-Jaff: Forester.
Slagle: And that's sufficient?
AI-Jaff.' Yes.
Slagle: Okay. Okay. And then one last question. In the paragraph talking about the historical value if
you will, it mentions the structure built in 1888 as a carpentry shop. Is that what is termed as the shed?
Or as I drove the lot I saw.
AI-Jaff: There is an existing shed in addition to the bUilding.
Slagle: Okay. I think that's what I saw. My question is, what is the plan with that?
AI-Jaff: They intend to remove both of them.
Slagle: ! saw that but I'll just, I guess ask the applicant. I'm just curious if there's any plan to save that.
Al-Jarl: Relocate?
Slagle: Yeah, relocate or something like that. And then lastly, the site plan fails to show the trash
enclosure location. Has that been resolved?
AI-Jaff: Yes.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
Slagle: Okay. That's ail.
Blackowiak: Okay. Great. Sharmin, I think I just have a couple quick questions. We have a cemetery
that's zoned RSF. Is that, I mean itjust sounds rather humorous. I'm sorry, I should be a little more
serious about this but, we went through the glitch ordinance. Is there, should this be rezoned in any way,
shape or form or do we leave it or what are our options here?
Aanenson: It's permitted in the A2. That's what our other cemetery is. It's my understanding that the
other property oxvner in the area has sold his, there's a house on West 78th, and has sold his back to the
church so it's my understanding that they'll probably come back and do a master plan for that area, and
maybe it should be office, you knoxv institutional because it relates to the church. But A2, and I'm not
sure that's the appropriate zoning either so, something that we could put on the list to look at but I think
it will resolve itself as it comes through tile master plan.
Blacko~viak: Okay, well I guess I'm not that concerned but it just, that seems to be driving the 50 foot
setback and I was just curious if there was another tool that we could use to.
Aanenson: Yeah, A2 wouldn't be any better.
Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, well that was I guess my question. And then on the old, I say old, old St.
Hubert's. Do they have wood shakes on there? What is the roofing material on that?
Aanenson: Yes. The city put new wood shakes on there.
Blackowiak: Okay. And then tile old village hall, what is tile roofing material on that? I'm sorry I'm
asking, I can't remember. I drive by all the time and I just.
Al-Jarl: I don't remember.
Aanenson: I don't think it's xvood shake but I don't know.
Blackowiak: I didn't think it was either but I just, I wasn't sure because the pictures I saw of the
Counselor building, I believe this is the one up on 101, was a wood shakes and it's a very nice look and
to make it consistent with the old, old St. Hubert's, that might be a thought. But I'll save my comments
for later. This is a public hearing. Oil sorry, did you have some?
Karlovich: I formulated some...
Blackowiak: Good. Jump right on in.
Karlovich: When I was looking at it and looking at it before, on the Certificate of Survey, can staff
possibly explain who owns what rights to drive over the other lot and I guess the city oWns the lot next to
it.
Aanellson: Correct.
Karlovich: Do they have an easement in there? Do they need additional easements from the city? On
the Certificate of Survey it looks like the old alignment of West 78th Street. It doesn't say that it was
21
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1, 2001
vacated but I assume it was vacated. I just have no understanding as to who owns what access rights and
who is acquiring what access rights.
Aanenson: I don't believe it's on the survey. I believe there's a cross access agreement with the city.
Karlovich: A cross parking agreement with them or how does that work?
Aanenson: It's not parking. It's access. Mr. Klingelhutz might be able to answer that better, if you want
to ask him that.
Karlovich: We can reserve that for him.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? Okay, this is a public hearing. Oh, I'm sorry, I'd like to hear
from the applicant. Yes, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please
co,ne up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Derril Burger: My name is Derrii Burger. I'm at 5925 Woodland Circle in Minnetonka for the last 38
years. 5 miles and 2/10th from where we're sitting. I know Chan very well. I don't have, I'm happy to
ans~ver so,ne questions and for the gentleman here, I'd be happy to donate that building to you if you'd
like it. I'm serious. I mean you xvere talking about saving it in some way. If you have some method of
doing that, I'd be happy to talk with you. We worked very closely with the staff and we've basically
been in agreement on almost everything and where we aren't in agreement we've come to an agreement.
And they've been very good to work with and we think we're going in the right direction. I'm excited
about the project. It's a single use building. I have a comment, well I guess I'll hold it for later but the
comment relative to the use of the lower level. It will never be used in any other way during my tenure
there. It is, I need that storage space in that lower level. It will not be converted to office space while I
own it. I really haven't anything to say but when the appropriate time comes, if that's now, I'd be happy
to answer any questions you'd have of me and what I'm doing. And then I would turn it over to my
architect from Steiner Development, Mr. Fred Richter.
Blackowiak: Okay, are there any questions?
Sacchet: I do have questions for the applicant but I don't know which one of the two I should address
thegn to.
Blackowiak: Well why don't we, since he's up here, why don't you ask him. He can always defer.
Sacchet: Why not start with you and then you can defer if need be. Now you already heard frOm staff
that the trash enclosure and the rooftop equipment and mechanical shielding's been taken care of. I guess
you're going to address that when you look at the architectural piece. This thing about the 30 inch oak
on the west side, you're fine in putting in a retaining wall and rerouting the sewer?
Derrii Burger: That seems to be the most appropriate thing to do, yes.
Sacchet: You're fine with that? And do you think it's practical to give it that 30 feet diameter safety
zone under construction? That might be more an architect question, but I think in principal it's more one
for you.
Derrii Burger: 30 feet, it's roughly 30 feet between there and the building.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
Sacchet: So you think it's doable?
Derril Burger: It's doable but it's going to be very tight between the building and the tree.
Sacchet: That's why I'm asking because I do believe it will be tight. And on the other hand it's also
important if the tree needs to have a chance. You're fine in using the existing sewer and water lines?
Derril Burger: Yes. In fact I had my sewer and water person out there last evening looking at it and we
think that it will work. And that's what they're saying, we will think it will work also.
Sacchet: So you agree with staffthat it's doable and you're fine with that.
Derril Burger: If it's not totally doable, we can do a gravity from the upper level and the lower level has
very little use and we can do...if it's, it's debatable, it's real close I think as we looked at it but it's
doable yes.
Sacehet: Okay. Giving up the southerly access, are you fine with that?
Derril Burger: Yes definitely.
Sacchet: Okay. Now the thing with the parking spaces, you just made a statement that you think the
lower level is just going to be storage so.
Derril Burger: The part, excuse me. the part designated for storage, yes.
Sacchet: So I mean that, I would tend to conclude fi'om that statement that there is really more parking
spaces than you need.
Aanenson: Can I give a comment on that?
Sacchet: Please.
Aanenson: While xve'd like to think Mi'. Burger will be there forever, we always anticipate that a
business can come and go and ultimately.
Sacchet: And it will.
Aanenson: Yeah, and so we try to look at ultimate utility of the building.
Sacchel: So it would possibly be a proof of parking be a workable idea? Maybe, just maybe? I'm just
exploring.
Derril Burger: Relative to parking, while you're looking, I have talked with the people at the church and
if they remain there fora period of time, we indicated to them, we've talked at length that, I am receptive
to the idea that they ma:>' use part of my parking lot on Sunday.
Sacchet: So there would actually be a use for it that way.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
Derril Burger: Yes. Sunday's one of my busiest days in my business but I indicated to them that they
could use it. Actually half the parking lot on Sunday during their services.
Sacchet: That's a good comment. In terms of the signage, I think the drawings that I've seen you had a
sign on both sides of the building. Now according to what staff is saying you could only have one or the
other. No problem there for you?
Derrii Burger: One sign is fine. However I would prefer to have it on the south side. The west side you
can't see it. I'd prefer to have it on the south side so when you're coming up Great Plains Boulevard you
can see it. The way the building sits at a slight angle from the street, it's not perpendicular.
Sacchet: And two more quick questions. In terms of putting some screening to the cemetery. I mean to
me that see~ns absolutely essentially personally. I mean after having just looked at it a few minutes ago.
What's your thinking about that?
Derril Burger: We do have a plan for that and ! think I'll let Fred speak to that.
Sacchet: He can address that, okay. And in terms of having those two trees that kind of on the southwest
corner of the parking lot, which is just really a turnaround. It's not even a parking spot. I might address
/hat with you also.
Derrii Burger: Southwest?
Sacchet: You have to back in to get out.
Blackowiak: That's east.
Sacchet: Oh it's east, not west.
Derril Burger: You're talking about those two big boxelders?
Sacchet: Yeah. Well it's boxelders I know but.
Derril Burger: Those are garbage trees.
Fred Richter: They're big though.
Sacchet: They're big garbage trees. Okay. Yeah, that's my questions of the applicant. Thank you.
Kind: Madam Chair? I have a shingle question.
Derril Burger: Sure.
Kind: The quality of this is such that it will not ripple in the summer?
Derril Burger: I guess I can't guarantee what a shingle's going to do. I can only guarantee what I'm
putting on there. We've been building for 20 years and we've used this shingle many, many, many times.
This is a 30 year shingle. It's a, what kind?
24
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1, 2001
Fred Richter: Timberline heavy texture.
Derril Burger: Timberline, heavy textured Timberline and it has a nice look to it.
Kind: And would you consider wood shakes to coordinate with the old, old St. Hubert's?
Derril Burger: I really don't want wood shakes. The answer is no unless I were forced to and then I
doa't knoxv xvhat I'd do. I don't want them. I don't like them. I guess that was pretty clear. So was your
question.
Kind: Thank you. That's all Madam Chair.
Blackoxviak: Does anybody have any other questions for this applicant? Rich.
Slagle: Just a couple. Mr. Burger, I appreciate your offer of the shed. I think I'd have to talk to the boss
at 7411 Faxw~ Hill before I accepted. But I'm wondering if there's some city group, you know historical
society or something that has had a chance to look. I just drove by it. I can't tell you if it's in shape to
even move it but I'm just wondering, since it's 1888, I don"t know if any group would want it or not so I
just throxv that out to staff if that's a possibility. I noticed on the plans that there was a door on the lower
level, I think on the east side. Are there any plans for like a patio or anything down on that, lunch tables
or anything like that?
Derril Burger: No.
Slagle: It might be an idea, I don't know. That's all I have.
Claybaugh: I understand your opposition to wood shingles, whether they're machine split or hand split.
And you brought in the Timberline 30 year, which is a heavy textured shadow shingle. Nice shingle. If
you're not open to wood shingles, would you be open to different types of heavy textured shingles that
are of an asphalt composition, similar to that but provide some different architectural options?
Derril Burger: Such as?
Claybaugh: I'd have to pull together some samples for you but.
Derril Burger: I've looked at every shingle on the market.
Claybaugh: There's GAF but there's Owen Coming and a number of different manufacturers that have
their comparable or little upgraded type, slight upgrade to that. That might be on there. That might be a
little more fitting or suitable so I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to explore that if they were not of
a wood material.
Derril Burger: I'm not opposed to it. No, I'm not opposed to looking at that. However, I have explored
it very carefully.
Claybaugh: Right, I understand the cost and...maintenance applications of the wood shakes and they
look nice but that's kind of where it ends. But there are a lot of nice thicker, heavier textured shadow
lined shingles that are out there that have some different design options to them beyond the Timberline
series so.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Derril Burger: I'm open to looking again. I have looked and I prefer this particular Timberline shingle.
That's one I've used many times. I'm tearing the shakes off of my office building in Minnetonka today,
cedar shakes and I'm putting this shingle on.
Claybaugh: I noticed that when I drove by. One question I guess it wouldn't be for you, it'd be for staff.
You may know the answer. Is this building going to be sprinkled-or is it required to be sprinkled or not
an issue?
Fred Richter: Below the requirement.
Derril Burger: It will not be sprinkled, no.
Claybaugh: Below the requirement, okay. Okay, so the existing stubs for sewer and water have been
sized adequately so, okay. Okay. That's all I have sir. Thank you very much.
Karlovich: Excuse me, is it Mr. Burger?
Derril Burger: Yes.
Karlovich: Mr. Burger, I just wanted to, as with the last building I just wanted to make the comments at
least for the record. I think it is another beautiful building. Beautiful brick building. Nicely done. I
thought you did a nice job of using a walkout on this kind of railroad property remnant and positioning
the building farther away from the other historical buildings and then there's more parking in there. It
looked like a beautiful structure and at least well done there and so I just wanted to give you some
positive feedback in addition. 1 also found it kind of at least humorous in your report, how do you feel
about the gas line and them wanting their setback. I thought that was just kind of an interesting.
Derril Burger: Well first of all, I spent a lot of time with Rick Pylon of the, one of the Chief Engineers
with Minnegasco on site and off site and the gas line runs, the building. There's quite a bit of distance
bet~veen the southwest corner of the building and the gas line. That's about 60 feet maybe or something
like that I think. I'm not sure, but then on the southeast comer, it's down to 10 feet which they didn't
like but we find it acceptable.
Karlovich: And then I guess, just my question from before. What is the status or the legal status and the
reason I'm asking and I'm not criticizing it but just trying to ask the questions and create a record for the
City Council to look at with regards to easements or cross easements or cross parking. Is there, do you
know that or maybe your architect can answer that question.
Derril Burger: I'd defer to the city and to.
Aanenson: Maybe I can take another stab at it. This property has a lot of historical change to it. Owner
of the property was a former mayor of the city. I believe that there's handshake agreements along the
way. There is a condition in here that says there must be a cross access agreement in place. We've
spoken to the applicant. We are willing to do that. Again, as we look at the development, as Sharmin
had mentioned of the other property, there is a church use looking at it. Whether it's a church that buys it
or if we look at the development of the Pauly-Pony-Pryzmus site, something else will come there, there's
an opportunity to use some of this parking. I guess that's kind of why we looked at, not that we want to
maxi~nize or over park it but if there's another use that might be tight on that site, it does provide when
26
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
xve've got the cross access easements and we found that to, instead of over parking, you know benefit
both sides and they're willing to do that and it is a condition number 9 that there is a cross access
agreement in place. That will be part of this when it goes forward to the City Council so, and it has been
used that way in the past.
Karlovich: Alright, thank you.
Derril Burger: I'd like to introduce Fred Richter from Steiner Development who is my architect and you
can ask him the more technical questions.
Fred Richter: Let me just try to go through some of the answers.
Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Richter, can I get you to step up to the microphone so everyone can hear
you. thanks.
Fred Richter: I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. I'm the architect on this project. My address
is 3610 South County Road I 01 in Wayzata. There was, first question was about the buffer. Our
landscape plan showed actually an arborvitae hedge that runs between the cemetery and the parking lot.
We think it's very appropriate. Arborvitae kind of have a relationship with cemeteries. I think the, Mr.
Burger wants to also have a subtle separation. Although we appreciate the open space, I think the
cemetery relates well with the setback to the building. We think this is kind of a happy compromise to
make a good neighbor. The other thing I'll add is, there's a lot of mature trees up in the cemetery so
there's tree coverage here, all tile way through and then we're keeping the oaks in here and now the
boxelders over in here so there really is a mature line and now this understory basically arborvitae hedge.
The other question that came up, this is an updated diagram that kind of just summarizes all the
comments. And one of them was preserving the trees. I mean that's our goal is to preserve the trees.
One person brought up, ways and means of construction. We'll have to pay attention to those. For
starters, we've pulled a small, ahnost landscape retaining wall to have no grave disruption around that
large oak. At the same time during construction we'll have to stake it and make sure all subcontractors
don't drive machinery over it and we'll do what we can. Unfortunately there's no absolute guarantees.
We are going to be trenching for footings and that but we are a good distance away so we're optimistic.
Same thing in the large island. Here the issue is actual grade increases but we'll have a mulch over it so
that should keep the root structure intact there. As far as the parking spaces, and I've been a little
confused. We have always laid out 62 feet in a parking lot in Chanhassen. That's curb to curb, 18-24-
18. They work just fine and we've got thousands of parking spaces over in Arboretum Business Park.
Noxv we are increasing this to 26 drive aisle and that's something that I think is appropriate. So I think
our dimension should be fine in the parking area. The other item, I'll just kind of run through them. We
mentioned the catch basin at this end. Our water is draining this way and this way. This storm sewer will
be rerouted either in the catch basin to the west, or over here to catch this one on the east side and out.
We won't bring it down as drawn through the tree structure. We talked about the easements to the
adjacent property. We do, are calling out the shoebox type light standards with the fiat lens on this side,
lighting this way. This is tile trash enclosure. That's replaced what was that turnout here, saving tile
large boxelders. The trash enclosure will be detailed with the same wood siding as in the projections of
the building. The sanitary sewer and water service...comments of the staff. I think this has been a good
process where Mr. Burger's been very open minded and cooperative and staff brought up good
suggestions and the building's gotten better as we've incorporated things. We are going to put this
building, the only mechanical will be residential scale condensers and they'll go on the south side of the
building. And the preferred wall sign will be on the south side. We are calling out a monument sign in
this location. And I think that pretty much covers it. There were, there's one question about the
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Jeffersonian quality of the details. I think the Jeffersonian was a sincere effort to describe the basically
the dark brick, a lot of white wood. Some columns. We are detailing the building with natural wood that
will be painted. Mr. Burger will understand the maintenance responsibilities. I think a Jeffersonian
describes a building in a green landscape, very rural. You think of Charlottesville, Virginia. University
of Virginia. Granted it's not a dome and things like that but it is kind of in keeping I think with what that
style is. This is not a storefront building with a zero setback. It really is a historic building with
landscaping and green area. 1 think when you get the trees around it and all, it should actually fall in
place pretty well. As far as detailing, these are schematics. The drawings are CAD drawn but I think we
will, with the actual lap siding, the wood columns and all, we'll be you know genuine high quality detail
so we'll do that little extra touch. Which really won't be much different from the houses in this area, so
that, unless there's other questions.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, questions.
Kind: Madam Chair I do have a question. When you take out that turnaround at the east end of the
parking lot, how do cars back out to get out?
Fred Richter: They make just a little more careful turn but it really just impacts the one.
Kind: That one?
Fred Richter: Yeah.
Kind: I hate that parking spot. Why don't we just get rid of it?
Fred Richter: Well if you were there and it was the only parking spot there.
Kind: You go ell, ell, ell to get out.
Fred Richter: It works. We had the same situation in our own building.
Kind: And nobody parks there, right?
Fred Richter: No, people park there.
Kind: Okay. And then the tree protection diameter, I am a little unclear about that. In the staff report I
believe it's the city forester who recommends a 30 foot diameter. That would mean 15 feet on each side
so if that oak on the west side of the building.
Fred Richter: This is a, I'll call it a specimen oak. This is the one we're probably most concerned about.
Kind: Yep.
Fred Richter: And this building's designed to use, this gable with the cOlumns and the...was designed to .
have that oak tree in front of it. This is 35 feet, the setback.
Kind: Oh to tile street. Or to the property line, I'm sorry.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1,2001
Fred Richter: So the 30 foot is in there but xve're going to be very close on the eastern edge of it when
we.
Kind: So the tree is not 30 feet from the building?
Fred Richter: No. The tree is.
Kind: Right in there.
Fred Richter: Yeah, probably 15-20.
Kind: Yeah. And then there will be no grading in that area, or very minimal. Hoxv about up in the
parking lot, the t~vo oaks. The 24 inch oak. Is it possible to use a lighter weight equipment when, in that
area for your final grade?
Fred Richter: Well I, and I'm not a, and this is a ways and means of construction but it's my
understanding that we'll be the contractor is we want to minimize any vehicles going over at all. This is
kind of just a no zone to use heavy equipment over it. And this grade will stay as is. This grade actually
gets raised just, curve around it and then we'll mulch over it to bring it up to the height. And...boxelder
it is back there, They are, I xvas very surprised how big boxelders can get and those are trees very wo~1h
saving. We're glad to...
Kind: Thank you. Rich?
Slagle: Madam Chair, just one quick question. You mentioned the condenser boxes would go on the
south side. Is there any thought to having them on the west side? I'm just thinking aesthetically.
Kind: The east side would be.
Siagle: The east side, I'm sorry. East side.
Fred Richter: Actually the east side is secondary sidewalk with the grade will drop off considerably...
This is the east side and this is an exit and this is tile drop off and we are going to do a small retaining
wall down here just because of the severe grade. This is the xvest side.
Slagle: Fair enough.
Blackoxviak: Craig, any more questions?
Claybaugh: Not really any more questions, just a few comments. I answered the last question with the
grade changes. I was concerned about the grade changes around the existing trees. Sounds like you've
addressed that. I'd like to get a little clearer on what the staff's intent is or what the historical
perspective is with respect to the building there. What are we really trying to achieve or where are we
setting that bar at for that particular site. When it's introduced in that fashion, and maybe that's part of
why I'm getting hung up. When it's introduced from the historical perspective, and we're trying to
achieve this, this and this exactly where.
Aanenson: Tile historical perspective, just to bring up the fact of the existing building. That it was a
landmark identified. There is no city ordinance regarding historical perspective. Just as a point of
29
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1,2001
reference, we did show you what was in the area to talk about the materials that we used just so blending,
which is common practice. Was it our intent to make this a historical building? No. Our intent was to
match the ~naterials, yeah.
Claybaugh: I realize it's not that far reaching but I just wanted to.
Aanenson: Right, just to blend you know. I think the other question, Sharmin showed the original St.
Hubert's church, just to show you the materials and brick and that was our first condition that it had to be
brick because that's in that area.
Claybaugh: Yes, now I like the red brick. The texture of the wearing on it...
Aanenson: Right. And from that we just kind of worked with the architect a little bit.
Claybaugh: The other one that's there, the buckwheat provided a nice contrast to it. Still provided some
attention to that brick. My biggest concern was just at the details for the gables at the front entry. That's
been one concern. Of greater concern is the roofing material because of the scale of the roof so, but
otherwise like I said, ! like how the site is laid out. You're getting the parking width and not to belabor
the tree issue but I don't know if anything's been discussed for provisions if any of those trees do die
during construction. What will go up in their place, or if anything will go up in their place.
Aanenson: There's a standard for security for landscaping which is in place and there's a requirement
for canopy so they would have to replace caliper.
Claybaugh: Airight.
Blackowiak: Any other questions for the applicant? Jay, anything else you wanted? No? Okay. Well
this is a public hearing so I'd like to open it up for a public hearing. Anybody who would like to
comment on this proposal, please come up to the microphone. State your name and address for the
record. Mr. Klingeihutz, you don't want to?
Al Kiingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz, present owner of the building. I live at 8600 Great Plains
Boulevard, Chanhassen. I hear a lot of talk about the historical value of the building. It's an old, old, old
building. There's been a lot of dollars spent on the inside to stabilize it and keep the floors level. In fact
there's a few, it settled so much on one side that we laid 2 by 6's on the floor and cut them down 6 inches
on one end and down to about an inch on the other end just to get the floor back to level. The foundation
under it is large rocks. They're in the ground about oh 6 inches. I think they were laid virtually on top of
the ground. A lot of the beams under the outside walls are in very poor condition. I think if somebody
really tried to restore the building they'd almost have to tear it apart and rebuild it to make it a stable
building. I remember in 1998 when the committee was on that part of Chanhassen, one of the ladies on
the coinmittee said well what are we going to do with that ugly building? And it kind of jolted me a little
bit that somebody would say about an old building because that's probably some of them were built that
way that many years ago but it isn't the best looking building but it served it's purpose. We've been
using it for office space and the longest tenant we've had in there since we took over the building, he's
been in there for 24 years and that's Willie Torbald the accountant. But I think the plan Derril's come up
with really does something for that lot. I like the way the building is set on the property. It's set back far
enough so that even coming from up Great Plains Boulevard you don't spoil the view ora lot of the
church. You probably noticed that on there and saving the major trees was something that I talked about
when he offered to buy the building. I said I love those oak trees and I don't want to see them destroyed
30
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
and he really complied with sorne of my wishes on that. Somebody brought up the cemetery being zoned
single family residence and that was a surprise to me. When it's probably the most densely populated
area of Chanhassen... When they purchased the land from the railroad, we definitely made a very
thorough search of anything in the Carver County recording about the property and there wasn't even a
gas line easement on the property at that time. So to tell you the truth, the gas line to this day has not got
an easement on the property, unless Mr. Burger gives them one, I think they should be pretty happy about
it because I was often think that they would shut them offand make them move it. But those are some
things that happened when the railroad and the gas line company, which are both big companies work
together and forget to put an easement on the property and it should be there. I guess if you have any
other questions about, from me about it. I've lived in Chanhassen all my life. Former mayor here. City
council member but that don't, don't use that as any part of your decision here. Thank you. But if you
have any questions, just ask.
Blackowiak: Okay, any questions? No, thank you sir.
Al Klingelhutz: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Is there anybody else that would like to come up and comment on this proposal? Seeing no
one I will close the public hearing. Com~nissioners, it's now time to make your comments. Jay, would
you like to start?
Karlovich: I think I've made all my comments. I think it's a very nice building. I like the fact that the
building is kind ora walkout and put a distance away from the kind of the historical area. Otherwise I
don't have any other comments except that to the fact that this is only a site plan review and I guess, well
there is a variance but the variance seems kind ora drop in the bucket so I think our reviexv of this is
somewhat limited and be mindful of that. That's all the comments I have.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig.
Claybaugh: No new comments. Just reiterate the old comments. I think they've gone a long, long ways
to select brick of integrity and I would strongly encourage them to go just a little bit further with the roof
scaping on there and try to tie it in with some of those same features and character.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I too like the building. I think it's attractive. The design's pleasing. I'm fine with
the 30 year Timberline shingle. Being the shingle woman on this commission, I think that's acceptable.
I also would support a variance to grant the 24 foot width aisle. I prefer having the shrubbery on the
north side as a buffer between the cemetery and the parking lot so I would support that variance.
Blackowiak: Okay, Uli.
Sacchet: I do believe it's a good plan. I also agree about, I mean it sounds awfully nice when I read the
report and it says this building was built in 1888. I thought wow. But you go out there and you look at it,
and I think it's time for something to happen there. I certainly agree with that. However when I went out
there, what really struck me is the proximity and the openness to the cemetery, even though there are all
these mature trees. There is really not much buffering so for me to really feel good about this I think
there needs to be very mass of significant buffering and obviously you've looked at that to some extent
and I agree with Deb that increasing that, those 2 feet more green space, if that can be used to do a little
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
more buffering. I'm very much in favor of that. In terms of the specifics, we say if possible utilize the
sanitary sewer. So we can say they shall use the sanitary sewer in condition 6. In condition 14, as large
as possible is not a good term for me and it looks like they can accommodate the 30 feet diameter space
with that oak so I would want to spell that out for them. And I would want to add some condition
requiring very significant buffering to the north as well as to the east side for the cemetery. In
conjunction with going with the variance at the 24 foot drive aisle. That's my comments.
Blackowiak: Rich.
Slagle: Just two questions. More for staff than anything. What process do we use in this, just
educational for me, for tree protection? If let's say a 30 inch tree were to die. As an example I have huge
oaks in my yard and one in the back yard has some rock that was done maybe 15 feet away and it is
dying. And I'~njust concerned, what is the process? And I apologize ifI should have read this
somewhere but I'm just curious.
Aanenson: As a general rule, it's a tree fence, as Sharmin indicated, put around. And all subdivisions
are walked and engineering looks at them too before they're given an order to proceed. With commercial
development, they are asked to put a fence up and they are inspected and the building inspectors do the
most work for us. They're out in the field and let us know that the fencing is down. It's also incumbent
upon the developer to use best management practices. That they're making sure that the fence stays up
and people aren't taking shortcuts with the fence down, but it's the city's job to make sure that it's up.
And if it does, if the tree does die within the landscaping requirement they do have to replace it on a
caliper per inch basis.
Slagle: Okay. So as an example, where the island is, or where the island is on the north side you would
have a tree fence but obviously they'll be grading for the parking lot.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: And again I'm just concerned that where that fencing is, just 1 foot or 2 feet away could be a
root.
Aanenson: Right. We've tried conditions saying it has to be hand dug and the like, and the fact of the
matter is, unless you're standing there, you know, the developer, the builder of the site, the applicant is
trying to save the trees and again, you're relying on who's ever out there that day. Who's ever delivering
lumber. Who's ever loading the Bobcat to be responsible. And that's their job too to let their people
know you know what the practices are going to be out on the site.
Slagle: Okay. And please, to the applicant, this is not directed just to your project. I have to think about
that in the sense that I just want to think about a process that I would be comfortable because right now
I'm not comfortable with what I call the vagueness of that, and I know the intent by all is good. I'm just
wondering so let me keep wondering, thank you.
Claybaugh: Question/comment for staff here. Building on what Rich said here. A lot of times there's
the issue is belabored in meetings like this. By the time it gets out to the job site those people know
nothing of what went into it and I guess one of the things that I would like to see is that there's some
weight assigned to it so the people that come on site know what, as a matter of fact, and that if necessary
there is some teeth incorporated into the verbiage of it. Because I've seen it go both ways. I've seen
elements like this very strongly and aggressively protected and I've seen other times where it's been
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2001
discussed at len~h and exhausted and come out a week later to the job site and they are running circles
around trees so, to build on what Rich started here, I'd like to see some language, a little less vague that
would at least provide some degree of comfort that it was going to be followed through on and that would
be an ongoing process.
Aanenson: I don't mean to belittle your point but we certainly want to do that. We can put whatever we
xvant in there, but unless ~ve're out there, unless they're responsible, you know we try really hard to do
that.
Claybaugh: Well maybe whether it's in, this is clearly too far reaching but I'll say it an:3avays. Whether
it's how the subcontracts are written or whatever, but make a concerted effort to make sure that
subcontractors and suppliers know what's at stake. How that's achieved, that's the development
builder's option. But it is of concern, I agree with Rich because it doesn't make it in the translation and
to say that it's difficult to do it, I realize how difficult it is to do. It's what I do, but I also know that a
difference can be madejust on how that front end, how that job is set up and how people coming on site
perceive tile level of importance of those trees so, that's it.
Mayor Jansen: And Madam Chair, if I might add. I think I heard staff also note that the caliper is
replaced if in fact we lose the trees, and I'm also hearing the applicant having the same concern as staff
and the commission so I think having the applicant as sensitive to this issue as everyone is here, it's not
as if it isn't a shared concern. So I think I am hearing that it would be translated out into the field and if
in fact it doesn't occur, the counter side is the replacement then of those trees which isn't the ideal. We
all realize keeping the mature tree is the best, but on the downside there is the replacement factor.
Claybaugh: Right, but the replacement factor is basically unachievable for these trees. They can
increase the caliper dispersed around tile site.
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Claybaugh: So it's not something that can be duplicated and that's where the additional concern comes
fro III.
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Blackowiak: Jay, did you have another comment?
Karlovich: Yes, I apologize Madam Chair for kind of having my comments coming when I did review
this it was late and ever since I had my children I've been tired the rest of my life but, the staff report has
done well and very lengthy but one thing that I recall when I was looking at this was the sidewalk shown
on the site plan on A2 is outside the limits of the property, but I think if you look at the Certificate of the
Survey. Who's going to have to reconnect the sidewalk so that it kind of, right now it stops at the north
side of the property and then kind of you have to cross across the parking tot and hook up farther to the
south along the street. Does that need to be a condition that they're going to install the sidewalk outside
the property limits as shown on the site plan? Maybe a question for staff. Do you see what I'm talking
about? I mean I guess technically if you approve a site plan, do they have to put the sidewalk
improvements outside the property limits? Or who's doing that?
Saam: Yeah I guess we would like to see them replace that sidewalk. One of the conditions was that this
southerly access xvould be removed so curb would be placed there. This pavement would be ripped out,
33
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1, 2001
sodded and if you're talking about continuing this sidewalk in a north/south fashion, I guess that's
something I'd like to see the applicant do and the city would grant easement or whatever to do that. I
haven't checked that with the city attorney yet but that was kind of our thinking.
Karlovich: I don't know so much that they need an easement, just as long as they install it.
Saam: Yeah.
Aanenson: Doesn't the sidewalk exist there right now?
Saam.' Well I'm not sure if we're looking at the right, same spot.
Aanenson: On 78th.
Saam: Yeah, Great Plains.
Aanenson: Great Plains, sorry. Great Plains going up. It's there right now, just not where the driveway
is.
Saam: Okay, I'm no sure if we're looking at the same spot but.
Karlovich: What I was looking at was A2 and then the Certificate of Survey next to each other. You
look at the Certificate of Survey, you can see where the, it appears to be a sidewalk that ends at the
entrance into the property and then it starts again and goes along the cemetery and then on the site plan,
they nicely show it being kind of rebuilt and their own sidewalk connecting into it on the south side of
the parking lot. Yeah, it stops there and then if you look at the site plan on A2. It's on city property
outside and I just was wondering if that needs to be a condition. They show it nicely being rebuilt in here
but I think it's going to stop here and stop here. Who's going to build this segment of the sidewalk is my
question? Is it just going to get chopped off here and the city's going to have to install the rest or...
Saam: Mr. Commissioner, since it was shown on the site plan, I didn't feel it was necessary to include an
additional condition saying that he will do this. It's already shown on the plan. We can sure add one on
there since it's not shown, and I see your concern on the grading plan or on any other plan. It was our
feeling that the applicant would be installing that since it's shown on their site plan.
Blackowiak: Well I think we can put a condition in, if that would, it sounds like that's what you're
looking for.
Karlovich: Well l just, I think that would be the high road to take.
Biackowiak: Yes exactly, especially since it's outside of the property line.
Kariovich: Right.
Blackowiak: That the applicant owns, correct. Okay. Are there any other comments? Well I'll just add
a couple. Generally I also like the building. Regarding the drive aisle width question. I think I disagree
with Deb when she says she wants to put the drive aisle down to 24 feet. I knew that would get your
attention. I think that we could leave it at 26 feet and request that the applicant explore the feasibility of
24 feet. I think there's some work yet to be done on the buffering on the north and east sides so I think
34
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1, 2001
we need to sort of look and see where things are going to shake out and before we start going in and
changing drive aisle widths, let's bring it up to the minimum, which is 26 feet. Keep it at code and if
council wants to change it, they can do that but let them look at the whole picture instead of us going in
and changing before we have the other components. I am also a little concerned about the buffering and
again that's going to have to be a component that we, we're going on good faith that it's going to be
taken care of before it goes to council and that there will be a sufficient buffering between the property
and the north and east areas adjacent to the property. I redid some math on this parking stall thing and I
misspoke xvhen I said they were 3 short. Or a half short. They're actually about 4 short because it seems
there are 2,000 square foot of warehouse approximately so they would actually be short 4, if indeed that
ever got totally converted, but ! guess as Kate said, it would have to come in for a building permit so I
don't have any problem leaving the parking as is, as long as there's a mechanism to address that issue, if
and when it should ever cotne in for a building permit. The bottom line is I do like the project. I think
it's a nice use of the site. I think it's rather a tricky site, but I think tile applicant has done a nicejob. So
with that I would like to have a motion please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I'll make a motion. I move approval of Site Plan #2001-4 for an 8,450 square foot
office building with a parking lot setback variance to alloxv a 5 foot setback along the north and a 10 foot
setback along the east side of the property, and a drive aisle width variance to alloxv a 24 foot width aisle
as shown on the plans dated received April 4, 2001, based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and
subject to the following conditions I through, how many are there here?
Sacchet: 21.
Kind: 21. And I would like to add, let's see. I'll add condition number 22. That landscaping plan shall
be revised to show plantings on tile north side of the parking lot to buffer between tile parking and
cemetery. And revise condition number 7 to read, 30 foot diameter tree protection fencing shall be
installed around all trees in the construction zone that will remain. Final grade shall be done with low
impact equipment in the treed areas. And then condition number 8 would be removed with my variance
in my motion. And number 9, I would like to add a sentence that says, and relocate the sidewalk to the
north entrance. Number 14. Change to read as follows, establish a tree protection area around the 30
inch oak near the western property line. Tile area should be, shall be 30 feet in diameter and no grading
or other construction activities will be allowed within it. Let's see, number 6. The applicant shall utilize
the existing sanitary sewer and water services for the new building. Get rid of the words, if possible.
And I think that's it.
Karlovich: I just have one question. Was your modification to number 9, was that designed to get in the
sidewalk issue?
Kind: Right.
Karlovich: Okay.
Slagle: Two more questions if I may.
Sacchet: We need to second first.
Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. There's a motion. Let's have a second first and then we'll have
discussion.
35
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1, 2001
Sacchet: I second the motion.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Now is there any discussion?
Slagle: Just two quick questions. You mentioned the 30 foot diameter protection for the tree, but if I
understood the east, the western area, western side of the building is actually closer than that.
Kind: It was 30 feet diameter around the tree.
Slagle: Oh diameter, 15 feet and we're sort of comfortable that that's okay.
Kind: That's what the forester said.
Slagle: Okay. And then you are going with 24 feet?
Kind: Yep.
Slagle: Okay.
Kind: That's my motion.
Sacchet: Are you done Rich?
Slagle: You bet.
Sacchet: I'd like to make two picky amendments. I like to use the exact wording that the City Forester
proposes for the 30 foot diameter that actually reads, at least 30 foot. And even knowing that you only
have about 30 foot, 35 feet to play with. I know it's tight. But just to give it a little more umph, I would
like to add that wording, at least. And also like a little more umph in condition 22 about the buffering.
l'd like it to say massive buffer planting and screening because I really think it needs a lot for me to feel
comfortable with it. It's a great proposal but it needs massive buffer plantings and screening.
Claybaugh: Could you be more clear than massive?
Sacchet: A lot. Solid. Tall.
Kind: 100%?
Sacchet: Yeah, I would consider that from the parking lot, you should not be able to see the cemetery
and vice versa. I mean I'm just, I'm not so much concerned about the people in the parking lot as I'm
actually concerned about the people that go out there in the cemetery and they feel like they're in a
parking lot. So yes, I would require 100% buffering. Is that specific? Thank you.
Blackowiak: Did you accept those?
Kind: I accept those amendments.
Blackowiak: Amendments, okay any other comments?
36
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1, 2001
Karlovich: I just want to say for the record, I don't have the sufficient I don't think building or
background to know if24 or 26 are necessary but it seems as though I'm just going to defer to the rest of
the commission on this one.
Kind: Point of clarification Madam Chair. Matt said that 24 foot would be sufficient but our code is 26.
He said 12 feet either direction so I'm going with his comments on that.
Sacchet: And if I may clarify Madam Chair. The reason why I accept that 24 foot is in view that the
additional 2 feet gives more room for buffering. To the north, which to me is very important.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#2001-4 for an 8,450 square foot office building with a parking lot setback variance to allow a 5
foot setback along the north and a 10 foot setback along the east side of the property, and a drive
aisle width variance to allow a 24 foot width aisle as shown on the plans dated received April 4,
2001, based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event.
,
.
.
Add detail sheet showing City Detail Plate Nos. 2001, 3101,3107, 3108, 5203, 5215, 5234, and
5300.
Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
Grading within tile drip-line of the 30 inch oak tree shall be minimized through the use of a
retaining wall on the north side of the tree.
Reroute tile proposed storm sewer along tile west side of the 30 inch oak tree.
Tile applicant shall utilize tile existing sanitary sewer and water services for tile new building.
Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees in the construction zone that will
remain. Final grade shall be done with low impact equipment in the treed areas.
8. Deleted.
.
10.
11.
Remove the existing southerly access and utilize the existing access to the north. The shared
portion of the access drive, which goes across the city owned parking lot, must be contained
within a private easement, and relocate the sidewalk to the north entrance.
Any offsite grading will require temporary easements.
On the utility plan:
a. Show tile existing water and sewer service lines.
b. Add a legend.
c. Under the Sewer and Water Notes add, "All sanitary sewer services shall be 6" PVC SDR
26."
37
Planning Colnmission Meeting- May 1, 2001
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
d. Add a storm sewer schedule.
e. Show all existing utilities with invert, pipe size, pipe type, etc.
On the grading plan:
a. Show all existing utilities.
b. Show all existing and proposed easements.
c. Add a legend.
Enlarge the parking lot peninsula to a minimum 30 foot in width by removing parking spaces on
either side of the peninsula.
Establish a tree protection area around the 30 inch oak near the western property line. The area
shall be at least 30 feet in diameter and no grading or other construction activities will be
allowed within it.
One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed
24 square feet and a height of 5 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. All signage
must meet the following criteria:
a. Ail businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject
to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
b. All signs require a separate permit.
c. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural
accent to the building.
d. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
e. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section
south of the site.
f. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
g. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign.
h. 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 shall be provided prior to
requesting a building permit.
Building Official Conditions:
ao
co
do
eo
Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing the existing structures on the site.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
The access aisle between the accessible parking spots must be a minimum of eight (8) feet
wide.
The plans were reviewed for allowable building area, exterior wall protection and basic
exiting only. Detailed building code requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans
are submitted.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Meet with Fire Marshal prior to building permit submittal.
38
Planning Commission Meeting- May 1,2001
18.
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the City. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as required by
ordinance.
19.
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 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.
20.
Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must
be screened from views.
21.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
22.
The landscaping plan shall be revised to show plantings on the north side of the parking lot
to provide 100% buffer between the parking and cemetery.
All voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote
of 4 to 2.
Blackowiak: Motion carries 4 to 2. Rich, would you like to make a comment on why 5'our nay vote was
there for the record.
Slagle: Sure. The buffering. I think it might be just a tad excessive. And then the second thing was, I
really am trying to stick with the ordinances as much as I can. I don't see a reason enough to go to 24 so
just those txvo things.
Blackowiak: Yep, and I agree with what Rich said that I feel we need to stick with our ordinance and if
the applicant comes up with a plan that substitutes a lot of buffering on the north side, I would probably
be willing to give that 2 feet but until I see that plan, I really feel it's important to stick by the ordinance
and that's the only reason I voted no. I love everything else about it. So motion carries. It goes on to
City' Council on Tuesday, May 29th.
REQUEST FOR A LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY
TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7305 GALPIN
BLVD., PID #25-0101300 AND 25-0101600, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, questions of staff. Uli?
Sacchet: Yeah, I do have questions Madam Chair. Some clarification about the four options. The first
option, ifxve change it to the medium density. That could basically mean that then density transfer could
happen on top of that, is that correct?
39