Loading...
6. Site Plan Review Chan Lake Business Park 5th Addition I C 1 TY O F PC DATE: 2/17/93 "' 1 \ \ • C H A I H A S E I CC DATE: 3/8/93 `� CASE #: 93 -1 Site 1 B : Al -Jaff 1 T F S A F REPORT 1 \ PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 16,410 Square Foot Office/Warehouse 1 facility 1 41 , LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition 1' ''Li 1 APPLICANT: Mark Undestad Ray Collings 4 Eden Trace Corporation Eden Trace Corporation 1057 Stoughton Avenue 8050 Wallace Road 1 Chaska, MN 55318 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 1 Pion by ati Athntrairetor 1 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park horsed t A-- ACREAGE: 1.3 acres 1 D tF 3 -ti- DENSITY: Dote Submitted to Commisskxt I ADJACENT ZONING AND Date Submitted to Could Q LAND USE: N - IOP; vacant 3 -'' -1 3 s- IOP; Industrial Bldg 1 gi E - IOP; Mail Source Bldg W - IOP; PMT 1 1: WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. r PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Vacant parcel which slopes to the east. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial 1 1 1 Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. February 17, 1993 1 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 1 The applicant is proposing to construct a 16,410 square foot office /warehouse building for Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. They are manufacturing representatives and undertake light 1 assembly. The proposed intent of this building is to store and assemble equipment. Office /warehouse is a permitted use in the IOP district. The overall site plan is very simple and well conceived. The building's architectural design went through some revisions since I it first appeared before the Planning Commission. Glazed tile and a pitched roof element accent the building. The landscaping plan was revised as well. The landscaping plan is of high quality and is in compliance with the landscaping ordinance. The project is expected to I receive Tax Increment Financing assistance through the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 1 There were some minor revisions to the parking area that staff requested. All those revisions have been completed. The design for the rooftop equipment is fairly simple. The equipment I is proposed to be screened by prefinished metal panels that will compliment the pitched roof material. The trash will be stored inside the building, therefore, a trash enclosure is not needed. Drawings need to be submitted for the parking lot lights and signage plan for staff 1 approval. Staff is recommending that the site plan be approved without variances subject to appropriate 1 conditions. BACKGROUND I On September 5, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for Site Plan Review #90 -9 for the Emission Control Station. The City Council reviewed this site plan on 1 October 24, 1991. The Systems Control proposal was rejected at this location in favor of another site on Lake Drive East/Hwy. 5. 1 On October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for Site Plan Review of the Mail Source Building. The City Council reviewed this same application on October 28, 1991. There was a metes and bounds subdivision application that accompanied the site I plan proposal that split the Mail Source site into Parcels A and B. Parcel A was the site of Mail Source and Parcel B is for the proposed Technical Industrial Sales building. The site I plan that was approved for the Mail Source building showed a future expansion to the site in the form of an addition. The number of curb cuts to this lot was an issue for staff during approval of the Emission Control site plan. One of the conditions of approval of the Mail I Source site plan was that future curb cuts on Park Road serve both Parcels A and B. There is a 10 foot grade difference between the two sites which will make sharing a driveway impossible. We are recommending that no future curb cuts be permitted for the Mail Source building as a result. 1 1 Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. February 17, 1993 Page 3 On February 17, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal to construct a 16,410 square foot office /warehouse building for Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. The Planning Commission tabled action on this item because the building's architectural design was fairly poor, proposed landscaping was inadequate, and the parking area needed to be reconfigured. Staff had proposed improvements to both and recommended the applicant revise the plans prior to the City Council meeting. The Planning Commission wanted to see the revisions before they appeared before the City Council. On March 3, 1993, the application reappeared before the Planning Commission with the revisions reflected on the plans. The Planning Commission approved the application unanimously. GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE 1 The site is located on Lot 3, BIock 1 in Chanhassen Business Park 5th Addition, and has an area of 1.3 acres. The front of the building faces Park Road. Parking will be located to the east and north of the building. The materials to be used on the building consist mainly of rock face concrete block. The building architectural design has been revised since it first appeared before the Planning Commission, to add some elements such as a pitched roof , entrance into the building and glazed tile to accent it. The glazed tile has been introduced on all four elevations. The west elevation has limited windows. The applicant has introduced the accent tile as well as heavy landscaping to break the mass of the wall. Accent glazed tile has been added on the west elevation as well. The proposed architecture meets the standards of the ordinance. The design for the rooftop equipment has been revised since it first appeared before the Planning Commission. The applicant is proposing to screen them with prefinished metal panels that will compliment the pitched roof material. A trash enclosure will not be needed as the trash will be stored inside the building. ' PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION Parking lot circulation is fairly straight forward. The proposed building is divided into three 1 uses for consideration of parking standards. These uses include office, assembly and warehouse. Under those standards, 23 stalls are required. The applicant is providing 24 stalls. ACCESS 1 The site plan proposes one driveway access into the site from Park Road. It is recommended that the site plan incorporate construction of the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail (No. 5207). 1 Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. ' February 17, 1993 Page 4 LANDSCAPING ' The landscaping plan is of a high quality and has been revised since it first appeared before the Planning Commission. The proposal shows a variety of different species on the site. The proposed landscaping along the west portion of the site will help break the long span of wall. Vegetation shown on the north side of the building is scrub with a few mature trees. Some of it will be replaced with a mix of conifers and deciduous trees.. However the applicant will save the mature trees. All disturbed areas on the site shall be reseeded or sodded. LIGHTING r Lighting is not shown on the site plan. Only shielded fixtures are allowed. Final lighting plans should be provided for staff approval. SIGNAGE The applicant has not shown any signage plans. Ground, low profile monument signs cannot exceed 8 feet in height and 80 feet in display area. A separate sign permit is required before erecting any sign. In addition, a detailed drawing of the sign will be required. GRADING/DRAINAGE ' The majority of this lot was graded with the development of the adjacent property (Mail Source). The plat grading proposes minimal lot grading in conjunction with the proposed building construction. It appears more than one acre of land will be disturbed in conjunction ' with development, therefore the applicant should obtain a watershed district permit. ' The parking lot is proposed to drain in two directions with the southerly portion draining out on to Park Road and the northerly portion draining into a proposed catch basin. The storm sewers located in Park Road have been designed to facilitate storm runoff from Park Road only. The parking lot is designed to convey storm runoff from the site to the north or extend a catch basin to pick up drainage prior to discharging into Park Road. Staff recommends the applicant's engineer provide copies of storm sewer calculations to the City Engineer for review. The plans do not indicate the size or type of storm sewer pipe to be used. Staff recommends that all storm sewer constructed within the City's easement be constructed with reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). In addition, all storm sewer construction should be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since the plans propose connecting to one of the City's existing storm sewer lines, a security escrow is recommended to guarantee the proper installation of the storm sewer. This amount has been 1 1 1 Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. February 17, 1993 I Page 5 estimated at $500.00. The security escrow will be required upon issuance of the building permit and refunded upon satisfactorily completing the storm sewer improvement. PUBLIC UTILITIES I Municipal sanitary sewer and water service has been stubbed to the property line from Park Road. The applicant will be required to pay the typical sewer and water hook up fees associated with the building permit issuance. EROSION CONTROL I The grading plan describes enclosing the entire site with Type I silt fence. The grading plan should also show the location on the plans. There is a wetland located approximately 110 I feet north from the grading limits. Since the buffer between the wetlands and the site is heavily vegetated, it will not be necessary to incorporate typical Type III erosion control measures. The erosion control fence should be maintained until vegetative cover has been 1 fully restored. COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT 1 Ordinance Proposed Height 4 Stories 1 Story Building g ry Building Setback N -10' E -10' N -90' E -65' 1 S -30' W -10' S -30' W -10' Parking Spaces 23 Spaces 24 Spaces 1 Parking Setback N -N /A N/A N -45' E -10' , S -25' W -N /A S -60' W -10' Lot Coverage 70 % 63 % 1 Lot Area 1 acre 1.3 acres Variances Required none I 1 1 0 I Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. I February 17, 1993 Page 6 1 PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES I The Park and Recreation Department is requiring that park and trail fees be submitted in lieu of park land. Fees are paid at the time of issuance of building permits. I STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: I "The City Council approves the Site Plan Review #93 -1 as shown on the site plan received March 4, 1993, subject to the following conditions: I 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of proposed signage. A separate sign permit is required. I 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit as outlined in their attached memo dated February 4, 1993. I 3. All disturbed areas should be seeded or sodded immediately upon completion of the parking lot. The City's boulevard along Park Road must be sodded. Vegetation 1 along the north shall be replaced with a mix of conifers and deciduous trees. 4. Connection to the City's storm sewer system shall be in accordance to City standards. I City staff shall inspect and approve the storm sewer connection prior to extension onto the site. The applicant's contractor shall contact the City's Engineering I Department for an inspection 24 hours in advance of the proposed work. At the time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall escrow $500.00 with the City to guarantee the proper installation of the storm sewer and payment of any inspection fees incurred by the City. 5. Meet all conditions of the Fire Marshal as outlined in his memo dated January 26, 1 1993." ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 3, 1993. 2. Staff report dated February 24, 1993 I 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 17, 1993. 4. Staff report dated February 17, 1993. 5. Revised plans submitted March 4, 1993. 1 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 3, 1993 , Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Brian Batzli, Nancy Mancino, Ladd Conrad, Jeff Farmakes and Matt Ledvina MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts ' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; and Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 16,410 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE /WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST I/ CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PARK PLACE AND PARK ROAD, LOT 3, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION, MARK UNDESTAD /EDEN TRACE CORPORATION, TECHNICAL INDUSTRIAL SALES. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the ' public hearing to order. Mark Undestad: I'm Mark Undestad with Eden Trace. Brought this back a little bit ago. What we've gone through, I wish we would have brought thell first time. This design is more what we like to put out here...very nice looking building. Batzli: Okay. Did you, apparently the staff is making some requests. 1 Have you seen the staff report, and do you agree with those changes? Mark Undestad: Yes I have and actually we've already made the changes.. We've staggered the trees along the front there. We've added some...to go back here... Batzli: Sharmin, do these changes that he's showing us right now comply II with what you were talking here earlier? Al -Jaff: Yes. 1 Batzli: Okay. So this is the final plan we're looking at? Al -Jaff: Correct. Batzli: Okay. Okay, we may have some additional questions for you later II as we go around among the Commissioners. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else present that would like to address the Commission on this issue? If there is, I'd like you to come up to the microphone and give us your name and address before you address the Commission. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Ladd, do you want to start off? 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1993 - Page 2 1 Conrad: Nothing. Batzli: Nothing? Okay. Scott: I think the City staff is fine with the changes. We spent quite a ' bit of time last meeting going through this so I have no comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you Joe. Jeff, you came in late. Let me come back to you in a minute. Nancy, do you have any comments? 1 Mancino: I just want to say that I like the additions and that I did go to the building that you developed in Chaska and saw the Mankato ' Rehabilitation Center. It was quite nice. I really liked it. I liked the way the scale and the proportion of the building and your uses of materials in the existing block with those other two Chaska brick ' buildings. I thought it fit quite well. So I'd just like to say that I saw it and I like it. Batzli: Jeff, you were here last week and they've made some changes that ' are reflected there. I don't know if you've had an opportunity to look at those but. ' Farmakes: I have no further questions. I reviewed the plan. I think the/ responded to our comments. Batzli: Okay, very good. And I have nothing else here. So is there a ' motion? Scott: I'll move that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #93 -1 as shown on the site plan dated February 22, 1993 subject to the conditions numbers 1 thru 6 as set forth in the Planning Commission packet of February 24, 1993. 1 Batzli: Is there a second? Mancino: I'll second. ' Batzli: Is there any discussion? What's going to happen when it goes to City Council I assume is that these are incorporated into their packet and so some of these conditions go away. Is that right? Al -Jaff: Correct. Batzli: Okay, they can handle that then. Is there any other discussion? Al -Jaff: We will send it to the City Council this coming Monday, the 8th. And at the last meeting we agreed that the applicant would pay Nann to type the Minutes overnight so that we would have everything in. Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #93 -1 as shown on the site plan dated February 22, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 3, 1993 - Page 3 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of proposed signage. All separate sign permit is required. 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit as outlined in their attached memo dated February 4, 1993. 3. All disturbed areas should be seeded or sodded immediately upon completion of the parking lot. The City's boulevard along Park Road must be sodded. Vegetation along the north shall be replaced with a mix of conifers and deciduous trees. 4. The northwesterly parking space shall be striped to allow trucks to back -up into the space. The most northwesterly stall shall be deleted. 5. Connection to the City's storm sewer system shall be in accordance to City standards. City staff shall inspect and approve the storm sewer connection prior to extension onto the site. The applicant's contractor shall contact the City's Engineering Department for an inspection 24 hours in advance of the proposed work. At the time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall escrow $500.00 with the City to guarantee the proper installation of the storm sewer and payment of any inspection fees incurred by the City. 6. Meet all conditions of the Fire Marshal as outlined in his memo dated January 26, 1993. 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Matt Led•'ina was not present to vote on this item.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 4 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission ' FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I DATE: February 24, 1993 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for a 16,410 Square Foot Office/Warehouse Facility (93 -1 SPR) to be located on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition, 1.3 acres of property zoned Industrial Office Park, Mark Undestad On February 17, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal to construct a 16,410 square foot office /warehouse building for Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. The Planning Commission tabled action on this item because the building's architectural design was fairly poor, proposed landscaping was inadequate, and the parking area needed to be reconfigured. ' Staff had proposed improvements to both and recommended the applicant revise the plans prior to the City Council meeting. The Planning Commission wanted to see the revisions before they appeared before the City Council. ' The parking area has been reconfigured to accommodate the northwest dock area and the northeast most parking space as was recommended by staff. The previous design of the parking lot did not allow vehicles in those two areas to backup. One minor adjustment that needs to be made to the northwesterly parking space is striping it rather than turning it into an island to allow trucks to back -up into the space. Truck turning movement will still encroach onto the most northwesterly stall. Staff recommends it be deleted and striped. The design for the rooftop equipment has been submitted. The applicant is proposing to screen them with prefinished metal panels that will compliment the pitched roof material. Also, at the February 17, 1993, meeting, staff pointed out that trash enclosures need to be constructed of the same material as the building. The applicant stated that the trash will be stored inside the building. The materials to be used on the building consist mainly of rock face concrete block. The building architectural design has been revised to add some elements such as a pitched roof t0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Planning Commission February 24, 1993 Page 2 entrance into the building and glazed tile to accent it. The glazed tile has been introduced on all four elevations. Staff also pointed out that there were limited windows on the west elevation. The applicant has introduced the accent tile as well as heavy landscaping. The landscaping plan has been revised and staff must point out that the revised plan is of high quality. Staff is recommending that the plants parallel to Park Road be staggered. We are also recommending that the applicant provide additional landscaping along the north side of the site. Vegetation shown on the north side of the building is scrub and should be replaced with a mix of conifers and deciduous trees. A revised grading and utility plan was submitted. The plan addressed all of the Assistant City Engineer's previous concerns and fulfilled his requirements. Staff is recommending that the site plan be approved without variances subject to appropriate conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 Based upon the forgoing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 1 I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #93 -1 as shown on the site plan dated February 22, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of proposed signage. A separate sign permit is required. 1 2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit as outlined in their attached memo dated February 4, 1993. 3. All disturbed areas should be seeded or sodded immediately upon completion of the parking lot. The City's boulevard along Park Road must be sodded. Vegetation along the north shall be replaced with a mix of conifers and deciduous trees. 4. The northwesterly parking space shall be striped to allow trucks to back -up into the space. The most northwesterly stall shall be deleted. 5. Connection to the City's storm sewer system shall be in accordance to City standards. City staff shall inspect and approve the storm sewer connection prior to extension onto the site. The applicant's contractor shall contact the City's Engineering Department for an inspection 24 hours in advance of the proposed work. At the time of building 1 1 1 Planning Commission 1 February 24, 1993 Page 3 I permit issuance, the applicant shall escrow $500.00 with the City to guarantee the proper installation of the storm sewer and payment of any inspection fees incurred by the City. I 6. Meet all conditions of the Fire Marshal as outlined in his memo dated January 26, 1993." I ATTACHMENTS I 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 17, 1993. 2. Staff report dated February 17, 1993. 3. Revised plans submitted February 22, 1993. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Planning ommission Meeting g February 17, 1993 - Page 14 PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 16,410 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE /WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON II PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST II CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PARK PLACE AND PARK ROAD, LOT 3, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION, MARK UNDESTAD /EDEN TRACE CORPORATION, TECHNICAL INDUSTRIAL SALES. Public Present: Name Address Mark Undestad 8800 Sunset Trail Richard Andresen Representing PMT Corp Sharmin AI -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Acting Chairman" Scott called the public hearing to order. Richard Andresen: I'm Richard Andresen. My last name is Andresen. I'm resident of Savage, Minnesota. I'm Plant Manager for PMT Corporation and like she pointed out, I would like to see them also add their own landscaping, and not just utilize our current landscape. He's right next" to it right now the way he shows it and I'd like to see some more of his own landscaping being put in there. That's what I'd like to state. Scott: Okay, and then so you basically agree with the condition that are' there? Richard Andresen: Yes. Yes, definitely. Farrnakes: Which side are you connected? Scott: You're the existing building correct? 1 Richard Andresen: Yeah. I'm the existing landscape that they're showing row. PMT Corporation. 1 Scott: Good. Any other comments as part of the public hearing? Yes, Councilman Wing. Richard Wing: Richard Wing, Chan City Council. I just wanted to again hit the landscaping because so many times on the last buildings that have come in on the last issues that we've dealt with at City Council, they've" come through staff, through Planning Commission and they've sort of been good but then we get them and we wondered why they're not a little better. And then suddenly I say, we want more trees and then everybody says, oh 11 no. It winds up going back so I'd like the applicant to take this landscaping issue very seriously so that when it gets to Council, I don't have to say it's inadequate. I'd like them to come in as a good corporat citizen. Understand what landscaping means to the city. Recognize the fact that we are working on a new landscape ordinance that's going to be extensively higher I hope than we have now. Demand much more trees. Much more landscaping. And we have to start now so being there's TIF money involved, I think staff supports getting this thing going. I'd like 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1993 - Page 15 Planning Commission to be aware of that and just a personal comment to the applicant again, repeating myself, that we want some trees and we want some overstory. We want this to get into kind of an urban forest setting and I agree, it's inadequate and I think Sharmin and the staff are pushing it. I think we want to push even a little harder and so if this is to run smoothly when it gets to me at Council, it would behoove the applicant to really seriously look at the landscape plan and come in with a really good one. I'd appreciate if he'd put that effort into it. Scott: Good, thank you. Is the applicant here or a representative of the applicant that would like to address the Planning Commission? Mark Undestad: My name is Mark Undestad with Eden Trace, the builder. Reviewing everything here you know that we will indeed do quite a bit more ' landscaping on that site. This was kind of a fast pace plan put together here. The question that I have is, on the rooftop screening, you say a parapet wall. Is that around the entire building or parapet something around the individual rooftop units? Al -Jaff: Around the entire building so that if you were from any of the adjoining streets, or the streets within the area, you won't be able to see the rooftop equipment or if you are at one of the neighboring buildings. Mark Undestad: So the rooftop screens themselves, I mean there's from an economic standpoint there's a big difference to put a parapet wall around the entire building versus screening in the rooftop units themselves on there. I think what we're looking at was like a parapet, or like a screen just screening the units themselves in there. Al -Jaff: We could do that. You haven't shown us any type of rooftop equipment so. Mark Undestad: Okay. I thought you said that you wanted something to, 11 parapet just to phrase exactly that. You put a parapet wall around the entire unit. Am I missing something? Al -Jaff: That is our preference. However, we could work with other solutions. Other alternatives. Mark Undestad: Okay. We'll get this together for you on there? The parking stalls, the one on the upper right hand corner there. Yeah, that might be a little tight backing in and out of there. However, the one on the other corner, that one yeah. On the left side, that area back there is not set up for tractor trailer traffic. It's strictly a van door, drop door so that we wouldn't have any large trucks going back in there and trying to maneuver around back in that corner. So I don't think that 11 really we would have to eliminate that rear stall back there. The loading docks are in the, or a loading dock is in the front side for the tractor trailer traffic. Hempel: I believe when we did look at it though, we're still going to have some conflict. When you pull in, there's not much room for you to be able to back up to that parking or to that loading dock with a utility 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1993 - Page 16 type van. We had some concerns there. I guess if you can demonstrate , turning radius or whatever, that you can accommodate your turning vehicles, that might be a solution too. But we're looking at also a future use I guess. Will it always be a utility type function or maybe will be expanded to a larger type. Small tractor type trailer operation that may utilize that stall. Then at that time there would be no parking there and then you would be deficient of a parking stall, according to thll ordinance. Mark Undestad: Okay. Well we can run that through engineering and let them see how that would work out in there. Really everything else that we've looked at on here is fine. We'll take care of it. Harberts: I'd like to ask a couple questions of the applicant. How many" people do you look to employ at this facility? Mark Undestad: Right now they employ 10 on site. The majority of their space is warehouse, shipping and receiving. What they plan to increase b increasing their size here, I don't know. Technical Industrial Sales wasn't available to show up tonight. They're out of town here but like II I say, right now they employ 10 people at their current facility. They have several sales associates out in the 5 state area but part of this process is an increase in space and I'm sure they'll be looking to bring on a couple more bodies anyway. Scott: Any other comments from the public regarding this item? I'd like to have a motion to close the public hearing please. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: I have just a clarification for Sharmin. Would you put the, light up the overhead again. On that northwest corner, you show losing one stall but we're actually going to lose two. Or there are going to bell two eliminated on that northwest corner correct? That's what you had down in your, so there's going to be a total of 3 parking spaces... Al -Jaff : Correct. 1 Mancino: I just wanted to make sure. So they will need to redo a whole parking lot schematic, or whatever you call it to show you how... 1 Al -Jaff: Correct. Mancino: That are needed by the City Code. Okay. Oh I know. What I t would like to take a second and just show the other commissioners a building used of the similar rock faced concrete block that I saw in my travels this week. I think Sharmin came up with a good idea for having all little bit of different detail and having some glazing tile. This particular building uses brick as it's detail running through it. And actually...little bit of brick detail over the windows also so it architecturally has a little more going on to it. I just would like any discussion about some other architectural enhancements we could make to this building. ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 February 17, 1993 - Page 17 Harberts: Sharmin, why did you suggest going? Al -Jaff: It was just a suggestion. ' Harberts: I just wondered if there was a specific reason. Al -Jaff: No. Not at all. Farmakes: This structure is meeting the requirements the City's proposed, correct? As it is currently being proposed. This isn't a TIF. Al -Jaff: It's a TIF site. Farmakes: It is. Al -Jaff: It could benefit from some architectural. Farmakes: The applicant mentioned that he was rushed to put this together. Is this, I'm assuming that what we're looking at here is the building that's being proposed. Is that what we have? I guess what I wanted to clarify is what we're looking at here is a site plan review but does this mean that the buildings could change later or you're changing the roof? Mark Undestad: This kind of shows a little bit more of how the break -ups are to using various types of block and little different looks. Technical Industrial Sales wanted something real simple and clean looking. On the other hand I know most cities...so we're kind of in the middle here. What I did here was get something with the accent line that would break up along here using...to get the accent line down here. And then basically just...variations of block. It gives it a little...what the owner would like is similar to the Dayco concrete block...These were Federal Expressed down to him. They were supposed to be there Monday for his approval and get back to us Tuesday. Federal Express didn't get it there on time. This is what we have. I did talk to him today and we did make a change. Above these windows we had this lighter accent color above all the windows...tone that down a bit... ' Harberts: There isn't really a whole lot you can do with warehouses. Farmakes: Sure there is. I guess my response is, citizens or a partner, l it gives you a little more leeway to put input into it. The problem that we have with industrial buildings is you almost feel guilty adding on anything to it. It still ignores the fact that the building's going to be here for 20 -30 years. Dick's comments are well taken. I think that not only will additional landscaping be more pleasant to look at but it will help hide the building. I think that the applicant has probably come forward and said that they don't think it's an architectural wonder but it serves it's purpose. I guess if we want to add something more to that, I know it seems like the neighbors, the industrial neighbors that you have here are somewhat concerned. I know PMT has a nice facility. Very nice building next door. Is there a reason why the City and some of the commercial structures that I know have bricks up the roofline. We've been talking about doing that, at least in the entrance areas of the building. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1993 - Page 18 Is there a reason why we didn't push for that here? Or we didn't feel itt was necessary. Al -Jaff: They meet the minimum standards of. 1 Farmakes: And that gets back to a philosophical thing. I mean it's an unfortunate thing that you don't want to wind up living in a community of" minimums but it still is reality of an ordinance. If you have a minimum that you meet, and it's up to the applicant to go beyond that. Mancino: Plus it's not on a main road. I mean it's not like it's on Highway 5... Farmakes: That's correct. And it's a different relationship. I guess you have a company that comes next door and decides to invest serious money and build a nice structure. On the same hand I guess they know building that building that their development next door might meet the minimum requirement. But I'm wondering what more can be done to that building. It wouldn't take much more to incorporate some of the stuff that we talk about. Ledvina: The one thing that we have to do is provide screening of the I/ roof equipment and talked about the parapet wall. Perhaps that can be used to give the thing more of a broken roofline. Perhaps in the front oll the building or Park Road or something, that could be just the height of II the roof and then beyond the entranceway and the back two- thirds you could have a parapet cut across the roof. You know, I don't know but then again, if the equipment is back there and that would give it a broken roo line anyway. I mean you've got to do the screening. Maybe you could tak advantage of that aspect of the modification that's required and give it a better look. 1 Scott: Diane, do you have some comments? Harberts: I pass. 1 Scott: Sharmin you were going to. Al - Jaff: The west elevation of the building is also one large span of wall. One way this could be addressed is by landscaping. Massing landscaping where we have walls. Or by adding windows. That would be thil third elevation. Scott: Basically where we're at is that the building as proposed meets the minimum standards. I'm assuming there will be equipment. HVAC equipment and so forth on, so that's a given so there will be some sort o parapet structure. You have to make the determination, I mean obviously you know what we'd like to see but then you also know what the minimums are. I think what the Planning Commission is all about is expressing wha we'd like to see as a vision of a particular part of the city. But you're well aware of the minimums and you also know what you are legally require to do. But the bottom line is that you obviously have to put together a project that is going to meet the requirements of your customer. But I think you know what we're trying to say. We'd like to have this look as I/ Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1993 - Page 19 nice as we possibly can and we also expect that you're going to be a good I neighbor, because we obviously, the people at PMT have made a significant investment in the city. And I think that's the end of my editorial comment. Are there any other, Diane? Harberts: I have a question. Where are the trash bins or waste receptacles going to be kept? Mark Undestad: They'll be inside... Harberts: So the garbage truck will come in and back up to a loading dock? That's it. Farmakes: I have an addition. I think in the past we've shown a little bit more aggressiveness in asking more than the minimum when there has been community investment within the structures. I think that does give us an opportunity to ask for more. This particular structure is actually quite a bit in shape and appearance like Target, and many of the things that we discussed and issues of Target I think are also applicable here. Just because, as I said, just because it's an industrial area does not mean that they don't have neighbors and neighbors that are concerned about what their structures look like. This particular case I think we have an applicant who, it's a warehouse. You know, that's what it is. It's a warehouse and it doesn't need to look like anything more than a warehouse. I think we should take advantage of the fact that it is a partnership arrangement and that we should try to resolve some of those problems. Aesthetic problems. I don't think throwing a few tiles on concrete block resolves that issue. Maybe dealing with accenting the entrance structure or changing the so the plane of the roof is broken, perhaps you can incorporate that with your covering. Your screening. Yeah, I guess I have reservations about putting wood boxes on top of buildings too so that, to help you with this, that hasn't went very far in the last 3 -4 years. Getting away with that so I think the site plan is fine with the reservations that you have about the parking. And I agree with Dick. If failing that, if you're not serious about that, and changing the structure of that to try and blend in a little bit better, and certainly an investment. When you're looking at square footage of the building, we're on the entrance. You can certainly do something there. A portion too, I think what your expenditures are on the building, it should be a percentagewise small. The issue of the landscaping, at least you can hide what else you have there. Mancino: Jeff, what about the windows? Putting some on that west side or else making the windows longer. More vertical. It has more of a proportion. Farmakes: Well most buildings of this structure usually have the larger windows by the entrance of the office sections of the building. They don't have large picture windows in the warehouse area. You can sort of see where that begins and ends. The security concerns there are certainly valid and the warehousing. It does however add additional cost to add windows also. So I think that's part of the concern here as well. This building costs and that's reflected on the plan. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1993 - Page 20 Mancino: It's also the minimum allowed. Farmakes: Yes. It's just a question of what's reasonable to request fro the client. What do you maximize out? If they firm up the edge there and fill it up with trees, you may not be seeing those windows. It's a question of what they come back with I guess. Scott: Jo Ann, or Sharmin, what's the value of this structure? From the r TIF standpoint. How much TIF money's involved here? Al -Jaff: I don't know. 1 Scott: Okay. That's. Olsen: Todd Gerhardt. , Scott: A Gerhardt question. Okay. Do we have any other comments? Al -Jaff: One more thing. Another way of accenting the building is over the windows, just like Commissioner Mancino mentioned earlier...that should be a condition of approval. Mark Undestad: ...was too busy and he wanted us to... Farmakes: One of the things that contrasting material, we very rarely 1 ever see materials in here. You can bet your bottom dollar that when this architect finished, he brought in material to sell this plan. That's the way architects operate. They come in, they show you materials. They hav� material samples and they're explaining it as part of the process explaining what the building's going to look like. We never see that stuff here and it often, in this case with industrial buildings, you will have different facia pre -cast or block but when you look at it from 100 feet, you can't tell the difference. You just can't see the difference and basically if you find out what that block costs per block, there is nil difference. They're the same priced block. They're just slightly different facia on it. So the question is sometimes when you're requiring different materials, is it a different color? Is it running vertically and the rest horizontal? Just because it's a different material doesn't necessarily make it a detail. Olsen: I think that you were saying that you had proposed this color above the windows... Mark Undestad: Right, and...already and that did give it a totally different look. Like I say, the owner's requesting...too busy. Mancino: It would be helpful in the future to see actual samples every time somebody presented. Farmakes: The way to make it least busy would be to paint the entire building black and have a smooth surface on it. But you know, not to be I facetious but it's obvious that we're not making a Sistine Chapel out of the warehouse. I don't think we should require it but it should require 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1993 - Page 21 11 an effort to come to a reasonable attractiveness in relationship to your neighbors. Scott: Jeff, are you suggesting another condition to the ones already proposed by staff relative to seeing exterior plans? 11 Farmakes: Should we be more specific and ask what your feeling there as to what, how you can incorporate that with the screening? 1-Jaff: We could. But if you would like to add a condition that would improve the architecture. Farmakes: Well we could list detailing an area particularly around the entrance to the building. And the issues of landscaping, I'm not sure how, you know Dick often gets in there and wrestles with, if you're proposing 12 trees, he wants 24. I'm not sure how, since we don't have a detailed plan here, how do you want to approach that? We have a very minimal landscape plan here as a part of this proposal. Scott: Is it our consensus that we need more information before we can approve this subject to conditions? Is that what we're saying here? Do we have enough information to say yes or no? Farmakes: I would like to work out those things prior to it going to City Council. Or at least that's the idea I got in the recommendation. It may be to the applicant's benefit for us to work this stuff out rather than you get hung up on that end. Scott: Are you working, is there a short fuse here? What's the deal here? When does this have to be done? What's on your back? Mark Undestad: We're looking to make, what the deal is where they're at. The State has bought their facility in Eden Prairie...break ground here, we're looking for the Council March 8th and then break ground any time after that. 11 Scott: So when do they have to be out of their building in Eden Prairie? Mark Undestad: They have June 15th right now. They have to be out of there. Scott: Okay. So basically what has to happen is this baby's got to be done before June 15th? Now that's significant information. Harberts: When did the State buy them out? Was it for the 212? Mark Undestad: No, this is part of the school, elementary school. Harberts: Do you know when they bought them out? Mark Undestad: The whole deal was just finalized maybe a month and a half ago. Two months. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1993 - Page 22 Harberts: Do you know how long they were involved in negotiations? I wa at a meeting this morning and MnDot was there and to me it sounded like i was an extensive negotiation process and I'm just, I guess I raise the question, did they wait until the last minute to start this ball rolling? Mark Undestad: They did in Chanhassen. They had a project that they were doing in Eden Prairie and...one of the realtors in the area here approached him and put this deal together out in Chanhassen... Scott: So you're going to build this thing in 90 days? Mark Undestad: Yep. 11 Farmakes: I take that back, it may be 12 years. ' Scott: Pardon me? Farmakes: It may be a life expectancy of 12 years. , Scott: Alright. So your plan is you're going to break ground on March 8th? 1 Mark Undestad: Or there about's, yeah. Scott: Okay. 1 Olsen: There is a possibility of bringing it back on the 3rd. March 3rd and still having it on the 8th. We've done that with exceptions where yoll pay Nann to do the Minutes fast. The next day. So we can still get it out to the Council. Mark Undestad: The stuff, the recommendations that you're making here fo1 this to be approved here. Al -Jeff: With the addition of what the Planning Commission is requestinil which is breaking the entryway. Olsen: I think the Planning Commission is saying they want to see it again rather than just passing it on. Scott: Yeah. I think we're going to get backwards on next meeting versu the Council meeting aren't we? Olsen: It's March 3rd. Scott: Our next meeting is the 3rd and the Council meeting. 11 Olsen: Is the 8th. 1 Scott: Is the 8th, okay. I think we need to see this again. What do you guys think? Yes? Ledvina: Unfortunately yes. 1/ 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 1993 - Page 23 Scott: Is that why they call it architorture? Is that how that works? 11 Can I have a motion then? I'm sorry, did you have a comment? This is like an auction. Farmakes: I'm wondering, do you have an idea on the landscaping what you're proposing or are you looking for the number of trees or are you looking to re- attack this problem? Mark Undestad: ...enough trees in the landscaping... The landscaping was put on there...took in, wherever they get their information from the city and it is the minimum. I disagree with you that this is the minimums. Any building I put up, the landscaping...we'll do that on the plan to show you that the landscaping... We'll screen up this west wall a great deal. We'll do...fence around the front or rock...and I apologize it's not on this plan...we will show what the landscaping will be. Farmakes: How flat is the topography on that one side? Mark Undestad: Real flat. Farmakes: Pancake flat huh? Olsen: One of the things we could maybe suggest for the landscaping is similar to what we did with Rottlund where we had those primary species. That they take the majority of the plantings of the trees, take that list...and make sure you just don't get Lindens and Ash. Farmakes: Well and the other thing. Something with some substance that's going to be solid throughout the year. Either some, to break up that mass there and even with the primary species, you're still, you're not going to get a lot of coverage there. I/ Olsen: Well we have that recommended... Mancino: Are there any evergreens on this plan? 11 Scott: Oh yeah. There's all sorts of, I'm not an arborists or anything but. Fir, spruce and pine. 11 Mancino: ...way over on, I want to say the east side of the property. The existing pines and the existing firs I'm sorry are really on PMT's property. Ledvina: Well I would move that the Planning Commission continue Site Plan Review #93 - until the March 3, 1993 meeting. 11 Farmakes: Second. 11 Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we revisit this item at the next meeting. Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to table Site Plan Review #93 -1 on an office /warehouse facility for Technical Industrial Sales until the next Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 S CITY O F PC DATE: 2/17/93 CHA1liASE1 , , C C DATE: 3/8/93 -.-\-7- CASE #: 93 -1 Site II y: Al -Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 16,410 Square Foot Office /Warehouse facility 1- Q Z LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition V J APPLICANT: Mark Undestad Ray Collings Eden Trace Corporation Eden Trace Corporation Q 1057 Stoughton Avenue 8050 Wallace Road Chaska, MN 55318 Eden Prairie, Mn 55344 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park 1: ACREAGE: 1.3 acres DENSITY: 1 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - IOP; vacant S - IOP; Industrial Bldg E - IOP; Mail Source Bldg Q W - IOP; PMT WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. ' 0 W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Vacant parcel which slopes to the east. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial II 1 11 1 Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. February 17, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 1 The applicant is proposing to construct a 16,410 square foot office /warehouse building for Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. They are manufacturing representatives and undertake light assembly. The proposed intent of this building is to store and assemble equipment. Office/Warehouse is a permitted use in the IOP district. The overall site plan is very simple and well conceived. However, The building's architectural design is fairly poor and proposed landscaping is inadequate. Staff has proposed improvements to both. The project is expected to receive Tax Increment Financing assistance through the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 1 There are several additional elements that need to be developed further. The parking area needs to be expanded or reconfigured to accommodate the northwest dock area and the most northeast parking space. The current design of the parking lot does not allow vehicles in those two areas to backup. The design for the rooftop equipment and trash enclosure needs to be constructed of the same material as the building. Drawings need to be submitted for 1 the parking lot lights and signage plan for staff approval. Staff is recommending that the site plan be approved without variances subject to appropriate 1 conditions. BACKGROUND On September 5, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for Site Plan Review #90 -9 for the Emission Control Station. The City Council reviewed this site plan on 1 October 24, 1991. The Systems Control proposal was rejected at this location, in favor of another site on Lake Drive East/Hwy. 5. 1 On October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for Site Plan Review of the Mail Source Building. The City Council reviewed this same application on October 28, 1991. There was a metes and bounds subdivision application that accompanied the site plan proposal that split the Mail Source site into parcels A and B. Parcel A was the site of Mail Source and Parcel B is for the proposed Technical Industrial Sale building. The site plan that was approved for the Mail Source building showed a future expansion to the site in the form of an addition. The number of curb cuts to this lot was an issue for staff during approval of the Emission Control site plan. One of the conditions of approval of the Mail Source site plan was that future curb cuts on Park Road serve both Parcel A and B. There is a 10 foot grade difference between the two sites which will make sharing a driveway impossible. We are recommending that no future curb cuts be permitted for the Mail Source building as a result. 1 1 1 1 Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. February 17, 1993 Page 3 GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE The site is located on Lot 3, Block 1 in Chanhassen Business Park 5th Addition, and has an area of 1.3 acres. The front of the building faces Park Road. Parking will be located to the east and north of the building. The materials to be used on the building consist mainly of rock face concrete block. The building offers little in the way of architectural design. We have no doubt it is functional, but it needs to be improved to be consistent with the city's expectations. Staff is recommending the building be accented with glazed tile rather than concrete block. In addition, there are limited windows shown on the west elevation. Staff would recommend that more windows be used on the west elevation to break up the blank wall. The proposed architecture meets the standards of the ordinance. Any rooftop equipment will need to be screened with material consistent with the masonry building materials. It is preferable that the parapet wall be raised to eliminate the need for separate screening. Similarly, screening of any outdoor trash enclosure is required. The enclosure must be made of materials compatible with the building facade. PARKLNG/INTERIOR CIRCULATION 1 Parking lot circulation is fairly straight forward. The proposed building is divided into three uses for consideration of parking standards. These uses include office, assembly and warehouse. Under those standards, 23 stalls are required. The applicant is providing 24 stalls. Staff recommends deleting the two stalls in the northwest comer of the lot to 1 facilitate backing up to the loading dock. In addition, the parking stall in the northeast corner should be also deleted to facilitate backing out of the adjacent stall. These modifications will result in a loss of 3 parking stalls, thus making the total number of parking stalls one deficient of the total required by code. Staff feels that the parking area needs to be reconfigured to accommodate these changes and meet city standards. i ACCESS The site plan proposes one driveway access into the site from Park Road. It is recommended 1 that the site plan incorporate construction of the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail (No. 5207). 1 LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan is weak. The proposal shows 8 trees along the west and 3 along the 1 east that are existing and not even located on the subject site. All those trees belong to the neighboring property. Staff recommends that 8 over story trees be located along the west edge of the site. The south edge of the site shows 5 maples. The trees shown on the landscaping plan are 21 feet in diameter. It is likely that they will reach this size in 10 or 15 years, but until then additional landscaping will be required. Additional landscaping is 1 1 Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. February 17, 1993 Page 4 also being requested on the north and east side of the site. Vegetation shown on the north 1 side of the building is scrub and should be replaced with a mix of conifers and deciduous trees. Lastly, plant massing should be used to help break up the massing of the west wall of the building. All disturbed areas on the site shall be reseeded or sodded. LIGHTING 1 Lighting is not shown on the site plan. Only shielded fixtures are allowed. Final lighting plans should be provided for staff approval. SIGNAGE The applicant has not shown any signage plans. Ground, low profile monument signs cannot exceed 8 feet in height and 80 feet in display area. A separate sign permit is required before erecting any sign. In addition, a detailed drawing of the sign will be required. 1 GRADING/DRAINAGE The majority of this lot was graded with the development of the adjacent property (Mail Source). The plat grading proposes minimal lot grading in conjunction with the proposed building construction. It appears more than one acre of land will be disturbed in conjunction 1 with development, therefore the applicant should obtain a watershed district for a permit. The parking lot is proposed to drain in two directions with the southerly portion draining out on to Park Road and the northerly portion draining into a proposed catch basin. The storm sewers located in Park Road have been designed to facilitate storm runoff from Park Road only. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant either redesign the parking to convey storm runoff from the site to the north or extend a catch basin to pick up drainage prior to discharging into Park Road. Staff recommends the applicant's engineer provide copies of storm sewer calculations to the city engineer for review. The plans do not indicate the size 1 or type of storm sewer pipe to be used. Staff recommends that all storm sewer constructed within the City's easement be constructed with reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). In addition, all storm sewer construction should be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since the plans propose connecting to one of the City's existing storm sewer lines, a security escrow is recommended to guarantee the proper installation of the storm sewer. This amount has been estimated at $500.00. The security escrow will be required upon issuance of the building permit and refunded upon satisfactorily completing the storm sewer improvement. 1 1 1 1 Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. February 17, 1993 Page 5 PUBLIC UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service has been stubbed to the property line from Park Road. The applicant will be required to pay the typical sewer and water hook up fees associated with the building permit issuance. 1 EROSION CONTROL The radin plan describes enclosing the entire site with Type I silt fence. The grading plan g g P g YPe 8re g P should also show the location on the plans. There is a wetland located approximately 110 feet north from the grading limits. Since the buffer between the wetlands and the site is heavily vegetated, it will not be necessary to incorporate typical Type III erosion control measures. The erosion control fence should be maintained until vegetative cover has been fully restored. COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Proposed Building Height 4 Stories 1 Story 1 Building Setback N -10' E -10' N -90' E -65' S -30' W -10' S -30' W -10' Parking Spaces 23 Spaces 21 Spaces 1 Parking Setback N -N /A N/A N-45' E -10' S -25' W -N /A S -60' W -10' 1 Lot Coverage 70 % 63 Lot Area 1 acre 1.3 acres Variances Required none 1 PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES 1 The Park and Recreation Department is requiring that park and trail fees be submitted in lieu of park land. Fees are paid at the time of issuance of building permits. 1 1 1 1 Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. February 17, 1993 Page 6 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the Site Plan Review #93 -1 as shown on the site plan dated January 19, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must provide detailed drawings of material to be used for screening rooftop equipment. This material must be compatible to the building material. The applicant must also submit a detailed drawing for the location of the trash enclosure, screened with materials compatible with the building. Alternatively, the applicant may submit plans for internal trash storage to staff for approval, in such event no exterior trash storage shall be allowed. The building shall be accepted with glazed tile. 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of proposed signage. A separate sign permit is required. 1 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit as outlined in their attached memo dated February 4, 1993. 1 4. All disturbed areas should be seeded or sodded immediately upon completion of the parking lot. The City's boulevard along Park Road must be sodded. Eight over story trees shall be located along each of the east and west edges of the site, and 5 additional maples along the south. Vegetation along the north shall be replaced with a mix of conifers and deciduous trees. Plant massing should be used to help break up the massing of the west wall of the building. 5. The parking area needs to be expanded or reconfigured to accommodate changes proposed by staff. 6. A revised grading and utility plan showing the following items should be submitted 1 for review and approval by staff: A. Size, type and elevation of storm sewer lines including detailed storm sewer design calculations. B. Provide catch basins to intercept storm runoff prior to discharging into Park Road or revise parking lot grades so that it drains to the north to the proposed catch basin. 1 1 Industrial Technical Sales, Inc. February 17, 1993 Page 7 1 C. Remove the last parking stall on the northeasterly corner of the site to facilitate turning in and out from the adjacent parking stall. 1 D. Indicate B -612 concrete curbs and gutters around the parking lot and driveway access. 1 E. Incorporate the City's detailed plate for industrial driveway apron (Detail No. 5207). 1 F. Show a typical parking lot pavement section. It is recommended the parking lot be constructed with a minimum of 6 inches of Class V gravel with 3 inches of bituminous. G. Show erosion control fence on grading plan (dashed line). 1 H. Plans shall be signed by a professional engineer. I. Describe or show how rooftop drainage is being handled. J. Straw hay bales shall be staked around all catch basins for sediment control 1 until the parking lot is paved with bituminous. 8. Connection to the City's storm sewer system shall be in accordance to City standards. 1 City staff shall inspect and approve the storm sewer connection prior to extension into the site. The applicant's contractor shall contact the City's Engineering department for an inspection 24 hours in advance of the proposed work. At time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall escrow $500.00 with the City to guarantee the proper installation of the storm sewer and payment of any inspection fees incurred by the City. 9. Meet all conditions of the Fire Marshal as outlined in his memo dated January 26, 1993. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Riley - Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. 2. Memo from Engineering Department. 3. Memo from Fire Marshal. 4. Overview statement of proposal. 5. Site plan dated January 19, 1993. 1 1 1 i i 1 ,:- Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District J w • Engineering Advisor Barr Engineering Co. w 8300 Norman Center Drive 1 r Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55437 [. ` 832-2600 Legal Advisor Popham. Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 II 333 -4800 February 4, 1993 11 Mrs. Joanne Olson Senior City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive I/ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mrs. Olson: 11 The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley - Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary information as submitted to the District for the Technical Industrial Sales in Chanhassen. The following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for this project: 11 1. In accordance with Section E (2) of the District's revised Rules and Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit will be required II from the District for this project. Accompanying the permit application, a grading plan showing both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for review. 11 2. A detailed erosion control plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. 3. A stormwater management plan must be submitted to the District for II review and approval. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this project at an early date. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please call me at I 832-2857. cerely Ro rt . Obermeyer B rr Engineering Co pany il Engineer's for the District c: Mr. Ray Haik Mr, Fritz Rahr 23 \27 \053 \SALES.LTR II II I CITYOF i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I 1 FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Xe30 DATE: February 5, 1993 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Technical Industrial Sales, Westerly Part of Lot 3, Block 1 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition File No. 93 -6 Land Use Review Upon review of the grading and utility plan prepared by Rehder & Associates, Inc., stamped January 19, 1993, I offer the following comments and recommendations: Grading & Drainage i A majority of this lot was graded with the development of the adjacent property (Mail Source). The plat grading proposes minimal lot grading in conjunction with the proposed building construction although it appears more than one acre of land will be disturbed in conjunction with development therefore the applicant should consult the watershed district for a permit. 1 Parking lot drainage is proposed to drain approximately in half with the southerly portion draining out on to Park Road and the northerly portion draining into a proposed catch I basin. The storm sewers located in Park Road have been designed to facilitate storm runoff from Park Road only. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant either redesign the parking lot to convey storm runoff from the site to the north or extend a catch basin to pick 1 up drainage prior to discharging into Park Road. Staff recommends the applicant's engineer provide copies of storm sewer calculations to the city engineer for review. The plans do not indicate the size or type of storm sewer pipe to be used. Staff recommends that all storm 1 sewer constructed within the City's easement be constructed with reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). In addition, all storm sewer construction should be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Since the plans propose connecting to 1 one of the City's existing storm sewer lines, a security escrow is recommended to guarantee the proper installation of the storm sewer. This amount has been estimated at $500.00. The I es ti 4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff February 5, 1993 Page 2 security escrow will be required upon issuance of the building permit and refunded upon satisfactorily completing the storm sewer improvement. 1 ACCESS The site plan proposes one driveway access into the site from Park Road. It is recommended that the site plan incorporate construction of the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail (No. 5207). Parking lot circulation is fairly straightforward. Staff recommends deleting the two stalls in the northwest corner of the lot to facilitate backing up to the loading dock. In addition, the parking stall in the northeast corner should also be deleted to facilitate backing out of the adjacent stall. These modifications will result in a loss of three parking stalls thus making the total number of parking stalls one deficient of the total required by code. 1 Erosion Control The grading plan describes encompassing the entire site with Type I silt fence. The grading plan should also show the location on the plans. There is a wetland located approximately 110 feet north from the grading limits. Since the buffer between the wetlands and the site is heavily vegetated, it will not be necessary to incorporate typical Type III erosion control measures. The erosion control fence should be maintained until vegetative cover has been fully restored. 1 Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water service has been stubbed to the property line from Park Road. The applicant will be required to pay the typical sewer and water hook up fees associated with the building permit issuance. 1 Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. A revised grading and utility plan showing the following items should be submitted for review and approval by staff: A. Size, type and elevation of storm sewer lines including detailed storm sewer design calculations. B. Provide catch basins to intercept storm runoff prior to discharging into Park Road or revise parking lot grades so that it drains to the north to the proposed catch basin. 1 1 1 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff February 5, 1993 Page 3 C. Remove the last parking stalls in the northeasterly corner of the site and the 1 last two parking stalls in the northwest corner of the site to facilitate vehicle turning movements. 1 D. Indicate B-612 concrete curbs and gutters around the parking lot and driveway access. 1 E. Incorporate the City's detailed plate for industrial driveway apron (Detail No. 5207). F. Show a typical parking lot pavement section. It is recommended the parking lot be constructed with a minimum of 6 inches of as V gravel with 3 inches 1 of bituminous. G. Show erosion control fence on grading plan (dashed line). 1 H. Plans shall be signed by a professional engineer. I. Show how rooftop drainage is being handled. J. Straw hay bales shall be staked around all catch basins for sediment control 1 until the parking lot is paved with bituminous. 2. All disturbed areas should be seeded or sodded immediately upon completion of the parking lot. The City's boulevard along Park Road must be sodded. 3. Connection to the City's storm sewer system shall be in accordance to City standards. 1 City staff shall inspect and approve the storm sewer connection prior to extension into the site. The applicant's contractor shall contact the City's Engineering department for an inspection 24 hours in advance of the proposed work. At time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall escrow $500.00 with the City to guarantee the proper installation of the storm sewer and payment of any inspection fees incurred by the City. Jm 1 c: Charles Folch, City Engineer Attachment: Industrial Driveway Apron Detail No. 5207 1 1 irgirlarliWirtiglirnt L VARIES - SEE PLAN.. Ca>, RIGHT OF WAY 1. "' CONTRACTION JOINTS 8618 CaG - MAXIMUM SPACING IN VALLEY GUTTER - BITUMINOUS ® 8' V • ' • s 1-' EXPANSION �, 5 , JOINTS ti ira n 18 > = ..< 8618 CURB �-- CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTEF F & GUTTER • ✓ L11 TRIANGULAR VALLEY GUTTER N Cril - n 1. 18' 1. 5 1 till t0 _ _ _ _ — �� - Mr •° • • ' , ' o • • ' ° 7' • * 7ih- . - 71h• i ,. . , ,1 , Q ' ' � � • ,N. , _ v • mi l m NOTES • n o 2 C7 I) REINFORCE VALLEY GUTTER AND TRIANGULAR _ „C SECTIONS WITH 6'x6'x *6 WELDED WIRE MESH, E U1 0 2) CONTRACTION JOINT SHALL BE lh THE DEPTH OF THE SLAB. Z o a n .,.i y r 3) sITUMHOUS PAVING SECTION TO THE RIGHT OF WAY IS THE SAME AS THE STREET i PAVING SECTION. 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I 1 FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: January 26, 1993 SUBJ: Site Plan Review of a 16,410 square foot office /warehouse 1 Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition Planning Case #93 -1 Site Plan Review 1 I have reviewed the site plan and have the following requirements: 1 1. Add one (1) fire hydrant on island by loading dock. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location and approval. Pursuant to 1988 UFC 1 Sec 10.301(c). } 2. Building is to be fire sprinklered per NFPA 13. Pursuant to UBC 1988 Appendix Chapter 38. 3. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 1 Pursuant to City Ordinance. 4. Install two (2) No Parking Fire Lane" signs or either side of main entrance 1 of Park Road. Pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207 (m). • 5. Additional information needed regarding processes, storage and commodity 1. classification per 1988 UFC Sec. 81.104 and NFPA 13 Appendix A, regarding occupancies classification. 1 cc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director 1 Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official Jim McMahon, Fire Chief 1 t 4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 OVERVIEW STATEMENT - TECHNICAL INDUSTRIAL SALES CHANHASSEN, MN. SANITARY SEWER Proposed building will be served by a 6" PVC service that will tie into an existing 6" stub in Park Road. 1 WATERMAIN Building will be served by an 8" DIP service that will tie into existing 8" stub in Park Road. Building will be sprinkled. STORM SEWER Proposed storm sewer will be placed in north curb line 11 and will be connected to existing 30" storm sewer 20' +/- north of the property. 30" pipe drains to east. N building will be a slab on GRADING & DRAINAGE Proposed uilding grade with dock on will q east side and drive in doors on north and east sides. 11 North side of building will drain to proposed CB in north curb line and east side drainage is split with half draining north and half south. Building has 11 scuppers for roof drainage (split north and south). The earthwork appears to come close to balancing. EROSION CONTROL Will be placed around site perimeter. WATERSHED PERMIT Permit submittal deadline is January 25, 1993 with permit issuance on February 3, 1993. 11 J J rL � J LJ n A. Rrausert, P.E. 1 1 Q eWer ' & Associates, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS 3440 Federal Drive, Suite 240 • Eagan, Minnesota 55122 • (612) 452 -5051 • FAX (612) 452 -9797 Rehder & Associates, Inc. b 5A14- date \ -NS -q1 subject '1 cHtintm.. TNDut M.. SALES sheet no 1 of 1 • chkd by date job no 92.1 - 1 \ TO pp.of 0Sit Cf3 To NeR't* t DM�A6F 13Rf�4 = 1 too tf � _ 0.51 At_ C - VAtvt 0.9 i -t M i { 4 u, - I•L «w 1 t4 t S % �C . o.9 ( Z) co -St = 13.3 LFS j �,S� iz RCP e 0.1o. r. w. 1 �._ -1-to WO OLAM+S SnMTA w4■%.. bLa..i To Fr.• (1 S CAST oG pkoposta twigs tor. _ 1 • • . ; 9 9 1 1 • • i • 1 1 1 Rehder & Associates, Inc. by 5A'- date subject TNnHs111 SALES sheet no 1 of chkd by date job no 91..► - \\I,S.%o 4 0RAvJAbE pp CQ To NeR • I Axe A- 1: 1'Z too tc. _ 0.51 A t. 1 VAtvt " - 1/L � _ ( t ‘ (S 0..a., 1 Q „, C. A o.9 (.11) (o.So • = 3.3 «S I kAsr 12 RCP e O.7S°►. ■•w. ' ! 1 ku oCF foier ORAwI SdwTA U.P DAA.4 TO E+• (la qs FAST OC• ' pROPoSEC OA ASS Cu.t. 1 1 1 I