7. Replat of Lot 3, Blk 1, Chan Lake Bus Park 5th Addition CITY O I`
PC DATE: 10/2/91 ----.•.
t CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 10/28/91
CASE #: 91-9 Site
. 91-14 SUB
1 • •
I STAFF REPORT
,
1
I PROPOSAL: Replat of Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
5th Addition into two parcels and Site Plan Review for a
15,000 Square Foot Office/Warehouse facility
1i
V LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th
IAddition - 1450 Park Place
APPLICANT: R. J. Ryan Construction
I 4 6511 Cedar Ave So. _ ._.
Minneapolis, MN 55423
I
PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Parklttton by Cfy admiTnistratot
I fttdorse-_ V W A—
ACREAGE: 2.63 acres
Mod
DENSITY: Re ect:,c:_____----
II Dare_ 1(77:1! —},_21L
ADJACENT ZONING AND Mt Suniii,. o to Commission
LAND USE: N - IOP; vacant
S - IOP; Industrial Bldg pet"u`,`,tied to Council
II _ Q E - IOP; Parking lot it- le -9 I
W - IOP; PMT -
1 til7 ' WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
IW PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : Vacant parcel which slopes to the east. '
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial
{
I
1
LAKE ANN g ld:ral � t iiilliW�
‘ RD ///A- <1 cit • °' IP O. ''lly ,-----_ __-.!.- - sw
All a 6;149
.."— V.. lob
, e--------_—_ ___----- — 111.41VO'Ss 04:::
_ii R4 irj"." _■ . 1� �
I aKE` . VP NASS - 4 p .. i dilly
, .N A �
I ANN # � P •
PA k d P Y 4�
! RR , a IW�h .
I R12
NIMB w • lax
AR :0- l" BOULEVARD (411 . i I'
1 , in 61110r111 0:weir ti
GLYNN R•.• 110 d� `��
PAC F ••'
•
IOP LOP° u p
LP
■ 00* t --V)
P , A, SUS •
L, �• ' :3 PARK
■ * 11 .
. , i t Omer"---' ,...
p / al. � / kit* sip ' „ - LAKE SUSAN• ...., ,Ir; ,,..._„._ . A.7,.. .,0. i ,,
ift ii.
Air it iltfil gil0 114
co ill a 0. lt114111.11111112 Batt "s9,411- Ititil t V
o 4 I ♦ 4 � W PARK ! 1111111 up , ;
1111 4.iro .1131, :law E. p ... o.
__ __
.T.:110■14P‘ All__el .%.
tAll- VII
• II.‘.. i r 411%.2-111:111111:11111::: .
2 �
0
.3
, ... r".- . ,;)
_ .,,z,.... e ••
iC A2 • .{ i ,I.
I IL - 170 6
. . i 4' .. at: 4 ,ie • '*1'
� -o * . 1
I
Mail Source, Inc. 11
October 2, 1991
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
Tom Ryan of R.J. Ryan Construction is proposing to construct a
15,000 square foot office/warehouse building. The proposed intent
of this building is to sort mail. Office/Warehouse is a permitted
use in the IOP district. The overall site plan is well conceived
including, design, type of construction and landscaping. The
applicant has stated that there may be a possibility of expansion
in the future. The subject site appears able to accommodate such
expansion. I
There are several elements that need to be developed further. The
parking area needs to be expanded or reconfigured to accommodate
the locking dock area. 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 the parking lot lights
and signage plan for staff approval.
The subdivision request is a metes and bounds subdivision. The
Planning Commission does not need to act on the subdivision request I
but staff included the information so that you are aware of the
proposal. Staff is recommending that the site plan be approved
without variances subject to appropriate conditions. '
BACKGROUND
On October 4, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed an application I
for Site Plan Review #89-8 for the Rome Office Building. The City
Council reviewed this same application on October 9, 1989. The
site plan that was approved for the Rome Office building showed a
future expansion to the site in the form of a free-standing 17,000
square foot office/warehouse building located to the west. The
building was never constructed. I
On September 5, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed an
application for Site Plan Review #90-9 for Systems Control. The
City Council reviewed this site plan on October 24, 1991. The
Systems Control proposal was rejected at this location, in favor of
another site on Lake Drive East/Hwy. 5.
The latest proposal under consideration will change the status of 1
the approved site plan for the Rome Office Building. As a part of
the consideration for this proposal, cancellation of the approved
Site Plan #89-9 for the Rome Office Building is recommended.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The site is located on Lot 3, Block 1 in Chanhassen Business Park
5th Addition. Lot 3 proposed to be divided into two parcels;
Parcel A consists of 2.653 acres and Parcel B is 1.3 acres. The
I/ Mail Source, Inc.
October 2, 1991
Page 3
development is proposed for the lot located on the corner of Park
Place and Park Road. 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 will be accented with glazed block
and one course of painted block. The proposed architecture meets
the standards of the ordinance. Staff is recommending that one
course of painted block be changed to glazed block. In addition,
there are limited windows shown on the east and west elevations,
facing the public right of way. Staff would recommend that more
windows be used on the east and west elevation, to break up the
blank wall. Any rooftop equipment will need to be screened with
' material consistent with the masonry building materials. Similarly,
screening of any outdoor storage facilities is required.
PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION
11 The proposed building is divided into three uses for consideration
of parking standards. These uses include office, assembly and
11 warehouse. Staff feels that there is poor number of parking stalls
but the proposed parking design in inadequate. Parking along the
eastern edge of the building has a 6 foot change in grade or a
' slope of 3: 1. The grading plan should be revised to eliminate the
steep grades. The parking stall in the southeastern corner needs
to be eliminated because there is insufficient area provided for
vehicle turning movements. The loading area on the north side of
the building interfere with the access to parking spaces. Staff
would recommend that the parking lot be moved further to the west
to provide for better access to the loading docks as well as the
parking spaces. These revisions are illustrated on an attached
site plan.
The Engineering Department is recommending that the pavement
section for the parking lot be consistent with other
commercial/industrial sites in the city. For the parking areas,
auto, 6" Class II Base with 3" of bituminous. For the driveway
areas, 8" Class II Base with 4" of bituminous (see Engineering memo
- Attachment 1) .
ACCESS
The proposed site plans shows a curb cut along Park Place. This
driveway approach is 30 feet. The radius of curbing at the
' entrance should be a minimum of 20 feet. The number of curb cuts
to this lot was an issue for staff during approval of the Rome
Office Building and Systems Control site plans. The applicant may
' be requesting an additional curb cut along Park Road at such time
that they expand their building. In addition, Parcel B will
request a curb cut when this site develops. Staff would recommend
that a any future curb cuts on Park Road serve both Parcel A and B.
I
Mail Source, Inc.
October 2, 1991
Page 4
LANDSCAPING
The landscaping plan meets the required standards of the district. 1
The proposal shows 10 feet of landscaping along the east side of
the building and 5 feet along the south side. The frontage along
Park Place shows 25 feet and 30 feet along Park Road. All
disturbed areas in the future expansion area will be reseeded or
sodded.
LIGHTING I
Lighting is not shown on the site plan. Only shielded fixtures are
allowed. Final lighting plans should be provided for staff
approval.
SIGNAGE I
The applicant has shown a ground, low profile monument sign located
in the southeastern corner of the site. A detail drawing of the
sign is not shown. This sign cannot exceed 8 feet in height and 80
feet in display area. A separate sign permit is required before
erecting the sign, in addition, a detailed drawing of the sign will
be required. I
GRADING/DRAINAGE
As part of the overall platting process for Chanhassen Lakes I
Business Park, storm sewers were designed and constructed to convey
storm runoff from each individual parcel as they develop.
Therefore, an on-site retention pond is not necessary. The
proposed plan shows extending storm sewer from the City's system.
The plans do not indicate the size and type of storm sewer pipe to
be used. The Engineering Department is also recommending the ditch
in Park Place be filled.
Existing ground contours were not provided with the grading plan
submitted, therefore, the Engineering Department is unable to
determine the exact impact or amount of earthwork anticipated.
They are recommending that the applicant submit a new grading plan
showing both existing and proposed contour lines.. ,
PUBLIC UTILITIES -
City sewer and water are available on Park Road. According the
Fire Marshal, one hydrant will be required just to the north of the
driveway of Park Place (Attachment #2) .
I
1
Mail Source, Inc.
October 2, 1991
Page 5
EROSION CONTROL
Plans call for Type I erosion control (silt fences along the
southerly, easterly and northerly perimeters of the site) . Since
we are nearing the end of the growing season, seeding and/or
sodding will not be completed until next year. Therefore, the
Engineering Department is recommending additional erosion control
be required if deemed necessary. All catch basins shall be ringed
with hay bales or silt fences until the bituminous paving
operations are completed.
COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT
Ordinance Proposed
Building Height 4 Stories 1 Story
Building Setback N-10' E-10' N-90' E-75'
S-30' W-10' S-40' W-210'
Parking Spaces 41 Spaces 41 Spaces
Parking Setback N-N/A E-25' N-10' E-25'
11 5-25' W-N/A S-25' W-150'
Lot Coverage 70 % 38 %
Lot Area 1 acre 2.65 acres
Variances Required none
PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES
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.
11 SUBDIVISION
11 The applicant is requesting to replat Lot 3 into two parcels of 1.3
acres and 2.65 acres. The applicant must provide the typical
utility easements of 10 foot front and 10 foot side and rear, as
there is an existing storm sewer. The Planning Commission does not
' need to take action on the metes and bounds request as this will be
acted on by the City Council. The proposed building will be
located on the 2.65 acre parcel (Parcel A) .
I
I
Mail Source, Inc. 1
October 2, 1991
Page 6
J'LANNING COMMISSION ACTION/STAFF UPDATE
On October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended approval to
the site plan subject to conditions. Since the Planning Commission
meeting, the proposed site plan has been slightly modified. The
changes include shifting the building approximately 115 feet to the
west. The reason the building had to be moved to the west is to
avoid very poor soil conditions. The area where the building was
to be located, now considered unbuildable will be seeded. The
parking lot to the north of the building has been redesigned making
the turn movements easier. The building remains the same in square
footage and design except that it now sits further -to west. The
applicant has addressed staff concerns in the revised site plan. I
One of the concerns of staff and the Planning Commission was the
long walk with no windows on the east and west side of the
building. The Planning Commission recommended placing landscaping
along these sides of the building. This has been done in the
revised landscaping plan.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of Site Plan #91-6 as
shown on the site plan dated September 16, 1991. As stated
previously, the applicant has revised the site plan. I
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the revised site plan, staff would recommend that the City I
Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the Subdivision Replat #91-14 of Lot 3,
Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park into two parcels and Site
Plan Review #91-6 as shown on the revised site plan dated November
6, 1991, subject to the following conditions: i
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. I
2. The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of the
proposed sign. A separate sign permit is required.
3. Rescind approval for site Plan #89-9 Rome Office
Building.
I
1
I
Mail Source, Inc.
October 2, 1991
Page 7
4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions
of the Watershed District permit.
5. A revised grading and utility plan showing the following:
a. Size, type and elevation of storm sewer lines and
catch basins.
b. Add catch basin in driveway access to catch a
parking runoff before draining into Park Place.
c. Incorporate City's typical industrial/commercial
driveway detail (attached) .
d. Fill existing ditch along Park Place with storm
sewer extension.
11 e. Install hay bales and/or silt fence around catch
basins until the bituminous is installed.
6. Seed or sod all disturbed area (the City's boulevards
must be sodded) .
7. It is suggested that the parking lot pavement be designed
to a minimum of 6 inches of Class II gravel with 3 inches
of bituminous.
8. Connection to city storm sewer system shall be built to
city standards. City staff shall inspect and approve the
storm sewer connection prior to extension into the site.
The applicant shall escrow $500.00 to guarantee proper
installation and payment of any inspection fees incurred
by the city.
L 9. Install a fire hydrant north of the driveway on Park
Place.
11 10. The area in the southwest corner of the site that will be
landscaped shall include at least 5 trees. These trees
shall be located in the sodded/seeded area illustrated on
the landscaping plan."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed parking layout.
2. Memo from Engineering Department.
3. Memo from Fire Marshal.
' 4. Memo from Park and Recreation Department.
5. Planning Commission minutes dated October 2, 1991.
6. Revised site plan dated November 6, 1991.
I
z86.e _ _ 1
— `
1 j '
I
1 1
I
I
I
1
1 i
I 1 1
1 i I I
I I
iiI
'
I I m..o .�;� I
I , � �, I
N VNs.4 I.
IA
I I �
I
I
m
II i I m LO co
I �) I I I Ie T , 1
). m r ,
1 i m ' ± I �R� I ' I
I mI •
23 2 I I 11
o-„6' WRIER I� 1'SEVER L
7; 4 1 � -- I
Herr I
3r pier
.t ♦ aim r �: 1
> I I =r--j ` �' I
fl ' m g I
I I
I r i
a I
r 4.,,_ N 11 Y I I
°t K Ig�°��(` I I
1
ii 9 I $1-y1 c? J•
! P '
n
Q2, c it i
c /j(
fiin Na
2 I ' / t.�
1 I v I I RI I 43,1 I iz / MD
/
N / \
R - L9't�9.E"� PARKING FIRER 'oarvEYRr rM1Efi, /�`
i � I � I �J I � .,� /
1
i I , I
'
•
t ;
1 1eV 1 ced St 4-e Pion
Nov 6 , I q9 i
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
/ 304.98' .- \
1r.,
tea\
IS 'IL1 612 I \
/ � I ; CwF cum � \, �-hY
VflRKY19 RRA ; 1 I I I 1> • I p.\�
•
DRIVEWAY RRER \�B 6/12 \ \
> coNC.cRe ‘ ' A \
0 ' R
C
•
?err
= r\ \9
288' i8'8' 15'8' 28'B' ', 28'8' 28'B' 2f'e' \
9 \
\c\,.<,
0 • i ;i� APRON _ _\ I c I \ \ \
VERIFY LOCATION i \ I \ \
/ I DRIVEWAY AREA, V ¢
• \ \�
is ; -8 6/12 Rg S FOOT`CM. ,a \
K CONC.c1xRe P i 1 • \
:I iSBY HPS. lI • i \ \
N. l3 - 13 \`\ \ \\ \
ROOF HATCH _ \ \
SlIIPPER OOYNSPOUT I
1- -I CONC.S�ILYRY 12 101111 --- . \
�1 \ ,
I ROOF TOP UNIT 0/
V CL SSAII BASE I- -I SCREEN PALLS `- �� `T JW
WI 2.12341 D.O.T. b
P
BITUMINOUS j °.� T 1
ORNEYAY AREAS: I
0/CLASS 12341 OAE1. -I SLOPE - , R RI
BITUMINOUS f---......, 8 6/12 - 1
BS C CONC.CURB—>: 1 , , 1
I- j„,...-R0�TOP UUIT Y/
-----1
SCIIEE8 WKLS i RR ' 1/:1::
I
\ \
i I_ I . 125'8' JCS 18'C 2a 4, 18'C R•1 Q—- ''a- '-_—_- I 1
o 16P b PYLON f.
®Y OWNER)ERI A.
-- - I �� •CONC.YRLKYRY s1 i j I "�' 1
It
- 458.08' I - /
EKISTW6 GATE VALVE I I I / CB'
P R R IIC R n n n
. I
I
•
• I
; ; Lt:: 1:‘,. \\ g iiiiIiiiiiiiiii
I
4. {, \ .
vs
\
I
\ .
,,...4 �
t
F
■
1- i ■ ; I
\ . , \I 1 li \ _ ,
\ 4 B i
d ill/ m• i .
I 2"11-*---a \ \V‘‘\ /A/h 8
VZ. /04;(4,\ . .d
I;11-WW1/4"9"*F1 \ s.1'e Pl4Wkra'l- 'II ! / 0
1 114 '-11 \ ill! I 1 II
CSC ?� tV
I
•
I
_ I
I
. I
I
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
;' (612) 937-1900 * FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
' DATE: September 25, 1991
SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Mail Source, Inc.
Easterly Part of Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park Fifth Addition
File No. 91-14 LUR
Upon review of the grading and utility plan prepared by Lambert
Architects for Mail Source, Inc. , I offer the following comments
and recommendations:
Utilities _
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available from Park
Road. Individual services have been extended to the property line.
1
Grading and Drainage
As part of the overall platting process for Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park, storm sewers were designed and constructed to convey
storm runoff from each individual parcel as they develop. Thus, no
' on-site retention pond is necessary. The plans propose extending
storm sewers from the City's storm system to convey runoff from the
parking lot and building. The plans do not indicate the size and
type of storm sewer pipe to be used. All storm sewer pipe
constructed within the City's right-of-way or utility and drainage
easements shall be constructed with reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) .
' Detailed storm sewer calculations were received too late to
incorporate into this report.
As Park Place was recently upgraded to urban street standards, the
existing ditch along this site for the most part was filled in.
However, at the proposed storm sewer connection in Park Place a
small ditch still remains. It is recommended that this ditch be
I
I
Kate Aanenson 1
September 25, 1991
Page 2
filled and eliminated when the storm sewer is extended into the
site. ,
The utility plan also proposes extending a storm sewer lead from
the existing catch basin located along the northerly property line
approximately in the middle of the lot. It is recommended that the
applicant raise the invert elevation to match flow lines to provide
for uniform discharge into the existing system or construct a new
manhole over the existing line further downstream. I
The grading_ plan indicates proposed ground contours; however,
existing ground contours were deleted. Therefore, without this 11 information it is impossible to determine the exact impact or
amount of earthwork anticipated. It is recommended that the
applicant submit a new grading plan showing both existing and
proposed contour lines. - I
The grades proposed for the easterly parking lot are very steep,
approximately 3:1 slopes. Slopes this severe make it very
difficult getting in and out of vehicles parked adjacent to the
building not to mention very slippery during inclement weather. It
is recommended that this easterly parking lot be redesigned to
eliminate the very steep grade and resubmitted for staff approval.
Parking Lots '
The parking lots are proposed to be constructed with 4 inches of
Class II gravel and 2 inches of bituminous (2341) . The plans show 11 curb and gutter; however, do not specify type (B-612) . The plans
should add curbing to be concrete B-612. Due to the soil
conditions in this City, it is recommended that all parking areas
(for autos) be constructed with 6 inches of Class II gravel and 3
inches of bituminous (2341) . In areas where truck traffic is
anticipated, the pavement should be 8 inches of Class II gravel and
4 inches of bituminous (2-inch base and 2-inch wear) consistent
with other commercial/industrial sites in the City.
The northerly parking lot configuration will make it difficult for
trucks backing/turning into the loading docks at the far westerly
bay, not to mention making the parking stalls along the west side
inoperative. It is recommended that the parking stalls proposed
along the westerly portion of the lot be relocated further to the
west to accommodate truck turning and backing movements into the
loading facility. The easterly parking lot needs to incorporate a
10-foot turnaround south of the lot for vehicles backing out of the
two end stalls.
1
M
I/ Kate Aanenson
September 25, 1991
Page 3
I
The site proposes one driveway access from Park Place. It is
recommended that the site plan incorporate the City's typical
industrial driveway detail to provide for adequate turning
radiuses. In the future, if the site expands and requests a curb
cut onto Park Road, it is recommended they share a common access
drive with the adjacent parcel.
Erosion Control
Plans propose encompassing the southerly, easterly and northerly
perimeters of the site with Type I erosion control (silt fence) .
As we are nearing the end of the growing season, seeding and/or
sodding will not be completed yet this year. Therefore, staff
feels that this type of erosion control may not be sufficient in
' holding back the erosion through the spring. The City may require
additional erosion control if deemed necessary in the future. All
catch basins shall be ringed with hay bales or silt fence until the
bituminous paving operations are completes.
Recommended Conditions
1. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
' 2. A revised grading and utility. plan showing the following:
a. Existing and proposed ground contours.
b. Size, type and elevation of storm sewer lines.
c. Add catch basins in driveway access to catch runoff
' before draining into Park Place.
d. Expand westerly parking lot for parking stalls and truck
turning movements.
e. Provide B-612 concrete curb and gutter around parking
'
f. lots and driveway.
Increase parking lot pavement design to a minimum of 6
inches of Class II gravel with 3 inches of bituminous.
g. Incorporate City's typical industrial/commercial driveway
detail (attached) .
h. Fill existing ditch along Park Place with storm sewer
extension.
I i. Install hay bales around catch basins until the
bituminous is installed.
3. Seed or sod all disturbed areas (the City's boulevards must be
sodded) .
' jms/ktm
•
I
1
Kate Aanenson 1
September 25, 1991
Page 4
i
Attachment: Typical Industrial Driveway Detail
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II ,
5
NM NM N — MI MI' OM NM — MB NM MI r IN NMI MI i i
•
i
I V ARIES - SEE PLAN..
RIGHT OF WAY `1
CONTRACTION JOINTS 8618 C&G
MAXIMUM SPACING Ikl
IN VALLEY GUTTER �-.. BITUMINOUS
C 8' i
.46 ���` ZII3NATNsS
IO N
�. � 5' <
r �.. C) 18
• > = ..4 • 8618 CURB CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTEF
t GUTTER '
m to TRIANGULAR VALLEY GUTTER
N t y -n 18 ' 5._O°
0 i ____
/ I – M
7• , • • o . ' ° • • * 7112•
* ,Q . 7112• ' , • ' ' • , / .' Q•
0 m . — NOTES
vz
I o r 7 0 . 1) REINFORCE VALLEY GUTTER AND TRIANGULAR
SECTIONS WITH 611x66x #6 WELDED WIRE MESH.
Z " 2) CONTRACTION JOINT SHALL BE 1h THE DEPTH
"'l ': N > _ OF THE SLAB.
Z . 0 r 3) BITUMINOUS PAVING SECTION TO THE RIGHT
0 a OF WAY IS THE SAME AS THE STREET •
sa rt PAVING SECTION.
I
CITY OF
I
., CHANHASSEN 1
z�a .,,
4,
`4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX(612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: September 25, 1991 1
SUBJ: Site Plan Approval - Mail Source
I
Comme
nts/recommendations.
1 . Install additional fire1 ydrant , north side of driveway off
I
Park Place, and verify °s1ze of D. I .P. watermain.
I
cc: Dale Gregory, Fire Chief
R
� I
‘z, I
I
I
It
tor PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
C I TY OF
I CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
two (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Annenson, Planner II
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator n4
4
' DATE: September 26, 1991
SUBJ: Mail Source, Planning Case 91-6 Site Plan
As you have noted, the proposal to construct Mail Source on Lot 3,
Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition is the third
' time this lot has been considered for development. I will present
this item to the Park and Recreation Commission on October 22, 1991
for consideration. However, in keeping with the schedule of review
for this proposal, I am comfortable making the recommendation that
the City Council accept full park ($2,500/acre) and trail
($833.00/acre) fees from the developer of Mail Source. This
9recommendation is consistent with previous recommendations.
JI
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 2, 1991
Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p .m . .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad, Annette Elison, Steve Emmings , II
Brian Batzli . Jeff Farmakes arrived after the first item .
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Kathy Aanenson , Planner II II
PUBLIC HEARING: I
REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1 , CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION INTO
TWO PARCELS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,000 SQUARE II FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARK PLACE AND PARK ROAD INTERSECTION, MAIL SOURCE,
INC . , R.J. RYAN CONSTRUCTION.
Kathy Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings II
called the public hearing to order .
Emmings: Is there someone here representing the applicant? Have you had
chance to review the staff report and the conditions that they 've suggeste
for approval?
Tom Ryan: Yes. I 'm Tom Ryan. I represent R .J . Ryan Construction . I met "
yesterday with the engineering department and I believe we resolved any
issues regarding the grading and drainage and parking concerns . We will bill
submitting revised grading plan but as much as anything there were some
misinterpretations of our plan . I 'm confident the new plan will meet the
engineering department 's request . We would like to ask you to consider no
requiring us to screen our rooftop equipment . These will be 3 and 4 ton
rooftop equipment . We have very small office areas we 're going to develop .
Maximum height on these units would be 42 inches high . We would certainly
paint them either to blend with the building or to blend with the roof if II
the City would request but we found that we would certainly be the
exception in that area rather than the rule if we did have screened rooftop
equipment . We also agreed yesterday with Paul Krauss that we would submit "
a letter saying that we intend to have inside trash storage only . The
owner 's operation doesn 't generate trash and he doesn 't want any outside
trash enclosures .
Emmings: What business is it going to be? All it says in the packet was
they 're going to sort mail .
Tom Ryan: That 's really it . They 're bulk mail processors. They get bulk "
mail in . They put labels on it and they ship it out the door . Although
not a formal request I guess from the Planning Department , we would not II like to install any more windows on the east or west side of the building
as they would interfere with the owner 's operation as he 's got mailbags
stacked near the ceiling on the perimeter walls of the building . We feel •
we 've aesthetically designed the building that fits in with the other
buildings in the area and would hope that you understand that it would just"
take wall space away from him in his warehouse operation . Our final
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
11 October 2 , 1991 - Page 2
request would be that you consider levying the park and trail fees only on
the developed portion of the property as money 's a little tight and collect
the rest of it if and when we develop it but that parcel may be sold .
Emmings: Now let me understand . You only want to do it on Parcel A?
Tom Ryan: We 'd like you to consider that we 're only developing slightly
' over half of our parcel . Take half of it now and take half of it later .
Aanenson: Parcel A , a portion of Parcel A . Is that what you 're saying?
Tom Ryan: A portion of Parcel A .
Emmings: Anything else?
Tom Ryan: That 's it .
' Emmings: Okay . This is a public hearing . Is there anybody else here who
would like to comment on this?
Conrad moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: He said that they 'd be the exception if they have to screen the
' rooftop equipment . My understanding is we require screening of rooftop
equipment on every building in town . There 's a gap here between what I
thought and what I 'm hearing .
IKrauss: It is an ordinance requirement to screen rooftop equipment . Now
there have been instances where if a rooftop is not visible because of
parapet walls on because of surrounding topography , in the use of low
' profile units we 've allowed them to go on and just paint them a flat color
and you can 't see them . The reference to having a number of buildings with
unscreened equipment in the park , it 's true . There is some but I think
it 's more due to the fact that the park 's developed over the last 10 or 12
years and as the standards have been improved , we have required that . I
think you 've required it consistently on every building I can recall .
There is a small parapet . I talked to Tom about this yesterday . There is
' a small parapet on the front of the building but there 's nothing on the
sides . This site is somewhat lower than surrounding sites and I 'm pretty
sure would be visible . I 'm relunctant to recommend that you delete the
' requirement . It is in the ordinance .
Emmings: Alright . What about their request that we don 't add windows
' because it will interfere with their operation of the building internally?
Krauss: Well , to philosophize for a moment . We 've been edging slowly into
expanding our architectural review of buildings and what kind of criteria
' we want to establish . The adding of windows is something that I know I 've
encountered before when you have blank walls that face public right-of-way .
You do run into a problem when it does hinder the applicant 's use of the
' property . Now we didn 't have an internal floorplan to know . If we have an
elevation of that side . We are concerned that it 's a pretty spare side of
the building but I guess .
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 3 1
Emmings: Could they do something with landscaping that would help break i
up if they can 't do something with wi.ndows?
Krauss: That 's a possible alternative . Sort of like McGlynn's approach o
a smaller .scale .
Emmings: Yeah .
Aanenson: Something to break up the look .
Emmings: Okay , so the goal is anyway to break up that expanse . Whether 11
it 's windows or landscaping we don 't care that much as long as it 's
something .
Aanenson: Right . ,
Emmings: Okay . As far as his request on the park and trail fees , we don 't
get into that here .
Krauss: That 's going to be the purview of the City Council .
Emmings : Yeah , okay . Back to comments . Tim . '
Erhart : What is the lot split that we 're doing here? Metes and bounds lot
split . Is that Parcel A from B? ,
Aanenson: The parcel that he 's going to build on is 2 .653 acres . There 's
another piece behind it right in here . Another 1 .3 . He 's building on thill
first portion .
Erhart : So that lot is all one lot today?
Aanenson: Yes .
Erhart: 3 . , almost 4 acres?
Aanenson: Yes .
Erhart: Okay I thought we didn't allow metes and bounds lot splits in the "
city here .
Krauss: Oh yeah we do . If it 's a very simple division that can be
described easily we can do that .
Erhart: How come when I had to go get a mortgage for my house I had to doll
a plat?
Krauss: Your property probably couldn 't be metes and bounds . Was it a
verbal description . You 've got what , a 100 some odd acres . I don 't know . "
We have some properties though .
Erhart: I was told that we don 't do metes and bounds in the city . That 'll
why you have to plat it . Came up here before the Planning Commission .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 October 2 , 1991 - Page 4
Emmings : You were lied to by staff .
Krauss: To be honest we don 't do it very often . In fact usually in
Chanhassen I can unilaterally approve chipping off chunks of a residential
lot and merging it with the adjoining property . As long as you 're not
creating a new parcel , you know if you 're shifting 10 feet to your neighbor
and you 're not creating a variance , I can authorize that .
' Erhart : Do you know if our building has rooftop screening?
Krauss: I don 't know . I 'm pretty certain , we have somebody here from PMT .
I 'm pretty sure we made PMT do it on their new building .
Erhart : But that 's what we 're making people do and we have to stick with
' that . I think our building has a big flat wall like this too and if it 's
properly landscaped it doesn 't look so bad . So I would say the choice
would be , looking at the landscaping plan here , is that adequate or are you
' going to go back and look at that some more?
•
Aanenson: It 's adequate .
Erhart: It breaks up the wall?
Krauss: If that 's your option , we 'd probably ask for it to be refined a
' little bit .
Erhart: What happened to the Rome building?
' Krauss: Roman was unable to secure tenants for it and he never got it
built .
' Erhart: Is there anything , the entrance on that one . There was a west
entrance on that one wasn 't there that we approved .
Krauss: If you recall his original site plan , he had two buildings
proposed . One initial one and one future one . There was a curb cut to the
south on Park Road . In fact he originally had two curb cuts on the south .
One on the corner and we recommended that that be deleted and it ultimately
was .
Erhart: Okay . Well there 's no parking on this side so that doesn 't .
' Another mail company in our business park .
Ellson: They 're clean . They don 't make a lot of noise .
Conrad: The rooftop , I think we need the screening unless the applicant
can prove to staff that it 's not obtrusive like it 's neighbor . Windows , we
don 't need more windows but we do need something to break up that wall .
That 's absolutely critical so if the applicant doesn 't need windows for the
work , then landscaping to break that wall up . Guaranteed . Those are my
only two comments .
' Emmings : Annette .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 5
II
Ellson: Nothing new . I agree with everybody so far .
II
Emmings: Brian.
Batzli : On the right hand turn out onto Park Place, is that a steep turn II
for semis?
Tom Ryan: Yes it is . It 's going to be revised. - I
Aanenson: I don 't think it meets the radius requirements so that will be
revised . There was a mention of the radius so that needs to be required ill
the report .
Batzli : Is it one of the conditions?
Erhart : The applicant should supply a revised parking plan consistent witJI
staff 's .
Batzli : Is that part of the parking plan provisions? I
Aanenson: Yeah . I think it 's mentioned what the radius needs to be . II
Krauss: Yes it is . It 's spoken of in the engineer 's report .
Batzli : Okay . As long as everybody catches that . The exterior trash .
II
They 've said that they 're not going to have any external trash . Do you
agree with something like that? What do they do on trash day?
Krauss: That 's fine with us . II
Ellson: They lift up a garage door .
I
Krauss: In the past though we did ask Tom for , or for the applicant to
provide a letter on this . In the past we 've had people make ascertains
that there would be no trash and then lo and behold there is . We 're
comfortable that if we have a letter of understanding that the trash is toll
be stored inside and that will be in the file , then if we do find a problem
later on , we have the ability to go back and enforce the approval .
I
Batzli : Two questions though . Should it be a condition of approval and
two , is it something that the fire inspector should be considering that
they 're going to be storing additional trash inside? Since they 're going II
to have a lot of paper in there to start with .
Krauss: Well you raise a good point . Now the fire marshall reviews all '
the building permits and stamps off on them . If there is a trash storage
area to be labeled on the building print , he 'll come across that. Now it
may be appropriate to put a condition in there that the fire marshall II approve the internal storage just so everybody , if we don 't this is the
kind of thing that might be overlooked .
Batzli : Okay . Previously did we do a , when we approved the old site plani
89-9 for the Rome Building , did we do some sort of subdivision for that or
was that on the entire parcel?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 6
Krauss: It was platted but he never filed it .
Batzli : It was platted and not filed . Okay .
Krauss: I don 't know if we metes and bounds it then . I know we published
it as a subdivision but I think we ultimately did it the same way .
' Batzli : Okay . That 's all I have .
Emmings: Okay . I don 't have anything additional . I think we need another
condition that would state that the applicant shall provide plans for
I windows on the east and west side . A plan for additional windows on the
east or west side or additional landscaping to help break up the facade .
To be submitted to the staff for their approval .
' Batzli : That reminds me . Is that , didn 't they say something in here in
the elevation that they were going to put a different kind of brick or
' block .
Emmings: That 's in here .
' Batzli : Is that one of the conditions?
Krauss: Yes .
' Aanenson : Which one?
Batzli : The glazed block .
11 Emmings : Is that in the conditions?
' Batzli : No .
Aanenson: Do you want to just add it as part of 1?
' Ellson : We don 't have the window in here either .
Conrad: Yeah , the window wasn 't there either .
' Emmings: Okay , so we 've got to have that . That should be added also .
Tom Ryan: Can I speak again?
Emmings: Sure .
Tom Ryan: I 'd like to address two things . Both the glazed block and once
again the rooftop equipment . We 'll take the rooftop equipment first . I am
not aware of another building in this community that has 3 and 5 ton
' rooftop units that are screened with materials that are compatible with
masonry . I 've had two buildings approved in this town in the last year .
Neither one of which have screened rooftop equipment . These are 42 inch
' high units . On the east side of the building I 've got a 16 inch high
parapet wall . Why are we building $2 ,000 .00 screens around them?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 7
Emmings: Just to understand your point of view and to end the argument ,
we 've got a requirement in our ordinances that requires that rooftop
equipment be screened . I guess if you can talk staff , what we 're saying i
we 're going to enforce that . If you can talk staff out of it between now
and City Council , more power to you . ,
• Krauss: If I can answer that a little bit . One building that I know that
we worked with Tom is the Dexter Magnetic building which is up high and sell
off in the trees and they used low profile units and you couldn 't see it
from off site . Also the terminology , materials compatible with the
building , we would probably consider accepting metal panels . We would
probably consider accepting dry , I mean there 's a lot of ways of addressini
that . We certainly know we don 't want wood slats but apart from that ,
anything that durr:blF- , ,'9 fits in with the design of the building w€- 'd be
Er ' th, a
-
Tc 2/_:!I: Okay . let 's take the glazed block . I guess I have an architect
who designed this building who was a graduate of Harvard Architecture
School . He didn 't design the building with glazed block and he doesn 't
feel that glazed block is warranted on this band . Why? How can you tell
me I have to have glazed block on this building? I don 't even know that it
goes with the color scheme that we 're going to pick out .
Emmings: Do you want to comment on that? I know you didn 't go to Harvard
but maybe you can bring us up to .
Krauss: I only went to Syracuse . They were kicked out of the Ivy League .
Tom Ryan: I mean I don 't know that a glazed block band would enhance the II
appearance of this building and it isn 't even necessarily a cost
consideration .
Krauss: If I could address why we did it . Paint doesn 't last . It become"
a maintenance issue . The colors change . It 's just not a durable material .
In fact in some place in the ordinance I know we discussed at one time we
will not accept painted highlights on buildings . Now this is not an
unadorned block . It meets the criteria for building materials and I grant II
you that we probably need to do some better definition in our ordinance but
our ordinance does give us architectural review.- That doesn 't mean just 1
look at it and say okay , it 's a building . It means that you have some
ability to influence it and I -would not recommend going with a painted
stripe . It 's just not durable .
Tom Ryan: 12 years ago I was making brown buildings . Every building that
was built was brown . This year you don 't find anybody who wants to build a
brown building . Everybody wants to build a gray building . Times change . II
Tastes change . We would have a dated building with a 1990 color on it 10
years from now . If you allow when the paint fades and we have to repaint
the building , maybe we paint it a different color . don 't paint glazed II
block .
•
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 8
Emmings: Okay , thank you . Anybody want to comment on the glazed blocks? .
' Erhart: I agree with the argument that painting a stripe is not an
acceptable way to do a trim. Maybe it 's not glaze . Maybe it 's metal or
something . Are there other painted trim in the industrial park? Are you
talking about painting on concrete blocks? Is that what you 're proposing?
I know but are these painted or are these colors actually put into the
' block?
Tom Ryan: Painted . It's a painted building.
11 Erhart : Is that how they make it? Concrete block exterior .
Krauss: Sure there are . There are painted buildings . Although I do know
' that , you know you can pick and choose your examples . You know when you
have an industrial park that 's been built over a decade, you can do
anything .
' Erhart: Our park . We 've got a lot of conrete . Painted block buildings .
Krauss : There are . I 'm pretty sure there are but I know the Roberts
' Automatic building , which was approved by you about a year ago , year and a
half ago , originally came in with some painted highlights and we
recommended that , at that time the City was not so as attuned to
' architectural stuff and we got our point across that we didn 't think it
was , I mean it was a functional building but it wasn 't too hot . The City
Council , in fact Ursula Dimler came down very strongly on this building
does not meet their image of what this city should be and they made them go
back and they added I think metal detailing to the building . Metal
highlights .
Erhart: How did they do that? They built the conrete block and then they
just sprayed the whole building? Or are the blocks that color when you put
them up?
' Tom Ryan: No . You paint concrete block buildings and once again I have
two buildings here approved in the last year which are both two toned ,
painted decorative block buildings .
Erhart: Where are they?
Tom Ryan: Dexter Magnetic . . .and Industrial Information Controls .
Krauss: Well IIC is an old building and that was an addition to an old
building but Dexter does have painted trim . And to be honest , when it came
up that way , you know 20/20 hindsight , I had some doubts about it but the
building was approved that way and we didn 't make an issue of it at that
time .
' Erhart: The IIC building is what , 10 years old? No . Not quite . 8? 5?
Tom Ryan: Merit Heating right on the highway . That 's 2-3 years old .
Erhart: What is the feeling on that?
I
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 9 1
Emmings: Well you know this is one of those issues where I don 't have any
way to judge . I don 't know anything about painting concrete block and how
long it lasts and I don 't know anything about comparative costs between
doing that and having glazed block . Glazed block I take it the color is
more permanent . Somehow it 's made right in there . The color 's right in
there . It sounds like a reasonable thing to do but I don 't really have an
way to evaluate it . As far as I 'm concerned , I 'm going to go with the
staff . '
Batzli : But see I agree with the rationale that why staff wants it . I
mean some sort of building accent . Breaking up that side with windows . I
think their goal is what we're looking at and whether they do it with pain
or something else , I think that 's something that they have to work out
because as Steve said , I can 't judge . I don 't know what the cost
differential is in doing the two . I don 't know what . You may ...-hieve the
same thing with something else .
Ellson: Well the concern is something like Ursula 's that it 's good to past
it along anyway . I agree with her that I don 't want us to be just the run
of the mill painted stuff . People who occupy those things change over and
the first one might be real good about keeping that' landscaping for exampl
and the next one might now and some might paint it and some might not . I
think that 's why we had talked about having some sort of a trial and I
don 't know that it worked the greatest but trying to get some sort of an
architectural upgrade when it comes into Chanhassen . We don 't necessarily
want the Hardee 's to be what it always is . Because we 're Chanhassen we
want it to be better than everywhere else because we want it to look and
reflect better than the average and I think that 's the idea behind being
better than the average painted block and I think we 'd serve it better too
so I like the idea but I don 't believe it has to be the material of choice
right now but just something that 's agreed to . Maybe that should be
Council 's decision . '
Emmings: Is there a motion?
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site I
Plan Review #91-6 as shown on the site plan dated September 16th , even
though mine wasn 't dated . Was there a date on this?
Aanenson: It should be September 16th .
Batzli : Okay . Well that were dated and that we 're looking at tonight
subject to the following conditions . Conditions 1 thru 10 as set forth in
the staff report . Condition 1 woule be amended so there would be a comma
at the end of the word building at the end of the paragraph and add the
phrase , alternatively the applicant may submit plans for internal trash
storage to City staff for approval , in which event no exterior trash
storage shall be allowed . A new condition 11 . The applicant shall includ
windows and glazed block as set forth in the staff report or shall provide
alternatives acceptable to city staff such as landscaping and other
building accents respectively .
Erhart: I 'll second it . '
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 10
Emmings: Any discussion?
Conrad: Yeah . Where you tied the two together .
' Batzli : Well I didn 't mean to .
Conrad: You tied landscaping and architecture together .
' Batzli : Well they were in the same condition .
Erhart: Yeah , that staff has to approve .
Conrad: Do you believe that the landscaping on the west should be the same
as on the east? The east is where you 've got the exposure . The west , I 'm
not sure that we care about the west . That 's where another building goes .
It faces a neighbor . The east faces an exterior road . The motion just
said additional landscaping period . So it 's back in staff 's lap and I just
wanted to know if we want to provide some direction on that . If we feel
comfortable .
Batzli : I was assuming that actually what would kind of happen is they 'd
talk between now and City Council and City Council would see it because
otherwise , in my opinion it should come back and we should see what they 're
going to do . Because really the only thing that 's totally settled on this
is apparently the , well not even the landscaping now . They need revised
everything .
Conrad: Well there seems to be a lot of things missing in this . Really
are . We 're not looking at anything that staff feels comfortable with , to
tell you the truth . I surely would have like to have seen the applicant
.:rid staff have all the things , rather than discussing it yesterday or the
' - day before and agreeing with the engineering department and again we 're
looking at stuff that we really don 't know what it is . We 're trusting that
you 've worked it out with staff . We don 't have the expertise to evaluate
that anyway but again we want staff to review it to say it 's a good plan .
We agree and then all of a sudden it 's in never , never land between us and
the City Council and that makes me real uncomfortable . I don 't like how
this was really handled . I really don 't . It 's not a big deal but again
' it 's another plan that things are missing and they should be tight. It 's a
simple plan . Maybe we 're trying to get this in before the ground freezes
but it bothers me . So again my points and we 're in discussion item here .
My points are , landscaping on the east is very important . It 's really ugly
' to have that , I 'm surprised you presented that to us to tell you the truth .
To have that an exterior wall facing a road? One window and no
landscaping , at least from what I saw . That 's just and then we 're
bickering about screening a few rooftop deals . You know , I don 't know .
That 's a little bit of a bother to me . I don 't care how the accent block
is handled . I don 't care if it 's paint . I think a good landlord or a good
owner will take care of the paint . I agree with the applicant that putting
in a particular color dates it so again , the issue is the building has a
little bit of character . All we 're asking for is a little bit of character
in this and Brian , if you think your motion covers a little bit of
' character between and one , I ' ll ride with you on that . But again , I 'm just
not real pleased with what I perceive a very simple plan is missing some
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 11
parts where I would have liked to have seen the staff and the applicant in
more agreement before you got in here on some simple stuff that is easy .
Tom Ryan: . Our differences are very minor . I think it 's very minor .
Conrad: Well I would have liked to have you both together on the rooftop . "
Seems like we 're talking about a couple thousand dollars which doesn 't seem
like a big deal to me but that 's an issue . '
Batzli : Well Ladd, if they put the windows in on that side , are you still?
Conrad: I don 't want windows . I agree with the applicant . The business II
drives the building . The business doesn 't need windows . I don 't need
windows . That 's the owner of the businesses ' problem but on the exterior ,
we don 't want just a concrete wall facing . We don 't want a warehouse wall '
facing the street and that 's what we 've got . So again , my concern is
fixing that with landscaping . It can be done real simply . This is simple
stuff . So that 's my point under discussion . If everybody feels that
that 's covered under Brian 's motion, then I 'll vote along with Brian .
Batzli : I can certainly redo , revisit-my condition 11 . Would you rather in
see that the applicant will provide additional landscaping in lieu -of
windows?
Conrad: I think I got my point across . Staff heard my comments and the II
applicant heard my comments . I don't care if we revise it to tell you the
truth .
Emmings: I think we should leave the motion the way it is and just adopt 11
- Ladd 's intent statement .
Batzli : Okay , that sounds good . ,
Emmings: Because I agree with most of what Ladd said except I think the
differences are minor enough so I don 't see any reason for it to come back
Conrad: I don 't want it back , no .
Emmings: Alright . Should we call. the question? Does anybody else want toil
say anything else about this?
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #91-6 as shown on the site plan dated
September 16, 1991 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 City staff for II approval , in which event no exterior trash storage shall be allowed.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 2 , 1991 - Page 12
2 . The applicant shall submit a detailed drawing of the proposed sign . A
separate sign permit is required .
3 . The applicant shall provide a revised parking plan consistent with
staff 's recommendation .
4 . The applicant will provide detailed drawings of the proposed lighting
plan .
5 . The applicant shall submit a revised grading and utility plan
including size , type and elevation of storm sewer and obtain and
comply with all conditions of the Watershed District Permit .
6 . Provide B-612 concrete curb and gutter around parking lots and
driveway . Increase parking lot pavement to standards outlined in the
report and incorporate city 's typical industrial/commercial driveway
detail . Add catch basins in driveway access to catch runoff before
'
draining into Park Place . Fill existing ditch along Park Place with
storm sewer extensions .
•
' 7 . Install hay bales around catch basins until the bituminous is
installed .
8 . Seed or sod all disturbed areas .
9 . Install fire hydrant north of the driveway on Park Place .
10 . Rescind approval for Site Plan #89--9 Rome Office Building .
11 . The applicant shall include windows and glazed block as set forth in
the staff report or shall provide. alternatives acceptable to city
staff such as landscaping and other building accents respectively.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: This goes to the City Council on October 28th . You can follow it
there .
1
PUBLIC HEARING:
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING ACCESSORY DWELLINGS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Willard Johnson Chairman , Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
11 Willard Johnson: I guess I was discussing something with Paul . I 'm the
Chairman of the Board . I wasn 't there that night . I was out of town so I
guess I 've got a feeling I can find a million holes in the darn thing .
•
I