5 Site Plan Chan Bus Center 3rdCITY OF
STAFF
rEPort
P.C. DATE: 5-1-99
C.C. DATE: 6-14-99
CASE: 99-7 SPR
BY: Kirchoff:v
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Site Plan Approval for a ~9,490 square foot office building
Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition
D. Greig Shephard, Jr.
27705 Brynmawr Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
470-8752
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
Planned Unit Development, PUD
5.29 acres
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
N - PUD, Vacant Industrial Lot
W - PUD, City park
E - PUD, United States Post Office
S - PUD-R, Residential Single Family Subdivision
Available to site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
The site slopes to the west and south: A berm and' significant
wooded area extends along the southern border. A trail meanders
through the south portion of the property and borders on the north
property linei
Office/Industrial
.ret
pi
Vi
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On May 19, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed this item. By an unanimous vote, the
commission recommended approval of the site plan. Overall, the site plan received
complimentary remarks. The commission had concerns that the trash enclosure should be
relocated to a less conspicuous location.
It was also brought to the attention of the commission by a resident that the trash enclosure
was not adequately screened by the proposed landscaping. In response to this concern, the
applicant revised the trash enclosure buffering to include an additional spruce tree
(clustering of the trees) and an extension of the berming. The resident also had concerns
that parking lot lighting could be viewed from his residence.
This staff report has been updated. All new information is in bold and all outdated
information has been struck through.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing site plan approval for a one story, 19,490 sq. ft. office building on Lot
3, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition. There is a potential future expansion area
to the north of the proposed building. The applicant has stated that the second building will be a
"mirror image" of the proposal. The PUD standards permit two buildings on one parcel. The
second building will have to proceed through the site plan review process prior to construction.
The building is proposed to be constructed using rock face or textured block. The PUD requires
that all walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate
landscaping. The proposal is compatible with the single family residential subdivision to the
south with the slope of the roof and the domaer-s chimneys that act as an accent. The building
footprint is essentially L-shaped. The proposal contains eight interior parking-stalls. The garage
is accessed via a door on the north side of the building.
The preliminary plat for Chanhassen Business Center was approved on January 13, 1992. The
subject building is proposed to be constructed on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center
3rd Addition, which was approved September 25, 1995.
Staff believes that the proposed development meets the standards established as part of the PUD
and is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions contained in this report.
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 3
BACKGROUND
On January 13, 1992, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for the Chanhassen
Business Center as shown on the attached site plan. The PUD was amended on February 8, 1993
to allow for a church as a permitted use and the final plat for phase I of the project was approved.
On April 24, 1995, the Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, subdividing Outlot C into 7
lots, was approved by the city.
On September 25, 1995, the City Council approved the replat ofOutlot A into 4 lots, Chanhassen
Business Center 3rd Addition.
The City Council approved Chanhassen Business Center 4th Addition on April 13, 1998.
The Chanhassen Business Center is an industrial/office park on 93.7 acres. The original plat
consisted of 12 lots and 2 outlots. The ultimate development for this proposal was to have a total
of 700,000 square feet of building area with a mix of 20% office, 25% industrial and 55%
warehouse.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
OVERVIEW
The proposed one story, 16,500 sq. ft office building with 2,990 sq. ft. of interior parking is
situated between Lake Drive West, Bluff Creek Estates (single family residential) and Outlot A
(31 acres of open space/Bluff Creek Park). Access is gained via Lake Drive West. Parking is
located to the north and east of the proposed building. The interior parking is accessed from the
north.
The building height is 21 feet. It is located 165 feet from property line abutting Bluff Creek
Estates and 337 feet from Lake Drive West.
Overall, the structure is residential in character with the pitched roof and decerative
chimneys. The site plan has been updated to include chimneys rather than dormers. The
applicant removed the dormers because of the cost. The building offers several architectural
features: a pitched roof, donners chimneys, large eaves, a distinctive entrance canopy and a rear
patio. The primary material is tan rock face block accented by green tinted windows with green
trim. The windows are framed with the oversized eaves and stone sills. The roof material is
green asphalt shingles. Dz,.--re. ers The chimneys accent the pitched roof and offer relief. The
building entry, a 17 foot canopy, is distinguished from the building. The large pronouncement,
again, offers relief from the pitched roof. Another interesting feature is the patio, located on the
southwest coruer of the building. It too offers a residential flair to the office building. The
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 4
building is essentially L-shaped and acts as a buffer between the parking and the residential to the
south.
The trash enclosure is located to the directly to the east of the building. The enclosure is
proposed to be constructed of tan rock face block with cedar doors. Staff believes the proposed
location of the trash enclosure is appropriate. It is easily accessed from Lake Drive West
and is satisfactorily screened by landscaping. In response to the concerns of the
commission, the applicant has increased the buffering by clustering the spruce and
increasing the berming.
The plans indicate that ground-mounted equipment is located around the perimeter of the
building. The equipment is eight small air conditioning units. The landscape plan shows that
they are screened with Japanese Dwarf shrubs. The plans do not indicate any roof top
equipment. The PUD requires that all roof mounted equipment be screened by a wall of
compatible appearing material and prohibits screen fences.
The proposal is situated between and is accessed by two trails. The northern trail is accessed off
of Lake Drive West and the southern trail extends from the perimeter of the PUD. The trails
merge just to the west of the proposal and lead to the Bluff Creek open space area, Bluff Creek
and the Creekside Addition residential subdivision. The Bluff Creek open space area contains a
hardwood forest, Bluff Creek and a wetland. Staff considered requiring the applicant to connect
the site with the existing trails, however, this does not seem to be pragmatic at this time since the
building is 273 feet from Lake Drive East on the north and abuts a significant elevation change
on the south to make access to the trail cumbersome. A pedestrian connection should be
considered at the time of site plan review for the second building.
The overall design is of a high quality providing variation and detail on the facade of the
building. The proposal creates harmony with the existing buildings and the open space to the
west.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The development standards will remain the same as previously approved with the PUD.
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone
is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive
proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development
shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below.
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 5
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as
defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to
whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation.
Light Industrial. The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, or
testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure,
with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding
environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants.
2. Warehousing. Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property.
3. Office. Professional and business office, non-retail activity.
FINDING: The proposed office use is consistent with the parameters established as part of the
PUD.
c. Setbacks
In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and
parking setbacks. The landscape buffer on Audubon Road is 50 feet, south of Lake Drive and
100 feet along the southern property line. The PUD zone requires a building to be setback 50
feet from the required landscape buffer and public right-of-ways. There is no minimum
requirement for setbacks on interior lot lines.
The following setbacks shall apply from the right-of-way:
BUILDING PARKING
Audubon Rd. Buffer & Setback
South Property Line & setback
Front & Rear ROW on Lake Dr.
Interior Side Lot Line
Railroad Right-of-Way
Audubon Rd. north of Lake Dr.
50' plus 50'
100' plus 50'
25'
10'
30'
50'
50' plus 10'
100' plus 10'
15'
10'
30'
20'
FINDING: The proposed development exceeds the minimum setbacks established as part of the
PUD.
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 6
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
Chanhassen Business Center Third Addition
Lot # Lot Size in Bldg. Sq. ft. Bldg. Coverage Impervious
Acres Coverage
1 12.1 66,000 12.5% 32.5%
2 6.14 69,000 26% 67%
3 5.47 75,000 31% 79%
4 5.39 75,000 31% 78%
Road 2.82
Subtotal 31.90 283,000 22.6% (Avg.) 58.5% (Avg.)
Finding: The development meets the maximum impervious surface coverage standard specified
as part of the PUD.
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOCATION
Office
Manufacturing
20%
25%
54.09%
Warehouse
Church .91% 5,500 sq. ft.
TOTAL I00 % 603,500 sq. ft.
120,700 sq. ft.
150,875 sq. ft.
342,425 sq. ft.
FINDING: The proposed development meets the development standards established as part of
the PUD. The City has previously approved the following site plans in this PUD: National
Weather Service, Kingdom Hall, Power Systems, Paulstarr, Highland, Control Products, TIS,
Chuck's Grinding, U.S. Postal Service Annex, CH & C, Quantum Controls, and Matthews (Eden
Trace). There are two vacant parcels in the PUD.
A limit has been placed on the maximum square footage of office, warehouse and manufacturing
in this PUD. The office allocated space is very limited and two vacant sites remain, therefore,
staff will be processing a PUD amendment to transfer square footage from either warehouse or
manufacturing to office. Adequate space remains for this application so it will not be affected by
the amendment.
e. Building Materials and Design
The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material
compatible to the building.
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 7
All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color
shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block.
3. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
4. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
o
Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone,
textured or coated.
o
Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above
materials or curtain wall on office components or, as trim or as HVAC screen.
7. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material.
Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be
fully screened by compatible materials.
The Use of large unadorned, prestressed concrete panels and concrete block shall be
prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate
and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through
building design or appropriate landscaping.
10.
Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures for all
developments in the Business Center.
FINDING: The proposal meets the material and design standards. All materials utilized are of
high quality and color is incorporated into the design. Overall, this is a very well designed and
attractive addition to the Chanhassen Business Center. It complements the adjacent residential
and open space uses.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I area to be
installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping
being required ahead of individual site plan approvals but we believe the buffer yard and
plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the
higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 8
screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of
the site plan review process.
All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered
with plantings and/or lawn material.
o
Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan
review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or
landscaping.
o
The master landscape plan for the CBC PUD shall be the design guide for al1 of the
specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for
approval with the site plan review process.
Undulating or angular berms 3' to 4' in height, south of Lake Drive along Audubon Road
shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of Phase I grading and utility construction.
The required buffer landscaping may be installed in phases, but it shall be required where
it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard
landscaping shall be sodded.
o
Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required
where deemed appropriate.
FINDING: The proposal meets all minimum landscaping requirements. The plans do not
indicate any loading areas.
g. Signage
All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty
(80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign
treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the
development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the
development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review.
o
Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the
private site. All signs require a separate permit.
The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will
be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 9
FINDING: The proposal indicates that a monument sign will be placed 15 feet from the
property line abutting Lake Drive West. The sign is proposed to be 8 feet in width by 6 feet in
height. The size meets ordinance and the PUD requirements. The sign is shown to be
illuminated externally. The sign ordinance only permits the internal illumination of signs, so the
spot light will not be permitted. The plans do not indicate any wall signage. All signs must
receive a permit prior to installation.
h. Lighting
Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development.
A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square
ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be
used in the private areas.
All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2
foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
FINDING: The lighting plan indicates three types of light fixtures: a wall pak over the garage
entrance, six, 20 foot high pressure sodium lamps and four, eight foot decorative lamps. The
photometric plan shows that all fixtures meet the maximum illumination of .5 footcandles at the
property line.
The ordinance requires that all freestanding light fixtures have a 90 degree cut-off to control
glare. The parking lot fixtures meet this requirement. The four decorative light fixtures located
along the drive into the parking lot appear to have a 90 degree cut-off, however, staff would like
the applicant to demonstrate that the ordinance requirements have been met.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
PUD
Dover Building
Building Height 2 stories
1 story
Building Setback
N-25' E-10'
S-150' W-10'
N-273' E- 145'
S- 165' W-45'
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 10
Parking stalls 74 stalls
63 stalls (surface)
8 stalls (underground)
3. prOof of parking
74 stalls
Parking Setback
N-15' E-0'
S-110' W-0'
N-152' E-5'
S-222' W-120'
Hard surface 70% 26%
Coverage
Lot Area 1 acre 5.29 acres
Variances Required - none
The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses.
Parking Standards: Office - 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for buildings under 49,999 sq. ft.
Staff has estimated the required parking at 74 spaces. The applicant has shown 74 spaces (3 of
which are proof of parking).
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The site has been previously rough graded with the overall development of Chanhassen Business
Center Third Addition. There is an existing 7-foot high berm along the southerly portion of the
property. The westerly half of the berm is proposed to be removed for the building pad. The
easterly half of the berm is proposed to basically remain to help screen the parking lot area. As a
condition of approval for Chanhassen Business Center Third Addition, Lot 3 is to have a 6 to 8-
foot high berm along the southerly property line to provide screening from the neighbors to the
south. An alternative to the earth berm would be to require landscape plantings (conifers) along
the building's edge to help provide the screening that the berm would provide. However, if the
Planning Commission and City Council are not comfortable with this, the building would have to
be moved northerly approximately 65 feet in order to maintain the existing berm.
The site currently sheet drains to the west and the north. A storm sewer system was installed by
the developer of Chanhassen Business Center in Lake Drive West to accommodate the majority
of the runoff from the site. The storm sewers will convey site runoff to a regional storm water
pond for pretreatment. No additional ponding is required with this proposal. A portion of the
driveway for the underground garage is proposed to be drained via a storm sewer system to the
west down to Bluff Creek. Staff recommends that a sump catch basin be installed to trap
sediment before discharging downstream. A storm water pond is not necessary at the end of this
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 11
storm sewer line due to the small amount of runoff being discharged. Staff recommends that the
storm sewer line be re-routed directly west and extended to the bottom of the slope to minimize
erosion potential and allow the natural vegetation to help filter the water before entering the Bluff
Creek wetland complex. Staff will be working with the applicant's engineer to redesign the
westerly storm sewer accordingly. Staff has been discussing with the applicant's engineer about
revising the catch basin location from the drive aisle to extend another catch basin southerly into
the parking lot to intercept the runoff prior to reaching the proposed catch basins at Lake Drive
West. The plans will be modified accordingly at time of building permit issuance.
The applicant will need to supply the city with detailed storm sewer calculations for review and
approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Lake Drive West. The plans
propose on extending an 8-inch sanitary sewer from the existing sewer line along the north and
west property lines to the building site. Provisions for another sewer line have been included to
serve the northerly half of the lot as well. Water service is being extended from the cul-de-sac of
Lake Drive West along the driveway to provide water service for the site. These utility lines will
be privately installed and owned by the applicant. Permits for extension of the utilities will be
required through the City's Building Department.
PARKING LOT CIRCULATION
The parking lot appears to meet City Code with regards to drive aisle and parking stall width.
The parking lot proposes a drive aisle for the underground parking along the north side of the
building. No changes or modifications are recommended.
The applicant shall escrow $2,500 with the citY to guarantee boulevard restoration and
installation of the driveway apron.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control measures are being proposed around the downstream side of the grading limits.
A rock construction entrance is also proposed off of Lake Drive West. Additional erosion
control fence will also be required after installation of storm sewer on the westerly side of the
site.
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 12
LANDSCAPING
The landscape plan indicates various plantings including ground ivy and sumac dogwood
("Comus Sericea Baileyi"/Red Twigged) surrounding the building and spruce to further screen
the parking lot. The sumac originally proposed to screen the building from the adjacent
Bluff View Estates has been changed to dogwood. This full and dense plant will reach a
height and width of 8 to 10 feet. The proposed landscaping surrounding the trash
enclosure has been revised. The applicant has clustered the 8 spruce trees and slightly
increased the height of the berm to provide better screening from adjacent homes. An
existing wooded area extends along the southern boundary of the property to act as a barrier
between the residential and office uses. The ground mounted equipment has been screened from
view.
The minimum requirements for landscaping include 2,704 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the
parking lot, 11 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along the south property line.
The following table displays the applicant's proposed landscaping compared to ordinance
requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees.
Vehicular use landscape area
Trees/parking lot
South prop. line - bufferyard D
(shown- 75% of total)
Required
2,704 sq. ft.
11 overstory
2 islands
6 canopy trees
12 understory trees
26 shrubs
Proposed
>2,704 sq. ft.
6 overstory
11 understory
2 islands
approx. 320'x70' existing
wooded area
60+ shrubs
Proposed landscaping meets minimum ordinance requirements.
Staff is also requiring the applicant to provide a buffer along the southern property line in lieu of
the earth berm removed for the building's location. This buffer should consist of coniferous
plantings. This is a condition of approval.
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE
The applicant's lighting plan indicates that illumination levels at the property line meet ordinance
requirements. The parking lot lighting, 20 foot "shoe-box" fixtures, meet ordinance
requirements for both height and fixture type. The decorative lighting lining the drive aisle are 8
feet in height. The plans do not detail the lamp type so staff is not certain of the degree of cut-
off. Therefore, a condition of approval is that the applicant demonstrate the fixtures meet the
minimum 90 degree cut-off angle. The ordinance also requires that any existing lighting that
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 13
may impact the site be incorporated into the lighting plan. The applicant's proposal does not
show existing fixtures. This is a condition of approval.
The applicant has indicated that a monument sign will be located 15 feet from the property line
abutting Lake Drive West. The sign proposal meets ordinance requirements in terms of height
and sign display area. The plan indicates the sign will be externally illuminated. The ordinance
states that if the sign is illuminated, it must be internally illuminated. This is a condition of
approval.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
Surface water management fees are not applicable with the site plan as they have already been
paid by the developer in conjunction with the platting of Chanhassen Business Center Third
Addition.
INSIDE PARKING
The site plan indicates that eight parking stalls are located within the building. The interior
parking is accessed via the north from the proposed parking lot.
PARK AND TRAIL FEES
The applicant will be required to pay park dedication fees at the time of building permit.
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Plans are often bid before the building code plan review is done by the Inspections Division
reviewer, making changes necessary for code compliance difficult and expensive to incorporate
later. Accordingly, the developers and designers my desire should meet with Inspections as early as
possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements and the code review process.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1)
Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 14
(3)
Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing
areas;
(4)
Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5)
Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
ao
An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
Co
Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
do
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
(6)
Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the
zoning ordinance, the design guidelines established as part of the Chanhassen Business
Center PUD with the modifications outlined in the staff report, and the site plan review
requirements. The site's existing natural amenities are preserved with the 150 foot
southern property line setback. The site design is compatible and harmonious with the
approved industrial developments throughout the city. The building, landscaping and
parking lot are well designed. Adjacent properties are protected through buffering.
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 15
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Site Plan #99-7 for the Dover Building as shown on the plans dated
received June 7, 1999, and subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall demonstrate that the eight foot decorative light fixtures meet the 90
degree cut-off as required by ordinance.
2. The lighting plan shall show all existing light fixtures that may impact the site.
3. The sign plan must be revised to delete the external illumination for the monument sign.
4. All roof- and ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from view.
o
Staff and the applicant shall work together in resolving the following storm sewer
modifications:
a. Extend a catch basin southerly along the west curb line to the northeasterly comer of
the parking lot.
b. Redesign the storm sewer system from the underground garage drive aisle to the west.
Include a 3-foot sump catch basin with catch basin No. 4.
c. Erosion control fencing (Type I) will be required after the storm sewer has been
installed west of the building site.
The applicant shall provide landscape screening in lieu of the 6 to 8-foot high earth berm
along the southerly portion of the building to provide screening/buffering from the
neighbors in Bluff Creek Estates.
The applicant will need to supply the city with detailed storm sewer calculations for
review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
o
The applicant will need to apply for an obtain a grading permit through the Riley,
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. All areas disturbed as a result of construction
activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket
or sod within two weeks of completion of grading activities in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook. All slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be restored with
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 16
erosion control blanket. The city's boulevard area along Lake Drive West shall be
sodded.
The applicant shall escrow with the city $2,500 to guarantee boulevard restoration and
installation of the driveway apron.
10.
Plumbing permits will be required by the City's Building Department for extension of the
utilities through the site.
11.
The Building Official requires that with 74 parking spaces provided, 3 must be
handicapped accessible. One must be located in the parking garage.
12. Fire Marshal's conditions:
a. The owner must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy premise
identification. Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
b. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
d. Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal. Contact the Fire Marshal for the exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to
be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
e. Submit size of address numbers to be included on monument sign to Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be
included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed.
g. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
Copy enclosed.
Dover Building
June 14, 1999
Page 17
13.
All signage shall require a separate permit. A monument sign shall be limited to eight
(80) square feet in sign display area and eight (8) feet in height.
14. The applicant shall pay two-thirds of the park fees at the time of building permit."
ATTACHMENTS
1o Application
2. Chanhassen Business Center
3. Memo from Dave Hempel dated May 4, 1999.
4. Memo from Steve Torell dated May 10, 1999
5. Memo Mark Littfin dated May 10, 1999
6. Public hearing and property owners list.
7. Site plan dated received June 7, 1999.
8. Minutes from the May 19, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting
g:\plan\ck\plan corem\dover 99-7spt.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
__ Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Variance
Non~conforming Use Permit , , Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development* __ Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
. . Sign Plan Review __ Notification Sign
_.~ Site Plan Review~;~ _ _~ -, /
Subdivision*
X EscorT[or Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
/($50 CUPISPR/VACNAR/W AP/Metes
~'andBounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEES q~-~' ~
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application. ~,~ ,~,~
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
~wenty-six full size folded copies of'the plans must be submitted, including an~8~.zu--X-l-l:'-r-ed~d-cop, y~f
tra nsp a r e~:-~Tdf-C~'h-p la n ~street;
'* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
:NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
° NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME '~{3 ~/e_ [--- ~ v'/~ ,t,,v~.1
LOCATION C- J'~ ?ti/3 ~ (.4, E ~
PRESENT ZONING ~ O "~-
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly prirrted and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should, confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requiremenfs applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible fo/' complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of matedal and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
e and the original do.c.,ument returned to C y Hall Records.
Signature/ fA~pli, ca~t ~ /
Signature f Fe'~Owner [ / Date
Application Received on ~ ~,--~? Fee Paid ~1..~.~;'_, ~ Receipt No.
· The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting, if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
Z
Z
LU
,<
Z
,<
MEMORANDUM
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 Oty Center Drive, PO Box I47
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax 612.937.5739
£,gineering tax 612.937. 9152
Public Safety ]ax 612.93(2524
Web www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer~~q~
May 4, 1999 ,
Review of Site Plan for Dover Building
Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Third Addition
Land Use Review File No. 99-12
Upon review of the site plans prepared by Rehder & Associates stamped April 16,
1999, I offer the following comments and recommendations.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The site has been previously rough graded with the overall development of
Chanhassen Business Center Third Addition. There is an existing 7-foot high berm
along the southerly portion of the property. The westerly half of the berm is
proposed to be removed for the building pad. The easterly half of the berm is
proposed to basically remain to help screen the parking lot area. As a condition of
approval for Chanhassen Business Center Third Addition, Lot 3 is to have a 6 to
8-foot high berm along the southerly property line to provide screening from the
neighbors to the south. An alternative to the earth berm would be to require
landscape plantings (conifers) along the building's edge to help provide the
screening that the berm would provide. However, if the Planning Commission and
City Council are not comfortable with this, the building would have to be moved
northerly approximately 65 feet in order to maintain the existing berm.
Erosion control measures are being proposed around the downstream side of the
grading limits. A rock construction entrance is also proposed off of Lake Drive
West. Additional erosion control fence will also be required after installation of
storm sewer on the westerly side of the site.
The site currently sheet drains to the west and the north. A storm sewer system
was installed by the developer of Chanhassen Business Center in Lake Drive West
to accommodate the majority of the runoff from the site. The storm sewers will
convey site runoff to a regional storm water pond for pretreatment. No additional
ponding is required with this proposal. A portion of the driveway for the
underground garage is proposed to be drained via a storm sewer system to the
west down to Bluff Creek. Staff recommends that a sump catch basin be installed
to trap sediment beforg discharging downstream. A storm water pond is not
necessary at the end of this storm sewer line due to the small amount of runoff
being discharged. Staff recommends that the storm sewer line be re-routed
directly west and extended to the bottom of the slope to minimize erosion potential
and allow the natural vegetation to help filter the water before entering the Bluff
Cynthia Kirchoff
May 4, 1999
Page 2
Creek wetland complex. Staff will be working with the applicant's engineer to
redesign the westerly storm sewer accordingly. Staff has been discussing with the
applicant's engineer about revising the catch basin location from the drive aisle to
extend another catch basin southerly into the parking lot to intercept the runoff
prior to reaching the proposed catch basins at Lake Drive West. The plans will be
modified accordingly at time of building permit issuance.
Surface water management fees are not applicable with the site plan as they have
already been paid by the developer in conjunction with the platting of Chanhassen
Business Center Third Addition.
The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed storm sewer calculations
for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Lake Drive West.
The plans propose on extending an 8-inch sanitary sewer from the existing sewer
line along the north and west property lines to the building site. Provisions for
another sewer line have been included to serve the northerly half of the lot as well.
Water service is being extended from the cul-de-sac of Lake Drive West along the
driveway to provide water service for the site. These utility lines will be privately
installed and owned by the applicant. Permits for extension of the utilities will be
required through the City's Building Department.
PARKING LOT CIRCULATION
The parking lot appears to meet City Code with regards to drive aisle and parking
stall width. The parking lot proposes a drive aisle for the underground parking
along the north side of the building. No changes or modifications are
recommended.
The applicant shall escrow $2,500 with the City to guarantee boulevard restoration
and installation of the driveway apron.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Staff and the applicant shall work together in resolving the following storm
sewer modifications:
a)
Extend a catch basin southerly along the west curb line to the
northeasterly comer of the parking lot.
Cynthia Kirchoff
May 4, 1999
Page 3
o
o
o
o
o
C:
b)
Redesign the storm sewer system from the underground garage
drive aisle to the west. Include a 3-foot sump catch basin with
catch basin No. 4.
Erosion control fencing (Type I) will be required after the storm sewer has
been installed west of the building site.
The applicant shall provide landscape screening in lieu of the 6 to 8-foot
high earth berm along the southerly portion of the building to provide
screening/buffering from the neighbors in Bluff Creek Estates.
The applicant will need to supply the City with detailed storm sewer
calculations for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
The applicant will need to apply for an obtain a grading permit through the
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately
restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within
two weeks of completion of grading activities in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook. All slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be
restored with erosion control blanket. The City's boulevard area along
Lake Drive West shall be sodded.
The applicant shall escrow with the City $2,500 to guarantee boulevard
restoration and installation of the driveway apron.
Plumbing permits will be required by the City's Building Department for
extension of the utilities through the site.
Anita Benson, City Engineer
g:~n gMav¢~r~c~dowr building.doc
CITYOF
y CenterDfive, POBox 147
:hassen, Minnesota 55317
%one 612.937.1900
~eral Fax 612.937.5739
wring Fax 612.937.9152
SafeO, Fax' 612.934.2524
www. ci.c/Janbassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner 1 .~ t~'"'"'
Steve Torell, Building Official
May 10,1999
SUB J:
Site plan review for the Dover BUilding, planning case 99-7 SPR
I have reviewed the site plans for the above project and offer the following
comments and recommendations:
1. With 74 parking spaces provided, 3 must be accessible. One must be located in
the parking garage.
2. The utility plan was not reviewed at this time.
3. I recommend that the building owner and or designer meet with the Inspections
Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
g:/safety/st/memos/plan/dover
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 Cig Center Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 553I 7
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax' 612.937.5739
E, gineering Fax 612.937.9152
Public Safety tax 612.934.2524
Web www. ci. c/mnhassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I
FROM:
DATE:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
May 10, 1999
SUBJECT:
Site plan review for a 19,490 square foot office building to be located on
Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition, on property zoned
IOP, Industrial Office Park, and located on Lake Drive West, Dover Building,
D Greig Shepherd.
Planning Case 99-7 Site Plan Review.
I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city
ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at
this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items
will be addressed.
1. The owner must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy premise
identification. Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-I.
3. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Eugineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal.
Contact the Fire Marshal for the exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted
yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
5. Submit size of address numbers to be included on monument sign to Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be
included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy
04-199 I. Copy enclosed.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy
enclosed.
g:\sa fety\ml\plrev99-7
ITYOF
2ity Center Drive, PO Box 14-
~nhas.,en, 3finnesota 55317
Phone 612.93Z 1900
:enerai Fax 612.93Z5739
ineering Fax 612.937. 9152
Iic Sar'e~ Far 612.93q12522
b www. ci.c/Janhassen, mn. us
o
o
o
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE
INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS
Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler
service line, per NFPA 13-8-2.1.
A final inspection by the Fire Marshal before a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued.
Fire Department access roads shall be provided on site during all
phases of construction. The construction of these temporary, roads
will conform with the Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for
temporary access roads at construction sites. Details are available.
Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition
during all phases of construction.
The use of liquefied petroleum gas shall be in conformance with
NFPA Standard 58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of
these requirements is available. (See policy #33-1993)
All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored by
an approved UL central station with a UL 72 Certificate issued on
these systems before final occupancy is issued.
An 1 1" x 14" As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The
As Built shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal.
(See policy #07-1991).
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #04-1991
Date: 1 1/22/91
Revised: 06/05/98
Page 1 of 2
7~. of Chanhassen. . ~ ~otving communi~, with ,'z'ean 3akes, qua/iO, sa)ooh, a charming a'owmown, ;hriving businesses, and beautiful parks. .4 ~eat piace ~o ~ire. work. and
An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire
department use. The lock box should be located by the Fire
Department connection or as located by the Fire Marshal.
o
10.
11.
High-piled combustible storage shall comply with the requirements
of Article #81 of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High-piled
combustible storage is combustible materials on closely packed piles
more than 15' in height or combustible materials on pallets or in
racks more than 12' in height. For certain special-hazard
commodities such as rubber tires, plastics, some flammable liquids,
idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as low as 6 feet.
Fire lane signage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal.
(See policy #06-1991).
Maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination
domestic/fire sprinkler supply line policy must be followed. (See
policy #36-1994).
Approved - Public Safety Director
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #04-1991
Date: 11/22/91
Revised: 06/05/98
Page 2 of 2
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
?ity Center Drive, PO Box' I47
=nhassen, ,14innesota 55317
Phone 61293Z 1900
~neral Fax 612.937.5739
ineering ~ 612.937. 9152
!lc Safe~. Fax 612.93q2524
www. ci.,'hanhassen, mn. us
CI-IANI-{ASSE~ FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
PREMISES IDENTIFICATION
General
Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and
legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said
numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and
location of numbers shall be approved by one of the
following - Public Safety Director, Building Official,
Building Inspector, Fire Marshal.
Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings
where no address numbers are posted.
Other Requirements - General
1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background.
2. Numbers shall not be in script.
3. If a structure is not visible from the street, additional numbers are
required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved.
4. Numbers on mail box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However,
requirement #3 must still be met.
5. additional numbers if deemed
Administrative authority may require
necessary.
Residential Requirements (2 or less dwelling unit)
1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4".
9_.
Building permits will not be finaledunless numbers are posted and approved
by the Building Department.
Commercial Requirements
1. Minimum height shall be 12".
Strip Malls
a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6".
b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors.
If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional
numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy ~29-1992
Date: 06/15/'92
. Revised:
Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of !
17~. of Chanhassen. A growing commum? with c/ean iakes, quaiiO, sci~oo/s, a charming downtown, .~hriving businesses, and beautiful parks. .4. ~ear p/ace to live, work, aha' pi,(;:
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Center Drive, PO Box i 4 -
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937. I900'
General ?ax 612937.5-39
Engineering ]vax 612.93 7.9152
Public St~. fax 612.934.2524
Web wwm ci. chanhassen, mn. us
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE
NO
PARKING
FIRE
LANE
(NOT TO GRADE
SCALE)
1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18".
2. Red on white is preferred.
3. 3M or equal engineer's grade reflective
sheeting on aluminum is preferred.
4. Wording shall be: NO PARKING
FIRE LANE
Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire
lane and at least at 75 foot intervals along the
fire lane.
6. All signs shall be double sided facing the
direction of travel.
7. Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but
not more than 36" from the curb.
8. A fire lane shall be required in front of fire dept.
connections extending 5 feet on each side and
along all areas designated by the Fire Chief.
ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE
SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE
FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO
ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE
PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES.
Approved -'Public Safety Director
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #06-1991
Date: 01/15/91
Revised:
Page 1 of l
The Gty of Chanhassen. A Fowing communiO' wtth ,'lean lakes, aualirv schools, a charming downtown, thriving bm'me,'es, and beaut~fiul parks. A great place to live, work,
3POSAL:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
Request for Site Plan Review APPLICANT: D. Greig Shephard
for an Industrial Building
LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 1~ Chanhassen
· - Lakes Business Center 3rd Addition
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, D. Greig Shephard, requests Site Plan Review for a 19,490 sq. ft. office/warehouse
building to be located on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition on property
zoned lOP, Industrial Office Park, and located on Lake Drive West, Dover Building.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project.
make a recommendation to the City Council.
The commission will then
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 6, 1999.
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160®
CONTROL PRODUCTS
1724 LAKE DRIVE W
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
KURT/KRISTIE MOLDENHAUER
1792 VALLEY RIDGE TR NO
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
ROBERT BEDUHN
1798 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL NO
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
POSTMASTER
CHANHASSEN POST OFFICE
7730LAREDO DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9998
JOEL & KERI JOHNSON
1806 VALLEY RIDGE TR NO
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TODD & JONI NELSON
8610 VALLEY VEIW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
AUDUBON 92. A MN PTNRSHP
36 SOUTH 9TH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55402
MARK & LAURA JOHNSON
1807 VALLEY RIDGE TR NO
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
DEBRA & KENT LUDFORD
8615 VALLEY VIEW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
FORECAST OFFICE
1733 LAKE DRIVE WEST
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
MICHAEL YAZVEC
1813 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL NO
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARSHA STRAND
8631 VALLEY VIEW COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
AUDOBON 92
15241 CREEKSIDE CT
EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55346
GREGORY & SHELLY SCALLON
1814 VALLEY RIDGE TR NO
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PAUL S & LAURA E GRAVES
8634 VALLEY VIEW COURT
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
JEFFREY & JENNIFER BANKE
8643 VALLEY RIDGE COURT
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
TIM GEEHAN
1819 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL NORTH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAY GRIZZLE
8760 VALLEY VIEW PLACE
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
LARRY WHITE
8657 VALLEY RIDGE COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
LYNDELL & MARY FREY
1822 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL NORTH
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
THOR HEIMDAHL
8671 VALLEY RIDGE COURT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PHEAVANH SOUVANNALATH
1829 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL NORTH
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317
STANLEY/DEBBY NOTERMANN
1766 VALLEY RIDGE TR NO
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CARLOS E. MACHADO
1834 VALLEY RIDGE TR NO
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLIAM KEMBLE
1782 VALLEY RIDGE TR NO
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
KRIS & MINDI DAHL
1774 VALLEY RIDGE TRAIL NO.
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 19, 1999
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Matt
Burton and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cynthia Kirchoff,
Planner I; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 19~490 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 3~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN BUSINESS
CENTER 3RD ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK~
AND LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE WEST~ DOVER BUILDING~ D. GREG SHEPHARD.
Public Present:
Name Address
Chris Radloff Architect
Bob Beduhn 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North
Kris Dahl 1774 Valley Ridge Trail North
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Where's the applicant at related to the berm versus the additional coverage? Do you
know where they're at or not by chance?
Kirchoff: No, I'm not aware of that.
Peterson: Any other questions of stafP.
Kind: Are the dormer windows functional or are they just for looks?
Kirchoff: I believe that the applicant can answer that question.
Kind: Okay. And do you think that the trash shelter area could be moved so that it's not along
the residential side?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Kirchoff: They could move it in front of the building or to the north but they may have a
problem with the second phase going in. It would have to be redesigned to be on the north.
the Planning Commission wishes that.
If
Kind: Do you think that the way it's designed is sufficient enough for the amount of trash that
an office building would generate? I'm thinking compared to like Abra where it seems like they
overflow their trash area.
Aanenson: Because it's not a warehouse, I think the office type use, it probably is. What we've
done in the past when there's two buildings like that, we've sometimes done combined and we
can maybe look at that possibility too. On anticipating a future expansion that we maybe put
something in place that would work for both buildings. We've looked at that before too.
Examined that.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a couple questions. First of all, we've got a hard surface coverage
of about 26% right now with the first building. If we put a second building in, can we assume
that it will be about 52% or is that simplistic? Where are we going to be at with the second
building?
Kirchoff: We can make that assumption. They did provide a sketch of what the Phase II would
look like on the lot. It would probably be a little greater than that. You have an additional
parking area to the east of the second phase.
Blackowiak: It's still well within the 70%.
Kirchoff: It would have to be, yes.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Aanenson: Well, let me correct that. Actually in the PUD you can over on one lot as long as the
entire PUD balances. That's part of the reading of the PUD. Because the Weather Service and
some of those other users have additional green space. If this one goes over, we're just running a
balance on the entire piece.
Blackowiak: Second question. Interior parking. I seem to remember something with the post
office, the interior parking. If it was conditions that were placed on the Post Office and I don't
know if it was Fire Marshal conditions or whatever but I didn't see it addressed at all in this.
Was there something or can you help me with?
Aanenson: They have parking for the mail vehicles. Building code issues.
Blackowiak: Okay, so I mean do we need to address that or.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Aanenson: We can just double check and make sure he's looked at that.
Kirchoff: The building official did review the plans and he didn't have any comments on the
interior parking. Except that they.
Blackowiak: Okay. Some reason I thought there was something about that and I couldn't
remember what it was. Okay, and then finally it talks about the mix of the building area, 20%
office, 25% industrial, 55% warehouse. Where are we now and what changes are we going to
have to make?
Kirchoff: We're very limited in the additional space for office. There are two parcels left in this
PUD and when a second one, or when the next one comes in rather, we may have to amend the
PUD to shift, allocate space for manufacturing or warehouse to the office allocated space. But
this application is fine. They won't be affected by that amendment.
Blackowiak: So you're comfortable with making shifts in the future to meet any needs? Okay.
That's it, thanks.
Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee like to address
the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Charles Radloff: Good evening. My name is Charles Radloff. I'm the architect for this project.
One, I'd like to commend the staff. We've had a very excellent working relationship and they've
been real straight forward to deal with in terms of what was necessary. When it was due and it
was quite clear and from that standpoint I would say that we agree with the staff report. We find
very little things to comment on. We have a couple minor items that we can discuss shortly but
first I guess I'd like to talk a little bit about how the project came to be. Greg Shephard is present
here and he has his own company. He's been on a search for several years to find a site or an
office building or an office for his company and has looked around and looked around and ended
up down this dead end road of an industrial park that is fairly typical industrial park and saw this
magnificent site and view and vista and said gee, I know this is an industrial lot and it could have
variety of occupancies but as an office building it would be just a wonderful Place to have my
office. And he could see that his office would be located in this area. He had no idea at that
point what the building might look like but he knew that'.s where he wanted his office and he got
in contact with me through a mutual friend and we started talking about it and walking around
the site and spending some time there and thought that what would be most compatible with the
property, adjacent property, the trails and the uses was to try to build a large scale house.
Residential character is the way we worked at it. And this residential character would be an
attempt to be compatible with the neighbors and the people using the trail so that the obvious
solution whenever a client comes in and gives you an assignment, you always do an obvious
solution and that's to put offices up by the entrance of the drive and then put warehouses or
docks in the back and then you put up some screening to block the stuff from the, from whatever
adjacent property requirements you have. Industrial it's not a big deal but in this case here's this
magnificent parkland out there and it seemed to me that you'd just do it just the opposite. You
take your building and make it a part of the landform. And there was a large, I call it a stockpile
3
Planning Commission Meeting ~ May 19, 1999
of dirt there that is about, the top of that pile is about where the eave of the new building would
be and then it'd have a pitched roof on top of that. We talked a lot about how we make a
building compatible with residential character and we don't want a bunch of rooftop units. Even
if they're screened they end up looking like boxes with boxes around them and so on and how do
you do that and still keep a pitched roof. So your question of the dormers was a proposal that
said in some manner we need to vent the rooftop equipment in some manner. We're going to use
a much smaller scale furnace on the inside of the project. In the 16,000 square feet we're
probably have 10 to 12 individual units which will then need to have some smoke stacks and
some air vents and things like that. So the idea would be that we started with some dormers.
We've been working with the mechanical contractors in terms of how you would actually pull
this together. We think that another solution might be to pull them altogether and put some
fireplace type smoke stacks up there with the intent is to keep a nice, clean low profile roof plan
there. The building, as is mentioned in the report, kind of takes the place of the berm as it gets
down the way from the east property line. We're preserving the berm on the east end of the site
and the building then sits low and takes the place of the berm as it wraps around. The planting
that you see here is at this point a dogwood hedge...privacy and barrier from the pedestrians that
go there, but not a sense of visual screening to the village because this trail is quite Iow as it goes
past the building so as you look up you'll look into the dogwood and it will shield the building
from, and the pedestrians from the building at that point. We had a discussion with the
neighborhood group in terms of visibility and how this project will impact the various houses. I
had our surveyor go out and locate these existing houses as they related to the site. The closest
house here is 265 feet from the building. I think the only, I think the impact of the neighborhood
meeting, and I know we have several neighbors here, was that they were concerned that my
sketches showed a real, bright green roof and we didn't have our material board with us and our
intent is, it's a gray green. In fact we were in a position where we said, you know when we get to
pick that color we can get the neighbors back together and make sure that we're all in a
reasonable agreement over colors and materials. Materials of the building will be an asphalt
shingled roof. We've vacillated between a standing seam metal roof, which implies a you know,
we're looking for a Class A building and that seemed like it was a solution but it didn't seem
very residential to me. It seemed like it would be shiny and have some glare and it wouldn't be a
friendly neighbor. And so we thought a high quality asphalt shingle. Below the building itself, if
I can get these two together here... The building, this is a view from the entry and the parking lot
side but what it says here is that on the building we have a band of windows. Below the
windows we have a decorative rock face block but to accent that we put a stone sill in at the
window. We have a dark green, not a shiny, bright green but a dark, forest green window frame
with the tinted green glass. Not a reflective... The trim colors and the roof colors will be along
these lines and it might be a little grayer in color as we go so that the dimension from the ground
to the bottom would be 8 feet. We've tried to keep this whole thing just nestled in and tucked to
the ground so that it has a feeling of being just part of the site. And I go out there all the time.
The other day, I was out there yesterday and I drove a big stake in with a red flag and that stake
and flag represents that comer of the building as you come down to...walk around the trail and
saw it, that's where the building starts and angles to the west. One of the other benefits I guess
from locating the building there other than from my owners standpoint of picking this site for the
same reason the neighbors picked their housing site there is the fantastic vista. Is that it then
provides a screen to anything that happens on the site from now on. They asked us about a Phase
4
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
II. We can show them how a Phase II could work but anything that happens on a Phase II is now
totally blocked and the edge of this site is now fixed in relationship to the neighbors. And so if
we can work out any problems that they might see in terms of views or vistas, we'll have it
solved and it will be done and there will be no open ended Phase II that we have to renegotiate
and stuff like that. This proposal will kind of put this edge of the site to bed. I know that we
have a neighbor here who expressed some concern over a view and some areas and from where
we're coming from, we're very willing to work with the people who are adjacent to the property
to make sure that all the views and vistas and conditions are met. It's an easy enough thing to
move the trash container either farther forward or over or behind the berm. The berm that exists
is here. It will stay there. It's 8 feet high and our trash container is like 6 foot 6 and I can move
it and tuck the berm around behind it so that you'll just see dirt from the back. That's not really
too difficult and I think that staff and we could work that out. If they felt they really wanted to
move it over to the other side of the property, that could be done also. I have some, it's easier to
access it here because on the other side is where I put the underground parking so that those
garage doors and stuff were as far and as shielded from the house as is possible. To get to the
underground parking you drive down this driveway here. The next phase would come here. It
would be stuck between them. Still not even...from the trailway so I guess I would argue that we
wouldn't want to put it here because here's...and I think we can shield it very nicely on the side
of the property where it's at and put in a couple of more conifers and we'll be in good shape. I
think the other thing in terms of trying to communicate with the neighborhood group and the
.planning commission to where we're coming from. We're building a Class A office building
here. My client is taking some risk in terms of putting a building at the end of a cul-de-sac but
he's convinced that when people see the site and the magnificent character and it's relationship to
trails, that they will come and be part of his project. The hours of operation for example on this
office building will be normal daytime. There'd be no night time operations here. Maybe
somebody stays late at night. If there's an architect in there, they might be around a little bit later
but. Weekends and, so again I think an office building is always to me then one of the most
compatible residential relationships in it's operating hours. It's low density. It's Iow traffic
volumes. And no tracks. I mean the only trucks we're going to get is when a guy moves in and
out and once a week the trash guy comes and everybody has that. The only other comment is that
we have one, this is a section through the site with this house being the last house on the sight
line. Down in the comer and a cross section from my surveyor and in terms of the contours and
the grade so that tl~e back yard of this house is at 909 and the elevation of our building is like at
927 at the top of the berm. This grouping of trees exists there and provides most of the screening
between the houses and the building. Comment on, staff's comment in terms of adding a screen
hedge. I believe that, we call it sumac here but we upped the quality of the shrubbery to
dogwood. A plant that greens out earlier and... That gives us a nice screening effect from the
trail. It doesn't do much in terms of screening from this particular back yard and I do have a
picture of the worse condition that I guess I could imagine and it would be what you would see
from the back yard of this house in a January day of 5 below zero. But this is a kind of, if you
can zoom in on it. This is taken from the comer of the house. Superimposed over a graphic
image of the building and the colors are slightly off on both of them because it was such a dreary
day and then, but you get an impact of this is where the berm. This is the top of the berm right
along here. This is where the berm ends and that's right about...so even on the worse possible
day when the screening is at it's minimal, there's certainly a considerable amount of texture and
5
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
screening that is provided by the existing trees. And we have pictures of what it looks like today
and it's just dense foliage. I went and stood where the building was and took a series of
photographs and I can show them to you but you know what they look, it's just solid green trees.
You can't see a house from this side so I guess that, I think that that pretty well, unless you want
to get farther into detail in terms of how the building is put together, is where we're at and where
we're coming from on this thing.
Peterson: Pass around the original talking board, the picture, the first one you laid down. I think
it'd be helpful to see the building in this color rendition. Just as an FYI, I think it'd be valuable
as you go to council, in their package to give them a color. Spend a dollar or $5.00 to give them a
color rendering. It brings dimension to it and a lot easier to look at.
Charles Radloff: Yeah, and I'm real proud of it...
Peterson: Any questions for the applicant while we're passing this around?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I guess I was thinking about, well I would like to compliment you on a
very good job of presenting the views and describing the building and how it impacts the
residential area. I was thinking it might be beneficial if you kind of show where your proposed
lighting is and how that is relative to the building height and what the neighbors might see.
Charles Radloff: Sure can. Whenever I approach one of these projects I contract my lighting
engineer to make sure we have a lumin plan. Some cities are insistent that the plan exists and it
just makes sense because there's almost always an ordinance...and I believe this plan is in your
packet somewhere. But to explain it... What we did is we lit the parking lot with the three posts
with two lights of standard shoebox down light at 20 feet high. These light fixtures should be
from the trail, from the houses across the way, it shouldn't be visible at this point. Maybe from
the third story you might be able to see the light fixture but at that point you certainly won't see
any glare because they're turned down lights completely. We put in, and I know the ordinance
says it's got to have a 90 degree cut off but we also put in, we put in a couple of lights and these
may end up going to phase two. At this point we've...some street lights for character and these
lights would be. These would be an architectural light that looks something like that and so that
in essence they don't send out a long distance light and they're more like a little walkway street
lamp and they'd be like 8 feet high. And again, because the berm is 8 feet high here, the top of
this light is lower... Now the owner is concerned about security and...office building and how
you handle that kind of security so we have some, we're going to propose down lights in this
overhang. Down lights will be there and it will be activated by a security motion sensor so they
won't be on. We're not going to light the building up at night and make some sort of glowing
image out of this thing but we're going to have these lights under the soffit so that if somebody's
up and trying to, we can see back in here because it's back behind the trail and we can drive our
truck down the trail and...these lights will all come on all around the building and down light.
And he tried to talk the neighbors into saying, if the lights go on, call 911. But I'm sure it would
be connected to a security system at that point. But that is in general the lights. We have one
wall pack type light and that's down below over the...
6
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Peterson: Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second
please.
Burton moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Bob Beduhn: Hello. My name's Bob Beduhn. I live at 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North in
Chanhassen. I'm one of the neighbors adjacent to this project. And I'd like to just point out a
couple concerns in general. I'm not opposed to the project but I had a couple concerns and this
gentleman did address a couple but if I could use one of these drawings. This is my house
located right here. And my concern is if you look at the sight line of the house, I point right into
this comer where one of the planning commission members talked about trash enclosed with a
berm and landscaping. My one concern is that this plan is not highly accurate with the pictures
and the landscaping. There's a gap in the trees right here and this gentleman did provide me a
photo of that document. That is the case and so my main level, my house sits level,
approximately level with the top of the berm. And so my main level of my home I look directly
inside the building and my concern is if there is no screening in this location, there's definite
gaps, it's interesting to hear about this ordinance that requires the berm to be there. I don't know
that myself and my neighbors, I wasn't aware that, I was always told that this was just a stockpile
of dirt. Not that there was a berm requirement...and so that was very, that was interesting for me
to know and I guess my comments...today with the owner was that, I'd like to see somehow that
this berm either can continue down or landscaping treatments be continued down so that lwould
have some screening. Right now I have none...this plan is laid out. And so that's my, I guess
that's mine and my wife's concern is the trash receptacle. Our elevation of our house looks at the
site and that...from my personal residence. And so that's my main concern there. I don't have
control of the property on top right here. This is one of my neighbors...or anything like that.
That's not my property there to do that with. The other concern I had is his comment about the
post at the 20 foot elevation. I'm not sure what the elevation of the parking lot is. Again, with
my house sitting high and pointed right into the site, you know I know these downward lights
don't project much light but I am kind of concerned about how that ties in with my residence.
The lower homes probably wouldn't see those posts because they'll be blocked by the building.
But those are really my main two concerns as far as the site that I'd like to see addressed. So
thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Kris Dahl: My name is Kris Dahl. I live probably way up here further from the development
area. I kind of look at the trail and I think it's designated a wildlife sanctuary trail. And with this
type of development being built, looking down on, you would kind of consider it a wildlife area.
You destroy any aesthetic value that the trail has in that area. That was number one. I'll agree
with Bob that his house would be starting at that comer of the developed area. The thing is that
the berm is probably set there for a reason and so that people that use the trail do not have a
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
building looking down upon them as they're biking or jogging. I'm pro development. I'm all for
it. I work for a CPA firm. I'm a CPA and if you look at the development that happened just
before it, you've got the wooded fence line that was supposedly supposed to be hidden by trees.
The city was supposed to plant trees to prevent people from seeing this kind of eye sore there
going down. That's never been taken care of. Hopefully that someday someone will take care of
that issue. I can't, I think it's a very beautiful building. Where it's going to be built, that's the
only problem that I consider this a scenic area for future people to use and we should keep
residential separate from commercial but that is kind of residential and kind of wilderness. So all
I'd like to say is that I hope that the City of Chanhassen, the planning council values this natural
habitat and it's integral part of the city and will determine the best use of our scarce resource in
that area. They can only improve the value of houses within Chanhassen if we leave areas open
for people to use rather than keep building buildings on buildings. I moved out to this area. I
moved to this area to avoid the houses right next to each other and corporate America. So that's
the only issue I'd like to state. Oh, there was one other issue. Drainage. I don't know if the
developer knows but that's all clay there. And right now the water is drained through and into
the wildlife, kind of sanctuary park. I think State law requires that it should be drained into a
holding pond and I don't see any plans for where that drainage is going to go. I know that the
post office had problems with the clay and hopefully the developer knows about that. Everybody
knows that clay just holds water. It doesn't go away. And I think that's an issue that needs to be
looked into. Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, is there a motion and a second to close the public hearing?
Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Any thoughts? Comments? Additional questions?
Burton: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Engineering on the drainage issue. Can you...?
Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman and commissioners. This property is located in a subdivision
that has prepared a comprehensive storm water management plan for all the lots of the
subdivision. Majority of the runoff from the sites will be conveyed through existing storm sewer
system in Lake Drive West which conveys the storm water runoff to a regional storm water pond
located north of Lake Drive West, just south of the railroad tracks. To pre-treat the runoff from
the parking lot, part of the building prior to discharging downstream into wetlands.
Peterson: Thank you. Kate, could you spend just a couple minutes regarding the residents
comments this evening on the foliage between the house, his house and the building and what
really our buffer regulation is and who it affects and how close you have to be, etc., etc.
Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to and if it's okay I'd like to also address the
issue regarding the wildlife and the EAW that was done on this project. Maybe I'll just start with
that and then move forward. When this project came in in the mid 1990's, the city did require an
environmental assessment document. As a part of that document the city purchased Outlot A.
The reason being, we felt that was an area that was a wildlife corridor that we felt was a good
8
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
connection with the ravine to tie into the railroad truss to make a connection. We also put the
trail in there specifically for the business park. It's very similar to what we have around Lake
Susan which is very popular with the residential on one side and Rosemount on the other. If you
go there on your lunch hour, a lot of the employees go out and walk which is a big benefit so it's
serving not only the people that are in that park but it's also serving the residents, which is a
wonderful experience for both parties. We did, as I indicated, and Dave also stated, put together
a master plan for this entire project. It was always intended that this be a buildable lot. We
accomplished preservation of open space with the Outlot A, which is that large area just
immediately to the west. As a part of this PUD we did require additional setbacks from Audubon
and from the neighbors to the south so there already is a 100 foot setback and that was kind of
the buffer. It's been called a berm. It's been called a buffer. There was some stockpiling done
on this site, but the intent is, there is a lot of different things that come in here. Could come into
this property. We felt the office space and some of the other things that's happened along the
south side was really a good use. We had an architect that was willing to listen and do some
interesting and we think it's a very nice looking building. Fits in well. Residential in character
so we felt it was a win/win. We could move the trash. I think the applicant's recommendation or
proposal to landscape it is a good one. To screen that. We could move it. Cindy and I were just
looking at it between the two buildings where the garage doors are. I'm not sure, again you could
bury it there if there's room to back up and make the movements but we certainly will look at
that. I'm sure the applicant again could put some additional screening. Again, no matter what
use goes in there, we looked at this with the EA. We're going to have lighting as some of those
issues but I'm certain if there's a tree or two that we need to place in there, the first gentleman
that spoke is a significant ways away from the property. Through his concern though, he can't
put trees to block. Maybe he could on the edge of his property but he's, I'm assuming over 3, 4,
maybe even 500 feet from the subject site. But we can certainly look and it sounds like he's
willing to do that if we leave the dumpster where it is to screen that. But we certainly can look at
putting it between the buildings at the end of where they turn into the underground parking and
maybe do a combined one there. Just to make sure we've got back-up would be an issue for the
trash. The other thing with this type of use as compared to an office, you have significant less
amount of pick up for, as they indicated, deliveries. There's not going to be as much trash being
generated so you're not having that same volume of delivery trucks and waste from the building.
So again that's another positive. I think that answers the questions.
Peterson: All right, other questions or comments?
Burton: Mr. Chairman I have one more question for staff. I was looking through the PUD
standards and one of them was to have an interior recycling space and the finding is that they met
all the requirements and so does that mean there is that space in there?
Aanenson: Yeah, they have to provide, yes. Paper, cardboard, correct.
Kind: I have one other question. How was this area zoned when that residential neighborhood
was built?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Aanenson: It was always zoned industrial but when it came in we did the PUD for those specific
reasons. We wanted to balance the impervious surface and then put some other, the PUD also
provided for some additional architectural standards and then actually we went forward with the
trail and the acquisition of that park property are some of the other reasons. We got a benefit by
getting the acquisition. Worked to negotiate a good price on that lot. Everybody, all the
residents and so we got something and the developer got something.
Kind: So when the residents bought their homes and did their due diligence and went up to the
city to check out what it was going to be zoned behind them, it was industrial?
Peterson: Anything else?
Conrad: Just a comment Mr. Chairman. I have nothing to add to the staff report. This is as good
as it gets. Compliment to the architect. It's good stuff. And there are some things that maybe
staff can look at but I wouldn't even include them in a motion. This is very good so if I were a
neighbor, this is better than a house. That's all.
Peterson: I agree. It's an exceptional job of integrating the concerns of the neighborhood.
Interesting office building so is there a motion?
Burton: Well Mr. Chairman, to keep things moving here, I'll move that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve Site Plan #99-7 for the Dover Building as
shown on the plans dated received April 16, 1999 and subject to conditions 1 through 14.
Conrad: I second that.
Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve Site Plan #99-7 for the Dover Building as shown on the plans dated
received April 16, 1999, and subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall demonstrate that the eight foot decorative light fixtures meet the 90
degree cut-off as required by ordinance.
2. The lighting plan shall show all existing light fixtures that may impact the site.
3. The sign plan must be revised to delete the external illumination for the monument sign.
4. All roof and ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view.
Staff and the applicant shall work together in resolving the following storm sewer
modifications:
a. Extend a catch basin southerly along the west curb line to the northeasterly comer of the
parking lot.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
b. Redesign the storm sewer system from the underground garage drive aisle to the west.
Include a 3 foot sump catch basin with catch basin No. 4.
c. Erosion control fencing (Type I) will be required after the storm sewer has been
installed west of the building.
The applicant shall provide landscaping screening in lieu of the 6 to 8 foot high earth berm
along the southerly portion of the building to provide screening/buffering from the
neighbors in Bluff Creek Estates.
The applicant will need to supply the city with detailed storm sewer calculations for review
and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
o
The applicant will need to apply for and obtain a grading permit through the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. All areas disturbed as a result of construction
activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket
or sod within two weeks of completion of grading activities in accordance with the City
Best Management Practice Handbook. All slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be restored with
erosion control blanket. The city's boulevard area along Lake Drive West shall be sodded.
o
The applicant shall escrow with the city $2,500 to guarantee boulevard restoration and
installation of the driveway apron.
10. Plumbing permits will be required by the City's Building Department for extension of the
utilities through the site.
11. The Building Official requires that with 74 parking spaces provided, 3 must be handicapped
accessible. One must be located in the parking garage.
12. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. The owner must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy premise
identification. Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
do
Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal. Contact the Fire Marshal for the exact location of fire lane signs and curbing
to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904~1 Uniform Fire Code.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
e. Submit size of address numbers to be included on monument sign to Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be
included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed.
go
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
Copy enclosed.
13. All signage shall require a separate permit. A monument sign shall be limited to eighty
(80) square feet in sign display area and eight (8) feet in height.
14. The applicant shall pay two-thirds of the park fees at the time of building permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Bob Beduhn: Can I ask a question? I'm not sure now. Did you say that, ask them to address
that trash thing...make it a part of' the motion.
Peterson: Staff will, again what our intent was is that staff will work with the applicant to create
either screening and/or move it as an option. That's our desire.
Bob Beduhn: Okay, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR TWO 19~632 SQ. FT. OFFICE/
WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED ON LOTS ! AND 2~ BLOCK 1~
CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED
IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK~ AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD~ EAST OF CO.
RD. 17~ SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO~ MILWAUKEE~ ST. PAUL~ PACIFIC RAILROAD
TRACKS ON LAKE DRIVE WEST~ MONK PROPERTIES BUILDING~ EDEN TRACE
CORPORATION.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions ofstaff.
Conrad: Sure. Page 7 Sharmin. Explain the needs for the Stockdale parcel to me. Show me if
you could what the easement would be...
12