5 Site Plan Emplast
~
...-
......~
PC DATE: August 1,2000 S
CITY OF
CHANHASSEH
CC DATE: August 28, 2000
REVIEW DEADLINE: 8/29/00
CASE #: 2000-10 SPR
STAFF REPORT
.
PROPOSAL:
Request for a site plan approval for a 96,925 square foot expansion to a 95,260
square foot building
·
·
LOCATION:
950 Lake Drive, Lot I, Block 1, Empak Addition
·
·
·
þ
i
APPLICANT:
Amcon Construction Company
200 West Highway 13
Bumsville, MN 55337
(952) 890-1217
Emplast
950 Lake Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
·
·
·
·
19 w
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial
ACREAGE: 12.6 acres
DENSITY: FAR. 0.35
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
c
-
~
J
The applicant is requesting site plan approval to expand the existing building on the site by 96,925
square feet, a doubling of the building size from 94,260 square feet. The proposed expansion will be to
the east and south of the existing building in an area previously graded. in anticipation of a future
expansion.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
-
-
)
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed
project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets those standards, the City must then
approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
)
2 Kelly Court
3 Nicholas Way
Road
\-y 78~L~V)
~fII
~§
~~
Park Road
~
àJ
I
Lake Susan
Emplast Addition
August 1, 2000
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The proposed 96,925 square foot expansion will create warehouse and distribution space for the
consolidation ofEmplast's operations. The existing building consists of 16,250 square feet of
office space, 77,510 square feet of manufacturing and warehouse space and 1,500 square feet
employee lunchroom. The building height is 27 feet to the top of the parapet on the south elevation
and 31 feet on the north elevation. The building material consists of tilt-up concrete panels.
.
The proposed development will have a total impervious area of 51 percent of the site. The
maximum impervious area is 70 percent of the site. Significant areas of the site will be preserved in
landscaping.
The property to the east is Roberts Automatic another industrial user. Lake Susan Park is located
south and across Lake Drive. To the west is a vacant office/industrial site. To the north are the
railroad tracks at the top of a steep slope, elevation 946, 35 feet above the finished floor elevation of
the building (elevation 911). The building expansion ranges from 1 feet to 17 feet above the
elevation of Lake Drive as one goes from east to west.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-106 - 20-116, Site Plan Review
Section 20-811 - 20-816, lOP District Regulations
Section 20-1116 - 20-1124, Parking and Loading
Section 20-1176- 20-1183, Landscaping and Tree Removal
BACKGROUND
On April 24, 1989, the Chanhassen City Council approved the plat of Lot I, Block I, Empak
Addition, replatting Lots I and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition.
On April 10, 1989, the Chanhassen City Council approved site plan # 89-1 for a 77,690 square
foot office and production facility.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The proposed addition would continue the use of tilt -up concrete panels similar to the existing
building. The panels consist of raked concrete, mauve in color, with a smooth band, brown in
color, running around the south and east sides of the building expansion. Windows are included
in the south and east elevations in the same size, style and color as existing windows on the
building. The proposed expansion projects out approximately 45 feet from the front of the
building. Overhead doors are located on the north side of the building, hidden from public
views.
Emplast Addition
August I, 2000
Page 3
Staff recommends that an architectural feature, similar in appearance to the southwest comer of
the building, be incorporated on the southeast comer of the building. At a minimum, this should
include a sloped roof accent, the addition of skylights, and a protruding element such as columns
and/or a stoop/patio if additional entrances are required. This will help to create symmetry in the
building and provide additional architectural interest consistent with the requirements of the
Highway 5 Corridor District.
The other issue that staff is concerned with is that sufficient parking be shown on the plan. In
1989 when the site plan was originally approved, the parking requirements for an office use were
3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. The City ofChanhassen's current standards are
4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet (developers are telling us that their clients are requesting 5
spaces per thousand). Based on the parking requirements, the site should provide the following
parking: Office - 74 spaces, largest shift - 65 spaces, warehouse - 54 spaces. The total spaces
that need to be shown are 193 spaces, not the 157 that are currently shown. There are ample
locations to incorporate additional parking on site. Staff did visit the site on two different
occasions and noticed that approximately one-half of the parking was occupied. It is therefore
reasonable to permit the applicant to provide proof of parking for some of the parking (section
20-1124 (I) e.). Staff is proposing that 30 percent (58 stalls) may be shown as proof of parking.
These spaces should be located along the east side of the drive isle to the east of the building
expansion.
GRADING
The proposed grading plan matches very well with the existing ground elevations for the site.
The site had previously been rough graded when the existing Emplast building was constructed.
Now only minor grading is anticipated to prepare the parking lot and building pad. Staff
recommends that the area near the southeast comer of the proposed building be revised to drain
away from the building.
EROSION CONTROL
An erosion control plan has been submitted which shows silt fence around the south side of the
proposed building. Additional erosion control fence will need to be installed around the south
side of the parking expansion area. Staff will work with the applicant in developing an erosion
control plan that fits the site. The proposed catch basins are shown to be protected with erosion
control measures during construction. Once the additional parking stalls and/or drive aisles are
paved and all disturbed areas have been revegetated, the applicant shall be responsible for
removal of the erosion control fence.
UTILITIES
Emplast Addition
August 1,2000
Page 4
The existing Emplast building has sewer and water services. No additional services are being
proposed for the building addition. The applicant shall provide documentation that the existing
8" water and 4" sewer lines are sufficiently sized to service the proposed building expansion.
DRAINAGE
Stormwater runoff from the parking lot will be conveyed via storm sewer to an off-site regional
pond on the south side of Lake Drive. The þarking area on the east side of the future building
will need to be revised to drain away from the building. Also, a catch basin should be added on
the south side of the westerly entrance drive to capture the additional impervious runoff before it
reaches Lake Drive. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations including a
drainage area map for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event for the City Engineer to review and
approve prior to issuance of the building permit.
PARKING LOT CIRLCULATION
Currently, there are two driveway entrances to the site. No additional entrances are proposed.
The existing drive aisle widths of25' should be increased to a minimum of26' wide as per City
Code Section 20-1118.
After visiting the site and viewing the condition of the existing pavement, the applicant may want
to consider a heavy-duty pavement section for the truck traffic drive areas.
LANDSCAPING
Minimum requirements for landscaping include 472 sq. ft. oflandscaped area around the parking
lot, 2 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along Lake Drive, as well as neighboring
property lines. The applicant's proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and
parking lot trees is shown in the following table.
Vehicular use landsca e area
Trees/ arkin lot
Buffer yard C - Lake Drive
(*shown is 75% of totals
re 'd
Bufferyard B - E. property
line
(*shown is 75% of totals
re 'd)
ccor mg to city u er yar or mance, t e project
may plant the remaining 25% on their property.
Re uired
472 s . ft.
2 oversto trees
3 overstory trees
5 understory trees
5 shrubs
4 overstory trees
7 understory trees
7 shrubs
Pro osed
>472 s . ft.
7 oversto trees
5 overstory trees
12 understory trees
20 shrubs
3 overstory trees
8 understory trees
o shrubs
eve oper IS responsl e or on y
o 0 t e reqUire p antmgs. uttmg property owners
Emplast Addition
August 1,2000
Page 5
The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for buffer yard plantings for the east
property line. Staff recommends that one overstory tree be added in that area. Staff believes that
the extra evergreen will provide equal or greater buffering than the required seven shrubs, so staff
recommends that the applicant not be required to plant the shrubs.
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE
The applicant is not proposing additional lighting or signage.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(I) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing 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 offunctional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
Emplast Addition
August I, 2000
Page 6
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 City's Highway 5 Corridor
design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan
review requirements contingent on the revisions contained in this report. The site has few
existing natural amenities due to previous development on the property. The site design
is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 1, 2000, to review the proposed
expansion. The Planning Commission voted five for and none against a motion recommending
approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of the staff report. The Planning Commission
added condition number 19, "The applicant shall present to the City Council a detailed
landscaping plan." However, this is not the type of condition one would have recorded against
the property, since it must be completed as part of the review process. Staff believes this was
given as a directive to the developer to make a presentation in front of City Council of their
proposed development.
There was some question regarding condition 16. This condition can be accomplished by
restriping the parking lot areas. Its only real impact will be if the proof of parking is required to
be installed.
Additionally, the applicant has added an architectural detail to the southeast comer of the
building, mimicking the entrance feature in the southwest comer of the building. This detail
consists of a standing seam roof, projecting over a porch/patio area. Columns support the comers
of the roof. These revisions eliminate the need for condition number 2.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Site Plan #2000-10, plans prepared by AMCON, dated June 30,
2000, subject to the following conditions:
a) The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
Emplast Addition
August 1,2000
Page 7
h) ¿Á.a afehfteetufal feamre, similar ia appearanee t8 the seml¥.~¡est Gemer øftke ÐuilEliøg,
shall13e iaeaFf1eæted aft the seækeast semer of tae lnalEliag. .t^.t a æinilfuHß, this sha1:lld
iRelNde a slepeEl reef aeeeat and a }3ratrudiøg elemeat sueR as eeluæfls anà'ar a
staef',1Jatie if aàElitieaal eIHFBß.eeS are ret}ØÎfeà.
c) Revise the site plan to provide the following parking: Office - 74 spaces, largest shift-
65 spaces, warehouse - 54 spaces. The total spaces that need to be shown are 193 spaces.
Thirty (30) percent (58 stalls) may De shown as proof of parking. Should parking become
a problem, the city may require the installation of the additional parking spaces whenever
a need arises (section 20-1124 (1) e.) upon written notification of the developer and/or
property owner.
d) Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
location of hydrants.
e) Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact curbs to be painted and exact location of 'No Parking Fire Lane' signs.
f) The applicant shall plant one additional overstory tree along the east property line in order
to meet minimum buffer yard requirements.
g) The addition must be provided with an automatic fire extinguishing system.
h) Accessible parking spaces must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building
Code Chapter 1341.
i) The addition must meet the requirements of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 for high pile
storage.
j) Exiting for the existing building and the addition must meet the requirements of Uniform
Building Code Chapter 10. These requirements cannot be determined until complete
plans are submitted.
k) The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
I) Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for each catch basin
and storm sewer sizing based on a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
m) All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
n) Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit.
Emplast Addition
August I, 2000
Page 8
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
18.
a)
b)
c)
d)
0) Add all applicable City detail plates to the plans.
p) Increase drive aisle widths to a minimum of26 feet when adjacent to vehicle parking
stalls. Drive aisles, which are not between two rows of ninety (90) degree angle parking
spaces, may be twenty-five (25) feet wide.
q) On the Grading Plan, Sheet C-l :
Show all existing and proposed storm sewer lines.
Revise the grading along the southeast comer of the building to prevent stormwater from
draining toward the building.
Show the erosion control features.
Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
Change the title of the plan to "Grading & Erosion Control Plan".
Change the straw bale dam protection around catch basins to a concrete block and 1" rock
filter around the catch basins (see attached detail).
Show the correct easement locations as per the Empak Addition plat.
On the utility plan, Sheet C-2:
Lighten or screen the existing utility lines to distinguish them from the proposed utilities.
Provide documentation that the existing water and sewer services are sufficiently sized to
handle the building addition.
Add a note stating that all connections to existing manholes shall be core drilled.
Add a catch basin on the south side of the western entrance drive just before the future
parking stalls.
e) Show the location of the existing light poles along Lake Drive."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Reduced Copy of Site Plan
3. Reduced Copy Overall Floor Plan
4. Reduced Copy Building Elevations
5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
6. Planning Commission Minutes of August 1,2000
7. Fax from Tom Raszak (AMCON) to Bob Generous dated Aug. 1,2000
Emplast Addition
August 1, 2000
Page 9
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
INRE:
Application of AMCON Construction Co. for Emplast expansion Site Plan Review
On August 1,2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule
meeting to consider the application of Emplast and AMCON for a site plan review for the
property located at 950 Lake Drive, Lot 1, Block 1, Empak Addition. The Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan was preceded by published and mailed
notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak
and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned lOP, Industrial Office Park, and HC-l, Highway
Corridor District.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial use.
3. The legal description of the property is Lot 1, Block 1 Empak Addition.
4. Section 20-110:
(I) Is consistent 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) Is consistent with this division;
Emplast Addition
August I, 2000
Page 10
(3) Preserves 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) Creates 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) Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
(6) Protects 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.
5. The planning report #2000-10 SPR dated August 1,2000, prepared by Robert
Generous, et aI, is incorporated herein.
Emplast Addition
August 1,2000
Page 11
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site
plan review.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1st day of August, 2000.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
g:\plan\bg\emp1ast spr.doc
..--.---........
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
. . 690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
'PUCANT:..kmc:.ol\ rJ)Y\?\n~Qf¡o1'\ ÚJ .
>DRESS: 2.co IIJ. ~~.I--;
-'BvrI\5'¡\\I4w\N 5?337
:LEPHONE(Daytime).ße?2· õqO - \î-\J
OWNER:~k~t
ADDRESS: We. 'þYÌVe,
C~hA$eJ1. M NCS>? 3\1.
TELEPHONE: ß"2. 4J S" . '3<::7)0
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permn
- Conditional Use Permn - Vacation of ROWÆasements
- Interim Use Permn - Variance
-
_ Non-conforming Use Permn - Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permits
_ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign
;L... Site Plan Review' ...x.. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
f'70 r~JOO t tlOt 150+ f 2'":0+ 41~.zç-= ($50 CUP/SPRN ACN ARI'N AP/Metes
. ~ I í.¡~q:2.C;- and Bounds. $400 Minor SUB)
- Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ /1l2..tJ·z..ç
\
,
i'C·
t-:-
,-,-.
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.
"Twenty-six full size ~ copIes of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'12" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
.. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
IOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECTNAME~ì~
lOCATlON~LðJ<..e, 1)rì\fe.
LEGALDESCRIPTJON~ 1- I ~"2.. (M.h~~ 1)1A?il1~ç +>AfK.
TOTALACREAGEJ 1. .1., ~.
YES ..)L..NO
,
PRESENT ZONING (¿
REQUESTEDZONING~ ~f:fì(J'- 'P~
PRESENT lAND USE DESIGNATION t>-ffi œ li1tMA s.~
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION ~'c.("., I rJAAstrì ~
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Jb.)~e ho VL'£- A:dt:M:1ì on -tv -.Ø'J..i~..:~_~nl\.í I clÆ ~
This appncation must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
. .
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement). or I am the authorized person to make
this appncation and the fee owner has also signeä this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees. feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within t 20 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
~ 1::; 1<.1~
Si~~PIi~ .
~ /þ7~---
Signature of Fee Owner
Application Received on (p / ~J{)O
,
.lvltlo.1-" 1/1ít'ù
~--
f7.¡d.TNF/L þ! !7,~c.;
Date
Fee Paid ~/'Iz.c:¡. z.§: Receipt No. :J)0 57f f ':>78
The appncant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
Jf not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
.~
I"""I"IIII[D! YO ~~~II ; l r~<~
............. ........... QLNCIWC:IC:IW~...=.:.: . i ~
rr--·"'·=·""·mm '''''='=';;'''~.""-,...",,,,,-,.,~,,,. ..., ~\
r---------------------- -----_.-IIiIiiIiiii.------------------------------.... \
: '. \
I ! C\ \ \
¡ , , I " ,~~, , , , , , ¡ , 1\ \,
¡ ..__ ~ '..!..~~_~.l' _~_._, J.. .. \ \
~I ¡ \ \~ \ \
' I, \.
: \ \ \1
: \ \
! \ \,
I . . .
, \ \ :I
\ \ e
IS'-
I \
, \.
I "
, \ \ '\
II \ \
I \ :
, \ \'\
\ ~
'I I n;.: ~i'jþ \ ¡
; I: \ \ ~
: \ 1
'I t. t\
II \\ ~,
I' .: ': \
\ \
\ .
t I,
I : : \
' '
, ' ,
, ,
, '
, '
, '
Il \ \'\
\ \
t~~~~---------·-----__ \ 1.
..~;,;,....-..... ............ ¡ ~:
............-----__.. MI::.__ . ,
---......~---- ........i;¡¡¡¡¡.--. : :
--.......~ -. ...-----.. : :
"~:a,.- ...... 'I
. ..~... ..... II/
--.;:............ ................ I,l'
.......:..... '. '.
,........ .......... 1./
,........ ........ II I
"...... ............ ,~~'
,...... ...... //
"... ..../
~"" l
,....,/
1:5 IJ I J
~ J"I'J II
t; ,1111'1
w
¡ ..i.llaa..
,11111111'11, II
~I': i'l i:! i'l i' ~'I
~ I. Ildllili IdlliR 11ft
~ I I I I ! I
! i
, .
,hid
I!.,!,!
I!h',
I¡Uill'
Mml
.
"
\
,
,
I '. ! ':f
~ I,~ '''I r,; 1111
~ 11m ill ,.1 ,
~ 11~,i'l 111'lij~¡
¡Jig 'I i I ~I:III
rrU I I JDi!:If
Ih;1I I ill rnl
dil" 1111111111 I'
......... .4·
Y' :"s=IWl1 ; ij.; ~ ¡
QLNCI.I.IQCI¥ ..~ ~..l!I..lLU~ .........
T TT_T_T_T_TA_T_T_U_T
--[--" , , , , , , , " ,
i i i i i' i i i ii
._~__ .+---+-.~._+._.+--¡---+._.-i-i._.
¡i· i i i i ì i ii
._l_. .L_L_LL_L_Lj._.jj_.
i i i i ì i i i ii
i i i i i i i i ii
'-1- T-¡----¡'-T-r-¡-'ï--'îi'--
i i i i i i Ii i ii
'-j- '·r-·--j--t·-¡--J.¡-·-j-·ti·-
ì ,I i i ì i i Ii i ii
-1- +- -ì--.j.--+-t--i--j-·+i-
¡ :, i i i i ì i i ii
.-l-. .1- L_L.l._L_i-_j___iL
i Iii i i i i i ii
-f-- I i -+ .~-' . L-¡-.-+-~-
i I I ' i i ii
--[- '¡-f-j---j"-ii-'
, ì i _. I i ii
....¡ Î'I·~ ¡
~
~
i
I
~
~
I
?:
II
II
(J
(J
(J
-
co
..
-
-
(J
(J
I
.
I
(J I
-
(J I
,
-
~~~II
I . h-L ~ ADDmCIN10
il;~U : . i ~~~ ,A
Im.'¡ I tmttll'l 'rI!p
, n!~u
7/1'-'''
,~I/,'.~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Site PI_ Review lor
. 88,925 ..,. Addition
APPUCANT: .Amcon Construction Co,
LOCATION: 950 Lake Drive
NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal In your area. The applicant,
Amcon Construction Company, Is requesting Site Plan Review for a 96,925 sq. ft. expansion to a
95,260 sq. ft. buDding on property zoned lOP and located at 950 Lake Drive (Lot 1, Block 1, Empak
Addition), EmpIast.
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 Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff wit give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Conwnents are received from the public.
4. Public hearing Is closed and the Commission discusses project.
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 Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. 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 bean published In the Chanhassan Villager on July 20, 2000.
Lake SL
~09tS
£ vv-..pt o.s+-
JaW]
'SEMOUNT INC
TN: CONTROLLER
)01 TECHNOLOGY DR
'EN PRAIRIE MN 55344
IT OF CHANHASSEN
~COTTBOTCH .
) CITY DR·· PO BO
1 ASSEN MN 55317
IWARDAPAULS
27 TOP OF THE WORLD DR
.LT LAKE CITY UT 84121
fY OF CHANHASSEN
) SCOTT BOTCHER
) CITY CENTER DR __________¡>Õ BO
IA~~~-----rViN 55317
fV OF CHANHASSEN
) SCOTT BOTCHER ____
) CITY CENTg¡LD~ PO BO
~N.tJASSmr MN 55317
JBERTS AUTOMATIC PRODUCTS I
o EAST LAKE DR
IANHASSEN MN 55317
)UNTY 17 CHANHASSEN
QHWY 13 W
JRNSVILLE MN 55337
òDDOR ENTERPRlSES/E J CARLSO
o UNITED MAILING INC
01 PARKRD
1ANHASSEN MN 55317
"DOOR ENTERPRISES
J CARLSON
'51 POWERS BLVD
HANHASSEN MN 55317
s aqe1 ssaJpPV
""----
@AHaAVIl
t)
~
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
Bill Coffman: Sure. Then what you're suggesting is either take this plan to the council or come back
with a different application with a different design?
Peterson: That certainly is your option, yes.
Bill Coffman: Okay, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 96.925 SO. FT. EXPANSION TO A 95.260 SO. FT. BUILDING ON
PROPERTY ZONED lOP AND LOCATED AT 950 LAKE DRIVE (LOT 1. BLOCK 1. EMPAK
ADDITION). AMCON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, EMPLAST.
Public Present:
Name
Address
John Hosford
Mark Huus, Amcon Construction Company
Scott Quiring
Tom Rossak
950 Lake Drive
200 West Highway 13, Burnsville_
200 West Highway 13, Burnsville
200 West Highway 13, Burnsville
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair I have two questions. Just so I'm understanding correctly when you say the proof of
parking, that means they don't have to build the parking now but there has to be room that they could
build it at a future point when it's necessary?
Generous: Correct They'd have to design it and show us on a plan that it could be installed.
Sacchet: Okay. And then the second one, I think you pretty much hope is that, I'm not sure I followed
all the details of your changes to the condition number 16 but my question was how many places is the
25 foot drive aisle width that needs to be sent at 26 because it seems it will be a small extension and
"here it's worth ripping up... I think the condition that you just explained answers that concern, right?
Generous: Correct
Sacchet: Alright, that's my questions.
Peterson: So Bob, are you comfortable with the changes they've made that they're substantive enough to
approve?
Generous: Weill ran it by other planners and it does add that articulation on that corner. This is a
warehouse building. It's mammotl1. It does sit up on the hill and with the landscaping I believe we'll
get the interplay of the concrete and the living material to help soften that expanse. So I think it will
work.
Peterson: Okay. Other questions?
29
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
Sidney: Mr. Chair. One question, and I was looking at the square footage and I thought well that's pretty
close to what would trigger possibly an EA Wand I was thinking well, is that only once done on a
property if it's a large building or if you had an addition like in this case, ifit were over 100,000 square
feet, would an EA W be required?
Generous: Well they'd have to triple it. It's 300,000.
Sidney: Oh, 300 for, okay. So do additions count into that?
Generous: Yes, you would have to look at all that but they're maximizing the site. They're at a floor
ratio of .35 and that's pretty high. In an industrial site. Especially when you're doing one story. Now if
you go multi stories you can get more square footage on the site.
Sidney: Okay so, I guess that's what I was trying to formulate as a question. If you have an existing
building and they add onto it, at some point you may trigger an EA W?
Aanenson: Yes.
Peterson: At 300,000.
Sidney: At 300,000.
Aanenson: I'm not sure, 300's for new. I'm not sure.
Aanenson: ...this building doesn't but if there is for an addition.
I
Generous: I think it's also for expansion.
Sidney: Okay.
Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Ifso, please come
forward.
Mark Huus: My name is Mark Huus. I'm an architect wilh Amcon Construction representing Emplast.
Also like to note John Hosford from Emplast is here to answer operational questions if you have any. I
also appreciate Bob's help in preparing the application. Be willing to answer any questions that you
might have. One point I'd like to make is that we did not want to emphasize the architectural element on
this end of the building too much in order to prevent confusion as to exactly where the entrance is. The
drive does enter approximately the center of the site and so I feel like we've got a balance here and we
didn't want to call that out as maybe a building entrance. Be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant?
Conrad: Yeah, what are you doing on the expanded area?
Mark Huus: Pardon me?
30
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
Conrad: What is the expanded area for?
Mark Huus: Operation inside? I believe it's warehouse.
Conrad: Strictly warehouse.
John Hosford: That'd be strictly for warehouse.
Peterson: If! said I wasn't happy with that, fro¡n one entrance to the other is a lot of concrete. A lot of
it. And part of what my concern is, the buildin1;\ is a pretty prominent building as it relates to a park,
which is one of our prominent parks in this city so it's going to get a lot of visualization and a lot of eye
contact. And even with Bob's comment of landscaping, you know is there anything else you can do to
mitigate my concerns?
Mark Huus: Well we had that initial concern as well, and that is part of the reason for off setting that
building 40 feet. I guess that's the first thing we did. I'm guessing you have a landscape plan in your
packet but that was the other thing we did to address that concern. We're adding quite a bit of
landscaping there. There's also several existing trees that we're going to move out into that area. Trees
that would be in the way of the expansion. And I guess I've got a photograph here that shows some of
the landscaping at the existing building. Now this is the beginning of the warehouse portion here and
although it doesn't go quite down far enough, but they've done a real nice job of landscaping in front of
that existing wall. And that's what we're anticipating carrying through. The elevations we've shown
here on the large board are primarily intend to show the building itself. It only shows a fraction of the
trees that we intend to put in front of the building.
Peterson: How substantive are you planning on putting in as far as size?
Mark Huus: Pardon me?
Peterson: How substantive of size are you planning on putting in? Oftrees.
Mark Huus: Like I said, some of them are fairly mature trees that we're moving out and I believe we've
got 6 to 7 foot pines. And then 2 Y, inch caliper deciduous trees.
Peterson: I think it's also important to note, if you're putting in that other end in, to be careful not to
cover that up with the trees. You're kind of defeating the purpose of the building articulation so.
Mark Huus: Right. I think what we intend to do is to lower the plantings in that area and rearrange
them...
Peterson: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Mark Huus: Thank you.
Peterson: Motion and a second for public hearing please.
Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
3]
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward
and state your name and address please. Motion to close.
Sacchet moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Fellow commissioners. Your comments on this one please.
Sidney: I can start. I guess I do have some concerns about the expanse of the south elevation. However
I agree, well understand that it's a warehouse b!,ilding and there will be landscaping so I guess I do feel
comfortable in that respect that the applicant hás done a good job in the past. Will likely do a good job
of landscaping in this case too. The addition of the architectural element on the corner I think is a good
idea and I guess overall I think it's a reasonable plan for it's purpose.
Peterson: Any other comments?
Burton: Mr. Chairman...I think it's fine for what it is and it's in an excellent location for what it is and I
believe that the landscaping carried through the way they've done it, it should be fine. I surprised we
don't have any private street issues. Otherwise I think it's fine. I agree with the staff report.
Peterson: Okay.
Conrad: Mr. Chair, the landscaping. Yeah, the building's okay. No great shakes but really want to make
sure the landscaping does something and I missed it. You know when I went through the plans, I didn't
see something labeled landscape plan and maybe we have the overall floor plan. It didn't say landscape
plan so I didn't really review it. I really want to make sure that that really is, it's got to break up the
walls and it's got to, just like the applicant said, but I really need it firmed up. It's loose to me right now
and maybe that's because it's loose. When the applicant goes to the City Council, really want a lot of
attenlion paid to lhe landscape plan. What you're doing. What trees you're moving around. How you're
breaking up. It's a huge wall. It's across from a park and I think you build it the way you want to build
it, that's okay with me but boy, make sure that landscaping plan can cut it up and soften it a bit. Both
winter time and summer time.
I
,
t
Peterson: Any closing comments Vii?
S"cchet: I like the proposal. I do believe the applicant has made an effort to add a little architectural
interest. There seems to be a lot of plantings on the drawing right now so I believe that the building, that
Ladd is pointing out is fair but I think that it's important to make sure that it's there because it's, you
drive out of Lake Susan Park and you have this thing in front of you. So I think it needs that buffer
element definitely. I feel that this is a good plan and we should approve it.
Peterson: Good. Thank you for those comments. Mine are not dissimilar. I'm real reticent to let that
big of a wall go in that prominent of a place. I'm depending upon a lot of, on the trust that those trees
will go in and substantially change that feeling that that wall gives so I will vote, with reservation but
with confidence that it will happen. A motion please.
Conrad: I would make the motion Mr. Chairman, the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan #2000- I 0, plans prepared by Amcon dated June 20, 2000 subject to the conditions ofthe staff
report with an add on condition 19. That the applicant present to the City Council in detail their
landscape plan when it does reach the City Council level.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
Sacchet: I'll second that.
Peterson: And you're noting the item number 16 with the drive aisle change?
Conrad: Thank you Mr. Chairntan, yes.
Peterson: Okay. Moved and seconded, any discussion?
.
Conrad moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan #2000-10, plans prepared by Amcon dated June 20, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
I. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. An architectural feature, similar in appearance to the southwest corner of the building, shall be
incorporated on the southeast corner of the building. At a minimum this should include a sloped
roof accent, the addition of skylights, and a protruding element such as columns and/or a
stoop/patio if additional entrances are required.
3. Revise the site plan to provide the following parking: Offices - 74 spaces, largest shift - 65
spaces, warehouse - 54 spaces. The total spaces that need to be shown are 193 spaces. 30% (58
stalls) may be shown as proof of parking. Should parking become a problem, the city may
require the installation of the additional parking spaces whenever a need arises, Section 20-
I 124(l)(e). upon written notification of the developer and/or property owner.
4. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of
hydrants.
5. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of "No Parking Fire Lane" signs.
6. The applicant shall plant one additional overstory tree along the east property line in order to
meet minimum buffer yard requirements.
7. The addition must be provided with an automatic fire extinguishing system.
8. Accessible parking spaces must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code
Chapter 1341.
9. The addition must meet the requirements of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 for high pile storage.
10. Exiting for the existing building and the addition must meet the requirements of Unifornt
Building Code Chapter 10. These requirements cannot be deterntined until complete plans are
submitted.
II. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
12. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for each catch basin and
storm sewer sizing based on a 10 year, 24 hour storm event.
13. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed
and disc-mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
14. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit.
15. Add all applicable city detail plates to fhe plans.
16. Increase drive aisle widths to a minimum of 26 feet when adjacent to vehicle parking stalls.
Drive aisles that are not between two rows of 90 degree angle parking spaces may be 25 feet
wide.
17. On the Grading Plan, Sheet C-l :
a. Show all existing and proposed storm sewer line.
b. Revise the grading along the southeast corner of the building to prevent storm water from
draining toward the building.
c. Show the erosion control features.
d. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
e. Change the title of the plan to" Grading & Erosion Control Plan".
f. Change the straw bale dam protection around catch basins to a concrete block and I"
rock filter around the catch basins (see attached detail).
g. Show the correct easement locations as per the Empak Addition plat.
18. On the Utility Plan, Sheet C-2:
a.
b.
Lighten or screen the existing utility lines to distinguish them from the proposed utilities.
Provide documentation that the existing water and sewer services are sufficiently sized to
handle the building addition.
Add a note stating that all connections to existing manholes shall be core drilled.
Add a catch basin on the south side of the western entrance drive just before the future
parking stalls.
Show the location ofthe existing light poles along Lake Drive.
¡
c.
d.
e.
19. The applicant shall present to the City Council a detailed landscaping plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION REGARDING THE PERMISSIBLE
PLACEMENT OF A MONUMENT SIGN ON LOT 1. BLOCK 1. ARBORETUM BUSINESS
PARK 3RD ADDITION LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 82ND STREET AND TH
41. MIKE SCHLAGEN.
Public Present:
34
.- -~...... -_. ..
¡.-
Ihffil ¡
....&¡'" ¡ ~
f¡·li; I~ I J J I 1 I .
..
8
0-
,
~
=or.,ò,-".bL"
i!
Ii
"
"
"
"
"
"
ii
"
"
"
"
"
··__.n.
,,...,..,_.,...
..
o
.....
o
--
o
!.-
.
-ö'
~
i-
:---
"
"Õ=..
o
~~:
-----.
~"-J-
~---._.._...
-'''''''f
._-.._--..... .
¡ï_ rnl
v'" -~~~d~l i'
OoLNaWacIv ~ _ _
II
~'--
~I
t
~
"
~j
t7.~~ 11
. . II
'0 I
o j!
ii
co ii
.
.".
ê··-·
----....-.-..
.
..
f-
.
;
:.:..--....',;".......¿,:...,
0>- --
6·-1 .
I
oÞ--
"
"
"
"
Ii
o II
:1
o :¡
i
¡
i!
Ji
11
.,
.,
"
¡¡
1!
~!
,.
0-
ë:Jh
0--··
r
tJ
,
,
,
,
,
o ;1
,
n
..
09--.
_'-0
"
Ii
-
-
----- ,I
..
"
I:
:!
i!
T
.
I 0 A:'
~
i n ~
I 0
CO>
-
,
,
,
Ii
'.. Ii
-. ..... Ii
"
"
. .
<>--
. .........................~...... - ,-.. .....
r.ilQ;>
I,~~
\...
j 1~,
~t - ~ )
~..
~~~
·
·
'ö' J
~. j
-- f
0;
,
·
-- '-II
'n