1a. Site Plan 7870 Park Drive I .. IT Y O F P._ DATE: 10/3/90
�. 1Q .
CC DATE: 10/22/90
�� CHAHAEI
1 0 CASE #: 87-1 Site
■.16,.
By: A1-Jaff/v
I
I STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Amendment For a 4,260 Square Foot
IOffice/Warehouse Addition
IZ LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
Q 7870 Park Drive
U
I _
J APPLICANT: R. J. Ryan Construction Industrial Information Control
6511 Cedar Avenue So. 7870 Park Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55423 Chanhassen, MN 55317
C<
LE
II
IPRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park
ACREAGE: 2.93 acres
IDENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
I
Q LAND USE: N - IOP; Component Engineering
S - IOP; Drainage pond outlot
E - IOP; vacant
IIR ' W - IOP; Dunn & Roos
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
Iw
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site abuts Riley Purgatory Creek and is
I (f) heavily wooded with mature trees. The site
slopes generally to the southwest.
II .magap LAND USE PLAN: Industrial
11
.1 IIC Site Plan Amendment
October 3, 1990
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
On April 6, 1987, the City Council approved the site plan for a
' 15,888 square foot office and warehouse facility for Industrial
Information Controls, Inc. (Attachment #1) . The firm manufactures
machines and computerized controls. The site has an area of 2 .9
acres and is adjacent to a low area that drops away to Riley
Purgatory Creek. The creek is located south of the site.
The applicant is requesting a 4,260 square foot addition which will
be utilized as warehouse space.
It will be situated to the west of the existing building.
Additional parking will be provided along the east edge of the
existing parking lot. Access will be obtained from Park Drive
through an existing curb cut. An additional loading dock will be
added to the west of the existing loading dock. The docks are
concealed from Park Drive by the existing building. The Watershed
' District requires a 100 foot setback from the creek centerline for
all hard surfaces. All proposed impervious surfaces maintain that
distance. Architecturally, the addition will be very similar to
' the existing building. The same materials will be used on the
exterior. The applicant will preserve all existing vegetation
outside of the buildable area. Staff is proposing that additional
' landscaping be added to the site along the southeast. Additional
landscaping will be required along the north edge of the site in
addition to what is proposed by the applicant. A drainage problem
1 exists from the property to the north of the site due to improper
grading. The adjacent parcel drains toward the creek through the
IIC parcel across the area proposed for the building addition.
Staff met with representatives of the IIC site and Component
' Engineering to the north and it was agreed that IIC would correct
the grade on Component Engineering's site (Attachment #3) . The
amount of chemicals on site are minimal and are stored in the
building in one or two gallon containers. A hazardous waste permit
is not required as the chemicals used are not toxic in nature.
Circuit boards which require hazardous chemicals are sent out for
manufacturing. According to their management, IIC does not and
' will not manufacture their own base circuit boards, however, they
do assemble these boards by installing parts into them. Attachment
#2 shows the type of chemicals used and stored in the building.
The applicant indicated that should the need arise, a disposal site
is available for them.
The site plan complies with all ordinance standards. The Planning
Commission unanimously approved the site plan. Staff is
recommending that it be approved without variances, subject to
appropriate conditions.
I4
IIC Site Plan Amendment I
October 3, 1990
Page 3
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The site is located to the west of Park Drive. The site plan is
fairly straight forward. Access is gained from Park Drive. The
proposed addition is a continuation of the existing building.
Parking is located to the east of the site. The truck loading area
will be located adjacent to the existing dock. The truck loading
area is completely screened from off site views by the existing
building. On the west elevation, the applicant is proposing a 10'
x 10 ' door to provide access for heavy machinery. The building
architecture is functional and will compliment the existing
building. The main material used for the exterior facade is rock-
faced concrete block with a single score concrete block that will
be used to accent the building. The single score concrete block
will be extended from the existing building. There are no HVAC
units proposed for the roof top equipment. No additional signage
will be added to the site. On October 4, 1990, staff met with the
IIC owners and discussed the trash enclosure on site. The
applicant agreed that the trash enclosure will be located south of
the existing loading dock. It will be screened by the existing
building on the north and west side. The southern portion of the
dumpster will be screened by an extension of the southern wall of
the building. The material used on this extension will be of the
same materials used on the existing building which will satisfy the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Trash enclosure detail must
be shown on the plans prior to issuance of a building permit.
PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION
With the addition of the new building, some functions will be
shifted from the existing building to the new addition. Office
space will total 5, 000 square feet, the warehouse will occupy 7, 000
square feet and the manufacturing area will occupy 8, 000 square
feet. Parking requirements for the office portion of the building
is 4.5 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet which amounts to 23
parking stalls. The manufacturing facility is proposed to
accommodate a maximum of 28 employees. The ordinance calls for one
parking stall per employee which requires a total of 28 stalls.
The warehouse and shipping has a total area of 7,000 square feet
which translate to 7 parking stalls required as the ordinance
requires 1 parking stall per 1,000 square feet. The total number
of required parking stalls is 58. The applicant is proposing to
provide 50 parking stalls. Staff does not support a variance for
parking noting that there is ample room to construct additional
stalls at the rear of the building. We are, however, willing to
accept a "proof-of-parking" plan to avoid creating unnecessary hard
surface coverage. An appropriate plan should be provided for staff
approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Handicapped
parking stalls have not been shown on the site plan. The applicant
I
.1
11 IIC Site Plan Amendment
October 3 , 1990
Page 4
Imust show the designated handicapped parking. The applicant is
adding 13 parking stalls to the east of the existing parking lot.
IIPARKING COMPLIANCE TABLE
IUse Area Parking Total
Office 5,000 s.f. 4.5 stalls 23
I per 1000
s.f.
I Manufacture 8, 000 s. f. 1 stall per 28
employee
(28)
IWarehouse 7,000 s. f. 1 stall per 7
1000 s. f.
IStalls required - 50 Stalls provided - 58
I Based upon this analysis, staff concludes that the parking
requirements have been satisfied.
II Access to the loading docks is adequate with proper turning radius
for trucks. Some drainage problems exist in the vicinity of the
present loading dock area, reflected by pavement deterioration.
The applicant is proposing to repave that entire area.
IILANDSCAPING
I The landscaping plan is well conceived although it is deficient in
some areas. The landscaping plan shows a concentration of trees
along the northeast corner of the property and along the southerly
I portion of the site. The majority of the existing vegetation along
the westerly portion of the site will remain undisturbed.
Staff is proposing that a "no cut" tree preservation line be
established, clearly marked by snow fence and approved by staff
Iprior to the start of grading on the site.
Staff is requesting additional landscaping along the northerly
I portion of the site and the building. This area is currently
devoid of plant material. The plan should be revised to carry the
north side parking lot landscaping west across the north elevation
I of the building. When staff met with the applicant on October 4,
1990, it was agreed that revised landscaping plans would be
submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. All disturbed
areas must be seeded or sodded. Under the revised site plan
II
I
IIC Site Plan Amendment
October 3, 1990
Page 5
ordinance, financial guarantees for landscaping and other site
improvements are required. These financial guarantees shall be
submitted before a building permit is issued.
LIGHTING
Lighting locations have not been illustrated on the plan. Only
shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant must demonstrate
that there is no more than .5 candles of light at the property
line.
SIGNAGE
The applicant is not proposing any additional signage for the site. '
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The site generally drains to the southwest into Riley Creek. ,
Existing vegetation acts as a natural screen to remove sediment
from the runoff prior to reaching the creek. A small portion of
the site is anticipated to be graded as a result of the current
request. Carver Soil Conservation District has located two
contours of 930 ' and 928 ' for possible silt fence locations to
prevent runoff. Plans show erosion control around the construction
site. Type III erosion control shall be used on the site due to
the nature of the area. Currently, a drainage problem exists
within the existing building. Water runoff from the northern site
located on Lot 1, Block 1, is penetrating the building and filling
the basement of the Industrial Information Control Building located
on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th Addition. On
September 10, 1990, Engineering and Planning Staff met with owners
of both sites and a decision was reached to correct the existing
grading on the property located to the north adjacent to Industrial
Information Control. On October 4, 1990, the applicant submitted
an agreement letter (Attachment #3) permitting the applicant to do
the necessary grading to eliminate the drainage problem.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
City water and sewer are available on Park Drive. The new addition
will be serviced internally off existing lines. . Staff is
requesting additional landscaping along the northern portion of the
site. A drainage easement exists along the northerly border of the
site. Staff is requesting that the applicant enter into a hold
harmless agreement with the City to acknowledge that the City will
not be held responsible for any damage or restoration costs to the
landscaping while performing maintenance.
I
I
.1
11 IIC Site Plan Amendment
October 3 , 1990
Page 6
ICOMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT
Ordinance Proposed
I Building Height 4 stories .
1 story
I Building Setback N-10' E-10 ' N-10 ' E-30'
S-10 ' W-10 ' S-70' W-220 '
I Parking stalls 58 stalls 50 stalls
Includes 1 handicap
space
I Parking Setback N-10 ' E-30 ' N-10 ' E-30'
5-10 ' W-10 ' S-25 ' W-N/A
ILot Coverage 70% 48%
Lot Area 1 acre 2.93 acres
IVariances Required - none
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
IOn October 3, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the site plan
amendment for the proposed addition and unanimously recommended it
I be approved. The applicant raised the issue of trash enclosure and
the agreement between IIC and Component Engineering to correct the
drainage problem. In response to the first issue, the applicant
requested that the dumpsters not be screened from all sides because
I currently the dumpsters are located behind the building and will
not be visible from Park Drive. The Planning Commission disagreed
with the applicant and stated that it is city ordinance that all
I dumpsters be screened. The Planning Commission recommended
approval with the conditions proposed.
I Staff met with the applicant after the Planning Commission meeting
to discuss these issues. The applicant informed staff that the
southerly building wall will be extended further to the west to
screen the dumpsters. In response to the second issue, staff had
I originally requested that the owner of Component Engineering grant
a temporary grading easement to the owner of IIC to conduct the
necessary grading work to eliminate the drainage problem. Staff
II also requested that the applicant receive legal access onto
Component Engineering site to the north to perform grading
operations to resolve the drainage problem to the satisfaction of
I the City Engineering Department and Component Engineering. The
applicant requested that the letter be signed by both parties. The
City Attorney confirmed that a letter that is signed by both
I
11
1
IIC Site Plan Amendment r
October 3, 1990
Page 7
parties would have the same effect. The applicant submitted a 111
signed copy of the letter.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: '
"The City Council approves Site Plan Review #87-9 as shown on the
plan dated September 4, 1990, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Provision of trash storage enclosure for all outside trash
storage. The enclosure is to be made of masonry compatible
with the primary structure. Plans must be submitted prior to
issuance of a building permit.
2 . Designated handicapped parking shall be shown on the plans.
Provide proof-of-parking plans for 8 stalls for staff
approval. These stalls shall be installed upon request by the
City after there is evidence of a parking shortfall.
3. Provide additional landscaping on the north portion of the
site and all disturbed areas shall be seeded and an erosion
control blanket installed until vegetation is re-established.
Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the
City prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, provide
Type III erosion control around all disturbed areas of the
site, especially along the creek.
4. The applicant must demonstrate that there is no more than .5
foot candles of light from fixtures at the property line.
5. The applicant shall provide the required security to guarantee '
the erosion control, grading, including grading on the
adjoining parcel to correct a drainage problem and restoration
operations are completed as per approved plans. The dock area
drainage problem must be corrected. Additional pavement areas
may need to be removed and replaced in order to allow proper
drainage from the loading dock and concrete pad area. The
agreement letter must be signed prior to issuance of a
building permit. "
ATTACHMENTS '
1. Staff report dated April 6, 1987.
2. Type of chemicals used by IIC.
3 . Agreement letter between owners of IIC and Component
Engineering.
4. Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated September 21, 1990.
11
11
11 IIC Site Plan Amendment
October 3, 1990
Page 8
5. Application.
6. Memo from Building Official dated September 11, 1990.
7. Memo from Fire Marshal dated July 11, 1990.
' 8. Letter from Carver Soil and Water Conservation District dated
September 18, 1990.
9. Letter from Watershed District dated October 9, 1990.
10. Planning Commission minutes dated October 3, 1990.
•
1
1 .
1
1
11
• /4,
I TY O F -. DATE: March 11,1987 1
\1/41bg�' C.C. DTE Apil
CASE
Prepared by: Olsen:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for a 15 , 808 Square Foot
Office/Warehouse Building
I
LL
Q a 7
4'-& I
LOCATION: Lot 2 , Block 1 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
.-.1 4th Addition
I
APPLICANT: R.J. Ryan Construction
630 International Plaza I
7900 International Drive
Minneapolis , MN 55420 I
PRESENT ZONING: IOP
ACREAGE: 2 . 9 I
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
I
AND LAND USE: N- IOP; Component Design
Q S- IOP, J & R Radiator/Day-co Concrete I
E- IOP; vacant
IIW- IOP; vacant
LI
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
I
(n PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site abuts Riley-Purgatory Creek and
is low land with a sloped area to the I
north.
1990 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial
II
II
ji .
Ain OoO
�I
,
1�
RD I _
�.
V
m
(' LAKE ANN RSF
- -.
m
c
R4 R1 •
RR 'i S.•
R12
R12* , c
- . -
/ 4
-r"" `'YARD
1 L064,710-1 O
orf-tj, Paiix BG
W
41111/1 g -101
1 I I
"- IMI-PL/-- -1 i it.-o-l l40,Ma*kgi $SS t. . . 1
QAC .�—.-
'`-- ' It
, o ° IOP 10
sill \,,, 7\.. 1 1.....t
t Lei /� .iirA4
„_
I ... �.�
iii,1
,,,�PJ� R 12
r
0/ 9.
/ RS ..,- LAKE SU:
RD
I R8 .. �� z-- --'-i
RSF W-
o ir------- -
\ 7- - -
* a, A —
I - o RSF R4
i nI0
PUD—Rm
S
Ryan Site Plan Review
March 11, 1987
Page 2 1
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS I
Section 5-16-2 of the Zoning Ordinance allows office and ware-
house as a permitted use in the IOP District (Attachment #1 ) .
Section 5-16-5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a front yard set-
back of 30 feet and a rear and side yard setback of 10 feet and a
maximum lot coverage of 70% in the IOP District (Attachment #1 ) . I
Section 7-1-10 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space
per 1000 square feet of floor area up to 10,000 square feet and
one additional space for each 2 ,000 square feet thereafter for
warehouse establishments (Attachment #2 ) .
Section 7-1-10 of the Zoning Ordinance requires three parking '
spaces per 1000 square feet of office floor area (Attachment #2 ) .
Section 8-2-1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a strip of land at
least 10 feet between right-of-way and vehicular use area with one
tree every 40 feet plus a 2 foot hedge or berm (Attachment #3 ) .
Section 8-2-2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one tree every 40
feet for interior lot lines abutting industrial land (Attachment
#3 ) .
Section 8-3-1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires interior
landscaping for vehicular areas containing more than 6 , 000 square
feet (Attachment #3 ) . 1
REFERRAL AGENCIES
City Engineer See Attachment #4 1
ANALYSIS
Site Design '
The applicant is proposing a 15, 808 square foot office warehouse
building for Industrial Information Controls, Inc. ( ICC) . ICC
assembles machines and computerized controls. The site is 2 . 9
acres and contains a low area adjacent to Riley-Purgatory Creek
and a sloped area adjacent to Component Engineering to the north. I
The proposal shows a proposed and future development. The
current proposal maintains an impervious surface of 34%
( building, parking and sidewalks) . The future building and
parking area will increase this to 58%. The Zoning Ordinance
requires a maximum of 70% impervious surface. The Zoning
Ordinance permits the building and parking area to be located 10
feet from the north property line and the Watershed District
requires a 100 foot setback from the creek centerline.
I
11
Ryan Site Plan Review
11 March 11 , 1987
Page 3
Therefore, the building is located as far from the creek as
possible. Due to the limited area, the existing hill and mature
vegetation will be removed for the proposed building.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that, to the extent possible, the
site design shall preserve woodland areas and that shade trees
over six inch caliper shall be preserved unless there is no other
way to develop the site. The site conditions require the removal
of the existing hill and vegetation. The ordinance allows the
City to require the replacement of removed trees. At a minimum,
the site plan must provide for landscaping required by the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff is recommending the applicant submit a plan
showing existing vegetation which will be removed prior to final
' plat approval.
Parking and Landscaping
A total of 35 parking spaces are required and the site plan is
providing 37 parking spaces .
' The site plan is providing the required 10 foot landscape strip
around the south and east side of the building. A 10 foot
landscape strip must also be maintained between the parking area
' and right-of-way. A two foot berm with a tree every 4 feet is
required on this strip. The applicant has provided for this
requirement. The Zoning Ordinance requires one tree every 40
feet along the interior lot lines . The applicant has provided a
strip of trees along the south lot line. Such a strip of trees
must also be provided on the north property line.
The Zoning Ordinance requires interior landscaping for parking
areas over 6 , 000 square feet. The parking area is approximately
17, 000 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires 5 square feet
of landscaped areas for every 100 feet of parking area for a
total of 850 square feet required ( the applicant calculated 887
square feet required) . The applicant is providing 920 square
feet of interior landscaping.
' Grading and Drainage
' There will be extensive grading on the site. Erosion control
silt fences and hay bales will be required around the contruction
area to minimize sediment from leaving the site. The erosion/
sedimentation protection will be required to be maintained during
' and after construction until the landscaping and vegetative cover
has been restored.
It appears that drainage from the entire site is proposed to be
brought to a catch basin and directed through a 12-inch storm
sewer where it will then be conveyed to Riley-Purgatory Creek.
Staff and the Watershed District are concerned with the piping of
I
Ryan Site Plan
If
March 11, 1987
Page 4
the runoff of the site through the 12-inch storm sewer. Staff is
recommending that a portion of the runoff from the site be
directed to Park Drive where catch basins are available. This
would minimize the erosion impact to Riley-Purgatory Creek and
provide for sediment removal . If the drainage is directed from
the site to the creek through a storm sewer pipe, the applicant
must receive a permit from the DNR.
Component Engineering is located directly to the north. A por- 1
tion of the drainage from Component Engineering is directed to
Park Drive and the rest is directed to the south over the site in
question. There is a drainage ditch from Component Engineering
on the proposed site, located approximately where the future
building is proposed. A drainage easement for this ditch has not
been provided for and Opus is working with the applicant to
remedy this discrepancy.
Utilities
A 10-inch municipal sanitary sewer service is available from Park
Drive and municipal water is available from a 10-inch watermain
also located in Park Drive. I
Miscellaneous
The Watershed District requries a 200 foot greenspace along Riley 1
Creek. The 200 foot greenspace is measured as 100 feet on either
side of the creek centerline. The proposal has some impervious
surface within the 100 foot setback and must receive a variance
from the Watershed District.
The Watershed District reviewed the variance application on March '
4 , 1987, and gave preliminary approval if the applicant can
obtain deed restrictions from the properties to the south to
maintain the 200 feet of greenspace. The properties to the south
are owned by the city and Day-Co Concrete (Attachment #5 ) . There
are outlots throughout the business center along the creek.
These outlots are owned by Chanhassen and are used for drainage
and stormwater holding ponds. The outlots will never be improved
and deed restrictions can be granted for the outlot owned by the
city. To maintain a 200 foot green space a portion of Day-Co
Concrete' s property must also have a deed restriction and the
applicant must work with the owner to obtain this.
Recommendation
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of site plan #87-1
as shown on site plan dated February 18, 1987, with the following
conditions :
I
1
Ryan Site Plan
11 March 11 , 1987
Page 5
1 . The applicant submit a plan showing existing vegetation which
will be removed.
2 . The applicant shall provide one tree per 40 feet along the
north property line.
3 . The applicant shall provide an acceptable grading plan to
accommodate drainage from the Component Engineering site to
the north.
4 . The applicant shall provide revised site grades to force the
easterly half of the site drainage to flow to Park Drive thus
eliminating the 12-inch storm pipe and maximize the sediment
1 removal/erosion control for the site. The westerly half of
the site shall be graded to allow "sheet" flow into the creek
setback.
' 5 . The applicant shall provide an acceptable erosion control
plan for the site.
' 6 . The applicant shall install erosion control measures prior to
initiating construction; to be maintained throughout
construction until the landscaping/vegetative cover has been
restored.
7 . The applicant shall provide all necessary drainage and uti-
lity easements .
8 . The applicant must receive permits from the DNR and the
Watershed District.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
' The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with
staff' s conditions .
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Section 5-16-2 and 5-16-5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2 . Section 7-1-10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3 . Section 8-2-1, 8-2-2 and 8-3-1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4 . Memo from City Engineer dated March 6 , 1987.
5 . Location of City owned outlot and Day-Co Concrete.
' 6 . Application.
7 . Reduced copies of elevation and site plan.
8 . Planning Commission minutes dated March 25 , 1987 .
9 . Site Plan dated February 18, 1987.
1
I
I
CHEMICALS USED AT MILLTRONICS
May 7 , 1990
Paints : DMR-475 orange 1 qt
DAR-2185 white 2 qt
DMR-487 yellow 2 qt
DAR-25032 Havanna brown 1 G
DAR-24574 beige 2 G
DSX-100 bonding clear 2 G
DP-40 epoxy primer 1 G
Spray paint, 12 oz . cans 18
Hardeners : DX-77 fisheye eliminator 1% pt
DXR-81 accelerator c 3M pt
DU-4 catalyst % pt 11
DXR-80 catalyst 2M pt
DP-401 epoxy primer catalyst 1 G
DTR-600 enamel reducer 5 G
DTR-601 enamel reducer 5 G
Thinners : DTL-10 lacquer thinner 5 G
DX-330 acrylic cleaner 5 G
DX-474 spray gun cleaner 5 G
Miscellaneous : DX-54 road guard 2 qt
DX-520 Galva prep metal conditioner 1 qt
DX- 579 metal prep 3 qt
Anti-rust film, 11 oz . cans 6
I
l
:1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
IASIMING 7870 Park Drive
Chanhassen;MN 55317
FAX NO.(612)474-7289
CO (612) 474-8100
A WISDOM OF NC
October 15 , 1990
Mr. Charles Folch
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Street
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Charles:
I This letter shall serve as confirmation of the agreement reached
Monday, September 10th between Industrial Information Controls ,
Component Engineering, and the City of Chanhassen to resolve part
' of the drainage problem which exists between Component
Engineering and Industrial Information Controls .
1) Component Engineering has granted Industrial Information
Controls and its general contractor, R.J. Ryan Construction,
Inc. , permission to enter its property and construct a berm
approximately 80 ' long and 2 ' high on its south property
' line. The purpose of this berm shall be to contain
Component Engineering' s roof water on its site and direct it
west toward the Component Engineering parking lot . A small
' amount of material will be pushed against the south wall of
Component Engineering to direct water away from the
building. Work will be done at the expense of Industrial
Information Controls and will be done to the satisfaction of
' the owner of Component Engineering, Jerry Gens , and the City
of Chanhassen.
2 ) Component Engineering assumes the responsibility and costs
associated with sod restoration and relocation of any
affected landscaping.
3 ) Additional drainage problems which exist on the undeveloped
western portion of the Industrial Information Controls site
will be addressed upon further development by either
lComponent Engineering or Industrial Information Controls.
�
�
perry Gens Ti Rashlege'
Component Engineering Industrial Information Controls
1
I
We Take Pride in Meeting Your Metal-Cutting Needs
1
I
CITY OF
'V'1 1 I 41'.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
II
4 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1
MEMORANDUM
II
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I
FROM: Charles Folch , Assistant City Engineer rJ/ I
DATE: September 21 , 1990 v�,�
SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Industrial Information Controls II
File No. 90-26 Land Use Review
The plan proposal submitted involves an expansion of the existing li
g
building and the relocation of the loading dock area for
Industrial Information Controls located in the Chanhassen Lakes
I/
Industrial Park. The location for the expansion is on the west
side of the existing building. This new building area will
primarily be used for storage of components for machines II assembled at this facility . The existing loading dock area is
proposed to be relocated approximately 60 feet to the west and
incorporated into the construction of the building expansion.
Drainage II
The majority of the pavement area south of the existing building
drains to the Riley Purgatory Creek via sheet flow. This
condition is acceptable to the Watershed District and is believed
to be the most practical approach given the conditions of the
site. Erosion potential is minimized by not concentrating the II
runoff . The vegetation between the site and the creek will act
as a natural screen to knock down the sediment prior to reaching
the creek. In order to maintain this condition, curb is not
II
proposed to be installed along the southern edge of the pavement
driveway area immediately south of the building. In accordance
with this condition and staff ' s previous recommendation, the
applicant is proposing to install a split-rail fence to act as a
guard rail and delineate the driveway edge.
The plan proposal submitted shows that the existing bituminous I
pavement in the loading dock area will be replaced with a
concrete slab. Due to flat grades , this bituminous pavement area
appears to have experienced drainage problems in the past and has
II
deteriorated significantly. The applicant may be required to
remove and replace the bituminous pavement immediately south of
II
1
11
II Sharmin Al-Jaff
September 21 , 1990
Page 2
IIthe proposed concrete pad in order to allow for proper drainage..
The applicant is also proposing to widen the existing pavement
1 turnaround area and extend the pavement driveway to the west side
of the proposed expansion area.
1 Grading
At this time it is anticipated that only minimal site grading
around the expansion area Will need to be performed. However,
1 the submitted proposal does not show planned or proposed grades
to verify this . Staff is recommending that the applicant
resubmit the grading plan showing the proposed site grades in
1 conjunction with the building expansion to verify the extent of
the grading operations. The revised grading plan to be submitted
shall also designate areas to receive sod , seed, etc.
I This existing site is currently experiencing some drainage
problems which may be somewhat contributed to by runoff from a
small portion of the property immediately north. Staff has
II recently met with representatives of these two properties to
discuss measures to remedy the situation. The property
immediately north is owned by Engineering Components
II Incorporated. Their representative, Jerry Gens , has verbally
agreed to allow the grading contractor for the Industrial
Information Controls expansion project to access their property
and perform minimal grading operations to correct the problem.
I The grading correction will involve detaining the majority of the
surface runoff south of the Engineering Components building and
redirecting it to the west into a natural drainage course as
U proposed on the original site plan approval . Staff recommends
that the applicant acquire a temporary right-of-entry or some
other acceptable written agreement which specifically grants the
II access for this work to be performed. Since a specific grading
plan for this remedial work is not being submitted, the applicant
shall work with and complete the operations to City and
Engineering Components , Inc. satisfaction.
1 Erosion Control
I The plans propose erosion control along the southern border of
the project. However, the type of erosion control is not
specified; therefore, the revised grading plan to be submitted
should include the type of erosion control to be installed.
II Given the nature of the area and the close proximity of this site
to the creek area , it is required that Type III erosion control
be installed.
IIRecommended Conditions
I
1
I
Sharmin Al-Jaff
September 21 , 1990
Page 3
1. The applicant shall resubmit a grading plan showing the I
proposed contours and extent of the grading operations over
the site.
2 . The applicant shall provide and maintain Type III erosion
control around all disturbed areas of the site, especially
along the creek. This detail should be incorporated onto the
new grading plan sheet (see attachment) .
3 . The applicant shall document that he has obtained legal
access onto the adjoining property to the north to perform
the grading operations to resolve the drainage problem to the
satisfaction of the City and Engineering Components, Inc.
4 . Additional pavement areas may need to be removed and replaced I
in order to allow proper drainage from the loading dock and
concrete pad area.
5 . The applicant shall provide the required security to
guarantee the erosion control , grading and restoration
operations . I
6 . The applicant shall submit plans to the Watershed District
for review and determine if a permit is necessary. I
ktm
Attachment: Erosion Control Detail I
c: Gary Warren, City Engineer
Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician I
I
I
I
r
I
-ET POSTS FIRMLY (POST SHALL SAE Oak STEEL/
ANO A40YNT 1400 *ME TO POSTS.
RECOxtktF.NOE0
TOE;-IN METHOD
-�--r tlRafl IOOX.FASTEN v;/HOD RII:03,
i.S.I �N•tlS OR STAPLES.
��- _ i:- to i
: _ /
1 /// S"k:IN,DEPTH
J
I A.OIG TRENCH B.LAY IN FABRIC B BACKFILL
I 2
EROSION CONTROL
FENCE-TYPE I
2
J
CO
STEEL PENCE POSTS w
Q
SHILL BE USED TO 0
il
SUPPORT SNOW PENCE
ir
I I R rnJ i i I I I n n
MIMI Il111 m IIIII YOH/II o
i 1-1!"Niiiiningifl=
W In
W111 10 Ill•
OR STRAW BALES
Two RE-BARS OWNER THROWN EACH SALE
11/2'-S'INTO GROUND SALES TO SE RECESSED _IP.
S•SflOw-GRADE AND WIRED TO SNOW FENCE
EROSION CONTROL w
Ili FENCE-TYPE 2 - t'
W
m
II STEEL PENCE POSTS 0
' SNAIL SE USED TO 1•
\SUPPORT SNOW PENCE
W
n cc
II 111 11 1111111 I �
IIIIW1111111111!IIIIIIIRIII 0
' W
SILT FENCE �� J
CO
III W >6
111 war DR t�AW BAIP. Z m
III TWO RE•SARS DRIVEN?KNOWN EACH SALE
I V2''2•INTO GROUND SALES TO SE RECESSED
A ALLOW 41110E AND WIRED TO SNOW PENCE
f
1 EROSION CONTROL
1 FENCE—TYP 3
•
CITY OF
. 1 HAmn a o g
EN
SILT FENCE
I kSCALE 1'- I DATE
5-H 9 PLATE NO.
5212
IL
la
CITY OF CHANHASSENJ
690 COULTER DRIVE /
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900 1
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: /2,3. re-1 b J &NS' 1 G OWNER: _1 C.
ADDRESS: 6S/// 65,1:04"- 141/i- c1;50 ADDRESS: ii701e i 47i/i-
lec., 4/4_4( A,Ai sa50,..f (24,/hs
TELEPHONE (Day time) I6' ' J ‘g� TELEPHONE: 5/7S4/704)
REQUEST
♦ Conditional Use Permit - $150 ♦ Subdivision: 1
♦ Interim Use Permit - $150 Preliminary Plat:
♦ Land Use Plan Amendment - $100 - Sketch Plan - $200 11
♦ Planned Unit Development: - Create less than 3 lots - $10011
- Sketch Plan - $200 - Create more than 3 lots -
$100 + $15 acre + $5 per lot is
- Preliminary Development Plan lot created
$300 + $15 acre
- Final Plat - $100
- Final Development Plan - $200
- Metes and Bounds - $100
- Amendment to Final Development
Plan - $300 + $15 acre - Consolidate Lots - $100
TOTAL PUD r TOTAL SUBDIVISION
♦ Site Plan Review - $150 ♦ Wetland Alteration Permit:
- Individual Single Family
♦ Vacation of Utility or Lots - $25
Street Easement - $100
- All Others - $150
♦ Variance $75
♦ Rezoning $250
♦ Zoning Appeal - $75 ♦ Zoning Ordinance Amendment - II
No Charge
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the II
property must be included with the application.
Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. I
* NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall II
be charged for each application.
I
II / __1 %A/PROJECT N �4 /1?b r>� . 6�
C
LOCATION i770
��-�. ,(�i�'ii•2.
IILEGALiYE SCRIPTION, • AO4ci4.../( /4/ 4 _ ZA-46-
PRESENT ZONING DUJT'A / O?"TlllL- 1il-L
1 REQUESTED ZONING— vOd4S4A / O 46.-12._
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
11 REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
I
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly
printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you
should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific
IIordinance and procedural requirements 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 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
11 (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.
11 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.
II also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such
i
permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the
IIproperty for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the
Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City
Hall Records.
I
AdeeAL_/ 1 ?//1°
Signature of Appl 'fnt Da
1 Signature of Fee Owner Date
I
9 - _
Application Received on 11 2
Fee Paid 7P /56). O 0 Receipt No. 3D-/5 V
This application will be co s ,dered b the Planning Commission/Board of
Adjustments and Appeals on L . , /I
I
t
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
II CITY OF
II w CHANHASSEN
I ')/
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
W (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1
1 MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
IFROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 41C;( 1c...
DATE: September 11 , 1990
ISUBJ: Planning Case 87-1 Site Plan Review ( IIC)
II . Entire building must be fire sprinklered.
2 . Floor plan of existing building must be submitted at time of
Ibuilding permit application.
3 . One handicap parking space and curb cut must be provided.
I
I .
I
I
I
I •
I
I
I
CITY OF
„ty CHANHASSEN
kw -
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM ,
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: July 11 , 1990 I
SUBJ : I . I .C.
If the building were extended an additional 80 feet to the west,
a fire hydrant would not be needed provided:
1 . If a third addition were to be built , additional fire
hydrants would then be required per Fire Department
location. ,
2 . The existing building as well as the new section be
brought up to code , i . e. paint spray booth, egress paths ,
emergency lighting, monitoring of the fire sprinkler
system ( if not already being done) , posted fire lanes ,
lock box , other fire sprinkler work if needed.
I
1
I
1
I
�
�
N� CARVER SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RECEIVED
219 EAST FRONTAGE ROAD ��p 1 �M
=� 1�
WAC0NIA, MN. 55387 ��' � m°~
N�
TELEPHONE 442-5101 A�����
CITY L}FCMAN. _~~,
Sept. 18, 1990
-~ Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
N� 690 Coulter Drive, P. O. Box 147
== Chanhassen, MN. 55317
RE: Planning Case 87-1 site plan review.
I located two contours 930 and 928 for possible silt fence
or other planned sediment barriers. Silt fences should
N�
always be installed on a contour line and have the ends
1�
turned up towards the next contour line above. They should
be used to contain sediments from sheet flows from the
construction site. If excavated soils are to be stored west
N� of the building site the sediment controls should be
e �tended to cover the additional area. On the upper barrier
a pair of X' s in boxes indicate points which should be
located by the construction engineer so the barrier can be
m� installed as close as possible to the construction and yet
be out of the way so it will not be disturbed once it has
N� been installed.
Excavated soils and topsoil to be saved should be stockpiled
and have a temporary seeding applied if they are not to be
removed or used within 30 days. An annual ryegrass will
produce a good temporary cover crop under normal conditions.
The location and type of sediment barriers are my opinions
and not inte�ued to be an absolute solution to a sediment
problem from this construction.
N� See the attached sheets on silt fences and temporary
seedings from the Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Se 11 ,
Control Planning Handbook.
0~+S V '
Paul Neumann
Dist. Tech.
I
1
ty.o1- NO AoJJ44 OF .(( J t Fig,1 -r
•\J rt ot-i w JL--, 6.:›Js-r{gc,Tr°J I
• 1
� � �. —� _ � —" � 54444 �, a 1
1
_. \ � -nom
.. / \
1
_ EXISTING
s ' BUILDI
A�361 ■ 5 / F F 93 .(
F. I' — - ly
41 P22. it
•
I
.-"- ---N.. — — ----■ 6 or"6.774.. ;i 4 1 1 Ve-m:4°.P.- As
_ . 711,46...cw. m....ic..c.ca.,
,.. _.___ . . _SI crilleva-S 1
/
/ \ \ - .
S ;; 927 / .____,--
42��
I I kVav All I I 0 `i,.)G of
N � JM oJ5 �l�15 XTU M'1 vJS
9110.5 i
r — _
` 2l_5
�. T 1.-r--..c.;.;
� ,
......_____ t___
_ 4: . 54
�
' 2 F,'1 °2Gi a`1"v4 i
t
•
I
1 ) FACT United States +
Silt Fences 4 Department of
Agriculture
I
SHEET
SOIL
ENG- 1 November 1987 (a.) CONSERVATION
SERVICE
I
I Intent This Fact Sheet is not intended to replace the information contained in the Soil
Conservation Service Technical Guide. It is intended to provide general
information on this practice.
I
Purose Silt fences are temporary sediment control measures installed on the contour
I ' ' to intercept and detain sediment from small unprotected areas. Silt fences are
constructed by attaching a synthetic filter fabric to supporting posts.The
bottom of the fabric is anchored in a trench to prevent water and sediment
Ifrom passing underneath the silt fence.
Silt fences may be used where: (1)the drainage area is less than 2 acres; (2)
I the maximum slope length above the silt fence is 150 feet;and (3)water
reaches the silt fence as sheet flow without significant concentrations. Silt-
fences should not be used in channels,waterways or other concentrated flow
paths.The useful life of a silt fence is generally no more than one construction
Iseason.
When properly installed and maintained,silt fences are effective sediment
I barriers.They should be used only below unprotected areas where it is
impractical to prevent erosion.
1 Design Silt fences should be installed on the contour,and constructed so runoff
Considerations cannot bypass the ends. If the silt fence is longer than 600 feet,the silt fence
should be constructed in separate,independent units,with each unit having a
length less than 600 feet.
I Silt fences may be constructed with supporting fences, such as snow fences
or wire mesh fences.The supporting fences should be strong enough to
withstand the load from ponded water and trapped sediment.The support
posts should be spaced at 10 feet or less,and should be placed or driven at
Ileast 2 feet into the ground. Posts should be 4-inch diameter wood posts or
standard T-or U-section steel posts weighing not less than 1.3 pounds per
lineal foot,with a minimum length of 30 inches plus burial depth.
IWhen a silt fence is installed without a supporting fence,the posts should be
ill— spaced at 4 feet or less. Posts should be placed or driven at least 2 feet into
the ground. Posts should be 2-inch square or heavier wood posts or standard
T-or U-section steel posts weighing not less than 1.0 pound per lineal foot,
with a minimum length of 30 inches plus burial depth.
I
-dl R-.
I
A trench for anchoring the fabric is dug along the upslope side of the posts.
The trench should be about 6 inches wide and 6 inches deep.The fabric is
laid in the trench,which is then backfilled and compacted.
The filter fabric should be furnished in a continuous roll cut to the length of the I
silt fence to avoid splices.When splices are necessary,the fabric should be
spliced at a support post with a minimum 6 inch overlap,folded over, and
securely fastened. 1
The synthetic filter fabric should be a pervious sheet of propylene, nylon,
polyester or ethylene yarn uniform in texture and appearance and free from
defects,flaws or tears that would affect its physical properties.The fabric
should meet or exceed the following requirements:
Property Test Method Requirement
Grab Strength* ASTM-D-1682 90 lbs. min.
Elongation* ASTM-D-1682 15% min.to
50% max. at
45 pounds
Permittivity ASTM-D-4491 0.01 sec.-1 11-
Equiv.Opening Size CW02215 20 to 80
(Corps of Eng.) Sieve No.
Ultraviolet Resistance ASTM-D-4355 70% min. '
Width 36 in. min.
*12w Pe r min.strain rate
Maintenance Silt fences require maintenance to preserve their effectiveness.All silt fences I
should be inspected immediately after each runoff event and at least daily
during prolonged rainfall.Any required repairs should be made immediately.
When sediment deposits reach approximately one-half the height of the silt
fence,the sediment should be removed or a second silt fence should be
installed. ,
For More Contact the local Soil Conservation Service(SCS)or Soil and Water
Information Conservation District in your county.
(This fact sheet was produced by the Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Soil and Water Conservation Districts in
Minnesota)
All programs and services of the Soil Conservation Service are offered on a nondiscriminatory basis,without regard to race,color.national origin,religion,sex,
age,marital status,or handicap.
-42B- I
iliF }
,3
1 2 acres ��
Maximum drainage area ) / `
' Top of hill 2/
.—\ -7....
.
/ \o,,,, , 1
' - /
0� - l
\/ _ ft,.- ,'
=s'. / Silt fence placed on contour
- 'i
I - '- _
ITurn ends upslope to /
prevent flow bypass /
II
Typical Layout for Silt Fence
1
II
Steel or wood post -
IIFilter fabric securely
fastened to post
I ' Lay fabric in the 30" minimum height
trench
Backfill over the top 6"
bf fabric and compact
the soil 24" minimum depth
1.
Construction of Silt Fence
-43B-
1
t
1. Set posts and excavate a 6"x6'' 2. Staple wire fencing to
(Ittrench upslope along the line the posts.
of posts.
�} . 10' max . :::::;.mamma• :■U.i1 t ::'.a'1 'I I
1 yP 11 14 Oql,q s
`'fix
"�'�/'�---` -= '4.:`41 Atli-p• em!�1'' i�/-rte- �� i ti,t� '-� �t�/int
6„ l
I
3. Attach the filter fabric to 4. Backfill and compact the
the wire fence and extend it excavated soil . t
into the trench.
Cl.1glii„
71.11.,F.:0 p•.::::::::::?.'.•.--::'"".-....of' . . .. ;.,'
1 ':��: I : .. �a.££ a:', fit• •1= C.••�r - • S# sue= ‘......./...../s
j � 1 (. il- %d , % . 't�
I
Extension of fabric and
wire into the trench.
I
Filter Fabric \i(11\11 I
;' 'ire
,I =� ::_ ,;r,;. 11t '1 111 1-
_1 11 17 111 ill '—' I
CONSTRUCTION OF SILT FENCE WITH Sr'PORTING WIRE FENCE I
•
Source: Adapted from Installation of Straw and Fabric
Filter Barriers for Sediment Control , Sherwood ,
and Wyant
.1
-44B- I
1
1 Temporary Covers
Recommended on areas that will be re-disturbed within two years.
I (All soil types and fertilizer levels)
RATE SEEDING
ICOVER SEEDING DATES BU/AC LBS/AC DEPTH (IN)
Oats 4/1-9/15 3 96 1 1/2
IRye 4/1-6/1 & 8/15-10/5 1 1/2 85 1 1/2
' Spring 4/1-5/15 1 1/4 75
Wheat
Winter 4/1-5/15 $ 8/1-9/15 1 1/4 75
I Wheat
Annual 4/1-9/15 10 1/2
Ryegrass
Perennial 4/1-9/15 10 1/2
Ryegrass
IMay be beneficial to fertilizer if no/little topsoil is present,
20 + 0 + 0 minimum.
1
I
1
Compiled by: Dakota County SWCD
-6B-
Ctf.w.vEh
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
0 4, Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co.
7803 Glenroy Road
""' `°E"°"'"" Minneapolis, MN 55435
830-0555
Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik,Schnobrich&Kaufman
'- 3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower
Minneapolis, MN 55402
333-4800
October 9, 1990
Mr. Tom Ry an '
R.J. Ryan Construction
6511 Cedar Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Ryan: ,
The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District have reviewed the plans as submitted
for the parking lot expansion for Industrial Information Controls in the
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park area of Chanhassen. Because this project does
not propose on altering or disturbing more than one acre in surface area, a
grading and land alteration permit will not be required from the Watershed ,
District.
If you have any questions or request additional information, please give
me a call at 830-0555.
Sincerel ,
, 1
0/0/2
R-.er C. Obermeyer '
.arr Engineering Co.
Engineers for the District
c: Mr. Ray Haik
Mrs. Jo Ann Olsen: City of Chanhassen
I
RECEIVED
OCT 1 0 1990
CITY Ot= UrimivriHSSEN I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 42
1 Erhart : Okay , is there e a second?
' Ellson: Second .
Wildermuth moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for Lake Riley Hills Subdivision as
shown on plans dated September 4, 1990 with the following conditions:
1 . The applicant shall provide a drainage , utility and a conservation
easement over Outlot C and the proposed ponding areas and the 866
contour shall be the edge of the protected wetland .
' 2 . Any surveys for lots adjacent to the Class A wetland will provide the
866 elevation with verification that the home and any further
improvements such as porches or decks will maintain the 75 foot setback
' from the 866 contour .
3 . A development contract will be recorded against the property and will
protect both the Class A wetland and the ponding areas adjacent to the
wetland with a conservation easement and not allow any alteration to
these areas .
4 . This approval is conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of
Preliminary Plat #90-10 .
II - All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' PUBLIC HEARING:
SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A 4,260 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING
BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 7870 PARK DRIVE, INDUSTRIAL
INFORMATION CONTROLS.
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chairman
Erhart called the public hearing to order .
Erhart: Is the developer here , the building owner? Okay , do you have all
the conditions? Have you seen all the conditions?
IITom Ryan: Can I speak to a couple of them? •
Erhart: Alright . Go ahead .
IITom Ryan: My name is Tom Ryan and I represent R .J . Ryan Construction , the
general contractor for the building . There 's two issues that we 'd like to ,
' a couple issues we 'd like to address . The first regards the drainage
problem which exists with the neighbor to the north . We feel it 's
important that we go on record as stating that Industrial Information
I Controls and R .J . Ryan Construction did not cause the drainage problem
which exists . The drainage problem which exists is a result of the failure
of the previous engineering staff of the City of Chanhassen as well as the
contractor for the Component Engineering building which allowed the water
II to run up against our property . In the interest of solving the problem we
agreed with Component Engineering and the City staff that 's presently in
place that because we have a lot of excess material , we would provide the
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3 , 1990 - Page 43
grading and construct a berm on the Component Engineering site but the II Component Engineering people would be responsible for the restoration of
the sod which is really the major portion of the cost involved here . We
have about 2 hours worth of work but there's a couple thousand dollars
worth of sod that 's going to be replaced. The last issue under this item II
is , we really question the need to retain an attorney to grant an easement
to us to do what amounts to 2 hours worth of work when we would hope that a
simple letter from Mr . Ganz, the owner of Component Engineering would
suffice and I 'm sure he would give us a letter that says yes we have
permission to do the grading . The grading will be done with his agreement .
Erhart: That's it? '
Tom Ryan: That 's all I 've got . The owner has a couple more issues he 'd
like to speak to . ,
Erhart: Why don't you go ahead.
Tim Raschlager : Hi , my name is Tim Raschlager and I represent IC 1
Incorporated. I 'm one of the three owners of IC Incorporated . First of
all I want to thank the people who represent the city for coming out to the"
site . I think there was more than one visit by several . It 's nice to see
they go out and see firsthand what 's involved with our application . This
application started as a bigger addition which has been scaled down,
probably more to do with business conditions than anything and our need to I
improve our facility for our current number of employees. Some minor
issues that surfaced are • I think the problems with the dumpsters . I 've
kind of got into a big ordeal about dumpsters here. Not what I want to I
spend my time on but I kind of got into this whole ordeal because we were
trying to do some recycling . We work with a lot of cardboard as a lot of
industries do and I found that the area doesn't have , at least from what I
could determine from the people that handle our trash, there seems to not
be a real comprehensive plan for how to handle the trash . The best way to III
handle the trash ended up to sort it by us and place it in different
dumpsters . In other words, to eliminate all the landfill on the cardboard I
which is probably at least 50% of our waste, it required an addition of a
second dumpster on the site . As I spoke with them with a longer range plan
of what they think will be required for a manufacturing site like ours will
even include more separation of material and may include a third or fourth
kind of container so I think there's not a good plan maybe for looking
forward for in general dumpster problems on industrial sites recognizing
the need for more containers and how to hide them and all those kind of
things. In addition, I don't know quite honestly , never noticed this
either but there's all kinds of different dumpster designs. One backs the
truck up and pulls it on and another one takes it from the side and no
matter how you try to package this dumpster , if you change either the
company you do your trash with which we recently did, or have to change the
size of your dumpster , whatever plan you had doesn't work anymore so it
really makes it difficult to figure this out . However , on page 2 in
several places it references our loading dock which it states that it's
completely screened and off site from appearance from the highway . We have
currently put our dumpster and now dumpsters in that same area which is
non-visible from the highway. It turned out that the design of our
building and the way we hid the loading docks works well for this plan so
we would like to take exception to building some kind of a permanent
I
Planning Commission Meeting
1 October 3 , 1990 - Page 44
structure as it indicates in here which we 're not quite clear where we 'd
' build it and what we 'd do with it and what we're hiding . Other than that I
think all of the other areas are addressed appropriately. I 'm amazed at
the complexity for the addition size we're making here but I think we meet
all this other criteria as far as I know. The landscaping issue , given the
linear footage that we're going into amounts to 2 or 3 trees. I 'm not
clear being a good resident of Chanhassen and polling many of it's staff,
why we 're required to put up what appears to be some kind of proof of
planting 3 trees. It 's almost kind of an insult to a sense I think here
and our hope with this addition is to improve our , I think the people that
came over recognized our problems is to improve our working conditions and
1 we would like to improve our site in general . We're having to store things
outside that should not be outside right now. We need more area in our
manufacturing . Thank you .
IIErhart: Thanks Tim . Before this gets too far away, why don't we address
the issues brought up before we get any other people up here . Number one
was this drainage thing.
IIKrauss: The drainage thing being the letter instead of the filing?
IIErhart: Yeah. Is there any problem with that?
Krauss: I guess there isn't . I mean we want to know that the adjoining
property owner has agreed to the alteration of their property because we 're
' approving a grading plan that requires alteration of somebody else's land
and we don 't have the authority to do that unless that property owner
agrees .
IIEmmings: But you don't need an easement? You can get a license and the
property owner over there can grant a license by simply writing a letter .
IIKrauss: I would concur . As long as we have some verification, I 'd be
willing to accept an alternative so I think we can resolve that . As to the
I garbage dumpster , I had never realized that it was as complex an issue as
it appears to be . Nobody 's raised that before. You tend to build those
things oversized. It's a requirement that I think staff feels very
strongly about . There are also parcels southwest of this property that
II remain undeveloped. The back area may not always be invisible . Got a lot
of tree cover right now . The city always has required dumpster enclosures
and I think where we don't have them, problems occur in the long term.
IErhart: But your statement here is that , are you saying that has to be not
visible from any direction?
Krauss: No, it's got to be in an enclosure . I mean the enclosure can be
visible .
II Erhart: Yeah I know but how does a guy, he's got to come in from some
direction with the truck.
Krauss: Yeah, you put masonry on three sides and you gate the fourth.
Erhart: Do we do that consistently?
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 45 1
Emmings: We 've never approved buildings without them. Ever . That I know I
of .
Krauss: I know in the time I 've been here we haven't.
Erhart: Okay, does the building currently have that?
Krauss: I don't believe so. There's dumpsters, at least one out back .
Erhart: Okay, and when was the building construction completed?
Krauss: 3 years ago? '
Erhart: So apparently we approved it at that time without .
Emmings: Well go back and look . Did we? Maybe we should check . Maybe I
they just didn't build it .
Erhart: Well I think Tim's got a real problem. We're looking at the same
thing on, our building is adding another dumpster to separate trash but
we 're fortunate to have a U shaped building so everything is, well it 's
invisible from 3 sides but not 4 . I don't know that that's really , I
guess I don't know . Al , what 's your situation there? Is everything
enclosed in your , from all sides?
Al Iverson: On 3 sides but not on 4 and I can't say that . . . 3 sides but I
not 4 .
Tim Raschlager : We are invisible right now on 3 sides. The problem with al
gate , do you ever notice what happens to those things after one season?
They look more rickety than the dumpster does. Quite honestly I 'd be happy
if all the dumpsters in the community were painted the same color but I
can't get the trash people to paint their dumpsters but I don't know if you
block them from 3 sides , can the trucks come and access it? And the large
trucks with big forks on it, I don't know where you'd open the gate to if I
you 've got the big . . .
Krauss: That's fine as long as the open side faces the interior which it
does on the PMT site . I mean it faces, as I recall , the rear of the
building. As to the letter of credit , concern about letter of credit with
landscaping , that 's a requirement for any developer in the city . That's
not a matter of trust. It's a matter of contract and it's a standard
requirement .
Erhart: Thanks. Is there any other public input on the proposed I
development? Okay , if not is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Ahrens moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. '
Erhart: Let's see . Steve, why don't we start with you.
Emmings: I essentially concur with the staff report . I didn't see any 11
reason not to take into account, but if there's some other way to do the
trash storage it makes more sense than what 's here . If it 's okay with the 11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
IIOctober 3, 1990 - Page 46
I staff, it's okay with me so you can wrestle with them as far as I 'm
concerned before it gets to the City Council and if you come up with some
kind of a plan that suits them, I wouldn't be opposed to it. Then my only
other comment I guess I 've already made on number 5. You don 't need an
II easement. You don't need to do anything very formal . I think a letter
from those other people setting forth a time period during which you have
the right to go on their property and what the purpose of going on the
II property is and when it expires. A lot of meet the purposes will act as a
license to allow you to do that and should address Paul 's concerns. That 's
all I 've got .
Ellson: You know I suppose this trash thing, I guess everybody else didn't
think it was such a big deal but it is something that I 've just
automatically see that we do and I 've never seen a problem with it . I
I guess I don 't remember if it was 3 sides and a gate or exactly how it 's
been done but I guess from a consistency standpoint I 'm not opposed to
Steve's ideas of trying to work it out but maybe we should relook at it
I consistently then as to how we state it or something like that versus give
one an exception because they brought it up and then make it a boiler plate
for everybody else but in general I go along with all the recommendations.
IEmmings: The Code , Section 20-912 for the IOP area states that there will
be , I 'm quoting now, "no exterior storage of trash or garbage is
permissible except in an accessory building enclosed by walls and roof or
II enclosed containers within a totally screened area . " That 's what our
ordinance says for that section of town . It's pretty clear .
IErhart: Jim?
Wildermuth: I 'm glad to see industry in Chanhassen is building so well
they can warrant an expansion. I support the staff recommendation .
IAhrens: I support the staff recommendation also although it 's very
difficult for me to recommend that someone doesn't need a lawyer to draft a
I very difficult easement agreement. . .but I 'll go along with staff
recommendation .
' Emmings: Food out of our mouths.
Ahrens: That's right .
I Erhart: I think it 's important to be consistent on this trash enclosure.
If screening is using gates, I adamantly oppose putting that requirement on
people . I mean a truck hits the gate, the gate's bent and that 's it.
IIEllson: It doesn 't really say in what way .
Erhart: Well , how do you screen 4 sides without. . .
Krauss: I think you really have to take the site into account . A dumpster
enclosure that appeared in what was not the approved location on the
II Country Hospitality Suites Hotel . It sticks out like a sore thumb on
Market Blvd . . Ultimately we had to agree with it in that location but it 's
going to be gated on the front because it's visible from our main street
and we're having them cut it down and reside it so it matches the building
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 47
but that 's an example of when you'd want it .
Erhart: Okay. Two, I agree with Steve there that we could use a licensing'
and last, I think on this landscape we're talking about how many trees, 4?
Al-Jaff: It 's 1 every 40 feet. We won't hold them to 1 every 40 feet if 1
they could show us a landscaping plan that. . .
Erhart: Okay, well . The issues in my mind, if staff found some other way I
to guarantee in minimal really small landscaping job. There's some
alternative that the developer could propose to guarantee that it's going
to get done, you know we could take a look at that but other than that I I
think the staff report's adequate. In fact it kind of makes me feel good
that this building isn't going and someone else is having a little downturn
in their business too. So with that , is there any other comments? ,
Tim Raschlager : If we're required to do something with this dumpster
problem, how is it determined. . .what kind of material do we do this with
and , I 'm going to bring up an example. Across the street from us there 's al
site which has their 's inside and there's a . . .and all kinds of things
associated with boat storage . That site looks far more unsightly in terms
of. . .in terms of structure and the nature of the. . . '
Erhart: I think where we're going Tim is the staff will take our comments
and essentially work with you to come up with something before it goes to
City Council . Would you agree with that Sharmin or Paul? Yeah . Anything
else? Do we have a motion?
Tom Ryan: If it's of any value, we would be glad to do the landscaping
prior to the . . .
Erhart: That 's sort of what I had in mind. Okay, is there a motion?
Wildermuth: I 'll move the Planning Commission recommends approval for the
Site Plan Review #87-9 as shown on the plan dated September 4 , 1990 with I
the following conditions 1 thru 6 with 5 being changed to wording to the
effect that the applicant will collaborate, cooperate with the adjacent
property owner to the north to resolve the drainage issue .
Erhart: Is there a second?
Emmings: I 'll second it for discussion. Jim, let me ask you on 5. I 'm I
not sure I exactly understand how you're changing 5 .
Wildermuth: Well what we're saying there is that it doesn't have to be
legal access granted. They can cooperate together or collaborate and
111
perform whatever grading has to be done.
Ahrens: Maybe just change that one sentence to read, where it says the
applicant shall document? That he has obtained approval from the
adjoinging property owner to the north to perform grading operations .
Wildermuth: That sounds good. Take the legal access business out of
there .
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 3, 1990 - Page 48
Ahrens: Is that okay with you?
Emmings: Yeah. No, I think. they should do something to show the City that
they 've got some kind of a written agreement but I don't care what form it
is. A letter 's good enough.
Wildermuth: The attorney in you is coming through .
Erhart: So are we talking an amendment here?
Emmings: No, as long as I understand that's what he 's doing .
Wildermuth moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review *87-9 as shown on the plan dated September 4,
1990 and subject to the following conditions:
1 . Provision of trash storage enclosure for all outside trash storage .
The enclosure is to be made of masonry compatible with the primary
structure .
' 2. Designated handicapped parking shall be shown on the plans . Provide
proof of parking plans for 8 stalls for staff approval . These stalls
shall be installed upon request by the City after there is evidence of
a parking shortfall .
3. Provide additional landscaping on the north portion of the site and all
disturbed areas shall be seeded and an erosion control blanket
installed until vegetation is re-established . Financial guarantees for
landscaping shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a
building permit . Also , provide Type III erosion control around all
' disturbed areas of the site , especially along the creek .
4 . The applicant must demonstrate that there is no more than .5 foot
candles of light from fixtures at the property line .
' 5 . The applicant shall work with city staff and the adjoining property
owner to the north to resolve the current drainage problem . The owner
of Lot 2, Block 1 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th Addition shall
grant the owner of Lot 1 , Block 1 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th
Addition a temporary grading easement to allow the owner of Lot 1 to do
the required grading. The applicant shall obtain approval from the
' adjoining property to the north to perform grading operations to
resolve the drainage problem to the satisfaction of the City and
Engineering Components, Inc. . Also, the applicant shall provide the
required security to guarantee the erosion control , grading and
restoration operations. The dock area drainage problem must be
corrected. Additional pavement areas may need to be removed and
' replaced in order to allow proper drainage from the loading dock and
concrete pad area .
6. The applicant shall submit plans to the Watershed district for review
and obtain a permit if necessary .
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
I