9. Site Plan for Industrial/Office/Whse Park Road & Park Court 1
CITY O F P.C. DATE: Oct. 4, 1989
II �•\,� . ,� CUANUA: ::N C.C.�, Y
�`\ CASE NO: 89-8 Site Plan
1 Prepared by: Krauss/v (1N--
li
STAFF REPORT
li
iiPROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for the Rome Office Building
I.
Iz
Q
IU LOCATION: Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Park Road
.1 and Park Place
1 A APPLICANT: Roman R. Roos for Rome Corporation
Q 1450 Park Court
IIChanhassen, MN 55317
i
II
PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park District
1 ACREAGE: 3 . 95 acres
DENSITY:
IADJACENT ZONING t,, `�'
AND LAND USE: N- IOP; vacant industrial
II ( c)//, /, :
FA.
S- IOP; industrial
I r•N7
f E- IOP; industrial "„"�
W— IOP; industrial a�ziM
wL WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
f PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Vacant - previously graded - land slopes
from high point in west to low point near
Park Place. The site contains no wetland
areas .
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial
I
" -'. -- .----- . 1i41M III i 111 r 1 I I I:Ei Ili*: L L A MO 01'.," sofa?
I . allgiaillal"qal 11 t--"f°1‘\‘ *1444: tO
-:\s- 3---- 4&•.....alt 0° MEM 010
LAKE ANN �� RS . ► � e/ ►��, �1��•
'• RD .;7)1111,41111►;���►�
I ,.„.
:4.tv__-‘ .1-Ii -igitimai
ay)wit , qito ... •
I t..c...„, _ _ ____:________ _,___:„.--=---- _ __ _.____ _. E. 4los is I:*
4 U 4_*As ata vti r s.tr.sy ..w.ww— . 01.1. kA,, ,fs.T,
0.....1,14.0101 • t
H . ._ ______.
- R1 01
_ R12 -__ _. .. 4 1
A. : 1 -. . I -- I cwu,, *,,,,,=OULEVARD _ ••illa -.__
BUTTERCUP j - �� •- ;��
I iYY.��i/// _ �
I ROAD 11�■
•=�I.
A 444- # op - ,...,_.,- 1
I . ,q•/�l �= � III
�� - ��O P * ,?ok \ '��
0,_ ofd
� . . _ _
/ '/ air
,. - ,, ,,,„,„,.. . _
,e-
.401110%
W VIii. 'R1 4 o Ilv r ; LAKE SUSAN �+
War °° RD
, e0 tQ. AV s ilo S4 i. 40 p■ -I4N0A t
3 PUD—R % � ,
1 r
ilit 86 p
! 1111 . . IIMI
Rome Office Building
October 4, 1989
Page 4
I
PARKING/INTERIOR CIRCULATION
Parking provisions for this type of building are often difficult
for staff to determine accurately. The reason is that the inter-
nal division of space is flexible since it is based upon the
tennants needs. Office and manufacturing generate large parking
demands while warehousing does not. Therefore, it is our pre-
ference to provide a "cushion" of additional stalls if possible.
The plans illustrate the following:
Phase I & II
Use Area Parking Total
Office 10 ,500 s.f. 3 stalls/per 1000 s.f. 32
Warehouse 39 , 400 s .f. 1 stall/per 1000 s.f. 40
Required Total 72 stalls
Provided 154 stalls
Phase I
Use Area Parking Total
Office 9 ,000 s .f. 3 stalls/per 1000 s.f. 27
Warehouse 23, 400 s .f. 1 stall/per 1000 s.f. 24
Required Total 51 stalls
Provided 72 stalls
Based upon the analysis, we have concluded that parking provi-
sions are acceptable since ordinance requirements are exceeded by
a large margin.
Internal circulation works well and no modifications are proposed.
ACCESS
Three access points have been proposed, two on Park Drive and one
on Plark Place. Park Drive is a through street that functions as
an industrial collector . Park Place is a short cul-de-sac
serving the area that is scheduled for upgrading next spring.
Staff is concerned that the eastern curb cut on Park Road could
cause traffic conflicts with Park Place and normally attempts to
reduce the number of curb cuts on busy streets . We believe that
the site can be adequately served by the western curb cut on Park
Road and by the Park Place entrance and are recommending that the
eastern curb cut be eliminated. In its place a paved area to
facilitate backing movements of parked cars should be provided.
I ,
Rome Office Building
October 4, 1989
Page 5
In addition, we are recommending that the remaining two curb cuts
be widened to facilitate truck turning movements. We are also
concerned that the grade on the western curb cut exceeds 10%.
While no official ordinance standard exists, we believe that this
is excessive and could pose a traffic hazard. The grading plan
should be revised to reduce the grade to less then 5%.
LANDSCAPING
A very high quality landscaping plan has been developed. The
plan provides generous amounts of landscaping in setback areas,
around the building foundation and on parking lot islands.
The area that is to contain the second phase addition will be
graded during the initial construction . This area should be
seeded or sodded and kept in a maintained condition until
construction is proposed.
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE
Lighting and signage details should be provided for staff review.
GRADING/DRAINAGE
The site naturally drains towards the north and this flow will be
perpetuated by the current proposal. The off-site ponding area
that will be utilized was sized to handle the water that will be
generated.
' Preliminary plans are generally acceptable. Storm sewer located
along Park Place should be designed to connect with improvements
that will be installed by the City when that street is upgraded.
To accomplish this an additional catch basin at the Park Place
curb cut is required. The culvert under the driveway is to be
for temporary use only since the roadside ditch will be elimi-
nated when the street is upgraded.
' All storm sewer located in public easement or ROW should be built
with reinforced concrete pipe. All parking lot curbing should be
concrete and designed to merge with the curb line in the ROW.
Watershed District approval is required.
Grading plans are generally acceptable. A large amount of work
' is required to lower and flatten the site. Erosion control is
proposed along the north construction line. Additional measures
are required along the south where water may flow into the
street.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
' City water and sewer are available in Park Road. An additional
fire hydrant is needed to adequately serve the site. It should
I
II
Rome Office Building ,
October 4, 1989
Page 6
I
be located on the parking lot island found off the northwest
corner of the building.
PHASE I
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE - IOP DISTRICT
Ordinance Proposed
Building Height 4 stories 1 story
Building Setback N-10 ' E-25 ' N-90 ' E-150 '
S-30 ' W-10 ' S-30 ' W-250 '
Parking Stalls 72 103
Parking Setback N-10 ' E-25 ' N-10 ' E-25 '
S-30 ' W-10 ' S-30 ' W-220 '
Lot Coverage 70% 75%
Variances Required: None
* First phase hard surface exceeds the permitted standard,
however, no variance is needed since Phase II currently remains
undeveloped. As currently proposed both phases will result in
71.5% lot coverage which also exceeds the ordinance standards . 11 When the Phase II site plan is reviewed, it is expected that this
variance can be eliminated by simply removing several parking
stalls. Since the number of stalls far exceeds the ordinance
standards this will not cause any problems .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Site Plan Review #89-8 for the Rome
Office Building be approved without variances subject to the
following conditions: '
1 . Provide trash storage enclosures built with materials com-
patible with the building or store all trash internally.
2 . Roof mounted HVAC equipment should be provided with a screen
constructed of materials compatible with the building
exterior. Details should be preapred for staff approval
prior to City Council review.
3. Eliminate the eastern curb cut on Park Road and replace it
with a maneuvering area for use by parked cars. Redesign the
remaining curb cuts as required to facilitate truck turning
movements . Reduce the grade on the remaining Park Road curb
cut from 10+% to less then 5%. '
i
II '
Rome Office Building
October 4, 1989
Page 7
4 . Revise the landscaping plan to illustrate seeding or sodding
of the Phase II building area. This area is to be kept in a
11 maintained condition until construction occurs.
5. Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed
District.
6 . Utilize concrete curb and gutter and design it to connect to
improvements in Park Place that will be installed by the
City. Add an additional catch basin at the Park Place curb
cut. All storm sewer located in public easement or ROW shall
be reinforced concrete pipe.
7 . Erosion controls are to be in place prior to start of work on
the site and maintained until site restoration is completed.
Additional erosion control may be required along the south
property line by staff to prevent erosion into Park Road.
8 . Add a fire hydrant on the parking lot island located off the
northwest corner of the building.
9 . Provide lighting and signage details for staff review.
11 ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 27 , 1989 .
2 . Memo from Mark Littfin dated September 22 , 1989.
3 . Memo from Ron Julkowski dated September 27 , 1989 .
4 . Site plan details dated September 7 , 1989 ( sheets Al, Ll and C1) .
5 . October 4, 1989 Planning Commission minutes.
6 . Dave Hempel ' s letter to Roman Roos dated October 18 , 1989
7 . Update memo from Dave Hempel dated October 18 , 1989 .
8. Site plan dated September 8, 1989 .
1
CITYOF 1
CHANHASSEN
.„0
■
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 40!...i
DATE: September 27, 1989 ,
SUBJ: Site Plan Review, Rome Office Building
Upon review of the site plan for Rome Office Building dated
August 31, 1989 , I offer the following comments and ,
recommendation:
Streets ,
1. Delete the most easterly driveway access onto Park Drive.
Since Park Road acts as a collector through the industrial
park, it is desirable to reduce the number of curb cuts
having direct access.
2. The applicant should be made aware that Park Place is pro-
posed to be upgraded this spring. The plans should be
modified accordingly to reflect the proposed road improve-
ments scheduled. The proposed road will consist of 3i" bitu-
minous
overlay 38 ft. wide face-to-face with B-618 concrete
curb and gutter and 3% slopes on the boulevards.
3 . The applicant shall verify that the radiuses are sufficient ,
for truck traffic.
4. The applicant should end the concrete curbs for the driveway
access onto Park Place at the property line. This would
enable the City' s contractor to match the existing curbs when
Park Place is upgraded.
Sanitary Sewer and Water
City water and sanitary sewer is available from Park Road. ,
Grading and Drainage
The plans indicate storm sewer being extended to the site from ,
the City' s storm sewer system along the north property line. The
III '
Mr. Paul Krauss
I September 27, 1989
Page 2
. overall system was designed to handle storm runoff generated from
such developments . All storm sewer within the City' s right-of-
way or utility easements shall be reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) .
. The plans propose a 15" storm sewer underneath the driveway
access at Park Place. This culvert should be placed for tem-
porary purposes only. As Park Place is upgraded the existing
ditch will be filled in and the culvert will no longer be needed.
When the future parking lot to the west is constructed, an addi-
tional catch basin should be added in the northeast corner of the
parking lot.
The applicant shall comply with any and all Watershed require-
ments.
Erosion Control
The applicant proposes Type I erosion control along the perimeter
of the east and north lot lines. It may also be necessary to
extend the erosion control on the south boundary for part of the
site. Type I erosion control, i.e. silt fence, will be accep-
table at this time; however, if the City feels that this is not
sufficient in holding back the erosion, the City will monitor the
site for erosion problems and if deemed necessary, additional
erosion control may be required in the future. All catch basins
shall be ringed with bales or silt fence until paving operations
are completed.
I
1
i
i
, II
CITY OF
II
ii CHANHASSEN
14 Or
- t, i
.„.... 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I
(612) 937-1900
I
MEMORANDUM
1
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector
I
DATE: September 22, 1989
SUBJ: 89-8 Site Plan Review (Rome Office Building) I
Comments and/or recommendations :
II
1) Add an additional Fire Hydrant as shown on Utility Plan.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITYOF
d •
iT
I Nil:4c CHANHASSEN
tv 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ron Julkowski , Building Official
DATE: September 27 , 1989
SUBJ: Rome Office Building
The Building Department has reviewed the site plans for the Rome
Office Building has has no comments.
I
I
1
I
t
I
I
- - MI al MN EN all MI • OM = EN MI I i r — MN —
LOCATION MAP
....% ,.....ti . „......
4 '
.1—I-( TIT'-^TIT -r--1 7 r-7 T n-7 • M.n `;.::.. = '�
.I I I 1 I I , I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I � ■.�w,V-1
II I , 1 1 , 111111111111 � I IIII1IIIIIIII ► .ail .! i ,, ----I ,
r
I I 11 I 1 I I I I I I 1 7 't �A ^"�a._ +/'r.i 1 i n
•
-- - 1 -A .
_ ;\ ' ,,,,.._. •
I I-- p
8 I FUTURE EXPANSION [ PROPOSED BUILDING [D) ZONING DATA CO•
i � '17,500 S.F. r- 32.I00 S.F. • ,.��, � ILI W
� V 1- 1.1 r i
I - 1 LL i
I r-I I--_ 1.— `o... — O W
mom I 1 1 r- -1 a
1 —
1
—J
_ W
L —_ter—� E-
_� • st, �,II _ P. :L« w... i
_. ...4.DD
-1- —
/ 1 '.. ..._ woBKEN
PARK ROAD ` ,� '� WALSH
NOREEN
" �,
:'- rr, �•r CS CLES . DMIM IMDIIN
NORTH i. ••...'_ .."....�...' .1w,!Mu. ••m
SITE PLAN 0 +51 J 30 SO 1 FEET ® ...`.•
fi PirhyribD r1..rA L. FLIWril , ,.-2'„ '
pyofori LOIk44fi p..4...
/ IIIYYL>fbG cr....., IM •YY/
fi.FIM�YIIYO f1. F1�'1YY
, / / fF4FIA10II0 ,1148a. foot ..Da...IM.rrra....
1/41111111111111111111
P■I rs•■ rrrxrrrwr.Y �urrr��— ''��II M.�.■..o.s.
1 ! � ItIAM ® auwYM.•w.l u.r•
LrVraaw..
3 .m fir.aa�El me:
I,m_ nn11.I- ;; $I1■uIIIII 'I= , uIIIIIIli1I■I 1r 11111�11i
_ 7 SEPT 1BS9
•
EAST ELEVATION u ,B FEET
Al
E .�� E i ' E� 1E o:'1 ['ill I'll Ii! !f9 I! !!1!i 11 lii !: 1 a!
1 Ph i!!i 1 ' II lilt 1t Psi i !i: i ,IL 1111 .i 1I ii !IlI 1 1I f I: :
I. J.q11IJ 1111 : x1 1EIa,,I 11111 h i■��i E 1111 Ili;1( ICE i I i1 t e i !I.E. i�, �� •: �' 11.141 111 . $ - ";:,, �,,:\, • •- - I , . -• -,rte " . .
.lI�ei, Iii r. is.0 ' ;lib ill .11 Zz .1 ...,...,::::-:,,,.>�, f� :; :"- :{
• �
l f ' . -• . `.Ar..1. •
.. -r V,41..11-a 1 :� :i1:1::1::.: ;_1:3• ;'.� JJ
- 4111.
1:
—,Lit a i i a a _ i e/ l klh tuj
P
1.1 i i fi 11 - Ili 1
140% Ti 11-,__ —III/
0
11 81 61 $I 8I 81 8l8l 8l t� ) OD
.1 - ft-
1
I r 1111111111 it I it rs —t.{
_. . 1 I rl f'i' J e i !
i :ipil _. i , , ,,. qickwiorellior.c.,0--' ll� � tig
I °r11,41:73-ti --.111,110.1?2,!:' ! _ i 'ire : 1. ° `•• �.i e� N-
I 14111!.1 IN
't;i_ e j ret F , �+'
hl 11
II , -:-` 1.1 tr4 \ 1) .,*4 <4W b
IMP l'f':„N;V:-.4. ‘-'.00 �� 1k - px% ;£
I c 1 W.111 1 - T;iv(vtv.---- q.-.), vkit*-6-0Wet. ,..... ,
-4
1 litii 1 1
A S Y ,
g ,.,ii.-ED.'0-∎ � s 118118 8 1 I �� i I
' I . .
i~ Amoebas
.Fr
Via:
.. a1 .•.,•7r"r ...12217
r I E a °- a x ROME OFFICE BUILDING
i 111 •
,=[,g 1114;3 . .t..} �t`'�' _= M M CNANHA88EN,MINNESOTA
•R ' 1q6 41 „,„.C ~t a'• g! z t�•
- ------ - --
; I
23 .. '-
f• ..
------------f7..1--- _ _ i .,t,.
c, 1
II
AO
-
ki - '
v..-1,---f-----
F-' ;Fi: ! • . . i
' I i '
1 , _ _ ./ • —
•g . : .,
1;
i •-• ;
I
• ftth/1'. _co 31 • / ,
- w ! .11. . •
.• '' ' /H
0 IVI ; ,•
-
( -•,:), • -J._ I
. . 0
; .' ,. I
I, • - 14. co
5 . i _, ■i.
,
, I z _ !
. . .1
/
; 8
11 1 :, .
.. , ,
,
, .....,c„.„
,,, /
,..._.,„.... , , : I ■ , •
F I ,'' I ' -`- • I ; ' r' '
--.1. ',':---"$------, , 'i • ! ' „' /
ta
r 1 1 ■ 1
' I,1 i ' '
--1-- - - -— -44'..----__ 4 • ,
. CI I I I i ' „• 4------Ls r- - ,I,;;'-i- i
i 4 i
i
, .
I
Ii'''',q I I I . .,' • i 1,/
,i, I , ! *4..t , /z) ,' •. , ar:
"D I..'I , - .•,,.'4 # Tr1,:
I
' I ! r3- r ,' ,.,14 0 x 1 ,, • , k l'-`
I x
it!
,,
! I I•: • 1 , .,• C I,:11 , II, I .!-.
I • ' 1 • MT ,,,,,,_--• .: ii,' ,
-- ,
, 7 i
-
, .• ,
'
I
1 i , 4 :1 • - , ,, .,,,,,
1 , • I
-4
• , , ', I— .., .
.. '.. •6-1-.,--i ,-,i • --- 6"•''' I
I
ti; 1 i i
7 ,,,
,.. -- - - - -- ,P: , - i__/
at',.:::i 1 0 ,1 _ '
z) 0
--1 —. 1 ..-
,-, • 5 - - 4it ":—.. --
• ITI , t
\--' ._ - -•!
/
' ■, ,—,y, .,. :,4;,-;.,--------- ---;-,...,'
_,•84' r:i:
I
.• - , < .... ..9 <1 ,1*,.
I I .
-0 ' 111 :
r — —=_—_--L--:--- -- W
. --- 111
, • -,.,.. I I •• •,,- e (Ar .1',
a
I ' 4.••) 1 I -I •.--, ,a
; I
33 , •
x I ....1
i 1 1.;1, I 41111q.it iVeTTI:ipc
III
I I a. 1115ii 9 411111iliii f' i
* 1 ,111. 1gli i 1 51 , g
X I g X
, .1 . X!' tiP 1 1 i giO I 1
e 1
[ 1 i
- ;
• i 12
I
. • J
. &if v. : ,;, i...,! ,
1 --
!! ,..,•;,,, , --. 0,:r.:C.
I'..,'t
_ , > F=4,atti ROME OFFICE BUILDING 0 I:
,..,e,,
iF7.0' '4- ) ;; -' r, PI
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA If 4 i
;;.-.ii, `L.-;,1- '
S e) : ill PCI::1
iql 1
-A
- - .
. . __
II '
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.m. .
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Director. of Planning and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner
Conrad: I 'm going to start out with just an item of interest. Did
everybody receive a copy of Dave Headla's note of resigning. He has sent
that to the City Council and myself. He said it was effective October
15th. I always feel there's a loss when somebody resigns Dave because when
' you've been around and you have some experience, I think it is a loss to
the community but you've talked to me about reasons and I sure know why
you're doing it. I thank you for the time. I don' t know what' s the right
date for your resignation. As you said, there is some flexibility. I ' ll
talk to you about that . Thanks for your time. You always seem to bring up
different perspectives and I don't know what Jo Ann's going to do without
You around here.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON 3. 95 ACRES
OF PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARK ROAD AND
PARK COURT, ROME CORPORATION.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report.
' Conrad: Roman, do you want to present your proposal or react to the staff
report? It was pretty clean. We haven' t heard one this clean for a long
' time.
Roman Roos: Well a little history basically. The site, as Paul eluded to,
is a 4 acre site. Originally was two lots but when they put in Park Place,
' which is a cul-de-sac to the north. . .they reconfigured that general area
and made that into one. . . What I 'm proposing to do is much like I did on
the last building in Chanhassen that I did in 1985. The lot is large
enough to sustain two buildings. The second building about 17,500 and the
reason I 'm leading you into this is having to do with that curb cut. My
option would be downstream to build a second building on that site. At
r
that point in time I could have put a curb cut in just for that building so
instead I shifted it to make it a common easement for both lots at such
time as I might split that property into two. The building is a multi-
tenanted building. Therefore the amount of parking on the eastern side as
you see. . . The distance from the corner to here is approximately 65 foot.
I did want to say in terms of the industrial park, there are quite a few
curb cuts. . .
(Roman Roos stepped away from the microphone and was not picked up on the
tape.)
r
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 2 1
Roman Roos: . . .I'm not aware of any situation in the P ark now that has
that type of situation that has created a hazard. The other thing in
consideration world be a cul-de-sac. . .The building will bring probably
about 40 new employees into Chanhassen. . . .As far as the staff report, th
picture that I have, the landscaping . We went a little heavy on the
landscaping with intent also and I guess I 'm pretty open for questions thall
you people might have regarding the overall site plan.
Conrad: Good. Thanks Roman. Anybody else have comments?
Batzli : Do we have to close the public hearing?
Conrad: It's not a public hearing. We' ll start Dave down at your end.
Headla: Any particular reason you chose those kind of apple trees? Crab
apple trees.
Roman Roos' answer was not P on e.icked up to
P P
Headla: The reason I , and I 'm going to dwell on it a little bit, some crab
apple trees will keep their apples over the winter and the birds will feed■
on them.
Emmings: These do. 1
Headla: And I should have been able to tell you the name of those trees
but I can't but I 'd like to see if you can do that. I think that would
help. . . Then the other one, you have junipers and red cedar . When one' s
next to the other, I was hoping to get some information on this today but I
wasn' t able to but whenever you see apple trees, you never see red cedar b
them because you've got. . .from the tree and that becomes quite
objectionable. If you go to the crab apple tree, I think you need some
expert advice on it. If you can look at it to see if the Junipers could
affect those apple trees . The other comment is, Jo Ann did you talk to th
fire department again?
Olsen: Yes.
Headla: How do they feel about that coming down on the eastern side of the
building? I
Olsen: They had no objection to that. They had reviewed it and they were
comfortable with it. They felt that they had the access points on both
streets and that's what they needed and the circulation.
Headla: Okay. That' s all I had.
Conrad: What's your comment on the access? That' s the bone of contention
that staff has. The 3 curb cuts versus 2. Any comments?
Headla: I think I've got a 51% preference to see the access there. I
could be swayed awful easy. I think the staff has got some good arguments
1
II '
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 3
' but the other party has some good arguments too and I think it' s real
close.
Batzli : Curb cuts first . I actually think I like the plan better with the
2 curb cuts. I 'm not a traffic engineer though but it makes sense to me to
have them there.
Conrad: To have two?
Batzli : To have the two. Well the two on the south. Those two.
Ellson: Leave it as it?
Batzli : It makes sense with the future expansion and everything else to
have that access in there so you don't need another one for the future
expansion. Otherwise we' re going to get into a situation where we just put
it in on West 78th where they have to redo it so they can get the internal
' flow. Or else you' re leaving yourself open because you' re going to end up
with another one in the future expanded lot. I would rather have it
planned at this point than down the stream having to force one in there . A
' couple of questions of Paul I think. I think just for clarity sake, don' t
we normally include in the motion the plans dated stamped received
whatever?normally whoever makes the motion may want to include that as part of
the motion. Something that I 'd like to see in I guess I brought up before.
Whenever we see a future expansion on a site plan, potential future
expansion , I would actually like to see it become a condition that we' re
not approving the future expansion and I don't know how the other
commissioners feel about that but I 'd like to see it. I think the City
from time to time has maybe regretted that they were somehow tacitedly
approving future expansion when in fact nobody' s really looking at it that
hard but I think the applicant gets a false sense of security that the
future expansion is, since nobody said anything bad about it, it' s a go at
a later date. I'd like to hear some comments on that. The only other
thing I had was the drainage to the north I think. Is that currently into
a wetland or where is that going to?
Roman Roos : There' s a storm sewer along the property line.
' Batzli : But what was the holding pond or something?
I Krauss : It was an area that was created or utilized with our industrial
park and was designed to receive all the water. Now it does have some
wetland characteristics which may have occurred over the recent years. It ' s
located entirely off site.
Batzli : So they' re not within 75 feet or whatever the heck? They' re not
going to need that type of approval? There's not going to be any kind of
requirement for a skimmer or anything else draining off of the blacktop or
anything like that?
Krauss : We didn' t include that. It certainly could be and the other point
is they have to get Watershed District approval as well .
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 4 '
Batzli : You know I don' t know. There was no discussion of that in here II
but it appeared that they weren't going to initially drain into the storm
sewer system. It looked like it was going to be draining into a holding
retention pond or something. '
Krauss: No, it does go into the system. What' s temporary though is the
improvement on Park Place right now are only there temporarily. There' s n11
storm sewer in Park Place. When you rebuild the street next spring, it
will have curb and gutter and storm sewer and we' re asking that the system
be designed so when we put in the final line, that they all hook together
and run into that retention area. •
Batzli : I guess I'd like engineering or whoever to look at just to make
sure that they're engineering it properly. That' s the only questions
I have.
Roman Roos' comments were not picked up on tape.
Batzli: So it's really not even being subdivided as an outlot?
Roman Roos: No. Absolutely not. . . '
Conrad: I kind of like seeing the thought of the direction and to me it' s
more persuasive in terms of allowing the 2 curb cuts on Park Road. Now I II
think if Roman comes back in and when he subdivides and wants an additions
curb cut, I think it depends what we do here tonight, how many we allow but
I think on my part, if we allow 3 now, there'd be a terrific amount of
resistance to add an additional one when he subdivides later on so I real
like seeing an overall plan like this .
Batzli : I agree. My only point was that we' re not approving this buildinil
or that particular location or configuration. I mean the setbacks.
Whatever hasn' t really been studied by staff or us .
Elison: Right. There's an assumption that might go along with it that yo1
just want to protect yourself against . I like the plan. I like the rear
loading and I like the landscaping. It was so refreshing to see a lot of
landscaping for a change versus always asking to add a little more and •
things like that. I think it's a good use of that area and like Ladd
said, I like the idea of seeing the idea of the expansion. One of my pet
peeves is just seeing the word outlot and you have no idea what the whole, '
you know here we are planners. We like to see the whole plan even though
it's not an approval like that. I don't really have a problem with the
extra curb cuts now that I 've heard the explanation and again the plan of
what he's seeing in the future. I think then it's natural that people fro
that building would go in that way and the people in this one would go in
that way. In that context it makes sense so I don't think I would have a
problem with allowing that there. It sounded like there would be about 4011
additional people that would be in this case now splitting up these two
which would pretty much stagger how busy it would be. I can' t imagine it'd
be too busy. But I like it. Do you have tenants? You said this one' s
going to be a multiple tenant.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
9
October 4, 1989 - Page 5
Roman Roos: We have one tenant and we' re working on the other .
Ellson: What kind of company? I 'm just kind of interested.
' Roman Roos' answer could not be heard on tape.
Emmings: I 'd like to ask on page 5. In that little table you've got under
lot coverage. Just the line that says lot coverage ordinance 70%, proposed
75%. I know there' s that note under there. I wasn't clear about what that
line was telling me.
' Krauss: What that was telling you is we took a look or I asked the
developer' s architect to take a look at what the total site coverage would
' be with both buildings that they're showing on the concept and it exceeded
the requirement. Then we discussed how you could bring that into
compliance and it' s a relatively simple task since the site is so over
parked. There is no variance now since that entire concept future phase is
' going to be a vacant lot.
Emmings: But the actual lot coverage with what is being proposed .
Krauss: Is considerably less .
Emmings: Do we know what that number is?
Krauss: No, I have not worked that out.
Emmings: But it' s certainly well within?
Krauss: It's probably 40%.
Emmings: Alright. As far as the curb cuts are concerned. This looks like
a real reasonable and natural way to have the curb cuts and I guess I like
it there. You' re not getting too much support from us tonight on this
' but I tell you one thing I 'm concerned about is when we talked about last
week, the last time we met, about that infamous Lot A and the PUD for the
supermarket. I think I or somebody asked what the regulations are in terms
' of how close you can have a driveway to a corner and the number 300 feet
stuck in my mind. Didn' t I hear that?
Olsen: That was on West 78th Street that we used with Charlie James'
' property.
Emmings: So that doesn' t apply to this situation?
' Olsen: That was a busier intersection.
Emmings: Now is there a standard in this area for how close a driveway can
be to a frontage?
Krauss: No .
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 6 '
Conrad: Why don't you just talk to us about this. I 'm going to ask the
same questions so I ' ll jump in here. It sounds like so far we' re pretty
receptive to the 3 curb cuts so Paul tell us the other side of the coin.
Give us some negatives. I
Krauss: The negatives fall into a couple categories. Basically you have,
everytime you introduce a new curb cut, you introduce turning movements II because obviously people are going to stop their cars and turn out. The
more turning movements you have, the more places you have to look for
oncoming cars as you' re driving down the street. More places there are fo -
potential interaction between cars going in different directions. There' s
no firm rule about how many there should be or how fax they should be apar
from one another typically except that the general rule of thumb is you
want to minimize them and I can' t argue that there aren' t a lot of curb
cuts on that road right now. There are and there's probably, is my
opinion, more than are warranted given the levels of traffic. Having 40
employees or how ever many employees sounds innocuous enough, except you
have to realize it' s an industrial park and they all tend to arrive and
leave at the same time. I 'm not going to tell you that there's definitely
a traffic accident in the making here with the proposal the way it sits
right now. It's really a matter of normally accepted practices and rules II
of thumb.
Emmings: The Red Splendor Crab is the one that holds it' s apples . The Rell
Splender Crab is the one that holds it' s apples all winter. That happens
to be the one that holds it longer I think than any other one.
Ellson: Did you just look that up or you knew that? Well good for you. II
Emmings: And I like it. I agree with Brian' s notion and I agree it' s good
to see what people are planning to do in the future on the balance of the I
lot but I think it is important that we have some kind of a statement in
there that we' re not giving any consideration to that even though it
appears here and that there' s to be no approval , implied or otherwise for
approving a plan that's in front of. I think it's nice to make that real
clear . Those are all the comments I have. Otherwise I think it's a real
nice plan. I keep thinking this Lot 2, if it didn't have Park Place over
here, you'd certainly have an access on each side of your building and I II
wouldn't see any reason to treat it differently just because he has that
other access opportunity way up Park Street. I think it's an advantage to
having the corner and I'd leave the accesses the way they are. '
Erhart: I think it's a real nice plan. I think the additional landscaping
overcomes my concern for the reputation of the developer.
Roman Roos : I love you too Tim.
Erhart: It's a good plan. Regarding the curb cuts. I understand the
issue of the curb cuts close to the intersection. We're obviously, our
business is right across the street and down a bit. Yeah, you do get some
people running into each other. We had one the other day. Some guy II scraped a car a little bit. We're right in the middle of the street so I
don't know how these things happen. Essentially it's a four lane road. I
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 7
mean it' s wide enough so if someone makes a left turn, you can pass on the
right. If someone's slowing down to make a right turn, they can pass on
the left. I guess my feeling is the nuisance factor of not having a curb
' cut outweighs the potential danger of it so I guess I would tend to lean to
allow the curb cuts . I also agree with Brian' s idea of adding a 10th
recommendation so that's it.
Conrad : I'm persuaded to allow that curb cut only because I see the future
expansion. Property only having one and I would be real critical if the
next subdivision came in and had 2 so I would only grant the 3 this time
' if I felt real comfortable that the future expansion was only going to use
the one curb cut. Other than that it looks like a good one. Good project.
I like it. Anything else? Is there a motion?
Erhart: I' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the
City Council of Site Plan Review #89-8 dated 9-6-89.
Ellson: 9-8.
Emmings: Received 9-8.
Erhart : Received 9-8-89 with all the staff recommendations except for
number 3. We delete the first sentence and change the second sentence to
start, redesign curb cuts as required as it remains . Add item 10. Site
plan approval does not include approval of the building designated on the
plans as future expansion.
' Ellson: I ' ll second that .
Conrad : Discussion.
Batzli : Do you want to talk about the rust on the trees?
Conrad: My concern hasn't been incorporated.
' Emmings: Oh, the future expansion.
' Erhart: You wanted. . .
Conrad : The only reason I 'd vote for the 3 right now is if I 'm convinced
that that' s all we're going to have on this 4 acre property.
' Krauss: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why we encouraged Roman to
include that development concept was for this very reason. So we could
assess those sorts of impacts. At such time, it isn' t one parcel right now
and through the subdivision process, if it's ever subdivided off in the
future, we can always whip this concept out and say this is what we
' intended to do.
Ellson: Would that be typical to remember to do that or is that just
automatic to do that?
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 8 ,
Krauss: It's automatic to look at background and to actions associated 1
with the property and that would be one of them.
Conrad: See we're kind of over-riding your staff report which I don' t lik
doing typically on technical issues but I feel we're getting something or
think in the future.
Krauss: No, I'm saying it' s fine. I'm not disputing that point but your I
concern I think was to ensure that there isn't another access in the future
and I think we can do that adequately through the subdivision process and I
by having this concept and your hearing on this item tonight.
Conrad : So Roman can come back and say I want to subdivide this 1. 5 acres
off without a site plan. He could do that couldn't he? '
Krauss: He could subdivide it off . At that time we would recommend that a
cross access easement to serve both properties be recorded against it .
Conrad : But wouldn' t he have the right to come back in and have a second
access to that?
Krauss : Theoretically.
Roman Roos: Ladd , can I address that a little bit?
Conrad: Go ahead.
Roman Roos : From the day I conceived the project, the intent was I wanted"
the truck traffic behind both buildings. That's the reason for this curb
cut here in order to service this building and this building. Now the
purpose of the second curb cut is exactly what you' re eluding to. I wante
to not have a lot of curb cuts in the front of the property on the buildin
so with this servicing the truck traffic, hoping the truck traffic can go
back out that way. . .this should be car traffic and it was my intent , as I
already told you, to eventually probably split that property line. I have 11
no problem with the green space. I have no problem with. . .
Conrad: I hear what you're saying. I
Roman Roos: So I did have intent from day one. I don' t have a crystal
ball and I can't tell you what's going to happen 5 years downstream or 2 II
years downstream but my intent at this point in time is to do that such
that this would be a cross over easement. That's all I can say about it.
Conrad : But you're also telling me, you would have a tough time getting all
second access in on the subdivided. . .
Roman Roos : I guess if at that point I needed a second access, it would II
hurt me on this building, the width of the building. Okay, that's number
one. Number two, if I needed a second access, I would probably have to
sell my soul to get both Council and Planning Commission to agree to that
but I think if that did, there would be some logical reasons behind it and,
probably would not, should not be denied based on every other type of. . .
I .
Planning Commission Meeting
October 4, 1989 - Page 9
and office in the industrial park. My intent at this point in time is not
to do that.
Conrad: I think I 'm persuaded he can' t do it so I don' t need the language.
Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #89-8 dated "Received 9-8-89" for the Rome
Office Building without variances subject to the following stipulations :
' 1. Provide trash storage enclosure built with materials compatible with
the building or store all trash internally.
I 2. Roof mounted HVAC equipment should be provided with a screen
constructed of materials compatible with the building exterior .
Details should be prepared for staff approval prior to City Council
' review.
3. Redesign the remaining curb cuts as required to facilitate truck
turning movements. Reduce the grade on the remaining Park Road and
' curb cut from 10+% to less than 5% .
4. Revise the landscaping plan to illustrate seeding or sodding of the
' Phase II building area . This area is to be kept in a maintained
condition until construction occurs.
5. Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District.
6. Utilize concrete curb and gutter and design it to connect to
improvements in Park Place that will be installed by the City. Add an
additional catch basin at the Park place curb cut. All storm sewer
located in public easement or ROW shall be reinforced concrete pipe.
' 7. Erosion controls are to be in place prior to start of work on the site
and maintained until site restoration is completed . Additional erosion
control may be required along the south property line by staff to
prevent erosion into Park Road.
8. Add a fire hydrant on the parking lot island located off the northwest
corner of the building.
9. Providing lighting and signage details for staff review.
' 10. Site plan approval does not include approval of the building designated
on the plans as future expansion.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I
1
I
1
CITY OF
I
k, f- _ , CHANHASSEN N: • - 1
l‘wirof 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I
` . (612) 937-1900
October 18 , 1989
1
I
Mr. Roman Roos
10341 Heidi Lane
Chaska, MN 55318
Re: Grading Permit for Rome Building Site, 1450 Park Road
IFile No. 89-8 Grading Permit
Dear Mr. Roos:
This letter is to confirm that on October 9, 1989 the City I
Council approved your grading permit for 1450 Park Road subject
to the following conditions:
II
1 . All erosion control measures shall be in place before grading
operations begin. II 2. The applicant shall pay the City's permit fees as required
and shall provide the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable
letter of credit from a bank in the amount of $7 ,700 before
II
grading commences . The letter of credit shall be for a term
ending October 1 , 1990 or until such time as a building
permit is issued.
II
3 . The applicant shall receive Watershed District approval prior
to commencement of any grading.
4 . Eliminate the eastern curb cut on Park Road and replace it II
with a maneuvering area for use by parked cars.
5 . Reduce the grade on the remaining Park Road access from 10% II
to around 5%.
Upon receipt of a revised grading plan reflecting the I
stipulations of approval, together with a letter of credit or
cash escrow in the amount specified and permit fee of $238.50,
the City will authorize execution of the grading permit. I
I
1
I .
Mr. Roman Roos
October 18 , 1989
Page 2
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
z
' David C. Hempel
Sr. Engineering Technician
1 DCH:ktm
c: Gary Warren, City Engineer
Ron Julkowski , Building Official
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
I
I
1
r
I
i .
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
I 44■I ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
' FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician ;.
DATE: October 18 , 1989
' SUBJ: Update on Site Plan Review for Rome Office Building Site
1450 Park Road
' File No. 89-8 Grading Permit
As you are aware, at the October 4, 1989 Planning Commission
meeting, the Commission agreed with staff ' s recommendation for
' site plan approval with the exception of the proposal to delete
the easterly curb cut on Park Road. They did recommend that the
project be approved with the proposed curb cuts as long as it was
clear that no additional curb cuts would be permitted when the
second phase building is proposed.
On October 9 , 1989 , the City Council consider approval of a
' grading permit for this site to help expedite construction before
winter set in . The Council agreed with staff ' s recommendation
for the approval of the permit. One of the conditions of appro-
val was to delete the easterly curb cut on Park Road. This
created a controversy between what the Planning Commission had
previously approved.
The basis of Engineering' s recommendation to eliminate this curb
cut is from a traffic safety standpoint. With the anticipated
high commercial/industrial traffic volume along Park Road com-
bined with the geometric layout of the adjacent streets and dri-
veways ( see attached map) , it appears that this curb cut will
aggravate the traffic flow situation in the area. Staff felt if
the easterly curb cut along Park Road was deleted that the site
could still be adequately served by the remaining two accesses.
' Based on these considerations, it is therefore recommended that
that easterly curb cut be eliminated and replaced with a
maneuvering area for use by parked cars.
11 Attachments: 1. Memo to Gary Warren dated October 2, 1989 .
2 . Driveway Layout Map.
c: Gary Warren, City Engineer
I
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM ,
TO: Gary Warren, City Engineer ,�,,,,�
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician((/ {� '
DATE: October 2, 1989 ��vv
SUBJ: Approve Grading Permit for Rome Building Site,
1450 Park Road
File No. 89-8 Grading Permit '
Attached is a grading and erosion control plan dated August 31,
1989 prepared by Rehder-Wenzel , Inc. on behalf of Roman Roos.
Mr. Roos is on the October 4, 1989 Planning Commission Agenda
for site plan review. The applicant has requested a grading per-
mit be issued in advance of the site plan approval to complete
the site grading before weather conditions turn for the worse.
The 3. 9 acre site is located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of Park Road and Park Place. The site consists of
grassy meadowlands sloping from west to east. The area naturally
drains towards the north and will be perpetuated by the proposed
plan. An off-site ponding area that will be utilized was sized
to handle the runoff generated from the site.
Three access points are proposed, two on Park Drive and one on '
Park Place. Park Drive is a through street that functions as an
industrial collector. Park Place is a short cul-de-sac which is
-scheduled for upgrading next spring. Since Park Drive is a
through street that functions as an industrial collector, it is
recommended that the easterly access should be deleted. It
appears that the site can still be adequately served by the
remaining two accesses.
The plans propose Type I erosion control along the perimeter of
the east and north lot lines. It may also be necessary to extend
the erosion control on the south boundary for part of the site.
Type I erosion control, i .e. silt fence, will be acceptable at
this time; however, if the City feels that this is not sufficient
in holding back the erosion, the City will require additional ' _
erosion control in the future.
Gary Warren
October 2, 1989
Page 2
The grading plans are generally acceptable and therefore it is
' recommended that a grading and erosion control plan for 1450 Park
Road dated August 31, 1989 as prepared by Rehder-Wenzel, Inc. be
approved with the following specific conditions being a part of
' the permit besides the general conditions set forth:
1. All erosion control measures shall be in place before grading
operations begin. g
2. The applicant shall pay the '
and shall provide the City withyascash escrows orsirrevocad bre
'
l
letter of credit from a bank in the amount of $7,700 before
grading commences. The letter of credit shall be for a term
ending October 1, 1990 or until such time as a building per-
mit is issued.
3. The applicant shall receive Watershed District approval prior
to commencement of any grading.
4. Eliminate the eastern curb cut on
Park
with a maneuvering area for use b y parked carsRoad and replace it
cars.
5. Reduce the grade on the remaining Park Road access from 10%
to around 5%.
' Attachment
I 1. Location map.
2. Grading plan dated August 31, 1989.
3. Application for permit.
4. Copy of Grading Permit.
I
1
1
I
I J 1 ' - t: �3 r
� V°+Rc it..xS V o fi.y.
w -_ ✓ S"„ '' x;X...... 4.'Y .h!t ,tip, i `T °�.J" t
\".,,,,
! ay°yq r f , ..2. x.,■
C r r `$ y x
t:'
' . ,„ -!d 4:;'.;,,,;.f.,3-'?"-!;- ...-,,',`
° 7 ., .-fir' t� f t �.. 7:
` .may r a s � t<< . thV ' -• ,r + r ' '! 'i � A �' ti y ;.-.7.- , --'1' -" ,+1, r:w Y 1 :.s \oil=-9.---f
, . ..•;- � PROPOSED. `.- , ,, . . - _ * . ,
' -
w :'%,:;,—.11 3- ft + rte e, ar FS.
- _ ;. CURB CUTS
s t ::., ;iii if, _
d: s �Sa1✓/-
1141" ' , _ .-1".--,,,..,--A•'-‘ 24,, Ilk
-�s.a rf s "+i P 3 �7�. jai Y
i `! " k'•.i., _ •,• 5; t ,t r { ;. ry 4_ „W.','rte'' ' rF fallik
t
r a !r f
r E k 1 '7 a• , Lk ;.- ,� -mss it` .#t s !_ t x y +.
•
- ' e- . ".' t _ -r - � ,. �. -I...'
E.
, ` .r- _ ,/-" = h: tip'•f k . ,• '+ x .. `-�" ,fir'=-1. =" 'y '
Z F 7, •
,,.:. , _ .,7::::„;,.. ..... ,,,_. , . 17,,.,.0. .. . ,. . ., _
or' „!. �
h
'I..-a f