5 Bluff Creek Corp Center PUD
,.
ë
)
j
..
-
[
[
-
~
J
-
-
)
PC DATE: Sept. 19,2000
5;
-
CITY OF
CHANHASSEH
REVIEW DEADLINE: 10/17/00
CC DATE: October 9, 2000
CASE #: SPR 2000-11, PUD 97-2
By: RG, ML, ST, DH, TH, LH
STAFF REPORT
PR
equest or a mmor amen en e u
Development Design Standards to permit a 10 foot parking setback from the TH
5 Right-of-Way and a 30 foot building setback from TH 5 and site plan review
approval for a one-story, 67,664 square foot office/showroom building.
-
LOCATION:
Lot I, Block I, Bluff Creek 2nd Addition, North of Stone Creek Drive and South
ofTH 5
APPLICANT:
CSM Corporation/CSM Equities, L.L.C.
2575 University Avenue W., Suite 150
St. Paul, MN 55114
(651) 646-1717
Bluff Creek Partners
123 N. 3'd Street, Suite 204
Mpls., MN 55401
(612) 333-2244
PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development Office Industrial Park, PUu
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial
ACREAGE: 5.63 acres
DENSITY: FAR. 0.276
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Minor amendment to the PUD design standards and site plan approval
for a 67,664 square foot office/showroom building.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUD's, and amendments to
PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and
amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed
project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets those standards, the City must then
approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19, 2000
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The developer is proposing an amendment to the PUD design standards to the required setbacks
from TH 5. When the design standards were originally developed, the additional right-of-way for
Highway 5 was estimated at 35 feet. The PUD standards established a 50 foot parking setback and
a 70 foot building setback from this projected line. As part of the actual acquisition of the TH 5
right-of-way, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) acquired 75 feet of right-of-way.
MNDOT acquired the additional right-of-way for slope purposes. To make up for the loss of the
additional 40 feet, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the setback of 40 feet, reducing the
parking setback to ten feet and the building setback to 30 feet. The edge of the future eastbound
shoulder will be 65 feet from the property line. This intervening area will remain open. Staff can
support this revision to the parking setback, provided the developer receives an easement from
MNDOT permitting them to provide landscaping (including trees and shrubs) in depth within the
right-of-way. Additionally, to adequately screen the parking, the developer shall be required to
provide berming to screen the parking lot a minimum of five feet above the parking lot area. This
may require the use of retaining walls. There is no need for a reduction in the building setback,
since the proposal meets the design standards. The only other reduction to the design standards
would be to reduce the maximum building setback to 110 feet which would eliminate the
opportunity for four rows of parking to the north of the building.
The developer is proposing a one-story, 64,664 square foot office showroom building. The
building will be 50 percent office/showroom, 25 percent warehouse, and 25 percent manufacturing.
A maximum of20 percent of the building may be used for showroom space. The building is 28
feet to the top of the parapet in the loading dock area and in the front and side at the comer and
center of the building entrances. The building parapet line steps down to a height of 24 feet
between the comers and middle of the building and halfway down the sides ofthe building. The
primary building material is rough face block.
Staff is proposing some architectural changes to the building to provide additional articulation and
visual interest including the use of larger, gray accent, base blocks and the addition of columns.
The developer has made changes to the building that meets the intent and direction that staff
is articulating. We believe that these changes adequately address the concerns.
Staff is concerned that the loading dock area be adequately screened from public view on Stone
Creek Drive. The applicant has provided a cross section of this area for review. With the addition
of the retaining wall in this area, increasing the height of the berm, and with the proposed
landscaping, this area should be hidden from view. The applicant has revised the plans to
incorporate sections of fencing to screen the loading area. The fencing shall consist of block
pillars with wood fencing between the pillars. This change will provide permanent screening
of the loading area.
The applicant is proposing a sidewalk to the west to connect to the trail adjacent to Bluff Creek.
This connection needs to be realigned to the south, following the edge of the parking lot and east of
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19,2000
Page 3
the proposed retaining wall on the west side of the property. The trail connection will then be made
without the need for a stairway. Additionally, a sidewalk system must be installed adjacent to the
building to permit the employees and customers to walk to the building entrances without having to
walk in the parking lot and to connect this site to the larger sidewalk and trail system. Bicycle
racks, as stated in the developer's narrative, will be required on site.
To the north of the proposed building are Highway 5 and the Walnut Grove development.
Townhomes at Creekside is located south of Coulter Boulevard with the Family of Christ
Lutheran Church project southwest of the site. To the east of the site are the east tributary of
Bluff Creek and vacant office industrial land. To the west of the project is the Chanhassen
Recreation Center and Bluff Creek Elementary School. This site is highly visible from Highway
5.
The site slopes from a high point of elevation 960 in the north central portion of the site to a low
point of elevation 942 along the western property line adjacent to the storm water pond.
Transmission lines for NSP currently run north and south on the property, but are to be relocated
to run to the northwest as part of the development proposal. The site is accessed via an extension
of Stone Creek Drive.
Staff is recommending approval of the minor land use amendment and the site plan subject to the
conditions of the staff report.
BACKGROUND
On June 28, 1999, the City Council approved PUD #97-2 granting Final Plat approval for Family of
Christ Lutheran Church Addition (which is part of the Bluff Creek Development).
On April 26, 1999, the City Council approved site plan #99-2 for a 17,140 sq. ft. church facility
including assembly, classrooms and offices for Family of Christ Lutheran Church.
On June 22, 1998, the Chanhassen City Council granted final plat approval for Bluff Creek
Corporate Center PUD #97-2 and second reading for rezoning from A2 to PUD.
On April 27, 1998, the City Council granted preliminary approval for PUD #97-2, including the
first reading of the rezoning of the property from A2 to PUD and preliminary plat approval for
five lots, the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill the small wetland located in the northern portion
of the site and the Conditional Use Permit for grading and filling in the flood plain.
On January 12, 1998, the City Council granted concept approval for PUD #97-2.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Amendments - Section 20-41 through 20-45, requires 4/5'h vote of City Council
Bluff Creek Corporate Center Development Design Standards
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19, 2000
Page 4
Site Plan Review - Sections 20-106 through 20-116.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Bluff Creek
Corporate Center (attached). A PUD is required to be developed to higher quality than other
projects.
Building materials consist of rough faced concrete block with an exterior insulation finishing
system (E.I.F.S) sign ban and comice at the top. The primary block color is a barkwood, which is a
reddish-gray. The accent block is ashlar gray. The E.I.F.S. color is spectrum brown. The canopies
and cap flashing are charcoal gray. The aluminum framing for the windows and doors are medium
brown. Windows are tinted gray. (please note that in the color composite views of the building
provided to the commission, the colors are lighter than the actual material being proposed.)
While the architecture does provide visual interest, staff is concerned that the proposal does not
provide sufficient detail to meet the standards of the Bluff Creek Corporate Center design
standards. Staff is recommending the following architectural changes to the building:
1. Incorporate larger concrete block face blocks (similar to the Young America building) along
the base of the entire building up to the height of the window base. These larger blocks
should be the color of the accent band (Ashlar Gray).
2. Add a column element on both sides of the middle window in the areas adjacent to the
canopy entrances and on the east and west sides of the building. A tile accent shall be
incorporated within these columns. This will result in a total of 12 columns.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
@ The developer is requesting an amendment to the design standards to permit a 10 foot parking
setback. (50 feet is required. Staff is proposing berming and/or a retaining wall as well as
landscaping in depth to screen the parking.)
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19,2000
Page 5
# The design standards permit the averaging of site coverage within a PUD. The developer is
proposing to provide additional open space with the development of the other lot within the Bluff
Creek Corporate Center.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL
The preliminary grading plan for Phase I of Bluff Creek Corporate Center proposed two two-
story walkout-type buildings with an average elevation of 961 for the upper level and 949 for the
lower level. The plans also proposed the extension of Stone Creek Drive out to Trunk Highway
5. The current plan proposes a one-level building at 956 and eliminates the extension of Stone
Creek Drive to Trunk Highway 5.
The proposed drainage plan is consistent with the existing drainage patterns of the site. The
parking lot and building drainage is proposed to be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing
storm water basin in Outlot B of the Bluff Creek Corporate Center plat. The City has previously
received storm water calculations for the basin which verify that the basin is sufficiently sized to
handle the proposed drainage. Prior to final plat approval, however, storm sewer sizing
calculations will be required for all proposed storm sewer. There are two public storm sewer
lines which are proposed to connect into existing structures at the north end of Stone Creek
Drive. One of the lines extends past the right-of-way to the east and will serve part of Lot 2.
Since it will serve more than one lot the applicant will need to prepare a cross-access easement
agreement for the storm sewer over both lots.
The plans propose a storm sewer along the northerly parking lot which discharges into the
existing pond. Staff recommends that this line be redesigned to connect with the southerly storm
sewer which will connect to the existing storm sewer system. This will eliminate having two
discharge points into the pond, maintain vegetation along the pond slope and reduce maintenance
efforts for the City.
Grading along the north lot line of the site does not correspond with the State of Minnesota's
construction plans for Highway 5. An elevation difference of four feet exists between the two
sets of plans. The applicant should show the proposed construction (i.e. grading/street
improvements) of Highway 5 along the north lot line of the site. Also, any grading in the
Highway 5 right-of-way will require a MnDOT permit. Prior to final plat approval, this grading
discrepancy will have to be resolved. Additional permits from the Watershed District and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will have to be obtained for grading and stormwater
discharge.
With Phase I the trail is proposed to be constructed along the northeast side of the existing storm
water basin. This trail will need to be designed and constructed with this phase of the plat. This
trail needs to be incorporated into the plan and related grading shown.
Proposed erosion control consists of silt fence on the east, west and south sides of the site. Silt
fence adjacent to the creeks and wetlands is required to be Type III. In addition, an erosion
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19, 2000
Page 6
control blanket or turf mat will be required on the steep slope in the southeast comer of Lot 2. It
is not clear at this time whether the entire site will be graded at once or in phases. If it will be
graded all at once then any lot not being immediately built on will have to be seeded/sodded and
disc-mulched.
The existing power poles running north/south through the site will be relocated by MnDOT in
conjunction with the Highway 5 project.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Stone Creek Drive. A sewer
service is proposed to be extended from the existing manhole in Stone Creek Drive. For water
quality and fire flow purposes staff recommends that the watermain in Stone Creek Drive be
extended easterly for future looping with the property to the east. The plans propose extending
an 8-inch line along the common lot lines of Lots 1 and 2. Since the watermain will be a public
line, a 20-foot wide utility easement over the public watermain shall be dedicated on the final
plat. In addition, a watermain extension permit from the Minnesota Department of Health will
be required prior to construction. The plans also show a public watermain being stubbed to the
north. Staff recommends that this line be deleted because there are no future plans to extend
water under Highway 5 at this location.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City's Building Department. Installation of the public watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer
will require detailed construction plans and specifications for review and approval. The
applicant will also be required to enter into a PUD Agreement/Development Contract with the
City at the time of final plat approval and provide the City with a financial guarantee in the form
of a letter of credit or cash escrow for public utility construction, erosion control and site
restoration.
STREETS
The site is proposed to be accessed from Stone Creek Drive. An offset cul-de-sac is proposed to
be constructed at the existing end of Stone Creek Drive. The cul-de-sac must be designed to
accommodate the large turning radius of semi-trailer trucks and fire apparatus. This may
necessitate a larger curb return radius between the cul-de-sac and the existing curb line.
The drive aisles adjacent to parking stalls shall be increased to a minimum of 26 feet in width as
per City Code. Industrial driveway aprons per City Detail Plate No. 5207 must be constructed at
all access points along Stone Creek Drive.
MISCELLANEOUS
The site is platted as an outlot and will need to be replatted into lot and block. In conjunction
with the final platting of the property, there will be a development contract, administrative fees,
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19, 2000
Page 7
SWMP fees, and recording fees. In addition, during the building application process, there may
be additional sewer and water hookup charges pending depending upon the previous assessment
history. The City assigns a sewer and water hookup for every SAC unit determined by the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Commission. Any previous trunk assessments
paid will be credited against the future sewer and water hookup charges.
LANDSCAPING
The developer's landscape plan appears to follow the concept landscape plan prepared for Bluff
Creek Corporate Center including a listing of tree species from the original plan. However, the
plan must be revised to specify the quantities of each species being provided. Additionally, the
landscape plan overestimates the number of overstory trees being proposed on site by
incorporating understory trees, which are considered ornamentals, as overstory trees. Staff has
made the following counts of proposed trees: overstory - 27, understory - 72, conifers - 44, and
shrubs - 85.
I and,t'aping, 1h.'1ll R",!";..,,d Proposl'd
Buffer yard C - Hwy. 5 23 overstory trees 25 overstory trees
46 understory trees 24 conifers
69 shrubs 22 understory trees
64 shrubs
Parking lot 8,727 ft 2 landscape area 20 conifers
·35 trees 24 overstory
23 ornamentals
The applicant needs to increase landscaping along the north property line as part of the
landscaping in depth and the addition ofberming and/or retaining walls in this area being
recommended by staff. While the use of conifers in this instance is appropriate for screening
purposes, staff believes an additional eight trees are required. These trees shall be overstory
trees. Also, 15 of the understory trees should be replaced with overstory trees. The applicant
shall work with staff to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the required changes.
The applicant has revised the landscaping plan to accommodate staffs recommendations.
Part of the proposed foundation landscaping on the north side or the building shall be
relocated to the east and west sides of the building to make room for the sidewalk system.
WATER RESOURCES
Wetlands
Three wetlands were identified as a part of the overall plans for Bluff Creek Corporate Center.
The first wetland was filled under a de minimis exemption (under 2,000 square feet) following
preliminary plan approval. The second is a replacement wetland that was constructed along
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19,2000
Page 8
Bluff Creek by the City of Chanhassen. This wetland is just west of the Family of Christ
Lutheran Church property and is therefore not a part of this project. The third is on the east side
of the property and is not within the construction limits. The applicant has indicated that this
basin will not be disturbed.
Bluff Creek
The proposed project is situated between the main branch of Bluff Creek to the west and a
tributary of Bluff Creek to the east. However, Phase I of Bluff Creek Corporate Center is not
within the primary or secondary corridors of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The proposed
structure does meet the required 50-foot setback from the center of Bluff Creek.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
Water quality and water quantity fees will be calculated in conjunction with the review of the final
plat. These fees are payable to the City prior to filing the final plat.
LlGHTING/SIGNAGE
The applicant has prepared a lighting plan for the proposed development. Lighting shall consist
of 25 foot tall poles with a single light high pressure sodium metal halide lighting (250 watts) in
a shoe-box type fixture. The proposed area lighting complies with city requirements. The
developer is also proposing wall mounted units. These lights must be directed downward so that
there is no glare directed off site.
The applicant is proposing a 20 foot tall project identification sign on the Highway 5 side of the
building and an eight foot tall monument sign on the south side of the building. These signs are
permitted as specified in the development design standards and will be constructed of block to
reflect the building materials. The developer has also shown areas allocated for tenant wall
signage. Wall signage shall consist of black, reverse channel, metal letters. It should be noted
that wall signage is only permitted on the north and south elevations of the building. A separate
sign permit shall be required for each sign. (The landscaping plan shows a project identification
sign with the TH 5 right-of-way. This is not permitted. The sign must maintain a setback at least
half the parking lot setback. Additionally, the developer may need to enter into an encroachment
agreement with the City of Chanhassen to locate the sign within the drainage and utility
easements.)
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19,2000
Page 9
(I) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing
areas;
(4) Creation ofa harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: Subject to the revisions contained in the staff report, the proposed site plan is
consistent with all plans and specifications and development design standards for the
Bluff Creek Corporate Center Planned Unit Development.
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19, 2000
Page 10
PLANNNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 19, 2000, to review the proposed
development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
amendment to the PUD. The Planning Commission also voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the site plan, #2000-11, subject to staff recommendations with modifications to
condition 7. The developer shall be required to provide berming to screen the parking and
loading dock area. This may require the use of retaining walls. The applicant must provide
100% screening for the loading docks per the PUD agreement; condition 9. The applicant shall
work with staff to create more architectural interest to the building on the Highway 5 elevation,
regardless of budget; and added condition 35. Change the site plans to read Chanhassen instead
of Eden Prairie on every page.
The developer has revised the grading and landscaping plan to incorporate berming and
landscaping on both the north and south elevations. In addition, the developer is proposing the
use of an opaque fence to screen the loading area. These changes meet the requirements of the
ordinance. The developer has also worked with staff to provide additional architectural detail to
the building. These changes include the use of 16' x 16' accent colored block at the base of the
canopy elements and intermittently between windows; addition of a soldier course of accent
colored block above the windows and at the interface of the block and E.I.F.S. to create the
perception of a column element. These details address the concerns previously held by staff
regarding the building elevations. Finally, the developer has revised the plans to Chanhassen.
At the September 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved the site
plan for Bluff Creek Corporate Center 2nd Lot 1 with conditions outlined in the staff report. One
of the conditions was for the developer to coordinate the location of the right-in/right-out access
on Highway 5 with MnDOT. This condition arose because there was a conflict between the site
plan for Bluff Creek Corporate Center 2nd Addition, Lot 1, and the construction plans for
Highway 5. The proposed site plan for Lot 1 showed no access onto Highway 5 whereas the
current construction plans for Highway 5 show an access into Lot 1.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the City has received copies of right-of-way acquisition
documents between the State of Minnesota and Land Group, Inc. (the developer of Bluff Creek
Corporate Center 2nd Addition) which state that the access from Highway 5 will be deleted.
Additionally, the City has received copies of right-of-way acquisition documents between the
State and Creek Five Associates (the owner of the parcel to the east of Bluff Creek Corporate
Center) which state that a 60-foot drive access will be constructed off of Highway 5 into the site.
Staff believes that these documents satisfy the Highway 5 access condition.
The applicant has addressed most of staffs landscaping comments. However, part of the
proposed foundation landscaping on the north side or the building shall be relocated to the east
and west sides of the building to make room for the sidewalk system.
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19,2000
Page 11
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
"The City Council approves the minor amendment to the Bluff Creek Corporate Center Design
Standards changing the required parking setback from TH 5 to 10 feet."
"The City Council approves Site Plan #2000-11, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc.,
dated August 18, 2000, revised October 2, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. Site Plan approval is contingent on the final platting of the parcel into a Lot and Block
designation.
3. A maximum of20 percent of the building may be used for showroom space.
4. Wall signage is only permitted on the north and south elevations of the building. A
separate sign permit shall be required for each sign.
5. Wall mounted units lights must be directed downward so that there is no glare directed
off site.
6. The developer must receive an easement from MNDOT permitting them to provide
landscaping (including trees and shrubs) in depth within the TH 5 right-of-way.
7. Part of the proposed foundation landscaping on the north side or the building shall be
relocated to the east and west sides of the building to make room for the sidewalk system.
8. A sidewalk system must be installed adjacent to the building to permit the employees and
customers to walk to the building entrances without having to walk in the parking lot and to
connect this site to the larger sidewalk and trail system.
9. Bicycle racks will be required on-site.
10. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
11. PIV valves are required. Please indicate locations for review and approval on utility
plans.
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19, 2000
Page 12
12. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact curbs to be painted and exact location of "No Parking Fire Lane Signs". Pursuant
to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy # 06-1991, and Section
904-1,1997 Uniform Fire Code.
13. The fire department sprinkler connection is required to be located adjacent to the main
entrance of the building. The fire sprinkler contractor must contact Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for exact location.
14. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise
identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy
#29-1992.
15. In reviewing the preliminary utility plans, a number of hydrants have been properly
located; however, additional hydrants will be required and some of the proposed hydrants
will need to be re-located. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval of
re-location and new hydrants to be installed.
16. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
17. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
18. Cleanouts are required on both sanitary sewer services at intervals not to exceed 100 feet.
19. Post indicator valves are required on the fire service lines.
20. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
21. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by
staff materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be
hauled off-site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to
obtain an earthwork permit from the City.
22. The public street and utility improvements throughout the development will require
detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition
of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction plans and specifications
shall be submitted to staff for review and City Council approval a minimum of three
weeks prior to final plat consideration. The private utilities shall also be constructed in
accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state
plumbing codes.
23. All silt fence adjacent to a wetland, creek, or pond shall be Type III.
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19,2000
Page 13
24. The developer shall work with MnDOT in coordinating site grading, drainage and street
improvements to be compatible with MnDOT's upgrading of Trunk Highway 5
construction plans
25. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City, the utility and street
improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
26. All areas disturbed as a result activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
27. The developer shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department
of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
28. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
29. The applicant shall revise the storm sewer in the northerly parking lot to drain into the
existing storm sewer system and include an 8-foot wide bituminous trail along the pond.
30. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10-year, 24-
hour storm event prior to final plat approval.
31. Revise the utility plan to extend the public watermain to the easterly property line for
future looping purposes. Delete the proposed 12-inch watermain stub to the north."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact
2. Development Review Application
3. Bluff Creek Corporate Center Project Narrative
4. Reduced Site Plan
5. Reduced Building Elevations
6. Reduced Sign Plans
7. Bluff Creek Corporate Center Development Design Standards
8. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 8/30/00
9. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
10. Planning Commission Minutes of9/l9/00
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19, 2000
Page 14
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
INRE:
Application of CSM Corporation for Site Plan Review
On September 19, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly
schedule meeting to consider the application of CSM Corporation for a site plan review for the
property located at Stone Creek Drive between Coulter Boulevard and Highway 5 The Plarming
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan was preceded by published
and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons
wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Plarmed Unit Development.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Office/Industrial uses.
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 1, Bluff Creek Corporate
Center 2nd Addition.
4. Section 20-110:
(I) Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Is consistent with this division;
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19,2000
Page 15
(3) Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree
and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general
appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas;
(4) Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5) Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
(6) Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and
air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which
may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
5. The planning report #2000-11 Site Plan Review dated September 19, 2000,
prepared by Robert Generous, et ai, is incorporated herein.
CSM Bluff Creek Corporate Center
September 19,2000
Page 16
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site
plan review.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19'h day of September, 2000.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
g:\plan\bg\development review\bluff creek corp center cSffi.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
. . 6!10 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937·1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: CSM CORPORATION / CSM EQUITIES L.L.C. OWNER: BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS
ADDRESS: 2575 UNIVERSITY AVE. W., SUITE 150 ADDRESS: 123 N. 3rd. St., Suite 204
ST. PAUL, MN 55114 MPLS., MN 55401
TELEPHONE (Day time)
651-646-1717
TELEPHONE:
612-333-2244
MANAGING PARTNER: LANDGROUP, INC.
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
- Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
- Interim Use Permit - Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Planned Unit Development· %100. 00 _ Zoning Appeal
x - MINOR PLANNED mNIT DEVELOPMENTAMENDME'T
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permits
_ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign
..X- Site Plan Review' ~qt(P. (p 4 -L Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
($50 CUP/SPRNACNARNJAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
- Subdivision' TOTAL FEE $ 1076.64
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
Building materJaJ samples must be submItted with site plan reviews.
"Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'12" X 11 n reduced copy of
transparency for e~ch pian sheet.
- Escrow will be required for other applications through the development c~ntract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
lOCATION
BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER - PHASE 1
SOUTH OF HWY 5 AND NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD AT STONE CREEK DRIVE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION . BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER, OUTLOT C
TOTAL ACREAGE OUTLOT C: 13.61 ACRES, PHASE 1: 5.63 ACRES, PHASE 2: 7.98 ACRES
WE11J\NDS PRESENT
x YES
NO
PRESENT ZONING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
REQUESTED ZONING
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MINOR AMENDMENT)
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
SITE PLAN REVIEW, MINOR P.U.D. AMENDMENT
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 ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness.of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies ~hall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
.11 City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
.:he City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
;opy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
:his application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
will keep myse1f informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
Jnderstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
Mhorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
ny knowledge.
fhe city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
'equirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
¡xtension for develo ment review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
¡xt nsions are appro d by the applicant.
C 0q:<. ,t-,Zç L·c...
. ~.' ~~ f MIW'-l/.1l... ~'. ¡ lJ:>
Date
''''''r-_' 'A~'~
~I <L<-":g..,;~
Fee Paid $ /(> 7(, . (, .¡
g//6/«)
, Dáte
Receipt No. b<J
fD r:
ñe appllcant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
11 not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
CSM Corporation
Bluff Creek Corporate Center
Phase 1
Hwy 5 and Stone Creek Prive
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Project Narrative
Submitted August 18, 2000
Introduction
This project narrative is being submitted on behalf of CSM Corporation for a proposed
development located south ofHwy 5 and north of Coulter Boulevard at Stone Creek Drive. This
submission is for the first phase of this development which consists of a one story, 67,664 sq. ft.
office/office showroom building. The second phase of the development consists of a one story,
80,704 sq. ft. office/office showroom building. We anticipate submitting for site plan review for
the second phase in the spring of 2000. The office component of the proposed development is
anticipated to be 50% percent of the aggregate floor area. The Bluff Creek Corporate Center
development by CSM will encompass approximately 13.61 acres of property and 148,368 sq. ft.
of building once the two phases are complete.
The property received a preliminary Planned Unit Development approval by the City of
Chanhassen in April of 1998. The request for the approval was submitted from the property's
managing partner LandGroup, Inc.. CSM has been working with LandGroup's representative
Liv Homeland to ensure that the design criteria of the site will be consistent with the original
P.U.D. approval.
Suzanne Berndt of CSM Corporation is the project architect and will be responsible for the
building design and detail and will be the primary contact for the City of Chanhassen throughout
the review process.
Schoell & Madson, Inc. is serving as surveyor, engineer and landscape architectural consultant
for this project. Schoell & Madson, Inc. is a planning and engineering firm located in
Minnetonka. The firm has extensive previous experience in working with the City of
Chanhassen. Ken Adolph we be the primary contact at Schoell & Madson. Schoell & Madson,
Inc. was the engineering firm that represented LandGroup, Inc. during the preliminary P.U.D.
approval process in April of 1998.
Submittal
The submittal is for a site plan review for Phase I and approval of a minor amendment to the
Planned Unit Development. The subject property is guided for "Office/Industrial" land uses and
is zoned a Planned Unit Development. The proposal is consistent with the current zoning,
comprehensive guide plan and meets all code compliance criteria.
August 18, 2000
CSM Corporation
-1-
NARRATIVE
Bluff Creek Corporate Center
The materials submitted with this narrative includes a completed application form for preliminary
plat and site plan approval, list of property owners within 500 feet of the property, P.U.D. minor
amendment request by LandGroup (attachment A of the narrative), wetland delineation, and the
appropriate application fee. In addition, the following plan sheets are being submitted:
Cover sheet
Boundary & Existing Conditions
Preliminary plat
Preliminary grading, drainage, and erosion control plan
Preliminary utility plan
Preliminary landscape plan
Preliminary site plan
Site Line Study
Building floor plan
Building elevations
Sign Criteria
Site Lighting plans
The minor amendment to the Planned unit development is a request to change the required
setback off of the MNDot right-of-way for the future Hwy 5 expansion. Due to the additional
land acquired for the right-of-way by MNDot, the original setbacks stated in the Bluff Creek
design criteria no longer remain consistent with the intent of the original P.U.D. approval. We
request that the original 70ft building setback and 50 ft parking setback off of the Hwy 5 right-of-
way be reduced to a 30ft building setback and a lOft parking setback off of the Hwy 5 right-of-
way. This reduction would allow the original intent of the preliminary P.U.D. approval to remain
intact in addition to maintaining the density desired by both the city and the developer. A request
for the minor amendment to the P.U.D. by the Bluff Creek Partners is attached to the narrative as
"attachment A" which describes in more detail the background of the original intent of the
approved setbacks.
Existing Conditions
The subject property is 13.61 acres in size with phase I encompassing 5.63 acres of the northem
portion of the site. The existing legal description is Outlot C of the Bluff Creek Corporate Center.
The property is bounded by Hwy 5 to the north and Coulter Boulevard to the south. To the east
of the property is a tributary to Bluff Creek. To the southwest of phase I is the parcel that is
owned by the Family of Christ Church which is part of the Bluff Creek development. To the west
of Phase I lies outlot B which has been designated as the storm water drainage pond for the
development. To the west of outlot B lies the main branch of Bluff Creek. Outlot B is owned by
the church who has granted the development owners rights to use the pond for drainage. The
pond has been properly sized to accept the proposed development submitted in April of 1998.
The density of the April 1998 submission exceeds the proposed development therefore ensuring
enough drainage capacity for the project. Run-off and storage calculation for 10 year and 100
year events were submitted to the city in April of 1998 and can be reviewed for proper capacity.
Once a preliminary approval is achieved, revised calculations will be performed for the site.
August 18, 2000
CSM Corporation
-2-
NARRATIVE
Bluff Creek Corporate Center
Adjacent land Use
North- P.U.D.-R, Walnut Grove and Highway 5
South- P.U.D.-R, Townhomes at Creekside and Coulter Blvd.
East- A2, vacant
West- or, Bluff Creek Elementary and Chanhassen Recreation Center
Preliminary Plat
Two lots are being proposed on outlot C as part of the preliminary plat identified as Bluff Creek
Corporate Center. A 75 ft private utility easement has been re-routed to run along the west side of
phase I instead of running through the center of the site. A cul-de-sac has been added to the end
of Stone Creek Drive per the requirements of the City of Chanhassen.
Name: Bluff Creek Corporate Center 2nd Addition, Block I, Lot 1 and Lot 2
Acreage: 13.61 acres
Lot Lot Acreage Building Sq. Ft.
Lot I 5.63 67,664
Lot 2 7.98 80,704
TOTAL 13.61 148,368
Preliminary Site Plan
The site plan for Phase I consists ofa 67,664 sq. ft. building specifically designed for
office/manufacturing/warehouse use. The north façade, which faces Hwy 5, will be the main
entrance for tenants who occupy the building. The north, west and east side of the proposed
building will contain a combination of parking and landscaping. The natural grading of the
MNDot right of way along with the landscaping provided will work together to screen the
parking yet still allow the building to be visible from Hwy 5. The south side of the building will
serve as a truck court to service the future tenants. The truck court will be screened from the
Hwy 5 public right-of-way by the building, berming and dense landscaping. The truck court will
also be screened from Stone Creek Drive by berming and dense landscaping.
Sidewalks extend to the parking lot from each of the five entry points to the building. A sidewalk
from the west side of the parking lot is placed so that it can connect to the trail located in outlot B
to be provided by the church property.
The building is setback from the north property line 81 ft and the parking is setback lOft. At the
east property line the building is setback a minimum of 128 ft and the parking is setback 60ft.
The building at the west side of the site is setback a minimum of 72 ft. and the parking is setback
15 ft. The south property line is a minimum of 100 ft to the building with. The paving of the
truck court is setback 20ft from the Stone Creek Drive right-of-way.
The design criteria for the Bluff Creek Corporate Center Development states that one lot may
exceed 70% for hard surface coverage but that the hard surface coverage may not exceed 70%
for the entire Bluff Creek Development. Phase 1 has a hard surface coverage of 72.1 %. The
table below summarizes the estimated hard surface coverage for the Bluff Creek Development.
August 18, 2000
CSM Corpora,jon
- 3-
NARRATIVE
Bluff Creek Corporate Center
Site Impervious % of Hard
. Areal Surface
Site Area Coverage
Phase I 176,752/ 72.1%
245,178
Phase 2 193,198/ 55.66%
347,674
Church *63.3%
"From data received from Bob Generous
With averaging the above percentages, the hard surface coverage for the entire development
would be well below the maximum of70%.
There are 202 parking stalls provided on the site which meets the required number of stalls
required by the City of Chanhassen in addition to accommodating the projected number of
employees for the building. A crossover parking agreement is also agreed upon with the Family
of Christ church to provide additional stalls for the development on the Church's lot during
weekdays if the need arises.
Phase 1 Parking Summary
Use Sq. Ft. City Parking Parking Stalls
Requirements Required
Office (50%) 33,832 4.5/1,000 sq. ft. 153
Manufacturing 16,916 1/500 sq. ft. 34
Warehouse 16,916 1O+«x-IO,000)/2000) 14
TOTAL 67,664 201
To assist in providing alternatives to individuals driving to work, car and van pool designated
stalls will be marked in addition to providing bike racks for the development. Once a tenant lease
is signed and interior improvements are approved, the location and quantity of car and van pool
spaces and bike racks will be determined based on the entry locations and size ofthe tenants for
the building.
Submitted with the application is a Wetlands inventory and delineation for the Bluff Creek
Corporate Center that was created in December of 1995. The report recognizes a small wetland
"1-1" located in the center of the phase I site. With the April 1998 preliminary plan approval, a
wetland alteration permit was issued to fill this small wetland on site. This wetland was filled and
therefore is not a consideration with this submission. There is also a small wetland area at the
Bluff Creek on the east side of the property that borders the east property line noted as "3-1".
This wetland area will not be within the construction limits of phase one and will be left
undisturbed.
The landscape plan has utilized plant materials from the City's suggested planting list. The plan
incorporates a variety of overstory trees, ornamental trees and shrubs. The lot will have an
underground irrigation system. The plan provides a variety of plant materials that will supply
year round color and significant screening of the parking and loading/service areas.
August 18, 2000
CSM Corpo,ation
-4-
NARRATIVE
Bluff Creek Corporate Cente,
Architectural Description
Due to the high visibility of the building from the public right of ways, all elevations of the
building will receive equal treatment in quality of materials. A combination of integrally colored
concrete block, tinted glass, anodized aluminum framing, and textured Exterior Insulation Finish
System (E.I.F.S.) are the field materials for the building.
In order to provide a cohesive, thoughtful development, design feature used in the preliminary
. design of the church were used in the design of the phase 1 building. There is a similar vertical
proportion of masonry and E.I.F.S with the 28'-0" high walls on the south elevation of the
church. The comice at the top ofthe walls also received a similar design treatment as the church.
In addition, the vertical proportion ofthe window framing also complements the design of the
church.
The main entries of the building reside on the north elevation of the building which faces
Highway 5. The entries are accentuated by the arched pre-finished metal canopies. Variation on
building heights in addition to projecting out the intennediate entries provide visual relief for the'
long façade. An accent colored band of block in addition to decorative reveals in the E.I.F.S. add
detailing that provides an additional interest to the building. The proposed design enables both
the high quality of architectural standards required by the city and the economy the developer
desires to provide a successful development.
August 18, 2000
CSM Corporation
- 5-
NARRATIVE
Bluff Creek Corporate Center
Amendment to PUD
Bluff Creek Partners
It was the desire of the Council at the time the Planned Unit Development was approved to maximize the
density and commercial development potential of the Bluff Creek property. In order to maintain the
developable area of the site, the Council approved a 70' green area extending from the shoulder of the new
location of Highway S to the parking area of the proposed development. This 70' area was later modified
to 7S' in the following PUD resolution. To further increase the density of the development, the Council
also requested the owners enter into a crossover parking agreement with the Family of Christ Church
providing for parking by commercial tenants on the Church's lot during weekdays.
In keeping with the PUD as approved, we are, therefore, requesting the current green area on the northern
portion of the Bluff Creek site along Highway S be maintained at 7S' from the shoulder of the new highway
location. We further request the PUD resolution be restated from providing for a MNDOT Right of Way of
2S' and a setback from ROW of SO' to instead provide for a MNDOT ROW of6S' and a setback from the
ROW of 10'.
We understood that the City had agreed to require a 7S' setback from the shoulder of the new highway
location regardless of the location of the ROW. We therefore negotiated with MNDOT in good faith
believing we had 7S' of green area of which MNDOT could purchase as large an area is it desired without
affecting the right to build up to 7S' from the highway shoulder. Had we realized that it would be
important, we would have negotiated with MNDOT for a taking ofa fee interest in the ROW to 2S' from
the highway shoulder, with a slope easement of SO feet, so that the setback line would stay at 7S' from the
shoulder. Now we understand that the City may believe that the SO' setback from the ROW line should
still apply.
Should the requirement ofa SO' setback be applied to a new MNDOT ROW of6S', for a total of liS' feet,
(which we do not believe is within the spirit of our earlier agreement with the City and not a correct
interpretation of the earlier approval), the developable area of the site will be significantly impacted and the
size and density of the development substantially reduced. The northern site is already significantly
constrained by creeks on both sides, the somewhat triangular shape ofthe site, the highway on the north
and a power line extending through it.
ATTACHMENT A
r
I ~t
~~~
~;
Iii
Sf
~
.
,
,
I
,
I
,
~
,
\
,
\
\
,
\
\
,
\
\
\
,
,
\
\ \'
:Y
\/'
§ m~
~ !l:it~
~ """<
~ ..III..
,I im
~ k Ui
c &~~ e.'f
t; ..ë· ..!i~
ã JUË~E-
o:t:
..'"
I
I
I ~lli¡~
I~ ~~
--
- -----
--- ~~
,
--
-'-
--
,
--
--
--
--
r
,
,
i
i
I
I
I
r
I
_-1
" "-------- \
\
" ----
-''\...----------
,
,
, /
, ,
I '
, J
, ,
I '
, /
; i .'
, I
, ,
I '
, I
, ,
I '
, /
, ,
I '
, I
, ,
I '
, /
, ,
I '
.' /
f
,
,
I
a
~j
z
:s
0-
.,
...
¡¡;
~
.
!
m~
". t on
:t ~ ....
.~~
! l~ii d
lå ;~~i É å
II :i~;!I äfili
:1 B:~æ 'É~
h~ æ I~:· ~ lui¡
~~~ ~ ~;Ii ~ =:=~~
;~i ~ u .., . . . :it;
!liB:;; i ~ Z~~E=
~ A. ::
..
!
! ;!
Ë '=ã
1 m~~
I-g~
~ ~g6,
~ .~ '-.~
~ ~.i!g
~ !! g~.
~ =I",e
L
I
111111 ¡
1111
~ ~ ~ I ~
I I~
5 5 5 I
~ , ~
t ~ t ~
... ... ...
r
I ~t
,,~~
u.li
~~
'"3
III
8.
.
I
I
I I"
II II! I, .
I m !¡¡It
~
5
~
.t ~
"f'''' ..,.
i ¡!,
IIIH·
I¡¡¡!iill
~
III I,M¡ III ! !I
:l1!i : . II
~1'f11 t t t ;
~ i~IIHI j ¡ II ¡¡
.,
I~I 1 ~ I
~
L
.J
r
116~
ii!§-
i¡~
~§I
~r
§f
.
. ~
.
. ~
i~
~"
l
IL
¡" .
..
~5
:i
ii .
~!!I~¡ ¡
.. ~5 ~
~ ~~ ~~
~ ~i;~
~ !:!!
9
" ~~
. ~ i~
~~"
II: :r!:
~ =
:ê~~
~.~-.
.~ .
~. 8
I
!:iì
~-
~E
~ii
=
i5 !;
;r¡ .~ =~
~ iii. =1..
~ ~~ ~Ë
ill ";!3:i.
I; "0 X"
ifi ...2= :;2
~
.-
~ii
~¡
=i
h'~
;r¡ I~ ~5
! ~ ~.
~ ~~ ~~
aI 0i"~
Iii .~ ~~
J Ii.......
I
ii
nl
~ød
~§I.
¡ë.¡
~m
I W I mid: JII III
;¡i!Í I Ii
11',,1 I . t ¡
" ¡!Iml j itf. ¡
. r . :~!
2 :liI
~~~! I
~ ~.~!
~ ~~i= =~
§ d·a ail
0; ~~i;hi
~ ~@~";B~
~ læ ~¡:Ê il
~ ãl ¡~:Uê
~ ~!! .cs""t;~.
CI..: oS ri
\
..
~-
.-
~¡
Ë·
."
=i!
,.
~ !I ~i
~ ~~!~
¡¡ ~i =~
; ::: ~
~
.
ª
.i
~ -
~ i
i~ p
.~ iE
~
~
Ii
.~
~I[~m~ I;
~¡
~ !
I
; ë!
~ ~~
,
I¡~! ~~I
i !
: II
~
~
I!
~
~
~
Ii
B
I g ~
. ìIi .
_ aI .-§
'II ¡o; i!~'
o ~ Ii tii!&
: I! I; lï~1
f¡ ¡¡iIE
~~ vlzz../'B
EXHIBIT C
BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
Development Standards
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industriaI/office park. The use of the PUD zone is
to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive
proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development
shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. Photo-
composite images of proposed development adjacent to Highways 5 shall be submitted as part of
the review process. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of
architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below once a
primary use has occupied the site. Shared parking shall be required of the development.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone shall be limited to institutional use on one lot only or light
industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined
herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall
make that interpretation.
Light Industrial - The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, or testing
of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enClosed structure, with no outside
storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration,
smoke, dust or pollutants.
Warehousing - Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property.
Office - Professional and business office.
Health Services- establishments primarily engaged in furnishing medical, surgical and other
health services to persons.
Conferences/Convention Center - establishments designed to accommodate people in assembly,
providing conference and meeting services to individuals, groups, and organizations.
Indoor Recreation/Health Club - establishments engaged in operating reducing and other health
clubs, spas, and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fitness conditioning.
Hotel/Motel - establishments engaged in furnishing lodging, or lodging and meals, to the general
public.
Research Laboratory - establishments engaged in scientific research or study.
Ancillary Uses (in conjunction with and integral to a primary use)
Showroom - showroom type display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided that
no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales.
Telecommunication Towers and Antennas by conditional use permit only.
Day Care - establishments providing for the care and supervision of infants and children on a
daily basis.
Prohibited uses
· Contractors Yard .
· Lumber Yard
· Home Improvement/Building Supply
· Garden Center
· Auto related including sales and repair
· Home furnishings and equipment stores
· General Merchandise Store
Co Setbacks
The development is regulated by the Highway 5 and the PUD Standards. There are no minimum
requirements for setbacks on interior lot lines in the PUD zone, except as specified below. The
following setbacks shall apply:
Frontage Minimum Setback Maximum Setback
BuildinelParkinl!: BuildinelParkinl!
Future Hwv. 5 70/50 150
Coulter Boulevard 50/30 100 *
Stone Creek Drive 30/20 NA
BIuffCreek:
West Lot line Lot 1, Block 1 35/30 NA
West Lot Line Lot 2, Block 1 15/15 NA
East Lot Line Lot 1, Block 2 110/110 NA
East Lot Line Lot 2, Block 2 100/100 NA
Northeast Lot Line Lot ,2, 60/60 NA
Block 2
Northeast Lot Line Lot 3, 35/35 NA
I Block 2 I
East Lot Line Lot 3, Block 2
60/60
NA
* Church facility is excluded from this maximum building setback.
(Lot and Block Designations are based on proposed preliminary plat numbering.)
The average hard surface coverage does not include Outlot A. The PUD standard for hard
surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses. Anyone site/lot can exceed the 70
percent requirement, but in no case can the entire finished development exceed 70 percent.
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
I. Building Area
Building Square Footage Breakdown
Use Maximum Percent Total Square Feet
Office 62% 160,000
Light Industrial /Warehouse 40% 100,000
Ancillary/other 15% 40,000
Institutional 23% 60,000
Total (Maximum) 260,000
2. More than one (1) principal structure may be placed on one (1) platted lot.
3. Building height shall be limited to 3 stories or 40 feet subject to the exclusions of Section
20-907 of the city code.
e. Building Materials and Design
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design. Primary building orientation shall be to Highway 5 and Coulter
Boulevard.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry or higher quality material shall
be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted cinder
block.
3. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
4. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
5. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured,
coated, or paint!:d .
6. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials
or curtain wall on office components or, as trim or as HV AC screen.
7. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
8. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from adjacent public right-of-ways by walls
of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the building or background.
Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be
fully screened by compatible materials.
9. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved
by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or
other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size,
mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited.
Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other
patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or
appropriate landscaping. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing.
10. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures or within an
enclosure for each lot developed in the Business Center.
II Each buildings shall contain one or more pitched roof elements depending on scale and
type of building, or other architectural treatments such as towers, arches, vaults, entryway
projections, canopies and detailing to add additional interest and articulation to structures.
12. There shall be no underdeveloped sides of buildings visible from public right-of-ways.
All elevations visible from the street shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual
qualities.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
I. Landscaping along Highway 5 shall comply with Buffer yard standard C. Coulter
Boulevard shall comply with Buffer yard standard B. The master landscape plan for the
Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site
landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site
plan review process.
2. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan
review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or
landscaping.
3. When parking lots are less than three feet above the adjacent roadway, an undulating or
angular berm or elevation change of three feet or more in height shall be placed along
Coulter Boulevard_and Highway 5. The berms shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion
of each project Phase grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may
be installed incrementally, but it shall be required where it is deemed necessary to screen
any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded.
4. Loading areas shall be screened 100 percent year round from public right-of-ways. Wing
walls may be required where deemed appropriate.
g. Signage
1.
The Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD shall be permitted two identification signs: one
sign on Coulter Boulevard and one sign on Highway 5. The sign on Coulter Boulevard
shall not exceed eight feet in height. The sign on Highway 5 shall not exceed 20 feet in
height. A maximum of 80 square feet of sign area shall be permitted per sign.
':
2. All freestanding parcel signs shall be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed
eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The
sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the
development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the
development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review.
3. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign per street frontage.
4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be
introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
6. Wall sign shall be permitted per city ordinance for industrial office park site.
7. All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
h. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development. The street lights should be designed consistent with the existing lighting
along Coulter Boulevard.
2. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square
ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be
used in the private areas.
4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2
candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
i. Alternative Access
I. Each site shall accommodate transit service within the individual development, whenever
possible.
2. Pedestrian access shall be provided from each site to the public sidewalk and trail system.
3. The developer and site users shall promote and encourage Traffic Demand Management
Strategies.
4. Each site shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage.
5. Preferential parking shall be provided for car and van pool vehicles within each site.
-'-0--00-"0- ø
-"'~OO
·o~ 0 ---;;¿b4:-----
~ 0 _ _~~~_" '.
._P"¡- ___ ."~ ""
"-/ ."
OIfU.~""
_U~~~
o ,-
o ,(-
l
1
/
/
,....,.}~
""""'~è.
(
1
\
I <¡"",.
\..---- \
,
/ ,j'
./ /
¡"'ß
I "1/-1'...0
(nf
\I"'~J
,I
'I
Ii
,\
'\
/
TlMBERWOOO
I
I
I
!
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert Generous, Senior Planner
FROM:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE:
August 30,2000
SUBJECT:
Request for a minor amendment to the Bluff Creek Corporate Center POD
and site plan review for a one story 67,664 square foot office/showroom,
building located at Stone Creek Drive between T.H. 5 and Coulter Boulevard,
on property zoned PUD, CSM Corporation, Bluff Creek Corporate Center
Phase I.
Planning Case: 97-2 POD and 2000-11 Site Plan.
I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen
Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Division I have the following fire code or city
ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at
this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or polity items will
be addressed.
I. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
2. PIV valves are required. Please indicate locations for review and approval on utility
plans.
3. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of ' 'No Parking Fire Lane Signs".
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Division Policy # 06-1991,
and Section 904-1,1997 Uniform Fire Code.
4. The fire department sprinkler connection is required to be located adjacent to the main
entrance of the building. The fire sprinkler contractor must contact Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for exact location.
5. Comply with Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Division regarding premise
identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire Prevention Division
Policy #29-1992.
6. In reviewing the preliminary utility plans, a number of hydrants have been properly
located; however, additional hydrants will be required and some of the proposed
hydrants will need to be re-located. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval ofre-Jocation and new hydrants to be installed.
g:\safety\mllplrev97 ·2pud
,
:1/'/ /,
/ ;;1/ '-Jr--
,./<
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for an
Office and Showroom
APPLICANT: CSM Corporation
LOCATION: Stone Creek Drive
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant,
CSM Corporation, is requesting a minor amendment to the Bluff Creek Corporate Center PUD and site plan
review for a one-story. 67,664 sq. ft. office/showroom building located at Stone Creek Drive between TH 5
and Coulter Boulevard, on property zoned PUD. Bluff Creek Corporate Center Phase L
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 7, 2000.
}/,i~~~d~tl~\""'~~¡i:i~~~i,~"
~~./~'~~~~~t~~~
"", .~·~l1~,"'.c.\ \
''!'!I;:: . 1,-_ _ '\.. .".".. ',-~- - ì
t:-~--~~il- ::::;::;,,::;:::
.... "" ~l:¡:;'
-""'.
'~:=l:~~~'
~""'~..'~'-".
:,,\.~ v~.;-·- "\ ~,~,(.,+;..' - -
~ "\\~)\'L'>'J\'":J
,,"L~:.~_:.~=i'~·
....~
HI'
'""
. Q.G ,<i,'"",
-~ '3'.-, 'aµ
<sl~ ____:_-~:' ,-
:"'*èfSt -~,------
7 BLUEBONNET BLVD
8 CHICORY WAY
9 POPPY DR
10 BLUE SAGE LN E
!;;J 11 WATERLEAF LANE E
--, 12 LADY SLIPPER LANE
13 BUTTER CUP CRT
14 BLUESAGE LN W
15 WATERLEAF LANE W
16 SNAPDRAGON DR
, -\\~
3'
~
~-
\ ,I,. '
.," '~ålnutC_Ur\le, _
\i~ \ -~\\:~'-, ~,'. '--;;-~~-,,\~~;
;S...... ~.:.,.\, .,,<..' \,'......,'
- . ~{""'; \',
~~-'-,. Q:)......~1'3:':=:D\\ :',
},~~~\~:,:~;7'\
~ "-... ""0\ om
'U "\ \<',..~'\:.'\'3.,_. 9
ø .\-..'1>2",'6,. ..
\ '\\14'-. 10
\ \ \::~'.:,
\ ----15--
Hwy.5
\
Coul
'..c:
"''-.;!
,$"'
~
'"
¡-,--
1 Harvest Lane-
2 Harvest Way
3 Autumn-Avenue
:0
.~~,~,__ Coulter Blvd
'-----
Õ)--
\~"\\ \~~_~~~~Er \
\ ~ u"\. :<::::- ¡..cÞ."',
:\~ : '" -"'--;" -~
Q; ~\+" '.",,&, , \ 'v. '\
% \ 'lb- k__ 'b.ç\fi:I~ ,,0, '
\Årìdrew Court
\\.'
"
',-~,
';",...<>W
- '0t~,--o
"
Smooth Feed Sheets™
MICHAEL J GORRA
1680 ARBORETUM D
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LARRY DEAN V ANDEVEIRE &
BETIY MARGARET V ANDEVEIR
4890 CO RD 10 E
CHASKA MN 55318
CREEK FIVE ASSOCIATES
C/O LAND GROUP INC
123 3RD ST N
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCJ:IER-- .
690 CI]::t-C-EN"fÊR D PO BOX 147
ÇJMJ'<HASSEN MN 55317
. IND SCHOOL DlST 112
II PEAVEY RD
CHASKA MN 55318
. MICHAEL J GORRA
1680 ARBORETUM D
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
F AMIL Y OF CHRIST LUTH CHURCH
275 EAST LAKE DR PO BOX 388
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS
C/O LAND GROUP
123 NORTH 3RD ST
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401
DANIEL J FRITZ
2033 POppy DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHERYL D BRANDT
2029 POppy DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Use template for 5160®
BRIAN D & KAREN L MAHON
2025 POPPY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
FRANCES MAUREEN WISSEL
2031 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PATI A SCHNEIDER
2021 POppy DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SCOTI A TAYLOR &
TIFFANY J SICILlANO- TAYLOR
2027 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HEIDI L MARSHALL
2017 POPPY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SEAN D & LEANNE M CONNELLY
2023 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID J OLSON
2013 POPPY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARY S SMITH
2019 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAMELA L OLSEN
2012 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARY C BERENDES
2015 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG W LEIBBRAND
2016 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LUTHER T HIPPE
2011 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOSHUA R PETERSON
2020 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KENT J HALVORSON &
GRETCHEN K ROGERS
2010 WATERLEAF L
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAMELA S SCHUCHHARDT
2024 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DOUGLAS W LAING &
DEBORAH A REICHBERGER
2014 WATERLEAF P
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RACHAEL N POTVIN
2028 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RENEE V BURG
2018 WATERLEAF L
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JENNIFER S ECKERT
2032 BLUE SAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY R & ANGELA L DEWAARD
2022 W A TERLEAF L
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Smooth Feed Sheets™
RLES K & TRACI J BEAVERS
W A TERLEAF L
..HASSEN MN 55317
\N K BLAIR
W A TERLEAF P
'IHASSEN MN 55317
ELA MARGARET BOBER
BLUE SAGE LN
..HASSEN MN 55317
STOPHER CHARLSON
BLUE SAGE LN
'IHASSEN MN 55317
AJYOUNG
BLUE SAGE LN
'IHASSEN MN 55317
<\LD J DUDYCHA.JR &
,MARIE DUDYCHA
BLUE SAGE LN
'IHASSEN MN 55317
L DAHNKE
fH L RAPOPORT
W A TERLEAF L
'IHASSEN MN 55317
IAEL J HJERMST AD
WATERLEAF L
'IHASSEN MN 55317
'EN C & SHANNON K KNOTTS
W A TERLEAF P
'IHASSEN MN 55317
'lIE L MUNSON
W A TERLEAF P
'IHASSEN MN 55317
SCOT R & RAY ANNE M FOSS
7750 SNAPDRAGON
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PATRICIA L HAUSER
7754 SNAPDRAGON
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GORDON D & LINDA K DAVIS
7758 SNAPDRAGON
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MATTHEW L BOSIN &
SARAH M RANNEY
7757 BUTTERCUP C
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LAURA L SCHREIBER
7753 BUTTERCUP C
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GALEN L & MARIANNE E SKIFST AD
7749 BUTTERCUP C
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JANICE M VANDERZEE
7748 BUTTERCUP C
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JENNIFER L WUEBKER
7752 BUTTERCUP C
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES M BROOKS
7756 BUTTERCUP C
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ADAM R NEISE &
JENNIFER A MILLER
7755 LADY SLIPPER
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Use template for 5160®
BARBARA L JOHNSON
7751 LADYSLIPPER
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JANET K BEETY
7747 LADY SLIPPER
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WALNUT GROVE HOMEOWNERS AS
2681 LONG LAKE RD
ROSEVILLE MN 55113
WALNUT GROVE VILLAS ASSN
2681 LONG LAKE RD
ROSEVILLE MN 55113
CITY OF CHANHASSEN_
C/O SCOTT B TEHER--
690 CIT NTER D PO BOX 147
CH HASSEN MN 55317
MARK J FOSTER &
KAREN S OLSSON
8020 ACORN LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD D & MARY A FRASCH
8000 ACORN LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KATHY J DONOVAN
1978 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KEVIN R WRIGHT &
MEGAN A ARNOLD
1976 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM R B ANDERSON &
KATHLEEN M B ANDERSON
1974 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Smooth Feed Sheets™
JAMES H & KATHLEEN PENSYL
1972 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
ST PAUL MN 55117
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
~
422 EAST CO RD D .__~...
STPA~N' 55117
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT_OF MN IN
. 422 EAST CO RD D -'
ST PAUL MN 55117
...
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D _
STPAUL MN 55117
. HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
ST PAUL MN 55117
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
STPAUL MN 55117
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
STPAUL MN ·55117
~
-----.
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
STPAUL MN 55117
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
STPAU~MN 55117
HERITAGE DEVELOP
422 EAST CO
ST PAU 55117
JANNA ADAIR
1927 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN A RANDLE
1929 ANDREW CT
CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7
ALBERT M & CAROL A BIST ANY
1931 ANDREWCT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D _.
STPAU~MÑ55117
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
ST PAUL MN 55117
/
.-
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
ST PAUL MN 55117
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
STPAUL MN 55117
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
ST PAUL MN 55117
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
STPAUL MN 55117
Use template for 5160®
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D ___'
ST PAUL..__----iv1N 55117
"
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO ~--
STPAUL/ MN 55117
HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MN IN
422 EAST CO RD D
ST PAUL MN 55117
-. ,.
THE PILLSBURY COMPANY
ATTN: CHRIS MUNTlFERING MS
200 6TH ST S
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCHER_-----
690 CITY CE~TERtf- PO BOX 147
CHAN}lA5SEN MN 55317
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19,2000
Burton: Just that I think the applicant has to make clear that this is going to be an improvement to a
wetland and ifhe'sjust going to have like a duck pond he's not going to get it through us so, I think he's
got to understand that ifhe wants to come back.
Peterson: Doesn't mean that it couldn't be a duck pond.
Burton: Just without the grass around the edge, yeah. Pro duck.
Sidney: Mr. Chair, I feel like I want to use the term compelling reason and we don't have that in front of
us right now.
Peterson: Alright. Is there a motion?
Sacchet: I move to table.
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Wetland
Alteration Permit #2000-3. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER
PUD AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A ONE STORY. 67.664 SO. FT. OFFICE/SHOWROOM
BUILDING LOCATED AT STONE CREEK DRIVE BETWEEN TH 5 AND COULTER
BOULEVARD AND PROPERTY ZONED PUD. BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER.
PHASE I. CSM CORPORATION.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Bob, if we change the drive aisle and increase that, and you talk about increasing the berm,
how's that going to affect the parking ratio? Have we looked at that I assume? As far as the number of.
Generous: The berming on the north elevation, we believe would go into the right-of-way. MnDot's
looking at a swale system for storm water purposes and they actually their parking lot is lower, at a lower
elevation than the proposed swale so they're going to have to build that up. So on the north side it's not
going to impact it. One of the beauties about this project is we're requiring him to provide cross parking
and cross access arrangements. That's one of our concerns that they provide the sidewalk connection to
the trail system. This north, east comer ofthe church site is an adequate area for providing additional
parking, if that becomes an issue on this property. So the ratio's not, we don't believe there will be a
problem.
Peterson: Any other questions of Bob?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. When you say 25% manufacturing and then you say light manufacturing. Can
you define those activities?
9
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19,2000
Generous: Light manufacturing?
Sidney: Yes. I'm thinking noise. Ifthey'lI have noise producing activities.
Generous: I don't know if our code provides it specifically but it's you know, high tech industries.
Computer manufacturing would be considered light manufacturing. What else would be?
Aanenson: Well it'd be similar to what we have out on TH 5 and Dell Road. That's all zoned similarly.
Same builder of this building. We don't know who the tenant is. It's going to be multi-tenant and as
each business license comes in, we'll have to review that. Not business license but as each tenant
finishes... license requirement at that point. That's where we do check it for noise generation or like
that. Until they get tenant finish. Right now what you're approving is the shell ofthe building.
Sidney: Okay.
Peterson: Any other questions?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I've got a few things I'd like to clarify. One stipulation in here is that MnDot
will permit the applicant to do landscaping in the right-of-way. Is that a reasonable thing to expect?
Generous: We believe so.
Sacchet: You think so, okay. Then there's this other statement. The only other reduction to the design
standards would be to reduce the maximum building setback to 110 feet which would eliminate the
opportunity for four rows of parking to the north of the building. Can you explain what you mean by
that? I wasn't quite sure.
Generous: Well under the design standards it says there's a minimum setback of70 feet and a maximum
building setback of 150 feet. So that we couldn't get, well design standards are like 100 and 24 feet
would give you two rows of park. Two double rows of parking. But this, we'r~ reviewing the site plan.
This is the specific proposal for this site so I'm not sure that that's going to be an issue. If they get
approval, they're going to build this building.
Sacchet: Okay. And can you clarify a little bit this thing with the sidewalks. That was a little bit...to
me, where exactly the sidewalks you would like them to relocate to and all that. I couldn't find the site
that easily.
Kind: Me either.
Generous: It's on the, the sidewalk I'm talking about is on the west side of the building. Right now they
show this extension out and say with a note that it will be connected to the trail. In this area it's a pretty
steep slope. If they do that it's going to require stairs. We want them to push it towards the south. Right
now we're saying come over here. We've had discussions with the applicant if they can find a way to
connect up here, that would be fine. The whole intent is so that we can get people walking on the
sidewalk and connect over to our trail system and potentially to this parking area that's necessary for the
building.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19,2000
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Then you pointed out briefly where you see that column element in the
elevation. 1 didn't quite catch it. There are these four little stick things that little rounded group sits on.
Is that where you see the more columns or?
Generous: I was looking at the, between the, there's the canopy entrance and then you have three
windows on that same plane. It would be in, between the middle windows.
Sacchet: Between those windows.
Generous: Coming up and I'm not, I was thinking either one that goes all the way to the roof or you
could have one that's truncated and it would just go above the columns up above the windows and then
the block stepping out. So that there's a little raised area in there. But it would help to lift your view up.
Sacchet: That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that. In terms of the lot coverage, we say we permit
averaging so we're actually looking then at the whole PUD to make sure that.
Generous: Right. And specifically we're looking at the two lots east of Stone Creek Drive. The rest will
be averaged.
Sacchet: So we'll remember to balance it when the other one comes in, is that automatically you guys
are going to do that?
Generous: That's part of, because it's a PUD it's all linked together.
Sacchet: It is linked together that way. Okay.
Generous: When they do the site plan, or the subdivision approval you'll have all the accompanying
conditions in there.
Sacchet: Okay. Now there is the comment about the Highway 5. The elevation difference of 4 feet.
How does that play into, that made me a little uneasy. How does that play into this whole project?
Generous: That's, in the extreme western portion of the project. What we're going to mitigate that is
that they concentrate on the groupings of landscaping. If you remember the landscaping plan, they had it
a little bit in depth. And that's also where we came out if we can project the landscaping out from the
property line rather than just in that 10 foot strip. But expand it. We can get better coverage of the site
and specifically the parking lot is what our concern was. And incorporating the berming in that will help
to screen the asphalt area.
Sacchet: So this shouldn't be concern, okay. I think one last one, since this is in the Bluff Creek area
here, who checks that it's in line with all the Bluff Creek stuff?
Generous: As part of the design standards, that's where we came up with those setbacks. We based that
on the review of the natural area that was in place before this project started.
Sacchet So you have actually done that?
Generous: Yeah. That's why we have the smaller setback on the north lot and then it's larger as you go
down. And it varies throughout the project.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19,2000
Aanenson: Maybe Ijust can give you some background on that. That was done with the original PUD
when the church came in. It was the first user and the PUD standards were established with that project.
All the setbacks and all ¡hat with that project so this is being measured up against that.
Sacchet: Okay. That's all my questions. Thank you.
Peterson: Any others?
Burton: Mr. Chair. I have one question for Bob. As you come up Stone Creek Drive from the south,
after you kind of get by where the church is, it looks like it's pretty much a straight shot to the building
and that you would see quite a bit of the southern side. I'm not a real big fan yet of the southern side of
the building and even if you screen a lot off to the side, you're still going to have a pretty good shot at the
building ITom the road, aren't you?
Generous: Weill believe you could get the upper level but we should basically be able to cover the
doors, overhead doors and the lower part of the.
Burton: But the road's going straight into it. How do you?
Generous: Well with the benning at the end ofthe road.
Burton: You're saying the road will go up?
Generous: Well the road goes up to I believe it's 948 or 9 and then the benn's up to 954 and that we
want extended out. The street is actually, what is it? 5 feet or 4 feet below the top of the benn. So if
you're looking.
Burton: So the street's going to go up. You're going to drive kind of upwards to the building and then,
are you going to, after you go, are you going to go over the berm and come down a little bit? Is that what
you're saying?
Generous: No. On the back side, the street will.
Burton: I think it's number 5 are you looking for? Again, I see what you're showing me there on number
5. I guess my question is, the benning that's shown is on either side of the road, isn't it?
Generous: It's on the north side of the road.
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Bob, maybe you should pull out the landscaping plan that shows where it goes.
Peterson: The benn should be covered, except where the road goes through the benn you'll see it there
but that's about it. It's all benned right there on both sides.
Burton: This is?
Peterson: Yep.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19, 2000
Kind: Matt, did you see this? This is all trees. And you go this way to get in there.
Peterson: Yep, there you go. Spread that out.
Generous: Okay, this aerial, come up Stone Creek Drive. There's a berm at the end of it with your
evergreens and shrubs and trees on top of that.
Burton: Okay, I see what you're doing. I didn't catch that. The berming there straight ahead. I thought
it was stopped either side.
Generous: No. that goes down and they're saying, it goes up also. That's where the use of retaining
walls may be required to extend that out.
Burton: Okay. That's good.
Peterson: Other questions?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Bob, as long as you've got that landscaping plan out there. Do you view that as
100% year round screening of those loading docks?
Generous: With the use of evergreens, except for this small area in here. But then you have, we can
incorporate some shrubs or something in there to help with that. But you have the berming is going to be
the 100% screening. You can't see through that and then it's the area above that with the indepth with
evergreens unless they die or are moved, they should provide that.
Kind: At that point though the berm is, I don't know what the scale is that we're looking at here but it's
pretty thin but that's going to be retaining wall or something.
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: To get it higher.
Generous: To make it go up, yes.
Kind: The PUD requires 100% screening.
Generous: Of loading docks according to the city's ordinance though. And that was, that was either
looking at this, could we do something architecturally to that elevation or do we, can we hide it? And in
this case we can hide it and concentrate on the public exposure on Highway 5.
Kind: Okay.
Peterson: Any other questions? Thank you Bob. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? 1fso,
please come forward and state your name and address please.
Suzanne Berndt: Good evening. My name is Suzanne Berndt. I'm the project architect at CSM
Corporation who is the developer for Bluff Creek Corporate Center. Address is 2575 University, Suite
150, St. Paul, Minnesota. I'd like to start off by thanking the Planning Commission and the planning
13
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19, 2000
staff for considering the Bluff Creek Corporate Center for site plan review and PUD minor amendments.
I'd like to just kind of update you on recent developments for CSM Corporation development in the area.
In 1999, the summer we completed three buildings at the Southwest Tech Center which is south of Lake
Drive East, which currently is fully leased. And we just finished construction of the sixth building of
Chanhassen East Business Center located south of Highway 5, which we hope our previous
developments have shown our quality of construction and design that you'll be able to continue with our
development. I guess to start off I have just four of the conditions I'd like to discussion in the report.
The first item is item number 7 on page 10. And this one I just was wondering if we could go a
clarification on the wording. It states the developer shall be required to provide benning to screen the
parking lot and a minimum of 5 feet above the parking lot area on both the Highway 5 and the Stone
Creek ftontages. And this may require the use of retaining walls. I was just a little concerned as far as
the 5 feet above the parking lot area. It seems like the intent of the staff is to have it, as far as the Stone
Creek frontage, to have it 5 feet above Stone Creek Drive. The cul-de-sac area. Is that correct Bob?
Generous: Whatever would hide the views.
Suzanne Berndt: Right, so I mean the vehicles on the, I just want to make sure that we're not looking up
5 feet above the truck court.
Peterson: Where ever you are from the parking lot, and their' views.
Suzanne Berndt: Exactly. So I guess just my comment is if we could possibly change, do an amendment
to the condition to state, the developer shall be required to provide benning to screen the parking lot a
minimum of 5 feet above the parking lot area south of Highway 5 and a minimum of 5 feet above the
Stone Creek Drive cul-de-sac.
Peterson: Bob, are you comfortable with that?
Generous: I think that will work, yeah. As long as we get it spread out on grade.
Suzanne Berndt: Okay.
Peterson: Next.
Suzanne Berndt: The second item is number 9 and maybe quickly I could just go through the elevation
once again. In designing this building we tried to achieve the design standards that are recorded in the
Bluff Creek design criteria. As you can see in the elevation we have projected canopies that are arched at
all of the entries. Variations in building height and colors and materials. We have projections at the
intennediate entries in addition to decorative materials for accent banding and a decorative reveal in the
EFIS material. We also tried to compliment the development to the south which is the Family of Christ
church which has already received site plan approval. In that respect we looked at, looking at getting the
same proportion of masonry and EFIS in the elevation and then also a similar cornice at the top of the
parapet. I guess what I'd like to address in this item, Bob lists out some specific changes to the
elevations and I guess, since the location of this site is farther west in Chanhassen, the market demand is
not as high as our other buildings and therefore the budget for the building is limited. Therefore we're a
little concerned with the changes requested that we may exceed our budget for this building. I guess
what I'd like to propose in the spirit of good relations that we would be willing to work with the city to
consider alterations to the building as long as that, they keep within our budget for the project.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19, 2000
Peterson: Okay, next.
Suzanne Berndt: That's okay?
Peterson: We need to discuss it as a commission.
Suzanne Berndt: Alright. And so I'd just like to do an amendment to that. That the developer is willing
to work with the city staff to consider alterations to the building in order to increase the architectural
detailing to the building as long as the changes remain consistent within the budget of the project. The
next item is item number 10. And the first portion which Bob had discussed earlier is in regards to the
realignment of the sidewalk to the south to connect to the trail without the need for stairs. I just have a
request on that to give us a little more flexibility in designing that sidewalk. We'd like to request that the
condition be amended to state that the developer will re-route the sidewalk on the west side of the site to
provide a trail connection that will not require the use of stairs. And therefore this amendment will
allow us to look at different alternatives to achieve the same results that Bob is looking at, and I know he
referred to that earlier. That that's the main concern and is not requiring the stairs to the connection to
the trail.
Peterson: Bob, your response to that.
Generous: Well the intent is yes, we don't want it to be too steep either so we could probably work that
out.
Aanenson: Well I'd be careful on that. I mean the intent of this PUD was to have shared parking. If it's
inconvenient then the whole premise of it falls on it's face so I think we have to be really careful with
that. I mean we already have shared parking and there may be times. We don't know who the mix is
going to be but we want to make that parking convenient so we don't have a problem. It's got to be
convenient.
Peterson: So noted.
Aanenson: Not steep. Not inconvenient. Stairs are just part of the problem.
Peterson: Okay.
Suzanne Berndt: Alright, the second portion of item 10 I'd like to address is, that requires a sidewalk
system to be installed adjacent to the building to allow employees and customers to walk to the building
entrances without having to walk through the parking lot. This will be a multi-tenant building and the
employees and customers will be able to park within close proximity to their entrances and will not need
to walk from one entry to the next. We've done a number of buildings in Chanhassen and have never
been required to put a sidewalk adjacent to the building and so far I've not received any complaints or
concerns from the employees or customers for that building. Therefore we'd like to propose an
amendment to the condition to state that the developer will provide landscaping possibly in replacement
of the sidewalk. We feel that the landscaping will enhance the building and the view from Highway 5
and also benefit the employees and customers ofthe building more than a sidewalk would.
Peterson: Thoughts on that one Bob?
Generous: I like the pedestrian connection.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19, 2000
Aanenson: We require it in Arboretum and Gateway. It is required in other ones. They have done other
projects in the city. I'm not sure that's the same sort of shared parking situation. Again it's, can you get
to where you need to be 'conveniently. It doesn't work in Minnesota always to walk in the parking lot.
Peterson: Okay. Noted.
Suzanne Berndt: Okay. Item number 26 is just a clarification on that item. The last sentence states that
the developer shall coordinate the adjustment and/or relocation of the right-in, right-out with MnDot. In
discussing this with the seller, Land Group Incorporated, they have informed me that during the
additional taking of the right-of-way for Highway 5 it was arranged that the right-in, right-out will occur
on the property to the east and therefore is no longer relevant to our property. Land Group has fumished
me with documentation to this effect and therefore I'd like to have that portion removed from the
conditions. This is a portion of the document. But it does say, it is agreed and understood that the 60
foot access opening located between the right-of-way boundary markers B-24 and B-909 on right-of-way
plat No. 10-08 will be extinguished. This is the portion that addresses that.
Peterson: Staffs interpretation of that?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman maybe I can address that one. That's fine. We're willing to delete this on
confirmation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation that we have arrived at an acceptable
relocation point to the propertY to the east. Currently the plans stand today, construction is underway and
the plans show a right-in, right-out being built ill that location. I have not been notified of any new
location. There have been discussions of it. I've not formally seen any documentation deleting it though.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, but if it has moved than they've already met the condition so it's.
Aanenson: It's moot. If it's been met, then the condition, it satisfied the condition. ¡fit hasn't, then we
can make it a condition.
Hempel: Right.
Suzanne Berndt: Alright. As far as the remaining 31 conditions we are happy to work with staff and
achieve the results that they're looking for. So if you have any other questions for me.
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I do have one question. Condition 7. When you were requesting that the 5 foot
specifically apply to Stone Creek. Can you tell me what the elevation difference is between Stone Creek
and the parking lot?
Suzanne Berndt: Yeah I do have that written down. I believe it's, as Bob stated, 494 is Stone Creek. Let
me find that here. Oh here we go. Stone Creek Drive is at 949, excuse me. And the berm, the height of
the berm is 954 and then I believe the truck court, do you know that Ken? 951, okay. So it is a little bit
higher so it would create the berm to be higher if we were looking at it from the truck court, which I
don't think is the intent of the staff. It's more the view from the cul-de-sac.
Aanenson: No. From Highway 5 the corridor starts. You're not supposed to see the parking in the front
either. The intent is to screen the parking in the front from the highway.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19,2000
Blackowiak: Right, but I'm thinking about coming up from the south on Stone Creek. Are we trying to
screen the, you know what is our intent?
Aanenson: To screen the loading docks.
Blackowiak: Just the loading docks?
Generous: Right.
Blackowiak: So if it's 3 feet higher or 2 feet higher, then I think that we're, there's a big difference. I
mean 2 feet is a big difference between Stone Creek and the parking lot so are you getting the same
effect. That's my question. Wouldn't it be smart for us to take the 5 feet and put it on the parking lot
side and measure the 5 feet from the parking lot side as opposed to the Stone Creek side.
Generous: That would give you a higher benn.
Blackowiak: Correct. And I think that's maybe what we want. Okay.
Aanenson: Well I think it's best to leave the footage out and say it needs to be what it needs to be to
effectively meet the ordinance require which is to screen. And let's not leave...accomplish it and
effectively landscaping. Whatever that number is to make the screen.
Peterson: Yeah I agree. Okay, thank you.
Suzanne Berndt: Thank you.
Peterson: Motion and a second for public hearing please.
Burton moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Chairman Peterson asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak at the public hearing.
Burton moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: The public hearing is closed. Commissioners, please offer your thoughts.
Sidney: I guess I feel fairly comfortable with the project. I'm a little concerned with the massiveness
maybe of the front of the building but there is a lot of articulation and variation and the setback is
somewhat proportion to the building so I feel comfortable that way. I am concerned about us directing
any architectural detailing. I do agree with the applicant that they may wish to simply state in condition 9
that we would like the applicant to work with staff to increase the architectural detailing. I think the
architect should have some flexibility in this case to meet the intent in tenns of what...
Aanenson: Can I get a little bit of clarification? We think because the church is very vertical. It's sitting
high on that, that we're trying to tie this building into that, the vertical elements. I heard the applicant
talk about cost constraints so I'm not sure how much... I just want to make sure that you give us some
clear direction of what your expectation. Just what you would like to see changes. I mean we can get
17
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19,2000
there but I need to understand, or Bob and I need to understand what exactly you would like to see as far
as changes so, otherwise I feel like maybe our hands are already tied, if that makes sense.
Peterson: Let's hear the' other commissioners comments and move ahead. Anything else to add? Matt,
anything?
Burton: I guess my comments are pretty much along the same lines. I like the project and I think the
staffs done a good job. I like the staff report and pretty much agree with it right down the line and I was
not really in favor of changing 9. And I'm not sure what the happy medium is but the PUD does require
that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. So I don't, I
want to have some sympathy for budget. I don't have a lot. If they want to go into this PUD, they've got
to meet the standards. So I guess I'm kind of at a loss as to what I would direct staff to do. I would
default to what they've suggested already and would leave it at that. And they can still work with the
staff before they go to the City Council if they want to come up with a different proposal but I'm in favor
of just the staff report as it is.
Peterson: Okay, good. Thank you. Any other comments?
Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll continue on down the line here. Number 7. The condition number 7. I think we
should just take off the measurements and put some specifics in about parking lot needs to be screened
and the loading docks need to be screened and the applicant must provide 100% screening for loading
docks per the PUD agreement, and just kind ofleave it at that. Number 9. I kind of like a compromise
position. I think the base with the larger blocks is a nice idea to kind of give it a foundation. I'm not as
convinced that the column elements are necessary so I would be willing to strike that last suggestion of
adding the column elements. I'll wait to hear my other commission members point of view on that.
Number 10, on the sidewalks. I guess I'd like to leave the condition the way it is in the staff report. I
think that's pretty clear and reasonable. I think it's important to have good pedestrian movement. And
overall the south elevation does give me some concern but I'm satisfied if they meet the 100% screening
that we could put the emphasis on Highway 5. And then one other condition I would add, which' is kind
of a nit but a big nit and that is that the applicant shall correct the location of the site plan by changing
the words Eden Prairie to Chanhassen on every page. That's it for my comments. I'm interested in your
perspective on the columns guys.
Peterson: Any other comments?
Sacchet: Well overall I think it's a pretty solid project. I agree that taking out the measurements of the
berming makes sense as long as we have the intent specified. Our thing is not how many feet. Our thing
is to make it screened properly. I do like the idea of making it architecturally more appealing but I
would, I kind of wonder where we put some flexibility into it and tell the architect what they have to do.
That we let them work with the columns and see what they can come up with. I like your suggestion of
the additional accent with the gray brick and then the columns but I would not go as far as tell the
architect what they have to do in that domain. Kind of leave that to the architect to work with that and
see what they come up with. The sidewalk thing, I'm really tom. I mean there's no point in putting
sidewalks there ifnobody's going to use it but that very much depends on the nature of the tenants that
are going to be in there. We don't know what that's going to be. So we could play it safe and say well,
we want to cover all the bases because you're not going to put a sidewalk in later. So I'm not very clear
on that. That's my comments.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anything else?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19, 2000
Blackowiak: Yeah I'll add a few comments. Something nobody's really touched on is the fact that it's
so dam close to Highway S. I really am not convinced that that's the place for this building to be. I
understand that MnDot èhanged it's right-of-way acquisition. I think that's, they can do that. The city's
intent seemed to be a certain number of feet back from the MnDot right-of-way so I'm not sure if! want
to even get into what City Council was intending when they went through this but I just would like to say
that I think it's awfully close and I'm a little scared about that. The other thing that really kind of
bothered me was the south elevation. Again it's a screening issue. We've got neighbors to the south that
are across Coulter Boulevard but they're going to be able to see that, and I want to make sure that it's
well screened. Whether it's through benns, wing walls, whatever it takes. I mean this needs to be totally
screened from view and I don't know if it's 5 feet or 3 feet or whatever the height is for the benn but we
need to make sure that through a combination of different methods that it's adequately screened from the
neighbors, both from sight and from their hearing anything that's going on over there. And to the
specific conditions that Ms. Berndt addressed. On number 7, I guess you know I could take out the 5 feet
but what's the intent of screening. Number 9. It does need some architectural changes. I think it needs
to be beefed up a little bit. I agree with Matt when he says that he's not terribly sympathetic with
keeping within budget. Let's beef it up a little bit. Let's make it look good. Number 10, I really feel that
we do need to have the trail adjacent. Realigned to the south and sidewalk system. When we do have
shared parking lot, as Kate pointed out, it's important to be able to get from Point A to Point B. Now
whether or not tenants within the building are moving around is really not the issue. The issue is
movement from site to site and when you're using the cross access agreements for parking, I think that
we need to provide those movements. Make the movement easier from those sites. And then 26, leave as
is. And then the drive aisle change, I have no problem with that either. And yeah, that's it. Thank you.
Kind: Mr. Chair, Alison brought up a point that I wanted a clarification from staff on. Is the amendment,
the minor amendment to the PUD, is that changing the distance of the building from the Highway 5
pavement?
Generous: No.
Kind: Okay. So it's not closer to Highway S. It's just who owns the property inbetween it that has
changed.
Aanenson: Right. Additional slope easements.
Sacchet: If! could just tack one more question to that. Now the first part of what we were looking at
here is the amendment to the design standards. That is just for this particular project. For this particular
site. I mean we're not affecting anything else.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Generous: Because this is the only property that abuts TH S.
Sacchet: Okay. I just want to be real clear about that. Thank you.
Peterson: Anything to add Ladd?
Conrad: Very little Mr. Chainnan. 10 should stand. 7 is changed. 9 is debatable but there, I think the
intent of the staff was absolutely on target there. So I'm always, I think like Matt said, we're not
19
Planning Commission Meeting- September 19,2000
architects but staff needs some guidance here because, ifthe applicant comes back and says it's out of
budget. Well then we haven't given any direction so, you know we've, somebody's got to word smith
number 9 fairly well in the motion. I think the intent of what staff is trying to do is absolute so whoever
makes the motion has to'make sure that's the intent. If the architect comes back and says that's
absolutely atrocious, we should listen to that. But intent is what, you know whether it be the larger
blocks. I find those appropriate but I'm not an architect. I don't want to be.
Peterson: Alright. My comments parallel Ladd's exactly so I will entertain a motion please.
Kind: Mr. Chair I'll make the motion, if! can find it. I move the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the minor amendment to the Bluff Creek Corporation Center Design Standards changing the
required parking setback from Trunk Highway 5 to IO feet.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Burton: Second.
Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor
amendment to the Blnff Creek Corporation Center Design Standards changing the required
parking setback from Trunk Highway 5 to 10 feet. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Peterson: Second motion please.
Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan #2000-1 1,
plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated August 18, 2000, subject to the following conditions 1
through 34. Let's see, with the following changes. Number 7. The developer shall be required to
provide benning to screen the parking and the loading dock area. This may require the use of retaining
walls. The applicant must provide 100% screening for loading docks per the PVD agreement. Number
9. The applicant shall work with staff to create more architectural interest on the Highway 5 elevation.
And a new condition number 35. The applicant shall correct the location of the site plan by changing the
words Eden Prairie to Chanhassen on all plans. And then do I need to read the drive aisle language?
Peterson: No. That will be inserted.
Kind: Okay. On number 32.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Sacchet: I wonder ¡fwe could add a little more meat to number 9. 9 sounds a little skeletal to me.
Peterson: Let's see if we can get a second.
Sacchet: Second it and give me a friendly amendment.
Burton: I'll second.
Peterson: Any discussion? Vii, do you want to try to tackle number 9?
20
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19,2000
Sacchet: Would it help if we say something like, what you said. Advise the applicant to work with staff
to increase the architectural interest such as and then use some of the language that's already there?
Aanenson: Or may include, or something like that.
Sacchet: Or to include.
Kind: For example?
Sacchet: For example. I think that would help.
Conrad: Irregardless of budget. That's not an issue.
Kind: Okay, I'll accept that amendment. Do you know what that amendment says?
Blackowiak: Excuse me Deb, I'd also like to add. You said incorporate larger concrete block face
blocks along the Highway 5 frontage and I would suggest that we continue that around the base of the
entire building.
Kind: That's true.
Blackowiak: You just said Highway 5.
Kind: That's true. Weill did say rock face blocks along Highway 5. I was just looking for architectural
interest on 5.
Blackowiak: Ifwe're doing these such as, I mean let's just.
Kind: Let's just, I'll give it a stab here. The applicant shall work with staffto create more architectural
interest. And may incorporate the following architectural changes. And then go on with the list. And
then add a sentence, irregardless of budget.
Conrad: That's okay.
Peterson: Other than the fact that, just a point, irregardless is not a word.
Kind: Okay, what Ladd said.
Peterson: Regardless.
Burton: Perhaps say can change them but are not limited to these suggestions. They may come up with
something more creative.
Sacchet: Leave it open ended.
Peterson: And I'm not a proponent of going all the way around the building. We've already discussed
that the back is going to be well hidden.
Kind: Well screened, yeah.
2]
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19,2000
Burton: I have a question. Kate, did you hear her, Deb's change to number 7 and was that adequate?
Because I was concerned that maybe it missed the screening from 5.
Aanenson: No. What she said is that you have to provide benning on the parking lot in front as per
ordinance. And then in the back was 100% again as per PUD.
Burton: Okay, Ijust wanted to make sure you were comfortable.
Aanenson : Yes, thank you.
Kind: Thank you.
Peterson: Any other discussion?
Kind: Anybody have a clue as to what number 9 says?
Peterson: I think we know the intent.
Kind: Okay, friendly amendments accepted.
Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#2000-11, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated August 18,2000, subject to the
following conditions:
I. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, and landscaping.
2. Site plan approval is contingent upon the final platting of the parcel into a lot and block
designation.
3. A maximum of20 percent of the building may be used for showroom space.
4. Wall signage is only pennitted on the north and south elevations of the building. A separate sign
permit shall be required for each sign.
5. Wall mounted unit lights must be directed downward so that there is no glare directed off site.
6. The developer must receive an easement from MnDot permitting them to provide landscaping
(including trees and shrubs) in depth within the TH 5 right-of-way.
7. The developer shall be required to provide berming to screen the parking and the loading
dock area. This may require the use of retaining walls. The applicant must provide 100%
screening for loading docks per the PUD agreement.
8. The applicant shall work with staff to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the required
changes and to specify the types and quantities of landscape materials.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19,2000
9. The applicant shan work with staff to create more architectural interest to the building on
the Highway 5 elevation, regardless of budget.
10. The sidewalk to 'the west to connect to the trail adjacent to Bluff Creek needs to be realigned to
the south following the edge of the parking lot and east to the proposed retaining wall on the west
side of the property. The trail connection will then be made without the need for a stairway.
Additionally, a sidewalk system must be installed adjacent to the building to permit the
employees and customers to walk to the building entrances without having to walk in the parking
lot and to connect this site to the larger sidewalk and trail system.
II. Bicycle racks will be required on-site.
12. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can
be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance
#9-1.
13. PIV valves are required. Please indicate locations for review and approval on utility plans.
14. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of "No Parking Fire Lane Signs". Pursuant to Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #06-1991, and Section 904-1,1997 Uniform
Fire Code.
15. The fire department sprinkler connection is required to be located adjacent to the main entrance
of the building. The fire sprinkler contractor must contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
location.
16. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise
identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-
1992.
17. In reviewing the preliminary utility plans, a number of hydrants have been properly located;
however, additional hydrants will be required and some of the proposed hydrants will need to be
re-Iocated. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval ofre-location and new
hydrants to be installed.
18. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
19. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
20. Cleanouts are required on both sanitary sewer services at intervals not to exceed 100 feet.
21. Post indicator valves are required on the fire service lines.
22. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19, 2000
23. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff
materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be hauled off-site
to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork
penn it from the City.
24. The public street and utility improvements throughout the development will require detailed
construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard
specifications and detail plates. Final construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to
staff for review and City Council approval a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat
consideration. The private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes.
25. All silt fence adjacent to a wetland, creek, or pond shall be Type 1Il.
26. The developer shall work with MnDot in coordinating site grading, drainage and street
improvements to be compatible with MnDot's upgrading of Trunk Highway 5 construction plans.
In addition, the developer shall coordinate the adjustment and/or relocation of the right-in, right-
out with MnDot to a location acceptable with the City.
27. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements
within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for pennanent ownership.
28. All areas disturbed as a result of activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
29. The developer shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Anny Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their
conditions of approval.
30. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
31. The applicant shall revise the stonn sewer in the northerly parking lot to drain into the existing
stonn sewer system and include an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the pond.
32. The applicant increase the drive aisle widths to a minimum of26 feet wide. For the actual drive
aisle where there's no parking on either side, drop down to 24 feet.
33. The applicant shall provide detailed stonn sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour stonn
event prior to final plat approval.
34. Revise the utility plan to extend the public watermain to the easterly property line for future
looping purposes. Delete the proposed 12 inch watermain stub to the north.
35. Change the site plans to read Chanhassen instead of Eden Prairie on every page.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - September 19,2000
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
APPROVAL OF SIGN MONUMENT. WEST VILLAGE CENTER PHASE II.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of Mr. Generous?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, Bob. I thought we were going to have a clock at that end of the street. What
happened to their clock tower?
Peterson: There's no time for it.
Generous: That was just one ofthe ideas that we were throwing out. Clock tower. A pavilion.
Something like that. We really wanted to create a public space there and we believe this does that.
Aanenson: I guess we felt with a bench it'd be more of a public space as opposed to, I guess you could
have incorporated the clock tower. We're trying to make it a little bit more of an informal space. If
you're waiting for the bus or waiting for someone to pick you up.
Blackowiak: So is there a bus stop there? I'm not even familiar with that.
Aanenson: Not yet.
Sacchet: Can you stop to pick somebody up there?
Aanenson: It has to be dedicated as an official bus stop.
Kind: Quickly.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to make any comments? You came all this way so
you just as well.
Tony Oxborough: I did. Chair and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Tony
Oxborough. I'm with the TF James Company and our site plan was approved with the exception of the
monument sign and so staff has worked with me real well to come up with this design. And I don't really
have anything to add. Just wanted to thank you for your time. If you have any questions as to how it
came to be, you know let me know and I'll try to answer them.
Peterson: Okay. Any questions? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
25