2b & c. Empak, Plat Approval & Site Plan P.C. DATE: March 15, 1989
\\1• CITY OF
1 C.C. DATE: April 10, 1989
CHANHASSEN CASE NO: 89-3 SUB
. _,
IPrepared by: Olsen/v
1
STAFF REPORT
1
1 PROPOSAL: 1 . Replat Two Industrial Lots into One Industrial Lot
1 2 .l--• Site Plan Review for a 77,690 Sq. Ft. Corporate
Z Office and Production Facility
Q
1 V LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2 , Block 2 , Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park 2nd Addition
1a.
Q APPLICANT: AMCON Corporation Empak, Inc.
200 West Hwy. 13 1501 Park Road
IBurnsville, MN 55337 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park
IACREAGE: 12 . 6 acres -, r
DENSITY:,
IADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- IOP; Instant Web 2/9/25 ---_,
I _ :r
S- IOP; parkland ? / '� . _,_
1 QE- IOP; vacant 1/7-/ - Py
W- IOP; vacant
IIli WATER AND SEWER: Available to site _
1 (n PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has a slight slope to the south.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial
1
■-1-'
........., _,_,,,,__II- / • _÷-; me ..,_ i ,1 . ,
\ .7-...,1 3 r.,
U
7-841:711%-
U - -'R
\
or? to. War ays la
4•4$ikassaa".7 :Nat
V4Ary / " . 111111111 ))
1111111i= (11
"paitosaillbi - -
. , .
Cf- a 1 f
•
• i. 4, 44.,
, I R SF
AXE ANN I i I • Ill■
i
o , go MIME our .
( _
....._ i C .-- 19).1?°------Th' lig
;: 0.111law mileab,
r'..1 :-.111 ......., ■ . -r
-..- —won forrIvii.
R ,i. iii / -- row Immissii „ .
Ir4 so lidkai ,
-----y 1.4 4100 blimilliklialisr .-iri.to;,_ )
f--
, L
_/------ ki.
,‘ ... mei m■
1 il •• tqlgrom-OP oirc.‘Iasi,1 v i-mr,1_ .
_____ •
i / vt vpUP ATV lips
i , t R4
R !-
. . ,,,,
•
1 RR
t_
cc. , _...... _ „........,
• lammivilictril
-(5) 1 „stristioutifiallPfillk •
\- n_ . \ z... -Kw 11111= MN
-_ =yr; EWA MI IP.7 IN VI
0 1 x Mr! MOW WM
: R 1 2 INF:
.1-1- CZ Mitz411.%1 LiiimiGl 61■•■.-- '
R -I 2.
, . ix
_ . .., ___
cr, Iimmo,-v-. ..P Mit...
um Fr - _ raw
Ent SCTVIENIMIN 11,.44giril
....- 4 ,
,. h
B 0 U L E V A R D
motif ' r
.1...
III
Li
- ---- BG w al BD
. \ ,..,
> ....„
...---- _ P• .- MA
) - . tal
_,.. .........11);:••• ;1111 r
alli
ri >
z
....-.. --- -,
-4.
BG __
, .
...„40,
\ _11: g g.. - ,.... ,:...■
'loll
----_,-,;,-.47
- I
c f .... ,
IGH .
_..--- - -
_
01 V i
!
,
_
,,.-.
....„
.,...- :
S • 7 i ,7 i . .
••\ (,,--- It
V .
. 0
- _.,.-- •-
- .4 .. _..•.•_,__
I ...--4 ....t
---
•.- ANPr. , ,,, •
.•--
\-... r , _. .,...„..
\ :
- -Il•
i LAKE SUSAN 1 - -
RDco
ii..7
(.0
/. cr R-
oUD ,,....__________;,_ /Rs 1),lir
1
„...:, i
1 8 6 T H ST
--. .
i 7 -- •.,.I I I I I I I I I I I IIWIP
\ PCWOr
=
AMCON/Empak, Inc.
' March 15 , 1989
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-812 permits manufacturing and office as a permitted
use in the IOP District.
Section 20-815 allowas a maximum lot coverage of 70%, a front
' yard setback of 30 feet, a rear yard setback of 10 feet and a
side yard setback of 10 feet. This section also allows a maximum
height of 50 feet for the principal structure.
Section 20-1191 requires a 10 foot strip of land between abutting
right-of-way and vehicular use areas including one tree per 40
' feet and a wall or berm of at least two feet.
Section 20-1192 1192 requires interior property lines to be landscaped
with one tree per 40 feet.
' Section 20-1211 requires interior landscaping for vehicular use
areas.
' Section 20-1125 requires for office three parking spaces for each
1 , 000 square feet of gross floor area and one parking space for
each employee on the major shift.
REFERRAL AGENCIES
' Building Inspector No comment
Fire Inspector Attachment #2
City Engineer Attachment #3
Park and Recreation The Park and Recreation Commission
' will review on Tuesday, March 14th.
BACKGROUND
On October 24, 1988, the City Council approved the final plat for
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Third Addition which created Lots
1 and 2 , Block 2 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition
( Attachment #4) .
REPLAT
' The applicant is proposing to replat Lots 1 and 2 , Block 2 , of
CLBP 2nd Addition into one industrial lot, Lot 1 , Block 1, Empak
' Addition. The proposed reolat creates a lot which meets the
requirements of the IOP District. The reolat will vacate the
interior drainage and utility easements .
AMCON/Empak, Inc.
March 15 , 1989 '
Page 3
The City Council will act on the easement vacation on April 10 , 111
1989 .
RECOMMENDATION '
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
Request #89-3, to create Lot 1 , Block 1 , Empak Addition as shown
on the plat stamped "Received March 1, 1989" with the following
conditions :
1 . That the applicant receive vacation of the interior drainage
and utility easements .
SITE PLAN REVIEW
The applicant is proposing a 77 ,690 square foot office and pro-
duction facility. The site plan meets the requirements of the
IOP District including the requirements for setbacks, impervious
surface, parking, lighting and height of the building.
The zoning ordinance requires a 2 foot berm or screen along the
vehicular areas . The proposed parking area located south of the
building has not been provided with a 2 foot Perm or screen.
Cars parked along the southern edge of the parking area will be
visible from Lake Drive. Therefore, the applicant must provide
continuous screening between the southerly parking area and Lake
Drive in the form of a 2 foot berm or 2 foot continuous vegetative
screen. The ordinance also requires the landscaping to provide
50a winter opacity, one tree/40 feet along interior lot lines and
interior landscaping of parking areas . The proposed parking areas
will not accommodate landscape islands. The applicant will
instead provide additional landscaping around the exterior of the
parking areas . The applicant will provide an amended landscape
plan which will provide the above mentioned items.
The applicant has stated that rooftop equipment will not be
visible from the south and will be designed to blend in with the
building and that there will not be any hazardous material on the
site.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion :
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Request
#89-1 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received February 21 ,
AMCON/Empak, Inc.
March 15 , 1989
Page 4
1989" with the following conditions :
' 1 . All signage shall meet the conditions of the sign ordinance.
2 . The applicant shall provide an amended landscape plan which
provides the following:
a. Two foot continuous screening of the southerly parking lot
from Lake Drive.
' b. Fifty percent winter opacity.
c . Interior lot line landscaping.
d. Additional landscaping around the parking areas .
' 3 . Any additional phases or expansion of the site will require
a site plan review.
' 4 . Every dead-end roadway more than 300 feet in length shall be
provided at the closed end with a turnaround acceptable to
the Fire Department.
' 5 . Turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road width and
shall be constructed with a minimum radium of 25 feet at the
inside curb cut and a radius of 50 feet at the outside curb
' line.
6 . Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 feet clear width
' between rows of parked vehicles for vehicular access and
movement.
7 . Distances between installed fire hydrants shall not exceed
300 feet.
8 . Approximate fire hydrant locations are indicated on site
' plan.
9 . Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a 6 inch
diameter main installed on a looped system, or not less than
' an 8 inch diameter main if the system is not looped or the
fire hydrant is installed on a dead-end main exceeding 300
feet in length.
' 10. Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 feet in length for main
sizes under 10 inches in diameter.
I
1
AMCON/Empak, Inc.
March 15 , 1989
Page 5
12. Submittal of revised site plan incorporating the above con- '
ditions prior to consideration by City Council . In order to
be placed on the April 10 , 1989 , City Council agenda, revised
plans need to be submitted by March 27 , 1989. ,
13 . Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address
the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report.
14 . An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals .
15 . Contouring of the perimeter of the site will need to be '
shown.
16. All side slopes greater than 3 :1 will need erosion
protection.
17 . Determination of waste water monitoring requirements with the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
18. Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in
the submittals , including valves . '
19 . Information on roof drainage discharge and possible need for
retention pond for wetland pollutant/nutrient loading impacts .
20. All driveways are to be consistent with the City' s commercial/
industrial standard details .
21. A typical section of roadway to be shown on plans for appro-
val with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. '
22. Necessary County permits for control of access to CSAH 17 at
the northerly access to the site shall be obtained.
23. A 35-foot permanent utility easement shall be dedicated along
the easterly lot line of the site for storm sewer purposes .
24. The plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian
traffic around the building and site.
25. Access must be maintained for City forces to monitor and '
maintain Well No. 4 at all times during construction and
development of this site.
26 . Construction traffic shall not conflict with the City' s
improvement project.
27 . If the City' s 18-inch watermain is not relocated, a, ' easement
shall oe provided accross the southwest corner of the site
and any cut or fill over this main shall receive prior City
approval which will be predicated on proper remedial actions
taken.
AMCON/Empak, Inc.
' March 15, 1989
Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On March 15 , 1989 , the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the preliminary plat for Lot 1 , Block 1, Empak Addition with
the following conditions :
' 1 . The applicant receive vacation of the interior drainage and
utility easements between Lots 1 and 2 , Block 2, Chanhassen
Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition.
' CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
' The City Council recommends approval of Subdivision Request #89-3
to create Lot 1 , Block 1 , Empak Addition as shown on the plat
stamped "Received March 1, 1989" with the following conditions :
11 1 . The applicant receive vacation of the interior drainage and
utility easements between Lots I and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen
Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
' PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On March 15 , 1989, the Planning Commission recommended approval
' of the site plan review for a 77,690 square foot corporate office
and production facility with the following conditions :
1 . All signage shall meet the conditions of the sign ordinance.
2 . The applicant shall provide an amended landscape plan which
provides the following:
a. Two foot continuous screening of the southerly parking lot
from Lake Drive.
b. Fifty percent winter opacity.
' c. Interior lot line landscaping.
3 . Approval of the site plan is not an approval, nor does it
imply approval, of any notations of plant expansion set forth
' in the site plan. Any additional phases or expansion of the
site will require a site plan review.
' 4 . Every dead-end roadway more than 300 feet in length shall be
provided at the closed end with a turnaround acceptable to
the Fire Department.
AMCON/Empak, Inc.
March 15, 1989
Page 7
5 . Turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road width and '
shall be constructed with a minimum radium of 25 feet at the
inside curb cut and a radius of 50 feet at the outside curb
line. ,
6 . Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 feet clear width
between rows of parked vehicles for vehicular access and
movement.
7 . Distances between installed fire hydrants shall not exceed
300 feet.
8 . Approximate fire hydrant locations are indicated on site
plan.
9. Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a 6 inch
diameter main installed on a looped system, or not less than
an 8 inch diameter main if the system is not looped or the
fire hydrant is installed on a dead-end main exceeding 300
feet in length.
10 . Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 feet in length for main
sizes under 10 inches in diameter.
11. Submittal of revised site plan incorporating the above con- '
ditions prior to consideration by City Council. In order to
be placed on the April 10 , 1989 , City Council agenda, revised
plans need to be submitted by March 27 , 1989 .
12 . Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address
the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report. '
13 . An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals .
14. Contouring of the perimeter of the site will need to be ,
shown.
15 . All side slopes greater than 3 :1 will need erosion I
protection.
16 . Determination of waste water monitoring requirements with the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
17 . Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in
the submittals, including valves.
18 . Information on roof drainage discharge and possible need for
retention pond for wetland pollutant/nutrient loading impacts . ,
Further skimmer and/or traps shall be provided subject to
staff approval for all roof and parking lot drainage.
I
1
AMCON/Empak, Inc.
March 15 , 1989
Page 8
' 19 . All driveways are to be consistent with the City' s commercial/
industrial standard details . •
' 20 . A typical section of roadway to be shown on plans for appro-
val with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site.
' 21. Necessary County permits for control of access to CSAH 17 at
the northerly access to the site shall be obtained.
' 22 . A 35-foot permanent utility easement shall be dedicated along
the easterly lot line of the site for storm sewer purposes.
' 23 . The plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian
traffic around the building and site.
24. Access must be maintained for City forces to monitor and
' maintain Well No. 4 at all times during construction and
development of this site and until such time as Lake Drive
improvements are completed.
25 . Construction traffic shall not conflict with the City' s
improvement project associated with Lake Drive.
26 . If the City' s 18-inch watermain is not relocated, as easement
shall be provided across the southwest corner of the site
and any cut or fill over this main shall receive prior City
' approval which will be predicated on proper remedial actions
taken.
' 27 . The applicant shall provide screening for roof top equipment
if the same is visible from a public right-of-way.
The Planning Commission was hesitant about recommending approval
' of a site plan that required so many conditions. A majority of
the conditions were typical conditions that are part of any site
plan approval. The additional conditions were ones that could be
met by the applicant prior to the City Council reviewing the site
plan.
The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the 27 con-
ditions (Attachment #7 ) . All departments have reviewed the
amended plans. The Engineering Department in Attachment #8
finds that the engineering conditions have been met and recom-
mends the following 7 general conditions to still apply to the
site plan. Condition #2 of the engineering memo requires a 20
foot permanment utility easement to be shown and dedicated. The
' applicant has already provided this on the plat. All of the
Planning and Fire Inspector conditions have been met with the
amended plans.
' The site plan still shows access onto County Road 17 at the north
side of the site. Carver County has stated that they will not
1
AMCON/Empak, Inc.
March 15, 1989 1
Page 9
approve such an access. The applicant is working with Carver
County and staff to try to provide an emergency access for fire
equipment at that location.
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the plans on March '
21, 1989, and recommended that park dedication fees be accepted
in lieu of parkland and to require a trail easement and construc-
tion of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the eastside of
Powers Boulevard (Attachment # 9 ) . A 100% trail dedication will
be given for the trail . The Park and Recreation Commission was
concerned about screening of the building from the park. The
applicant is providing extensive landscaping and is screening the
site as bast possible.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of Site Plan Request #89-1 as
shown on the amended site plan stamped "Received March 28, 1989"
with the following conditions:
1 . Erosion control shown on plans shall be Type III.
2 . All site slopes greater than 3 :1 will need erosion
protection.
3 . All driveways shall be consistent with city standards.
4 . A typical section of roadway is to be shown on the plan. ,
5 . Access must be maintained for city forces to monitor and
maintain Well No. 4 at all times during construction and
should be addressed in the Development Contract with the
city.
6 . The development contract will need to be signed prior to I
construction on the site.
7 . Approval of the site plan is not an approval, nor does it
imply approval, of any notations of plant expansion set forth
in the site plan. Any additional phases or expansion of the
site will require a site plan review.
3 . The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver
County for access at County Road 17.
9 . The applicant shall provide screening for roof top equipment
if the same is visible from a public right-of-way.
10 . The applicant shall be required to pay park dedication fees '
and construct an 8 foot wide bituminous trail on the east
side of Powers Boulevard to receive 100% trail dedication
credit.
1
AMCON/Empak, Inc.
March 15, 1989
Page 10
ATTACHMENTS
' 1 . Excerpts from City Code.
2 . Memo from Fire Inspector.
3 . Memo from City Engineer.
4 . City Council minutes dated October 24, 1988 .
5 . Letter from the applicant dated March 1, 1989 .
6 . Application.
7. Letter from AMCON dated March 27, 1989 .
' 8 . Memo from Allan Larson dated April 3 , 1989.
9 . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated March 27, 1989 .
10 . Planning Commission minutes dated March 15, 1989.
' 11. Preliminary plat dated March 1 , 1989.
12 . Site Plan dated March 28, 1989 .
I
. 1
ZONING § 20-814 1
ARTICLE XXII. "IOP" INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT
Sec. 20-811. Intent.
The intent of the "IOP" District is to provide an area identified for large scale light
industrial and commercial planned development.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-812. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in an"IOP" District: ,
(1) Offices.
(2) Warehouses.
(3) Light manufacturing.
(4) Trade shops. '
(5) Health services.
(6) Printers. '
(7) Indoor health and recreation clubs.
• (8) Body shops. ,
(9) Utility services.
(10) Recording studios.
(11) Off-premises parking lots.
(12) Conference/convention centers.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-813. Permitted accessory uses. '
The following are permitted accessory uses in an "IOP" District:
(1) Parking lots and ramps.
(2) Signs.
(3) Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than
twenty(20)percent of the floor space is used for retail sales.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-814. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an "IOP" District:
(1) Concrete mixing plants.
(2) Communication transmission towers.
1227 111
§ 20-814 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(3) Public buildings.
(4) Motor freight terminals.
(5) Outdoor health and recreation clubs.
(6) Screened outdoor storage.
' (7) Research laboratories.
(8) Contracting yards.
' (9) Lumber yards.
(10) Home improvement trades.
' (11) Hotels and motels.
(12) Food processing.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-4), 12-15-86)
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-815. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "IOP" District subject to
' additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is one (1) acre. -
(2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred fifty(150)feet, except that lots fronting on
' a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty (60)feet.
(3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred(200) feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage is seventy(70)percent.
(5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,
except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting
railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial
uses establish joint off-street parking facilities, as provided in section 20-1122, except
that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The
minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in all
' districts. Other setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, ten (10) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10)feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
' a. For the principal structure, four(4)stories/fifty(50)feet.
b. For accessory structures, one (1)story.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-5), 12-15-86)
1228
§ 20-1124 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20-1124. Lighting.
All commercial, industrial and multi-family parking lots shall be lighted. Lighting shall
be directed away from the public right-of-way and adjacent residential or agricultural districts.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, § 1(7-1-9), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1125. Required number of on-site parking spaces.
On-site parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppli-
ers, visitors and employees shall be provided on the premises of each use. The minimum
number of required on-site parking spaces for the following uses shall be: '
(1) Assembly or exhibition hall, auditorium, theater or sports arena—One (1) parking
space for each four(4)seats,based upon design capacity.
(2) Auto sales, trailer sales, marine and boat sales, implement sales, garden supply
store, building materials sales, auto repair—One (1) parking space for each five
hundred(500)square feet of floor area.
(3) Automobile service station—Four (4) parking spaces, plus two (2) parking spaces for
each service stall: such parking spaces shall be in addition to parking space required
for gas pump areas. '
(4) Bowling alley—Seven(7)parking spaces for each bowling lane.
(5) Churches—One(1)parking space for each three(3)seats,based on the design capacity
of the main seating area, plus one(1) space per classroom.
(6) Dwelling:
a. Single-family—Two (2) parking spaces, both of which must be completely en-
closed. No garage shall be converted into living space unless other acceptable
on-site parking space is provided.
b. Multi-family—One (1) parking space per efficiency unit, one and one-half (11/2)
spaces per one (1) bedroom unit, two (2) parking spaces per two (2) or more
bedrooms. Senior citizens housing shall have three-fourths spaces per dwelling '
unit. At a minimum, one(1)space per unit must be completely enclosed.
(7) Financial institution—One (1) space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of
floor space.
(8) Furniture or appliance store—One (1) space for each four hundred (400) feet of floor
space. '
(9) Hospitals and nursing homes—One (1) space for every two(2)beds, plus one (1) space
for every two(2) employees on the largest single shift.
(10) Manufacturing or processing plant—One (1) off-street parking space for each em-
ployee
on the major shift and one (1) off-street parking space for each motor vehicle
when customarily kept on the premises. '
(11) Medical and dental clinics and animal hospitals—One (1) parking space for each one
hundred fifty(150)square feet of floor area.
1248
•
ZONING
§ 20-1125
(12) Mortuaries—One(1) space for every three(3)seats.
(13) Motel or hotel—One(1)parking space for each rental room or suite,plus one(1)spac
for every two(2)employees.
(14) Office buildings (administrative, business or professional)—Three (3) parking spac€
for each one thousand(1,000)square feet of floor area.
(15) Public service buildings, including municipal administration buildings, communit
center, public library, museum, art galleries, and post office—One (1) parking spa(
for each five hundred (500) square feet of floor area in the principal structure, ph
one(1)parking space for each four(4)rests within public assembly or meeting room
(16) Recreational facilities, including golf course, country club, swimming club, racqu,
club, public swimming pool—Twenty (20) spaces, plus one (1) space for each fiu
hundred(500)square feet of floor area in the principal structure or two(2)spaces p,
Icourt.
(17) Research, experimental or testing stations—One(1)parking space for each five hu
dred (500)square feet of gross floor area within the building, whichever is greater.
' (18) Restaurant, cafe, nightclub, tavern or bar:
a. Fast food—One (1) space per sixty (60)square feet of gross floor area.
b. Restaurant:
1. Without full liquor license—One (1) space per sixty (60) square feet of gross
floor area or one (1) space per two and one-half (2''2) seats whichever is
greater.
2. With full liquor license—One(1)space per fifty(50)square feet of gross floor
area or one (1)space per two(2)seats whichever is greater.
' (19) Retail stores and service establishments—One (1) space for each two hundred (200)
square feet of gross floor area.
(20) School, elementary (public, private or parochial)—One (1) parking space for each
classroom or office room, plus one (1) space for each one hundred fifty (150) square
feet of eating area including aisles, in any auditorium or gymnasium or cafeteria
intended to be used as an auditorium.
(21) School,junior and senior high schools and colleges(public,private or parochial—Four
(4) parking spaces for each classroom or office room plus one (1) space for each one
hundred fifty (150) square feet of seating area including aisles, in any auditorium or
gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an auditorium.
' (22) Shopping center—On-site automobile parking shall be provided in a ratio of not less
than one(1) parking space for each two hundred(200) square feet of gross floor area;
separate on-site space shall be provided for loading and unloading.
' (23) Storage, wholesale, or warehouse establishments—One (1) space for each one thou-
sand(1,000)square feet of gross floor area up to ten thousand(10,000)square feet and
one(1)additional space for each additional two thousand(2,000)square feet plus one
1249
,
§ 20-1179 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE I
(5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible.
(d) Tree removal not permitted under subdivision,planned unit development or site plan
review shall not be allowed without the approval of a tree removal plan by the city council.
I
Tree removal plans shall include the content requirements as dictated in section 20-1177 and
identify reasons for tree removal. The plan shall be submitted three (3) weeks in advance of
the city council at which it is to be considered.
I
(e) This section does not apply to single-family and two-family lots of record.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 7, 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-1180-20-1190. Reserved. I
DIVISION 2. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
I
Sec. 20-1191. Generally.
(a) Where parking areas are not entirely screened visually by an intervening building or I
structure from any abutting right-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping between such
area and such right-of-way as follows:
I
(1) A strip of land at least ten (10) feet in depth located between the abutting right-of-
- way and the vehicular use area which shall be landscaped to include an average of
one (1) tree for each forty (40) linear feet or fraction thereof. Such trees shall be
Il IP
located between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use area.
(2) In addition, a hedge,wall,berm, or other opaque durable landscape barrier of at least I
two(2)feet in height shall be placed along the entire length of the vehicular use area.
If such opaque durable barrier is of nonliving material, a shrub or vine shall be
planted along the street side of said barrier and be planted in such a manner to break
I
up the expanse of the wall. A two-foot berm may be used; however, additional
landscaping at least one (1) foot in height at time of planting shall be installed. The
remainder of the required landscape areas shall be landscaped with grass, ground
I
cover, or other landscape treatment.
(b) This division applies to perimeter landscaping.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-1), 12-15-86)
I
Sec. 20-1192. Required landscaping adjacent to interior property lines.
(a) Where parking areas abut property zoned or, in fact, used primarily for residential or I
.institutional purposes,that portion of such area not entirely screened visually by an interven-
ing structure or existing conforming buffer from an abutting property,there shall be provided I
a landscaped buffer which should be maintained and replaced as needed. Such landscaped
buffer shall consist of plant material, wall, or other durable barrier at least six (6) feet in
height measured from the median elevation of the parking area closest to the common lot line, ,
and be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking areas or other vehicular
use area exposed to the abutting property. Fences shall be constructed according to the
standards in section 20-1018.
ell
1254
I
as
410 ZONING § 20-1212
(b) In addition, an average of one(1)tree shall be provided for each forty(40)linear feet of
such parking area or fractional part thereof. Such trees shall be located between the common
lot line and the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area.
(c) Where such area abuts property zoned and, in fact, used for office, commercial, or
industrial purposes, that portion of area not entirely screened visually by an intervening
structure or existing conforming buffer, shall comply with the tree provisions only as pre-
scribed in this section.
i (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-2), 12-15-86)
1 Sec. 20-1193. Combining with easements.
I The required landscape bufferyard may be combined with a utility or other easement as
long as all of the landscape requirements can be fully met, otherwise, the landscape bufferyard
shall be provided in addition to, and separate from, any other easement. Cars or other objects
I shall not overhang or otherwise intrude upon the required landscape bufferyard more than
two and one-half(21/2)feet and curbs will be required.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1194. Existing landscape material.
I 110 Existing landscape material shall be shown on the required plan and any material in
satisfactory condition may be used to satisfy these requirements in whole or in part.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-4), 12-15-86)
ISecs. 20-1195-20-1210. Reserved.
IDIVISION 3. INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICULAR USE AREAS
Sec. 20-1211. Generally.
I (a) Any open vehicular use area (excluding loading, unloading, and storage areas in the
IOP and BG districts)containing more than six thousand(6,000)square feet of area,or twenty
I (20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in accordance with
this division in addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior landscaping may be peninsular
or island types.
I (b) This division applies to interior landscaping of such areas.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 3, 12-15-86)
ISec. 20-1212. Landscape area.
(a) For each one hundred(100)square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area, five
I (5)square feet of landscaped area shall be provided.
Mill (b) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be sixty-four (64) square feet, with a
four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang.
1255
I
MI
r
§ 20-1212 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ,
(c) In order to encourage the required landscape areas to be properly dispersed, no
required landscape area shall be larger than three hundred fifty(350)square feet in vehicular
use areas under thirty thousand (30,000) square feet in size, and no required area shall be
larger than one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in vehicular use areas over thirty
thousand(30,000)square feet. In both cases, the least dimension of any required area shall be
four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang.
Landscape areas larger than above are permitted as long as the additional areas is in excess of
the required minimum.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 3(8-3-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1213. Minimum trees.
A minimum of one(1)tree shall be required for each two hundred fifty(250)square feet or
fraction thereof, of required landscape area. Trees shall have a clear trunk of at least five (5)
feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs, or ground
cover, not to exceed two(2)feet in height.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 3(8-3-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1214. Vehicle overhang.
Parked vehicles may hang over the interior landscaped area no more than two and
one-half(2'/) feet, as long as a concrete curb is provided to ensure no greater overhang or
penetration of the landscaped area.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 3(8-3-3), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-1215-20-1230. Reserved. ,
DIVISION 4. LANDSCAPING MATERIALS, ETC.
Sec. 20-1231. Generally.
(a) The landscaping materials shall consist of the following:
(1) Walls and fences. Walls shall be constructed of natural stone, brick or artificial
materials. Fences shall be constructed of wood. Chain link fencing will be permitted
only if covered with wood strips or plant material.
(2) Earth mounds. Earth mounds shall be physical barriers which block or screen the
view similar to a hedge, fence, or wall. Mounds shall be constructed with proper and
adequate plant material to prevent erosion. A difference in elevation between areas
requiring screening does not constitute an existing earth mound, and shall not be
considered as fulfilling any screening requirement.
(3) Plants, All plant materials shall be living plants, artificial plants are prohibited and
shall meet the following requirements.
a. Quality. Plant materials used in conformance with provision of this division ,
shall conform to the standards of the American Association of Nurserymen and
shall have passed any inspections required under state regulations.
1256
/101 I al
1
ZONING § 20-1179
' Sec. 20-1178. Landscaping for service structure.
(a) Any service structure shall be screened whenever located in any residential, commer-
' cial or industrial zone (except RR and RSF zones). Structures may be grouped together;
however, screening height requirements will be based upon the tallest of the structures.
' (b) A continuous planting, hedge, fence, wall or earth mound shall enclose any service
structure on all sides unless such structure must be frequently moved, in which case screen-
ing on all but one (1) side is required. The average height of the screening material shall be
' one(1)foot more than the height of the enclosed structure, but shall not be required to exceed
eight (8) feet in height. Whenever a service structure is located next to a building wall,
perimeter landscaping material, or vehicular use area landscaping material, such walls or
screening material may fulfill the screening requirement for that side of the service structure
if that wall or screening material is of an average height sufficient to meet the height
requirement set out in this section. Whenever service structures are screened by plant
' material, such material may count towards the fulfillment of required interior or perimeter
landscaping. No interior landscaping shall be required within an area screened for service
structures.
(c) Whenever screening material is placed around any trash disposal unit or waste
collection unit which is emptied or removed mechanically on a regularly occuring basis, a
I curb to contain the placement of the container shall be provided within the screening material
on those sides where there is such material. The curbing shall be at least one(1)foot from the
material and shall be designed to prevent possible damage to the screening when the con-
' tainer is moved or emptied.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 4, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1179. Tree removal regulations.
(a) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and
with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands
' which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan.
(b) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted except as approved in a subdivi-
sion, planned unit development or site plan application.
(c) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
' (1) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas.
(2) Shade trees of six (6) inches or more caliper shall be saved unless it can be demon-
, strated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site.
(3) The city may require the replacement of removed trees on a caliper inch per caliper
inch basis. At minimum, however, replacement trees shall conform to the planting
' requirements identified in division 4 of this article
(4) During the tree removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of
public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
1253
I
•
CITY ® F
1
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Steve Hanson, City Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector
DATE: February 28, 1989 1
SUBJ: Case #89-3 SUB 89-1 Site Plan Amcon-Empak
The following are Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for
proposed project:
1 . Every dead-end roadway more than 300 feet in length shall
be provided at the closed end with a turnaround accep-
table to the Fire Department. 1
2 . Turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road width
and shall be constructed with a minimum radium of 25 feet
at the inside curb cut and a radius of 50 feet at the
outside curb line.
3 . Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 feet clear
width between rows of parked vehicles for vehicular
access and movement.
4 . Distances between installed fire hydrants shall not 1
exceed 300 feet.
5 . Approximate fire hydrant locations are indicated on site 1
plan.
6 . Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a 6 inch
diameter main installed on a looped system, or not less
than an 8 inch diameter main if the system is not looped
or the fire hydrant is installed on a dead-end main
exceeding 300 feet in length.
7 . Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 feet in length for
main sizes under 10 inches in diameter.
1
1
as
II .
II ,
CITY OF
_ ,\ „Ili i CHANHASSEN
I \,, A
\ 1 i ::.,,,,,, .
II _ ,c_.:
------N-7- :;,: 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
IITO: Planning Commission
t5
I FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer
DATE: March 9 , 1989
II SUBJ: Site Plan Review for AMCON/Empak, Inc.
File No. 89-1 Site Plan
IIAMCON Corporation is proposing to develop on Lots 1 and 2 , Block
2 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition.
IIThis site is fronted by the Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul Pacific
Railroad to the north, CSAH No. 17 (Powers Boulevard) to the
west, and the proposed extension of Lake Drive to the south.
lThis site is unique in that the City ' s only access to Well No. 4
is across the north and easterly boundaries of the site ( see
I attached) . It is therefore critical that access be maintained at
all times for the City during construction and development of
this site.
ISite Grading/Erosion Control
It appears that a majority of the site will experience shaping
IIand/or grading to create the building pad.
Contouring on the perimeter of the site will need to show how the
I site is tied to existing contours . There should be a level area
of three feet behind curbs for street lights before sloping as
shown on the plans .
IThe plans do not include any erosion control . This needs to be
addressed thoroughly so proper protection can be provided.
ISanitary Sewer
What type of waste water will be discharged from the site? Would
I a monitoring manhole at the right-of-way line be necessary for
waste check by the Metropolitan waste Control Commission?
Sewer size will be dictated by use. The minimum size would be
IIsix inches .
II
Planning Commission
March 9 , 1989
Page 2
I
An 8-inch sanitary sewer will be placed as part of the City ' s
improvement project along the entire length of Lake Drive to
Market Boulevard. The extension of this sanitary sewer into the
site will be a private line which will be the responsibility of
AMCON Corporation. One stub will be provided for hookup,
Watermain
An 18-inch watermain exists along the southern border of the pro-
perty .
It is presently unknown if this main will be relocated to
the proposed road right-of-way as a part of the City ' s improve-
ment project. If not relocated, sufficient easement will need to
be provided if not already in place where this main exists on the
site. Also, the applicant will not be able to cut or fill over
this main without approval from the City. The extension of this
watermain into the site will be the responsibility of AMCON
Corporation.
Looping of the watermain for hydrant placement and fire protec- '
tion is not provided on the plan set and needs to be addressed.
The plan does not show any watermain valving and, as a minimum,
the City will require a gate valve at each connection of the pri-
vate watermain system to the City ' s public system at hydrants .
In some places along the private watermain system, as much as 18
feet of cover is possible. Proper design of the watermain to
accommodate this extra material burden is necessary.
Storm Drainage ,
The plans show an 18-inch storm lead from the site. It is
unknown if this line will carry roof drainage and/or internal ,
cooling/process water. Additional information is needed to
define the extent of this roof drainage and discharge as it rela-
tes to Lake Susan . The City' s plans also call for the construc-
tion
of a 36-inch storm sewer along the easterly boundary of the
site. Necessary construction and permanent easements shall be
provided.
If any retention
Y pond and/or outlet structures are necessary for
sediment control on this site, it needs to be coordinated with the
City' s storm sewer plans . I
All parking lots will need to have concrete barrier curbing to
aid in the collection of storm water as required by City
Ordinance.
More information as to size and direction of parking lot storm
sewer system needs to be addressed on the plans . '
11
Planning Commission
March 9 , 1989
Page 3
Roadways
A 36-foot wide entry drive should be used for any roads which
will experience truck traffic, consistent with the City ' s commer-
cial/ industrial standards . A detail for these road sections
should be provided.
The driveway north of the building that plans to connect with
' CSAH 17 will need to be a controlled access and necessary permits
from Carver County will be required.
Trails/Walkways
' The provision for movement of pedestrian traffic around the
building and grounds has not been addressed.
' Construction Coordination
As noted above, access will need to be maintained at all times to
the City ' s well . Also, construction traffic will not be alloed
to conflict with the City ' s improvement construction. Also, this
property has been looked to as an alternate for providing tem-
porary access to the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ to the
east when the City ' s project prohibits their access from Trunk
Highway 5 .
' Recommended Conditions
1 . Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address
the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report.
2 . An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals .
' 3 . Contouring of the perimeter of the site will need to be
shown .
' 4 . All side slopes greater than 3:1 will need erosion
protection .
' 5 . Determination of waste water monitoring requirements with the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
' 6 . Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in
the submittals , including valves .
' 9 . Information on roof drainage discharge and possible need for
retention pond for wetland pollutant/nutrient loading impacts .
10 . All driveways are to be consistent with the City ' s commercial/
' industrial standard details .
--
Planning Commission
March 9, 1989
Page 4
11 . A typical section of roadway to be shown on plans for appro-
val with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site.
12 . Necessary County permits for control of access to CSAH 17 at
the northerly access to the site shall be obtained .
13 . A 35-foot permanent utility easement shall be dedicated along
the easterly lot line of the site for storm sewer purposes .
14 . The plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian
traffic around the building and site.
15 . Access must be maintained for City forces to monitor and
maintain Well No. 4 at all times during construction and
development of this site.
16 . Construction traffic shall not conflict with the City ' s ,
improvement project.
17 . If the City ' s 18-inch watermain is not relocated, as easement 1
shall be provided accross the southwest corner of the site
and any cut or fill over this main shall receive prior City
approval which will be predicated on proper remedial actions
taken .
Attachment: Map '
1
1
1
I
I ,
L-----( . 2
7___............\
y...
I04/5)z...
-.,
NN
ID $ (------'1 — 3
,
I ._
_
__ .
'3C 4
ilt
/ --A1---0_..)•
.-' •
P°- ''. .-----:"-- -
I • I
; .....•••••'''''..."-'''''
• . 11111 ,./' ................■°
...--.....
i 1 ; f." — ,............
.../... . ,
1 r,... . , --
>
I Nil 1 ,
...--------,-;,------------
, .„... .6...
. _
__---- \ I.
,--- , . 1_‘. J ----- ---
V'
u___---
----- -''' l' • - ------ ,
........-
...-- ,
---- _- rah
___----
:,..,40-.-.•_-,:- '
-i •
II 1 \ro
2.
bil-::-. •
I
/ I 1
1111
,.
,a•-..'
I
I r / =
,. ,--- --\\3
..„
,. . ..,.
,....._
v.,
B
S
\\\ \
... ,_
I ' '
--
■\
I ..•
,..,
„..... ..-____,..T__.,/.. .
...• ,\
0\b\LOT B \\
I‘,
\\
I\ ,
I , .
11( -----
(
/ z
----
---■
\ °-5
C
II
ity Council Meeting jtober 24, 1988
11
Mayor Hamilton: You made a couple of good points. I'd like to move on. I
think Don has a couple of a good points he can follow up on and then come back
to Council with a recommendation. I would move approval of item 1(b) . ,
Councilman Boyt: Second.
Councilman Horn: Was Barb here during this time? So when you're referring to
these 20 a day, was that during the time period she was here or after she left?
Jo Ann Olsen: We average, we get a lot of building permits and I sign off on
them.
Councilman Horn: And you're doing them all? 1
Jo Ann Olsen: I have been.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it isn't any mystery that we're understaffed in the ,
planning department. It's been that way for quite a long time and I think it
was brought to everyone's attention more than once.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit for the created of a pond in a Class B Wetland, 1200 Lyman
Blvd., Brent Miller pursuant to the City Manager's recomitendations. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
(D) ROSEMOUNT, INC. , OUTLOT A AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS
PARK THIRD ADDITION.
i
Councilman Boyt: I called Lori today and I just talked to Todd before the
meeting. If I had more time, I might have been able to straighten out an
understanding of what happened here but the reason I called it to our attention
is that I'm concerned when we have 87 acres that we're looking at and we end up
with 2 acres of valuable parkland. I'm glad we got those 2 acres but we have 87
acres of development and we're netting about $12,000.00 in park fees plus 2
acres of land and that does not seem to me to be reasonable. We should be
getting either more land or more money.
Councilman Geving: I think you have to understand though that this was all part
of the negotiations with Rosemount and I think getting the 2 acres for the
industrial park for the people that work at Rosemount and will be working at
Rosemount is still a good deal. Plus the money that we're going to be getting
in dedication fees. I wasn't involved in the negotiations but I suspect that
there was a point in which, at any point Rosemount could have pulled out if we
had suggested that we wanted either more parkland or more dedication fees so we
were right to the limit of what we were going to negotiate with. I think that's
why we got the 2 acres and the $12,000.00. I feel strongly that our negotiating
team did a very good job. I don't feel bad that 2 acres because you've got to
remember, this is not residential. The people who are going to be using this
area are people who are going to be taking their lunch breaks. There are going
to be people also who, a few from the community using that park shelter down
there. 2 ares is quite a bit of land. I think we made a good deal.
3
ICouncil Meeting - gkber 24, 1988 `
Ma or Hamilton: Did you Y y have anything else Bill? I didn't know if you were
finished.
1 Councilman Boyt: Well, yes. I do have more. I would argue that launch that we're getting is certainly a nice thing to have for the tcommunity
and it's certainly an improvement over putting it through the trees which would
have been the other alternative but when we're talking about 600 employees,
we're talking about heavy use on city parks. We've got a development here that
II I think we're all happy to have in town. I think that they should look at how
they can be contributing more to the costs that we have in operating those
parks. I would like to see, is there anyone from Rosemount here? Okay, I guess
what I'd like to see happen is, since you're going to have 30% of your property
I covered with some sort of hard surface, which is basically what you're limited
to, and I would imagine you're going to be grading a good bit of that property.
Is that a reasonable assumption? What I'd like to have a commitment to is that
II when you're doing that, you'll build some ballfields out there. It's still not
impervious surface so you get the greenspace credit and the community and your
employees get some fields to play on. That would seem like a reasonable
approach.
IRosemount Representative: We approach all of our sites.. .
ICouncilman Boyt: So you'd be open to putting those in when you developed?
Rosemount Representative: Yes.
IIMayor Hamilton: Anything else Bill?
•
Councilman Boyt: No.
II
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Rosemount Inc. , Cutlot
II A and Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Third Addition: (1)
Preliminary Plat to subdivide 87.3 acres into 5 industrial office lots and two
outlots; and (2) Final Plat pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ILA "c;
-) c
(H) SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
14'1 '<4,4 FACILITY AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LAKESHORE
EQUIPMENT.
9
I Councilman Boyt: I just had one comment. They've discussed putting in a 8 foot
wooden fence but in our conditions we didn't reference to that. We just said
put in an opaque fence. There's a lot of opaque fencing I wouldn't be happy
with so I would like to see us, under Council recommendations on page 3 of the
I staff notes, add that the fence under item 1 where it says, must be totally
screened with an 8 foot wooden fence. I'd like to see that added.
II Mayor Hamilton: I've seen wooden fences that aren't nearly as attractive as a
lot of other types of fences. They tend to fall apart.
Councilman Boyt: Well, it's going to have to be maintained.
1 4
Design • Construction • Construction Management
March 1, 1989
City of Chanhassen
Attention: Mr. Steve Hanson
RE: Proposed Corporate Office
Production Facility for Empak
Dear Steve
This letter is in response to the seven items on our submittal which you questioned during
our phone conversation last week. In the following, I have numoered the items and
provided an explanation or clarification as appropriate. '
1. Trash Enclosure - All trash for this facility will leave the building near the
northeast corner of the building. The trash compactor provided at that point will be
the type that has an enclosure to prevent blowing of trash out of the container
2. Screening of Roof Top Equipment - The approach roars tnat Poroer the
property are at an elevation that puts the roof top units, on the office portion of the
building, at an elevation that would prevent them from being seen. We would be
able to provide drawings that can represent the actual conditions. We propose to
paint the units with a color that would be complimentary to the building.
3. Signage - Signage will include corporate identification on the exterior wall of
the building and a low monument sign near the south entry to provide direction for
visitors. '
4. Lighting - The front parking area will be illuminated by pole mounted "shoe
box" type fixtures which will keep light from spilling out onto the street. The rear lot
and loading are to be illuminated by wall mounted type fixtures. Exact type and
quantity have not been determined at this date.
5. Hazardous Materials - The anticipated production mode for this facility utilizes
no hazardous materials
CITY OF CHANHA.:7EN
R
•
r
200 W Hwy 13 • Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 • 612-890-1217
Denver • Milwaukee • Minneapolis • Phoenix CHANHASSEN PLANNING DI.
' 6. Adjacent Property Owners - I will be compiling this list on Wednesday, Mar.1,
with the assistance of City Staff.
7. Lot Consolidation -With this letter I have submitted 28 copies of a preliminary
plat which combines lots 1 & 2 and vacates the appropriate easement. As we
discussed, it is anticipated that this plat can be reviewed and acted upon at the
same planning and council meetings that our site plan is reviewed at.
Please call me if there is additional information that you would like. Thank you for your
assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
AMCON CORPORATION
tor /dR(2-/-*
Todd Christopherson, P.E.
Project Manager
II
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
If
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
II• (612) 937-1900 . -
APPLICANT: OWNER: -
-ADDRESS ADDRESS - - I
Zip Code -- Zip Code '
TELEPHONE (Daytime) - TELEPHONE - - -
REQUEST: --
Zoning ' . .- f .
ng District Change Planned Unit Development -
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan I
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision - I
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting I
•Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds
Street/Easement Vacation II Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME - I
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION I
PRESENT ZONING
• REQUESTED ZONING II
• USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY '
• LOCATION - II
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST
li
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary I
J _
. Ln....i...1l..--.
' City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
' Page 2
' FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
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 City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
II applicable to your application .
•
FILING CERTIFICATION:
' The undersigned representative •
that he is familiar with tthe vprocedural prequirementsbof certifies
•' applicable City Ordinances .
•
' Signed By � _
Date
Appiicant
1
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
' authorized to make this application for the property y her e_n
1 .
Signed By
Fee Owner Date
1
' . . Date Application Received
Application Fee Paid ,( 11-7-„00. - City Receipt No. (9-6'•`1
* This Application will be considered by the Plannin
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their g Commission/
' meeting .
1
•
.I
:v/gi' n�iupu i%/ u guI / u• 11 f� r � yL J0/
� � /
/
.ic ai I i L,'t:tisr,, -9C9 ,/n'// b' % 1 7�� !, l rl - , ��/�' ' 7 ±! R ? � l
� yv / �/ / � /�/„./�,., i//'';%;%0/§�lbal d,// ,,„;://1/,u J!� 1,,/al;u:,/iu,,,/;U,/, i ;Lr!i/d/M/ :: b/ i / /l//,li/id„d 4
g” 14C446oa , PLL14kt•4> .( -40 .d Letter.
To (II?' &/ C�Y�it/fr4.5.CEA/ Q From P. - t--'/?U-
// yy�� p DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
60 6u/4 4'?'� / /�d. �, 4'7 METRO REGION-WATERS
1200 WARNER ROAD
I
_Wail�11�s frr, In N 1- s-3/7 sr, PAUL, MINNESOTA 551Q6
Subject Pkk,vl"tD Case, 'Sli ^ 3 SuR a 3c.i H 6 Th6o. -- EmQ4r)
-No 94 OFOIG
MESSAGE // ,�
2l/d 1'Z'!/t.&r1.e.�a® 7/c- "747 - �c%J� .,�� Gaz ' 1
/l ' ■ ,. '.S i-
5 '' 4-6*/2-1;-?) / r// 7 C Z)/U!e lk4ki G i ..
---ag41/1 7 4 "f9d24lK t. --A cd `/-lefC-L
Date 43 C Signed Lkkvi
--(Pa4a ----
REPLY
Iti
APR 119
R9 I
-No-9FOlo I
CaN O CI t
F �NAS
-No tO FOLD
Date Signed I
WilsonJones
44.4at1N41.l PFMreo M USA
Carboniess RECIPIENT—RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINKS OP�
I
I
thia...
Maw- raniur-
1
._.
1 / ,.
' Design • Construction • Construction Management
1
March 27, 1989
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attention: Joanne Olsen
' Dear Joanne:
Attached herewith are 15 sets of our revised plans for the EMPAK, Inc project in
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. These plans have been modified to follow the
' recommendations and conditions of the Chanhassen Planning and Zoning Commission
given in their approval of this project.
' The following addresses each condition by number corresponding to the condition as
numbered in your Staff Report dated March 15, 1989.
' 1. All sianage for this project will be designed in accordance with the City Sign
Ordinance
' 2. The landscaping plan enclosed, incorporates the conditions numbered 2A thru 2D
3. The applicant understands that the approval of this site plan does not include approval
of any additions or expansions
' 4. The site plan provides for the necessary turn arounds in every dead end roadway of
more than 300 feet
5. The site plan meets the turning radius requirements as noted
' 6. The parking lot lanes have been designed in accordance with this requirement
7. The location of fire hydrants as shown on the enclosed utility plan is in conformance
with the requirements of Mark Littfin, Chanhassen Fire Inspector
' 8. See Item#7
9. See Item#7
10. See Item#7
11. No Item#11 on your Staff Report
12 The revised plans are submitted herewith
' 13. See Item #12
200 W Hwy 13 • Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 • 612-890-1217
Denver • Milwaukee • Minneapolis • Phoenix
1
14. Erosion control is as diagramed on the grading plan included herein
15. Contouring has been shown on the grading plan enclosed
16. Side slopes greater than 3/1 will be provided with erosion protection 1
17. No waste monitoring is required by the Metropolitian Waste Control Commission for
this facility 1
18. See Item#7
19. The drainage system provided by the City, in their Public Improvements Project, will
meet all the requirements for retention and sedimentation control
20. All driveways will be constructed in accordance with the Commercial Industrial
Standard Details and in accordance with the soil report recommendations provided by
Braun Engineering and Testing
21. See Item#20
22. The applicant is in the process of securing a permit from Carver County for access at
County Hwy 17
23. An easement, as required, will be located on the proposed re-plat of Lots 1 & 2
24. There is no need for sidewalks around the perimeter of the building
25. The applicant will coordinate this with the City during construction
26. The applicant will coordinate with the City's Improvement Project at Lake Drive
27. An easement is already provided for this pipe 1
As we discussed by telephone, we would anticipate these plans as revised and submitted
would be approved by the City Council at their April 10, 1989 meeting.
If there is additional information that you would desire, please contact me. 1
Sincerely,
AMCON CORPORATION
C /Z
� 1
Todd Christopherson, P.E.
Project Manager 1
Attachments
1
1
1
Design • Construction • Construction Management
March 30, 1989
Joanne Olsen
City of Chanhassen
' P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: New Facility for Empak
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
Dear Joanne.
' Enclosed herewith are three (3) copies of a revised preliminary Plat of Empak Addition,
dated March 27, 1989 The only change on this revised plat from the original one
submitted, is the addition of a drainage and utility easement along the east property line.
' This easement has been added per the conditions of the Planning Commission approval
and per the recommendations of your City Engineer, Gary Warren. The easement has
been laid out to correspond to a design drawing of the storm sewer to be placed in the
easement.
If you or your staff have any questions about this, please call me.
We are looking forward to an approval of preliminary and Final Plat at the April 10th
Council Meeting. If there are any concerns which might indicate otherwise, we would
appreciate letting us know prior to the April 10 meeting so that we can address them
Thank you for your consideration in this matter
' Sincerely,
AMCON CORPORATION
<---;,_%/(77i
1
Todd Christopherson, E
Project Manager
' Enclosures
I APR 0 31989
200 W Hwy 13 • Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 • 612 890-1217 CITX OF CHANHASS.N
Denver • Milwaukee • Minneapolis • Phoenix
. 1.,
CITY OF
, - , I
0 HANHASSEN 1
`\ _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
MEMORANDUM
II
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
FROM: Allan Larson, Sr. Engineering Technician I
DATE: April 3, 1989 ii
SUBJ: Amcon/Empak, Inc. Plan Review I
File No. 89-3 Land Use Review ' ''
II
Based on preliminary plans submitted March 24 , 1988 and our ini-
tial plan review letter dated March 14 , 1989 , I offer the II following:
1. The erosion control shown on the plans shall be Type III.
2 . A 20-foot permanent utility easement shall be shown and dedi- I
cated along the easterly lot line of the site for storm sewer
purposes . I
3 . All side slopes greater than 3:1 will need erosion protection.
4 . All driveways shall be consistent with City standards . I
5 . A typical section of roadway is to be shown on the plans.
6 . Access must be maintained for City forces to monitor and I
maintain Well No. 4 at all times during construction and
should be addressed in the Developer ' s contract with the II City.
7 . The Development Contract will need to be signed before
construction this site.
I
II
II
I
II
I
CITE OF
1 A
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937-1900
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: March 27 , 1989
SUBJ: Park and Recreation Commission on Amcon-Empak, Inc. ,
Site Plan
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for
Amcon-Empak at their last meeting. The Commission felt the area
was not park deficient, and therefore, would not require dedi-
cation of parkland. They also felt that the developer should
provide a trail easement and construct an 8 ft. wide bituminous
' trail along the east side of Powers Blvd. Such would continue
the trail alignment that has been started south of the park in
Lake Susan Hills West.
' The Commission also discussed the neea for screening the faci-
lity, not only from homeowners who could view the structure from
across the lake, but also from the park.
It is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to
accent park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to require a
trail easement and the construction of an 8 ft. wide bituminous
trail along the east side of Powers Blvd. Additionally, it is
recommended that a 100% trail dedication credit be given for the
trail. The Commission also recommended that the Planning
Commission and City Council review the need for a natural buffer
along Lake Drive to screen the facility from existing uses .
r
I
I
I
I
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 35 1
Schroers : I think they've come a long way in refining the generators in
recent years. They have generators now in the mobile homes that supply
light and power for when you' re camping and they' re running and when
you' re inside, you can' t even hear them.
Gary Lindgren : When you inside but when you ' re outside you can. 1
Schroers: You can but they' re not loud and obnoxious like they used to
be. They' re considerably better . I would agree that I think there could
be something that could be worked out as far as the generator .
Gary Lindgren : Whatever we get is going to be brand new so it wouldn' t
be. . . Honda makes one that' s getting pretty quiet. They' re expensive.
They' re a little more money but they' re more quiet. We would certainly
try to get the best, the least amount of noise as possible. But I just
wanted to address the fact that we have to have a generator because
there' s no power so there isn' t going to be a problem down the road .
As far as that mimeo , I think possibly it could be expanded depending on
business. I think, this is going to be a first shot thing for these
people. They don ' t know how busy it ' s going to be. We could get into
sandwiches or whatever . I think we tried to cover the general , what
people probably wouldn' t be bringing from home in this first phase . I
don ' t know how long and I realize it ' s a one year contract but you' re not
going to have sewer and water there for maybe a couple other years too and
it could be expanded I guess is what I 'm getting at .
Schroers : What you' d like to see is a summer like last summer where it' s
90 degrees and sunny every day.
Hasek: I guess I would just like to add to that motion , if you don ' t 1
mind, that we just direct staff to work with these people as a part of the
motion.
1
Boyt moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
accept Domo Product' s proposal to provide vending services at Lake Ann for
the 1989 season and to direct staff to work with them in the placement of
the stand and the generator. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
SITE PLAN REVIEW - AMCON-EMPAIC, INC.
Sietsema: This proposal is located at the northeast corner of CR 17 and
what will be Lake Drive. It will be across Lake Drive from Lake Susan
Park and just down the road west of where the proposed Rosemount is
proposed to be built. Basically what staff is recommending is that we
accept the park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and also to recommend
that the develop install a 8 foot wide bituminous trail along Powers Blvd .
to continue the alignment that will be started with the Lake Susan Hills
West development. Additionally, it is recommended that 100% trail
dedication fee credit be given for that trail construction . We will
require an easement and the construction of the trail . Any questions?
11
mom
MI
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IIMarch 21, 1989 - Page 36
IIHasek moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission .
recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and that the
I developer install a 8 foot wide bituminous trail along Powers Blvd . to
continue the alignment from the Lake Susan Hills West development . That
100% trail fee credit be given for the trail construction. All voted in
Ifavor and the motion carried.
Al Klingelhutz : Can I ask a question on the last one? I live just
direclty across the road from, my property and a lot of people on the
1 south side. It' s the only area that doesn' t have a tree line buffering
the industrial development. I know you' re not part of the Planning
Commission but it is abutting Lake Susan Park and I 'm wondering if you
I could ask if there could be a row of trees or something to buffer the
plant from the park and the people across .
I Schroers : Al , isn ' t there a bank there from the railroad tracks?
Hoffman: This is on the south side .
IIAl Klingelhutz: The railroad tracks would be on the north side.
Boyt: We need a row of pines . I 'm suggesting they be pine trees .
IIHasek : Is there vegetation between the park and . . .
Sietsema: No. It' s a cornfield. It ' s really a good idea because the
IIpark users are going to be looking right at that facility as well .
Schroers : Could staff send a memo to Planning Commission?
ISietsema : This recommendation does go to Planning after here .
I Mady: Can I make a motion then that we recommend to the Planning
Commission to review our wishes to have, recognizing Al ' s comment, to have
a natural buffer installed between the building site, any parking areas of
the building site and the actual . . .
IIBoyt: Preferably conifers . We don ' t want leaves dropping .
I Mady: Yes , preferably conifers since they provide a year round buffer and
trees of substantial size. Not 2 foot.
Schroers : I ' ll second that .
I
Hasek: Did you want to put like a 12 inch caliper on that?
II Mady: No .
Mady moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
I recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council to review the need
for a natural buffer being installed between Lake Susan Park and the
building site. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
II
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
tREGULAR MEETING
MARCH 15, 1989
Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson, Steve Emmings , 1
Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olson, Asst. ,
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING: '
REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, 2ND
ADDITION INTO ONE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF CR 17 AND LAKE DRIVE, AMCON CORPORATION FOR EMPAK, INC.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Vice Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order .
Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Headla: I think the recommendations are appropriate. I think there
i should be a second condition that the staff recommended . That ' s . . . the
site plan gets approved for this item. In other words, if we don' t
approve. . . then whoever gets it gets the two lots .
Emmings: So the notion would be if the site plan ' s not approved it would
stay two lots . Otherwise , it would be joined as one.
Wildermuth: I have nothing . '
Ellson : It looks pretty good to me.
Conrad: I have no comments . I don' t know that we need to make it
conditional . Staff, does that make any sense? Conditional in terms of
the site plan being approved. If some owner wants to replat. . .
Headla : I think it makes sense . Why do it when someone else may come in?
Conrad : It ' s their right. '
Headla : To come in yes .
Conrad : It' s their right to just join properties together .
Headla: But I think we want to know what we' re joining and why.
Conrad : We did . Those two pieces of property.
Headla: That ' s right. For this company For this reason. I think we
ought to approve it for this reason. Not for some other reason later on
that some other company does it .
1_
Planning Commission Meeting
II _ March 15 , 1989 - Page 2
II
Erhart : I have no comments and I guess regarding the second item, I guess -
II I don ' t see any reason Dave either . If they decide not to build the
building , they probably wouldn ' t follow through with this anyway so I
guess I don ' t see a reason for a second condition.
IBatzli : Is part of the replat issue the easements? Vacation?
Emmings: No.
IHanson : You don' t act on the vacation. Council acts on that .
Batzli : I just had one question about that and that was , in the
Idiscussion about Well No . 4 there needs to be access or something, is that .
handled by what we ' re doing with this piece of property? It says that
they need to have access during construction and something else but do
I they need continued access after the development of the property? The
street goes to it? I couldn ' t tell where the well was I guess was my
biggest problem.
IOlsen : The engineering , when they come out with their plans and specs ,
all that will be determined and if they need an easement or cross
easement, they can be . Right at this time they did not feel that they
needed a utility easement or anything like that.
Batzli : Where is Well No . 4?
1 Emmings : It ' s not on this property is it?
IErhart : It ' s on this side here . It ' s down by, right there . That little
box there. Where we have all the city parties . It' s actually a public
park and a well building put all together and it ' s used for , the public
can use it.
IBatzli : This little block down here?
IErhart: Yes , it' s cut off at the bottom.
Batzli : And how else would you get access if it wasn ' t over this
Iproperty?
Hanson : Ultimately we' ll have access off of Lake Drive when that ' s
extended through. But during the interim, Lake Drive won ' t be installed .
IBatzli. : So you ' re going to access it via this property and you say
somewhere in one of the conditions that you want access during the
IIdevelopment and construction phase or something?
Emmings: Let ' s do this on the site plan review. Let ' s finish with the
replat . Just remember to bring it up because I think it ' s an important
Ithing.
Batzli. : Okay.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 3
Olsen : It ' s part of an easement that we are requiring that wouldn ' t
affect the platting at all if that ' s what you ' re getting at now.
Batzli. : Yes , I didn ' t know where it should be addressed to be honest with
you.
Emmings : I don ' t have any comments . I don' t see in your reason to add
the second condition. Right now there are two lots there. These folks
want to build on both of them. They' ve got to combine them into one and
if the replat goes through and they don ' t build, then whoever comes in
there has to deal with it as a single lot, one large lot and that doesnt '
bother me. I could see doing it either way and I don' t really care which ,
way it goes myself. I don ' t see any compelling reason to do it but it
could be done. So is there a motion?
Elison moved , Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #89-3 to create Lot 1, Block 1 Empak
Addition as shown on the plat stamped "Received March 1, 1989" with the
following condition:
1. That the applicant receive vacation of the interior drainage and
utility easements .
All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 6 to 1. '
Emmings : And David for the reasons that you stated? ,
Headla: Yes. I think it ' s appropriate for this person, if they go ahead
with it but if something happens and it defaults and goes to someone
else, I think it should go back to two.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PHASE I AND PHASE II FOR AN OFFICE/MANUFACTURING/ ,
WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 17 AND LAKE DRIVE, SOUTH OF
HWY. 5, AMCON CORPORATION FOR EMPAK, INC. 1
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Emmings: Jo Ann, the Lake Drive, when does that road get built?
Olsen : They' re getting real close to it . I think they' re going to start
construction this fall . ,
Emmings : Okay, so that ' s going to be after construction of this?
Olsen: They' ll have to get temporary access from Carver County to get ,
temporary access from County Road 17 .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 4
IIEmmings : But there will be a road there, a finished road there this y year?
I Olsen: It' s supposed to be. Again, you never know when they' re going to
be completed .
Emmings : Is there a plan?
' Olsen: Yes .
IIEmmings : If it goes according to plan , there will be a road? Lake Drive
East will be there this year?
I Olsen : It' s supposed to be finished this year , yes . That ' s my
understanding.
Erhart : Who builds that? The County? The City?
IIOlsen: The City is building that. The feasibility study has been
approved and it' s going to be coming in also with Rosemount so there' s a
II lot of pressure to get it installed now.
Emmings : This is not a public hearing but the applicants are here anyway
III guess . Do the applicants want to address items in the staff report?
Particular the conditions . Have you read the conditions?
Todd Kristoferson: I 'm Todd Kristoferson. I 'm with Empak for the
II applicant and we received a copy of the report last week and since then
we ' ve been talking with City Staff, County Staff, Watershed District
regarding some of the conditions that we ' ve got and all of the conditions
II we feel that can be worked out with staff between now and the 10th of
April which is the Council meeting . So if there isn ' t anything specific
that you want to ask me, I guess I 'd just like to leave it at that. We
I are aware of all these conditions and we feel that they can be worked out .
Emmings: I don ' t know what Empak does . Can you tell us what they do?
I Todd Kristoferson : Larry Welter here is with Empak and maybe he could
address those.
ILarry Welter : Empak is a plastic molding company. Taking plastic residue
and converting it into a product . This facility will be used for molding
bottles .
IEmmings : Any comments? Tim?
Erhart : More comments on the administration than on the site plan itself .
II There' s an existing creek running down the eastern portion of this
property, draining to the south and to Lake Susan . What ' s the plan for
, the oak trees that surround that creek?
IIOlsen : I believe right now that that future , they won ' t really be touched
right now. . .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 5
Todd Kristoferson: I guess I know where the oak trees are from driving by
the site but I 'm not sure exactly where they sit in relation to this phase -
of the project.
Erhart : It appears from your building that what you' re currently putting
uo, with the 20 parking spaces. It appears the building you ' re currently
putting up won ' t affect existing trees but your plant expansion, I don ' t
know. It ' s hard to tell . It looks like that may or may not affect it.
I might be wrong. Most of the trees may be actually down in this area . Is
that what it is?
Olsen: This site, has hardly any trees on it. . .
Erhart: What is the plan to do with the creek? I heard one time that we
were just going to replace it with a culvert .
Todd Kristoferson: The plan is part of the City' s improvements with the
street and the plan is to replace the creek with a 36 inch storm sewer
that will drain property from the north of the railroad tracks and also
pick up the drainage from our project and the street . 1
Erhart: And our engineering department is making those recommendations?
Todd Kristoferson : Yes .
Wildermuth : I think that ' s the storm sewer plan for the street according
to Gary Warren ' s letter . '
Erhart : We' re eliminating a creek with a culvert . I guess that strikes
me as . . . '
Wildermuth: Why wouldn' t the DNR comment on that?
Erhart: Creeks are not official wetlands. We learned that about a year
ago here in another subdivision.
Olsen : It ' s protected by the Watershed District and the Watershed
District is also involved with that storm water study.
Wildermuth: I didn' t see a letter in here from the Watershed District .
Olsen: This project isn' t. . .
Erhart : What project do we see where we get to comment on the idea of
turning a creek into a culvert?
Olsen : I believe it was the downtown storm water . That went before the
Council .
Hanson : About a month or two ago . It was all part of the Lake Drive
improvements and the assessments that were being done for the improvement
of that which also included storm sewer and water and sewer lines along
Lake Drive.
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 6
1
Olsen : It ' s always been in that storm water management plan to bring the
I water from the downtown area to the pond that ' s going to be in the park or
south.
I Erhart : Everyti.me you get rid of wetlands , it ' s always someone ' s plan to
put a house here or industrial building. It ' s the same thought process
that has caused us to allow 80% of our wetlands , loss of wetlands . . . It ' s
I really scary that the City are on one hand eliminating wetlands at the
same time have such strict ordinances regarding preservation of wetlands .
Maybe this is all good common sense and everything but then again, maybe
this is a little one page in the back of a document someplace that no one
Ireally had a chance to look at . Just never really, it got through with -.everything else. I sort of heard about this some weeks ago and I guess
I ' d like to maybe, I ' ll let the other commissioners comment but it
I disturbs me that we ' re doing this . So that ' s my comment on that one .
Administratively, we' ve got 27 conditions on this and I think it seems
like the number of conditions has grown. Like some of these things .
One, and I think I ' ve heard the rest of the commission comment here , I
I think it becomes difficult to assess and provide valuable comments to the
Council when it' s difficult to really see what the plan is . For example ,
it ' s hard to go home and study the landscaping plan when it isn ' t there
and then to respond to them at point in front of the camera with just a
comment. So some of these things , aren ' t they standards? Maybe they' re
not but like for example , the turn in the roadway shall maintain a minimum
road width and shall be constructed with the minimum radius and 25 feet .
1 Is that a standard or is that something special to this particular site
plan?
IOlsen : It ' s pretty standard .
Erhart : Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 feet clear width . Is
Ithat a standard or is that special to this?
Olsen: That' s the fire , Mark Littfi.n came in. . .
I Batzli : But Tim aren' t these things normally in the other engineering and
staff reviews and we kind of incorporate them by reference and in this
particular one you ' ve set them all out? Isn ' t that one of the big
Idifferences?
Olsen : I usually spell out .
IBatzli : A lot of times we incorporate by reference. Things like saying
that it ' s from Larry Brown ' s memo dated such and such. I agree. We
rarely have 27 conditions .
IOlsen : When we got that from the engineering , department we did discuss
what to do and I did contact the applicant and requested to have something
Iin response to a lot of those conditions before we came in front of you .
It was misunderstood that he thought I meant March 27th but anyway, yes a
lot of those are typical and if you don ' t want them spelled out , we don ' t
need to .
II
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 7
1
Emmings : I think when you were gone, you missed something . I think it
started down here at this end. Dave went on a war path and we all agreed
that there is no sense to having so damn many conditions . There are some
subjects that come up here 3 times in different conditions and it seems to
me they could easily have been put under one heading or there could have
been a heading for things that need to be done before it gets to City
Council and those listed as sub things. Have them organized in some way.
As far as, I can ' t wait to get to Dave. That' s what I started at this
end . I 'm saving him for last . As far as this goes , this is the worse one
I think I 've ever seen in that regard and I think you kind of missed. . .
Olsen : No , I heard it. And I totally agree . That ' s something we ' ve been
trying to . . .
Emmings : And you' re going to hear it 7 more times tonight .
Olsen: I agree that we want to do that. It was just a surprise when we
got that memo from the engineering department . It was a little spread out
and I couldn' t condense it. I don' t have the reasons .
Emmings : Tim, you' re still on.
Erhart : I 'm not going to through it but it seems to me, I marked them at
home, like 9 or 10 of these, it appears they were just standard conditions
that were just restated again. Things like revised plan should be
submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussion
contained in the staff report. What does that mean? They have to revise
your plans even to your discussion because it says discussion contained in
the staff report . Even though you might show two sides of an argument,
they have to show both sides. So anyway, I think we need to shorten these
but I think we need two things. There ' s a comment we made previously. We
need to have plans more closely to finished form which I think is what
Dave has been asking for . Then secondly, if it ' s not , we want to be able
to identify for the Council things that are unique I think in these
conditions . Unique to this particular subdivision if I 'm not wrong
because I think that' s what we ' re trying to do is bring up to the Council
special circumstances related to this particular subdivision so they can
think about those when they' re reading their comments. Other than that, I
think there really isn ' t a lot of say about this particular subidivision
other than I guess is it possible to go through what the revised
landscaping plan is at this point? I guess I would be interested in
seeing that but , that ' s the only real thing I had along where the creek
was in the trees.
Conrad : My comments are very similiar . Just out of curiousity, the first
point says all signage must meet the conditions of the sign ordinance. Do
we have indication that they don ' t? So is this communication to the
people who are doing the project so they pay attention? Is this the right
vehicle to do that?
Olsen : We don ' t have a detailed signage plan .
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 3
IConrad : Okay, so really your comment is , we don ' t have the details on the
sign so you can' t make comments until the details are in. Generally, does -
' this mean that staff hasn ' t worked together real closely with the group on
this project or what do the conditions or whatever mean?
I Hanson : I think really what it means is , it points up the flaw that we
have in the process that we are operating under . As an example, submittal
date for your next meeting was Monday of this week. In order to set the
agenda for that meeting we have to put public notice in the paper this
I Friday. Referrals go out this week. We get the comments back from even
engineering, even departments within the city the week that we write the
staff report . Quite often we write our recommendation and we haven ' t
I received comments from the other departments . The way we set it up in the
process is that ' s coming through word processing . We get their comments
and the secretaries essentially trade disks and all the engineering
I comments come out under our recommendation. I think in this particular
case, there are several items that come listed out and that ' s for a couple
of reasons . It ' s a different person at engineering who reviewed the plans
who ' s ever done it before as far as the City so they, I think to their
I credit , were very particular about what they did and they noted
everything . I personally believe that that ' s very appropriate for them to
do . If the process was massaged a little bit , we would have those
I comments, give those to the applicant so they would have time to respond .
As it is now, they' re kind of behind the 8 ball in all honesty to be able
to respond to something. Right now our option is to say to them, if we
can go ahead , because we don' t perceive a lot of the conditions as big
II deals, I think they' re agreeable to all of them. A lot of them are fairly
standard items. They' re Code requirements if you will . Engineering
stanards but we don ' t want those not to show up in the conditions because
I we want to make sure that those are addressed . We would like to see
essentially all of these convered prior to going to Council . On the
signage thing , they haven' t submitted anything as far as a specific
I signage for it but also they can get the site plan approved , come back at
a point later and file for a sign permit in comformance with the Code so
it ' s not something that necessarily comes back to the Planning Commission
for approval . The reason that we put that condition in there is to make
Iit clear that they' re not asking for something that ' s out of the ordinary.
Conrad: How do you want to massage this process? Is there, I agree with
I what you' re saying . In this particular case we ' re just hit with so many
but Steve, do you see the proces changing at all?
I Ellson : He made a suggestion once before about that committee thing or
whatever. Didn' t you make a suggestion one other time before about a
committee or something? A preliminary thing .
IHanson : What I 'm hoping to do is to get a process put together and bring
it back to the Planning Commission hopefully next month . No promises but
hopefully in that time frame and one of the things I 'm looking at
I _
essentially two alternatives . One is that we move the submittal date back
2 weeks so there ' s a time for stuff to get reviewed and you get comments
and then you do a public notice . The other option from doing that is to
leave it the way it is and say, tell the applicant , look we can publish
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 9
the notice and we can go ahead , if it ' s not ready,
y, a_ re going to pull it . _
If we have to republish then, we may reassess you but that becomes rather
cumbersome and what I ' d like to do is have a system where they can submit
stuff and if everything ' s complete, we can proceed ahead and if there' s
something that needs to be corrected , we have a means for doing that
without essentially put out agendas that have items that aren ' t fully
complete .
Emmings : Why wouldn' t you just go ahead and do that? What militates
against doing precisely that? Moving that back 2 weeks .
Olsen : We get a lot of pressure from the applicants that it ' s already
taking so long.
Hanson : To do that, I would like to have that endorsement . I would like
to have the endorsement of the Planning Commission. . .especially people who
have been active in the community in bringing development projects
through. I can guarantee you ' re going to get calls and there' s going to
be complaints until people understand it. On the other hand , we have
applicants who have never dealt with the process here and find it very
frustrating because they never get any input essentially until Friday
before your meeting .
Conrad : The point is , you should have agreement . When you come here
though you should have pretty much agreement with the applicant except for
where you disagree and that ' s where we should kind of come in and have our
comments .
Hanson : The other thing I think where there ' s a flaw is , I think we agree
and they agree that the conditions are appropriate. Where I can see where
you would be nervous is for example on the second one where we ' re talking
about the landscaping and doing some changes to that where you ' re not
seeing that so essentially you ' re relying on staff to handle that . You
never know.
Conrad : And 1 or 2 is fine. 27 seemed to be , we' re out of control . Some
other specific questions. What is 2 foot continuous screening?
Olsen : The ordinance requires with a berm or screening .
Conrad: So what is 2 foot continuous?
Ellson : Bushes?
Conrad : Is that a bush?
Olsen : Usually it ' s a bush . Usually what they' ve used for screening is
bermi.ng but this with the topography here you really couldn' t berm a hill
so they pretty much . . .
Conrad : Okay, is 50% opacity is that our standard?
Olsen: Yes .
II
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 10
II
Conrad : I think one of these things we care about as long as you agree
I that they' re alright. Information on where drainage is discharged and the
possible need for a retention pond for wetland pollution and nutrient
loading impacts . What does that mean? That really means drainage and
does it mean that we ' re not comfortable with the drainage?
I Olsen: They usually submit calculations that show how much of the roof
drainage there will be or runoff from the site and I believe engineering
I just wanted to see those calculations to determine whether or not the pond
to the south is able to handle that or if there should be a pond .
IConrad: So there may be a need for a pond?
Olsen : Which means a drainage easement on the Plat .
IConrad: So we' re not looking at the final thing. So what ' s going to City
Council will be quite a bit different , or a little bit different . Number
24 , plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian traffic around
Ithe building and site.
Olsen : I asked him on that one and he was discussing showing sidewalks
I - and things like that and that ' s not really. . .
Conrad : We haven' t done that to anybody else . Now it is an interesting
thing. If we put employees in big buildings , I think there ' s validity in
II traffic movement or pedestrian movement around but we haven ' t done that to
ny knowledge to anybody else so that one, I think you can work with the
applicant on that and figure out what you want to do . On one level , in
I the package Jo Ann someplace in here where we show, way towards the back,
the schematic where we show a wetland on the other side of the road . What
kind of wetland is that?
IOlsen : I don ' t know if that is a designated wetland .
Conrad: It may or may not be a designated wetland. If we built a road
I over it, would that need a wetland alteration permit? Because we' d force
everybody else to do that .
IOlsen : I don ' t know if they. . .
Conrad : I think City Council should know.
IErhart : That whole area down there is intended for park I believe .
Hanson: Yes .
IErhart : I think the intent is to make that into a ballfield . What it is
is it is cropped. There was agricultural crops on it today but it floods
out frequently.
Olsen : I can check on that . I 'm not sure .
I
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 13 , 1989 - Page 11
Conrad : Would you check out and see what that is Jo Ann? And I agree
with Tim' s comments on the overall concern with making creeks into
culverts . We didn ' t see it . I 'm concerned like Tim is . 1
Olsen: We could have, if you want, we could ask Gary Warren to comment on
these plans .
Conrad : The Chairman can decide what he wants to do .
Emmings: I 'm going to appoint a committee to decide what to do and you' re
it.
Ellson : In general I think the site plan looks fine. I 'm not going to
belabor the point about 27 conditions. I think it' s been discussed enough
and I think we' re going to be dealing with that so I ' ll leave you to Dave .
Batzli : I agree about the 27 conditions . Enough said on that. The '
condition 3 , additional phases or expansion of the site will require a
site plan review. I 'm assuming you ' re talking about the hatched line
which says plant expansion? I 'm also assuming that if you put that plant
expansion on there, there ' s no way that they have the necessary percentage
of impervious to non-impervious .
Olsen : I think they show that they still meet it even with that '
expansion.
Batzli : Well they would need additional parking I would assume wnen they
put that expansion in as well .
Olsen : That will all be reviewed if they have adequate parking versus the
square footage.
Batzli : What is the percentage?
Olsen: 70% impervious .
Batzli : But they say Phase 1, 17% covered by building . Then the 16%
impervious so they' re saying there' s only 33% . Now wait a minute, what is
the total percentage of green space on this baby?
Olsen: The first phase is the 17% and the 16% . i
Batzli : What ' s the 3 . 7%? What ' s the difference between impervious
surface and parking area?
Olsen : They usually do the site covered by building and impervious
surface and you just add those two together . 17% and 16%. Actually I
added them all up . They' re definitely below it now and that ' s something
we would look at in the future .
Todd Kristoferson : I guess to answer that I would say that the Phase 2
that ' s shown on there is just to show the intent and the direction of the
building expansion and exactly how that would lay out and exactly how the
� .
I Planning Commission Meeting
?arch 15, 1989 - Page 12
parking would lay out would be designed at the time the Phase 2 goes ahead
and at that time we ' d like to bring it in.
IBatzli : For instance , let ' s say you' re going to need a retention pond due
to the water off the roof. About the only place you ' re going to be able
I to put it is where your plant expansion goes . If that ' s the case , would
you even want to put up the building? The first phase?
Todd Kristoferson : I would say if we had to put up an 80 , 000 square foot
I retention pond, no. We probably would look at that very, very seriously
at this point . I 'm assuming that if we need a pond , that we' ll have that
resolved with the Watershed District between now and the Council . I have
I talked to Bob Obermeyer at the Watershed District about this site in
general and we are working on our calculations for him. Talked about what
'night be needed . It' s not apparent at this time that any Pond at all will
Ibe needed and certainly not one of that size.
Conrad : Brian , I think it' s a good point. Given the fact that there ' s ,
II on the diagram it says that there are a 89 , 600 square feet addition. That
to me would indicate to the applicant that we agree with that and we don ' t
think we want to. I don ' t think we want to say anything about agreeing to
the second phase at this point. It ' s good to know where they' re going but
I I don ' t think the approval is the approval or sanctioning an 89 , 300 square
foot addition .
Batzli : No , and I understand that condition 3 is attempting to say that
1 we don ' t approve of the plant expansion but . . .
Ellson : You want to be a little more specific maybe?
IIBatzli. : Maybe. I think it ' s very specific on this plan what the
direction and intent of the applicant is and I don ' t think, well we
I certainly don' t have enough information in front of us to agree to that at
all . Didn ' t we require a recent applicant for roof drainage to have traps
of some kind and things like that coming off the roof?
IOlsen : Rosemount, yes .
Batzli : Are we requiring these people to do that?
IOlsen: No, but Rosemount was directing it right into a wetland and so
that ' s why we had that . It ' s something we could add on .
IBatzli : This is going into the creek isn ' t it?
Olsen : I believe it ' s going down with the runoff to the south .
1 Hanson: It ' s going into the proposed storm sewer system.
ic Olsen : Which ends up in the pond and then the lake .
II Batzli : Lake Susan?
I
MI
II
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 15 , 1989 - Page 13
Olsen : It ends up in the pond i
p p nd right north of Lake Susan and then it goes
into the lake. Although Lake Drive East is going to direct everything to
the east but not on this site . It ' s something you could add . It has a
couple large rooftop and because it was going right to that wetland ,
that ' s why we brought that up. It ' s something that can ' t hurt .
Batzli : I guess if in fact the drainage off of the roof is going into the
storm sewer , the storm sewer is going to end up in one of our lakes or
streams . It doesn ' t matter to me one way or another whether it' s going
right into a pond or into the storm sewer . It ' s going to end up in our
water. I would prefer to see that we treat people somewhat equally as
well as I prefer to see them put in the proper strainers or whatever they
need to do for that. My last question, two questions sorry. One is the
easement again for Well 4 or potential requirement for an easement ,
depending on when we build Lake Drive. If you ' re satisfied with condition
25 that all we need is access during construction and development , I ' ll be
satisfied but if we don ' t know when Lake Drive is going in, I think we may
want to , it' s included not only during construction and development but
thereafter until Lake Drive is constructed. The last thing , construction
traffic shall not conflict with the City' s improvement project which is
condition 26 and I assume you mean the improvement project is Lake Drive?
Hanson : The Lake Drive and the storm sewer and the water in the sewer
being constructed in the Lake Drive right-of-way.
Batzli : Okay. I guess I would prefer that we say what improvement we ' re
talking about. Those are my comments and my honest opinion is that I
think we should table the matter .
Wildermuth : I would definitely like to see a more complete package come
to us with far fewer conditions . I guess I have a coupe of questions for
the applicant . Are you planning any undergroung storage tanks for
retention of any kind of solvents or washing solution or anything like
that?
Larry Welter : No . Most of the raw products is brought in and how I form
plastic, it' s stored in outdoor storage tanks and it' s piped into the
building during the manufacturing process and converted directly into the
bottles.
Wildermuth : So any waste you have is solid waste?
Larry Welter : Right .
Wildermuth : And it ' s probably reprocessed?
Larry Welter : Right . 1
Wildermuth : How about processed water requirements? Do you have any
processed water? Holding machines generally, are you going to have
heating and cooling , stand alone heating and cooling units for the dies or
are you going to require cooling water?
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 14
IILarry Welter : The equipment does have , by it ' s cooling water although _
most of it i.s , it ' s all recycled to clean water . There ' s very little
Iwaste.
Wildermuth : So you ' re not going to have any, you ' ll probably have some
IIprocessed cooling tower , processed cooling water towers right?
Larry Welter : Correct .
IIWildermuth : And those will be the rooftop units? But nothing will go
down the drain?
IILarry Welter : Mainly in the sanitary.
Wildermuth: The water demand will be to make up the processed cooling
IIwater that you lose in the rooftop units? 78 , 000 square feet of factory
space and you' re only going to have 50 people on one shift?
Larry Welter : That ' s the initial phase , yes .
II Wildermuth: Yes , for Phase 1. What do you do with all the floor space
with only 50 people on a shift?
II Larry Welter : It ' s mainly storage. It takes a lot of room.
Wildermuth : Your product is bulky? I don ' t know if this is an issue that
II the applicant has to be concerned with , or if it ' s a city issue, but Jo
Ann do we want to look at maintaining a creek where the 36 inch storm
sewer should be going or is that something that the Watershed people
Iwill . . .
Olsen : That ' s out of my hands with planning . I don ' t know if that ' s
really what the engineering , if that was part of the plan that was
I approved by Council . I can look into that and see what the possibility of
changing it. If it has to be there .
II Wildermuth: I agree with Tim. It would be a shame with an existing creek
to just put a culvert in and fill the whole area over .
II Olsen : But sometimes there ' s benefits to that . They' ll say that it ' s
better than what ' s there now. I can check that out.
Wildermuth: It would seem that the creek, it meanders along that lot line
IIthere back and forth. It seems like if it possibly could be redirected ,
that would be preferable to putting a culvert in . I realize that the
applicant probably doesn ' t have anything to do with it . That ' s a City
Iplan . I agree with Brian . I think for the moment this issue should be
tabled until we have a more complete package to look at with about half
the conditions .
IHeadla : You ' re talking about a building construction much like MTS and
Research? You ' re talking of building construction much like MTS ilnd
Research just to the east of us in Eden Prairie?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 15
Todd Kristoferson : That would be the double T wall panel?
Headla: Pre-cast concrete walls .
Todd Kristoferson : Maybe we should address that because it ' s not entirely
clear on the plan. The main portion of the building , the plant walls
along the sides and the back, would be pre-cast flat panels very si.mi.liar
to the McGlynn Bakery building that ' s going up out there. It won' t have
the projected fins like the MTS building . 1
Headla: You say it will have?
Todd Kristoferson: It won ' t . It will be very si.mi.liar to the McGlynn
Bakery building .
Headla : What color were you going to have the walls? The reason I 'm '
asking is we' ve got one white castle now. You have a very nice location
there and it would have a lot of view. Something stark white is going to
stick out like a sore thumb. That ' s why I ask that question. ,
Todd Kristoferson : We ' re hesitant to go to a white building for that very
reason. This is the material that would be on the office portion of the
building . It ' s prefi.nished aluminum.
Headla : Pretty consistent with what you have over there now? That color?
Ellson: With the other buildings and stuff you' re saying?
Headla : Yes . In the industrial park . What about the concrete walls? '
Todd Kristoferson: That would be painted a similar color but a lighter
tone.
Headla : Okay, very good . Thank you. Your injection molding , is that
your business?
Larry Welter : Yes . Injected and blow molding .
Headla : And what are your machines , 15 by 25 feet? I
Larry Welter : Yes . Roughly. It varies from among the sizes . That ' s
about average.
Headla : And what do you do with the residue of these machines? The
flashing .
Larry Welter : We reprocess it .
Headla: You ' ll continually reprocess that? Okay.
Wildermuth : Pretty valuable stuff .
II ,
II Planning Commission Meeting
larch 15, 1989 - Page 16
-
IIHeadla : Okay, the reason I asked some of those questions . . .on the number
of people you say you ' re going to use and you use that to justify the
I number of parking spots . The closest I can come is 169 , 000 facility that
has 600 people in it. If I run a ratio of people per square feet, you ' re
probably over 3 times the amount of square feet per person which means ,
II before I 'd ever say yes , I think you ' ve got a good plan here on parking
spots , I 'd sure what to see some rationale why you only have 50 parking
spots . On the numbers of just common industry, I think you' re way low on
the number of parking spots . If you ' ve got rationale for it and you can
I point it out, fine. I 'd like to look at those numbers but I think those
numbers have to be available if you' re going to go that ' s your parking
spots .
IILarry Welter : A rough figure that I used for calculating is 10, 000 square
feet machine. For instance, with all the machines you have 120, 000 feet
II needed for warehouse space to support that production facility. You
figure like a gallon jug and it takes up a lot of space. Maybe it won ' t
have too much plastic in it .
II Headla : I ' d like to see some documents showing that space . Now that kind
of fits in. I think you' re way, and I 'm no way an expert in your business
but just from what I see in the industry, I think you ' re short on parking
lot . The size of parking lot then flows into Brian ' s point about you' ve
got runoff on the parking lot . We haven ' t put in skimmers . What are we
dumping into our streams? You ' re going to have oil on those parking lot .
You ' ve got . . .on these parking lots going into our takes and streams and
IIthe bigger the parking lot, the more cars , the more it ' s going in which
means we probably should have the skimmer . That ' s why I would like to see
some rationale for that. On why you went so light on that . Then, I think
I it ' s obscene that the number of deviations that we have. I don ' t think
the Commission is here to judge on a process of how we get there or to
judge on what' s in front of us . No way would I recommend approval of
I this. I think it should be tabled. No way would I recommend approval of
the applicant should provide an amended landscaping which provides the
following. That ' s the stuff that ' s got to come to us before we can even
approve it . I want to see what you ' re proposing . I don ' t want to leave
I it to just the staff. I see different things about the fire hydrants and
then I ' ve got a drawing here that shows a possible location of a fire
hydrant. I don' t want to say yes , I 'm going to vote yes for that. I want
I to see it on that print and I want to see it documented and then we say
yes , that' s what the fire department agrees to and then we can do it .
Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 feet in length . If it ' s an issue ,
I then it should have been resolved beforehand. If it isn' t an issue, then
it shouldn ' t have been in here but it ' s here so I ' ve got to raise the
question. Submittal of revised site plan incorporating the above
conditions prior to consideration by the Council . I want to see all that
I stuff before it goes to the Council . Revised plan shall be submitted for
approval that address the conditions and discussions contained in this
staff report. I want to see that. I want to see the erosion control
plan . I don ' t want to leave that to the staff and put all that on them.
They' re our guidance and I want to give them as much strength as possible
and I want you and them to work together and I think you have been but I
want to see you work with each other and get it resolved so when it comes
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 17
here , we ' ve just got a couple of issues and maybe it ' s disagreements that
we talk about. But we can settle on that and bang, we know exactly what' s
going to go to the Council . It' s in crisp form and the Council can look
at it and they can make a very good judgment on it. Right now everything
we ' re doing , we ' re shoving it onto staff and then it certainly isn ' t crisp
to the Council and I don ' t think it 's fair to either one. Determination
of waste water monitoring requirements . What I hear from you, that isn ' t
even an issue but it was put in here so I flagged it and after hearing
you, but it was in here. Access must be maintained for City forces to
monitor and maintain Well No . 4. That' s got to be resolved before it
comes to the Planning Commission. Not tell the staff to work it our
afterwards .
Todd Kristoferson : We have agreed to that access .
Headla : Most of this should have been resolved beforehand so my point,
I ' ve got others but my point is , get that stuff resolved with the staff
before it comes in. I hadn' t even heard of your company until just a
little while ago . Empak , now it ' s come up and I just saw a fellow you
just hired today away from the company where I have my office. Not my
company. He was happier than heck. He was just grinning from ear to ear
so it must be a pretty good company the way he spoke of it. What you ' re
doing , I think is good . I like to see your building . I like to see you
in here but for the Planning Commission and the Council to make good
judgments , I think we have to have those defined and documented . That ' s
all .
Wildermuth : I ' d just like to say one thing . Basically I think we ' re very
pro business and we certainly want to welcome you to Chanhassen. The
project looks like a beautiful project . Your project just kind of got
caught in a little internal conflict here. We ' re not basically critical
of the project at all .
Emmings : I am going to belabor the 27 conditions a little bit because it '
seems to me that what we ' re getting is, we ' re getting planning staff
conditions and then it sounds like you' re getting engineering staff
conditions and you simply add those on. There' s no synthesis done so we
wind up with conditions that treat , and I think on the fire hydrants , fire
hydrant things appear on 3 separate ones and two of them seem to be very
similiar to me. When you ' ve got , there ' s a condition here that says all
driveways should be consistent with the City' s commercial/industrial
standard details . I think somebody else has brought up other ones of that
nature. What the heck else? It ' s like putting in a condition that says ,
you' ll obey the law. Unless it' s a problem, unless they' ve designed
something that doesn ' t meet the standard so we have to tell them they have
to meet the standard , that should never be necessary it seems .
Hanson: That ' s why it' s mentioned in here though .
Emmings : Why?
Hanson : Engineering , when they went through , the reason they would have
mentioned that is that they didn ' t find something that met that particular
I.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 13
IIstandard explicitedly.
I Emmings : But that' s not giving anybody any information to say that. Then
it seems to one they should say that the plans do not meet the City' s
commercial/industrial standard details and must be redrafted .
IIOlsen: . . .a lot of that information .
Emmings : But then why put it in this report?
IOlsen: It' s to let them know.
II Emmings : That they have to comply with our standards? It isn ' t multiple
choice. They don' t have a choice about that. This almost suggests that
they do . A lot of these , it looks to me like if somebody sat down and
II tried to do a little synthesis. You know say, here ' s all the points we ' ve
got , let ' s group them together so that we cover topics in a group . It
seems to me even going with respect to fire hydrants and watermains , these
things need to be done . With respect to landscaping . He did it under
I landscaping. But pull together what engineering has to say with what you
nave to say but there' s no way there should be this many. I think tabling
it may be, for the people who spoke for tabling it , all of these things
II = seem to be things to me that the staff can handle I guess and I don ' t want
to punish the applicant by delaying them because we don ' t like the process
Dr we don ' t like the way the staff is presenting this stuff or we ' d like
it presented in a different way. So until we can get this process
Istraighten out, maybe we ' re going to have to put up with a little bit of
this but I think we should work like crazy to try and get this done
because it ' s been a topic ever since you ' ve come on the scene Steve. I
Ithink we nailed you the first meeting.
Headla : Steve, I think you slid over the important point . We ' re being
II asked to approve stuff that we don ' t have the definition of what we ' re
approving .
Emmings : I think to some extent , most of those things, if they' re
II technical , if they' re where trees are going to be located and things like
that, I 'm content to let the staff handle that between now and the Council
myself. I don' t see, if they brought one plan or another with trees here
II or there , as long as the staff tells me they' ve got an adequate number of
trees under our ordinance and so forth .
II Wildermuth : We should be concerned with the concept , conceptual things
rather than technicalities .
Emmings : I guess I don ' t think it ' s worth delaying them 2 weeks so that I
II should decide they should move a tree. I 'm going to let the staff , and
there may be more significant issues in here .
II.-- Headla : I think you hit trivial with those things . I think those are . . .
Signage . I ' d like to know what they' ve got in mind for signage. I think
that ' s very important .
im
.I
Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 15, 1989 - Page 19
Wildermuth : That should be part of the package .
Headla: I don' t want to see that go to Council without seeing what , just
a concept . I 'm not asking for detail .
Emmings : You said you store things outside in tanks? Where are those on
the plan?
Larry Welter : They' re on the north side of the building and the east
corner . ,
Emmings : All those little round circles you see there? Okay.
Wildermuth: What kind of a hardship is it going to work if we table this
thing on the applicant?
Todd Kristoferson: I guess I can add something there . We ' re on a real '
fast track schedule with the owner to get him in production in late July.
He has these very expensive pieces of equipment that are due to arrive at
the same time that we finish the building. Two weeks is very important at
this time to us . As far as the number of comments in here, we ' ve tried
from the time we got this report to address those with staff. Probably
two-thirds of them I think could be eliminated either because they' re
conditions that are already met or just things that state we need to
conform to standard codes .
Wildermuth : You said something a little while ago that you thought they
were all , they could all be negotiated. Do you plan to comply or do you
plan to stand up to a couple of them?
Todd Kristoferson: We plan to comply. I didn ' t mean to think that were
going to come in and change anything . Some of them are open ended .
Hydrant locations. We realize that we need to have some hydrants but
where they are , I guess we want to work that our with the fire department
so they' re satisfied because they' re the ones that have to sign off .
Headla : What ' s the lead time of your big presses? What ' s the lead time
if you go to order one?
Larry Welter : That varies between 4 to 6 to 8 weeks . ,
Headla: You can get them that quick?
Wildermuth : Are these new or used pieces that you ' re moving? '
Larry Welter : New.
Headla : One other question and Steve brought it up before . When you came
in and talked to the Village, did you have a pretty clear , crisp
understanding of what things you had to look at or did you have to go
through ordinances and talk to our staff quite a bit?
II Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 20
IITodd Kristoferson : We talked to Steve and we got a handout that basically
spelled out what they wanted to see .
IHeadla : So you ' re making progress with that package Steve?
II Hanson : What we gave them was sections of the Code. Right now we don ' t
have what I would call a developers packet .
Headla: Steve has been working on something there and I just wondered how
II he ' s progressing so when you come in he says , these are the things you ' ve
got to look at. But it ' s pretty clear? Okay, thanks .
II Todd Kristoferson : Our intent is to conform with what the City Engineer ' s and Fire Department ' s want. We don ' t have any, on many of these items , we
don ' t have any disagreement at all . We just want to do the next thing to
Ihave to clarify.
Emmings : It seems to me that ' s all the more reason that we don ' t hang
them up is that they' ve agreed to the ones that are here. Maybe, as a
II compromise Dave, I don ' t know of the forces that are in favor of tabling ,
maybe if there was signage and maybe some other particular issues you want
to see back, maybe we could have those come back. Pass the plan on but
say that we want to see, we want the signage to come through, or someti.
II i�
ng
like that . Just to not hang them up . Since they' ve already agreed . I 'd
just throw that out.
II Headla : This is going to go to the Council before we could see chat
information right?
Emmings : Right but we would withhold approval on those issues or say
those things have to come before us and should be withheld from the
Council . Whatever . Our problem is with our staff , not with these
Iapplicants .
Batzli : My point is with the ex proposed expansion and not with the staff in
p A
that I think I heard them say if they can ' t build their expansion, or if
II the potential isn ' t there to build the expansion, they might not build .
So I would like to see more information before letting it go .
II Emmings : And on that , it seems to me that we simply say we ' re not
approving the expansion period . They can ' t present a shadow of a plan and
expect to get approval on it but I think if you change, what number was
I that? You already brought it up .
Batzli : Which one? The one about the drainage? Roof drainage?
I Emmings : No , it was 3 . That would simply say that this approval was not
to be construed as approval of the expansion noted on the plan and any
additional phases or expansion of the site will require an additional site
' ' review. The other thing that concerned me is I want to add another
condition.
Ellson : 28?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 21
Emmings : Yes , 28 because I just don ' t think there are enough. I was a 11
little concerned . It says that the applicant has stated that roof top
equipment will not be visible from the south . I don ' t know if there ' s any
other possible place the roof top equipment could be visible from. TH 5
gets up pretty high and all I would say, there ought to be a condition
that says that if any roof top equipment is visible, it will be screened
because we' ve been real , starting with Pat Swenson back when , she looked
at every plan and that was the thing , one of the things she really focused
on . I think it was a good idea and that ' s one of those things I think we
have to really be a watchdog on or we start losing our grip on it so I
think there ought to be a condition that says that if it is visible , that
it will be screened .
Hanson : Steve, could I clarify that? Is the intent , if it ' s visible from •,
a public right-of-way?
Emmings : Yes . You can always crawl up on a ladder and see it . Sure. If
it' s visible from, I guess I 'm thinking primarily of TH 5. I don ' t know
if it ' s even possible that it could be visible from TH 5.
Erhart: TH 5 is very high relative to the site.
Emmings : So I guess if you said from a , I 'm not thinking of being visible
from another building. I think that ' s alright. Okay, I don ' t have
anything else. Does anybody else have any other comments on this?
Erhart: Yes. Right at the beginning here you quote your Section 20-1125 1
that for office space , you have 3 parking spaces for each 1, 000 square
feet. How many parking spaces does this have? It doesn ' t appear that you
apply that to this structure. 1
Hanson : It ' s just for the office . 7 , 000 is based on the employees that
they have. ,
Erhart : I have another question here . All the Austrian Pines in front of
the future building are going to be put in place at the time of the
construction of the building? ,
Todd Kristoferson: First phase? Right .
Conrad : No , just as the first .
Todd Kristoferson : No , I 'm assuming that these trees are also going to be
put in now or in the future.
Conrad : Phase 2, are you putting in the trees in front of your Phase 2?
Todd Kristoferson: All the trees shown on this site plan will go in on
Phase 1.
Erhart : In the center , is this going to be graded back to the natural I
after you get all done? What are they going to be , just left to grow
natural? ;re you going to mow that?
s
IPlanning, 198 Commis9 sion Page Meeting
IIrc5 - 22
Todd Kristoferson : It will be seeded and mulched .
IIErhart: What does that mean mulched?
IHanson : A strewed area .
Erhart: Oh , so we don' t have erosion?
IITodd Kristoferson : Right . It helps the grass establish .
Erhart: And that' s not intended to be mowed? Probably not. Will it be
Imowed or just left to grow long?
Todd Kristoferson : I would think that the plan is to mow that .
Erhart: Are you intending to mow the whole thing or just let it grow
wild?
IILarry Welter : It would be kept mowed .
Erhart: It would be mowed, okay. So essentially you ' ll have just a big
I flat area out there except that these parking lots will be put in now and
tae dotted ones are for the future? This area is essentially what , your
docks?
II
. Larry Welter : At the time that there Phase 2 is built, that trucking and
dockage will be screened from the street .
II Erhart : Okay. There ' s landscaping requirements of trees every 40 feet on
the interior lot lines correct and that ' s not in here so there will be
some trees along the east line . Okay, thanks .
IConrad: Most of the stuff I think administratively can be handled if
staff agrees that it can be. Although they opened it up to us which I 'm
sure they' re sorry for doing. My biggest concern that impacts this that
I basically tells me we may not be giving City Council the final plan is the
drainage. If there' s a pond , where does it go? How does it affect the
phases and I think that could really screw this up . That ' s the only thing
I that I see on this site plan that I really care about that the applicant
should know that we ' re not going to bend rules downstream to make sure we
get the additional area in for phase 2. We ' re also quite concerned that ,
II and typically we handle storm water drainage , or any kind of drainage on
site, or we have been with ponding . I don ' t know what the difference is
right now because we haven ' t been informed of what kind of storm water
drainage we have and what the impact is downstream on that and where it ' s
Igoing . So in my mind , that ' s the only thing I care about . That ' s the
only thing that really impacts this site plan and it ' s a thing that, I
think all the other stuff is administrative matters pretty much. I don ' t
Ieven care about signage because I think our sign ordinance is pretty
specific on what it can be but I think in terms of this , I think number 19
is a headache for me and I don ' t know how we want to handle that . What ' s
your 'guesstimate? What do you think? Are we going to find a problem?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 23
That ' s a big roof and if we go to Phase 2, that ' s another big roof and we
are reaching 70% impervious surface there and where ' s it going? I think
that ' s a problem. Now City Council can deal with that . They certainly
are going to get our notes but we haven ' t helped them and basically what
it says is between now, if we don ' t act on this , the next meeting we have
is 3 weeks from now so with the developer ' s schedule, we really are
impacting them if we delay. So the question is , do we want to make City
Council be Planning Commission for a little bit .
Headla : Will they have all the information ready for us in 2 weeks if we
have a special meeting? They' ve got to get the information anyway so
since they' ve got to get it anyway, I want to see it before it goes to
Council . I want to see a crisp plan go to the Council . 1
Todd Kristoferson : I would like to comment on the drainage because that ' s
something we' ve been discussing with the Watershed District engineers and
we ' re fully aware that even if we get approval here and at the Council ,
that we have to also get their approval . They are looking at the drainage
and they will be the ones that will be needed for approval of drainage and
erosion control with them. I don' t have the exact date. I know it ' s ,
between now and mid-April . We are aware that we have to meet the drainage
requirements for the drainage . I 'd rather not get held up here because
_ we haven ' t gone to the Watershed yet . I would rather see this approved
subject to subsequent Watershed District approval .
Conrad : Normally we have those in hand when things come in don ' t we?
Olsen: We usually have comments from the Watershed District .
Conrad : So we' re sort of out of sync . Usually we like to see their
comments first and you' re telling us we' re not going to see them for
another 3 weeks or 4 .
Olsen : We usually see their comments before the final approval . They ,
only meet once a month, the first Wednesday.
Emmings : Any more comments?
Larry Welter : I would assume on that , that would be pretty much black and
white decision for the Watershed . You' ve got your square foot of the roof
there . You know what their storm sewer size and the proposed storm sewer
is.
Emmings : I think what you ' re hearing though is , they make their decision ,
but we make our decision too. I guess we usually take their comments into
account when we ' re looking at a plan before we make our decision . It
isn' t a situation where we just let them decide. Anything else. Is there
a motion?
Wildermuth : I just have one question addressed to Steve and Jo Ann . Do
you have ordinances against employee parking on for example Lake Drive?
I 'm sure they can ' t park on CR 17 if there aren ' t enough parking places .
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
`March 15 , 1989 - Page 24
IIOlsen : I 'm sure they can ' t park on CR 17 but no we don' t .
IIHanson: There ' s no restriction on Lake Drive .
Olsen : We have that problem with Instant Webb , where they park on the
street. Park Road. We have no way to prevent that unless we put no
II parking signs up there . We do try to work with the companies and ask them
to ask their employees not to park there. There is no specific ordinance
against it .
IWildermuth : How many people are you going to have on the second shift?
I Larry Welter : Roughly a dozen people to start out with. During the day
it would probably get into . . .
Wildermuth: Even in Phase 1?
ILarry Welter : That would be Phase 2.
II Wildermuth : What I 'm thinking about is , if you have 100 employees on the
first shift, you have 108 parking spaces . When the second shift comes ,
they aren ' t going to have anyplace to park. It just seems like you ' re a
ILittle light on the parking for Phase 1.
Larry Welter : What we ' ve tried to show on this with the dashed lines is
that we have room to add additional parking if it were to become necessary
II even with Phase 1. But we ' d like not to . We ' d like to leave as much
green area out there as we can as long as there ' s going to Oe oarki_ng for
employees and if it becomes a problem, we ' ve got room to add spaces .
IIConrad: How many people could meet next week For a special meeting?
I Headla : If they have it ready, I ' ll be hare .
Conrad: I could show up.
IBatzli : Aren ' t we already having a special meeting this month?
Hanson: That' s one thing I wanted to talk to you about tonight, about
Isetting up a special meeting on the Comp Plan .
Conrad : When would that be?
IHanson : When I can get the majority of you together .
Emmings : I don ' t have my calendar here .
IConrad : We could possibly do it together .
I— Ellson: Are we making the assumption they ' ll get this Watershed thing all
put together?
II
AM
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 25
Conrad : Oh can.es They try. Or staff can review it and that ' d make me
Y Y Y
comfortable.
Olsen : You want a report?
Conrad: Yes .
Olsen : In a week?
Conrad: Yes . ,
Ellson: You' d need more information and then you 'd have to write a
report , right? ,
Emmings : Let ' s do this . Let ' s make a motion .
Wildermuth: Let ' s ask the Mayor if he' ll accept it like it is . I
Emmings : Let ' s make a motion.
Headla : Let me ask the question first . When did the first application
come in from Empak?
Hanson : It would have been 3 weeks ago .
Headla : 3 weeks ago and they want approval of this but their machines are
16 weeks lead time . I ' ve got a bunch of them on order and you ' ve got to
put them someplace.
Todd Kristoferson: I can add something to this . Mr . Bongaard , the owner
of Empak, came in to talk to I believe the City Manager several months ago
about this project . At that time we initiated the design . So even though
the application only came in 3 weeks ago for this meeting, I guess we' ve
been in this process for some time looking at this site .
Batzli. : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Site Plan Request #89-1 as shown on the Site Plan stamped "Received
February 21, 1989" with the following conditions : 1 through 27 set forth
in the staff report and an additional condition 28 . The applicant shall
provide screening for roof top equipment if the same is visible from a
public right-of-way. A sentence prior to condition 3 which reads ,
approval of the site plan is not an approval , nor does it imply approval ,
of any notations of plant expansion set forth in the site plan . End of
condition 19 another sentence which reads , further skimmer and/or traps
shall be provided subject to staff approval for all roof and parking lot
drainage. Condition 25, the end of the sentence insert , and until such
time as Lake Drive improvements are completed . The end of condition 26
insert, improvement project associated with Lake Drive .
Ellson : I ' ll second it .
Erhart : Do we want to add something in referencing this 19 to strengthen
the, encouraging staff to strengthen . . .
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
March 15 , 1989 - Page 26
II
3atzli : The creek issue?
IIErhart : No , the use of the skimmer or the pollution thing from the storm
water run off and the roof and the parking lot? It seems in the past that
we ' ve gone beyond the Watershed District' s approval and asked for certain
II things if we felt there was . . .
Batzli : I added a sentence there that read skimmers and/or traps shall be
Iprovided subject to staff approval for all roof and parking lot drainage .
Erhart : You added that to what , 19 or another one?
II Batzli : 19 .
I Erhart : Okay. I had that note here . I guess I was so busy trying to
read my notes that I didn ' t hear you. Okay, good .
Conrad : Going back to drainage and erosion control and all those nifty
things . In one week, would we find out anything?
Hanson : If you were to meet next Wednesday?
IIConrad : Yes . If we met next Wednesday, I 'm sure we could clean up some
of this stuff and send to City Council . If we approve it with 23 points ,
it will go to City Council with all 28 points .
I Hanson : Unless you make it a provision that those are complied with
before it goes .
IIConrad : If they are complied with , do you eliminate them?
UHanson: Yes .
Conrad : What issue are we really dealing with in terms of the roof top
drainage? Do you feel we have valid concerns? Is it something that staff
I wants to look into? I assume you ' re waiting for referral agency comments
back but are there things that we haven ' t studied in terms of . . .
I Olsen : Usually, once it goes into the storm sewer , it ' s usually taken
care of . The only time I can remember that we ever added anything
additional was with Rosemount , and maybe I missed something again when I
U was gone. It' s usually takes care of it adequately. If you want us to
research exactly what ' s happening to it , we can do that . If you feel this
is a sensitive area, which it could be.
I Conrad : I don ' t know what the Wateshed ' s going to say because of the
impact on the improvements that they' re making .
' Olsen : It ' s the City that requires that they maintain pre-development
runoff on their site. The Watershed District does not require that so
lctuatly our engineering department requires more than the Watershed
District does .
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 27
1
Conrad : Tell me about our policy, and we really do have a lot of
retention ponds on sites , how come right now we feel that it ' s real easy
not to have a retention pond here? Is that just simply because we have a
storm sewer that we can drain?
Hanson : I think that' s part of it , yes . In some cases you don ' t have 1
that capability. I think the other thing the engineering department is
trying to raise in 19 is that they were unclear where the drainage from
the roof was going . 1
Olsen : And they didn' t have the storm water calculations .
Hanson: So what they were saying is we need some more information and
based on that information, then it may become an issue.
Conrad: So can we feel confident that because there' s a storm sewer that
will empty into a pond downstream someplace, that the adequate controls on
that pond, skimming or filtering the pollutants before it gets into any of
the wetlands , is that what we are assuming has been done? Just the fact
that we' re dumping it someplace and we know whatever that place is has
been approved to control water like this .
Hanson: My assumption is , with the design of the storm water drainage , '
that improvements that the City has done and then putting it into that
holding pond, that they' ve addressed that. And it ' s been addressed based
on the roadway and projected development that would occur within the
drainage basin that it ' s serving. Now I did not specifically ask that
question of engineering so I couldn ' t tell you that . . .
Emmings : When are the storm sewer improvements scheduled to be completed?
Hanson: It ' s all part of the . . .
Emmings: That' s all part of building Lake Drive?
Hanson : Yes . 1
Batzli moved , Filson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Request #89-1 as shown on the Site Plan stamped
"Received February 21, 1989" with the following conditions :
1. All signage shall meet the conditions of the sign ordinance . i
2. The applicant shall provide an amended landscape plan which provides
the following: 1
a . Two foot continuous screening of the southerly parking lot from
Lake Drive . 1
b . Fifty percent winter opacity.
1
__
111 -
II Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 23
IIc . Interior lot line landscaping .
I 3 . Approval of the site plan is not an approval , nor does it imply
approval , of any notations of plant expansion set forth in the site
plan . Any additional phases or expansion of the site will require a
site plan review.
I4 . Every dead-end roadway more than 300 feet in o length shall be
g provided
zded
at the closed end with a turn around acceptable to the Fire
pDepartment .
5. Turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road width and shall be
I constructed with a minimum radium of 25 feet at the inside curb cut
and a radius of 50 feet at the outside curb .
I 6. Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 feet clear width between
rows of parked vehicles for vehicular access and movement .
7. Distances between installed fire hydrants shall not exceed 300 feet .
II8 . Approximate fire hydrant locations are indicated on the site plan .
I 9. Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a inch diameter
main installed on a looped system, or not less than an 3 inch diameter
main if the system is not looped or the fire hydrant is installed on a
dead-end main exceeding 300 feet in length .
' 10. Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 feet in length for aai.n sizes
under 10 inches in diameter .
1 11 . Submittal of revised site plan incorporating the above conditions
prior to consideration by City Council . In order to be placed on the
April 10, 1989 City Council agenda , revised plans need to be submitted
II by March 27, 1989 .
12. Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address the
Iconditions and discussion contained in this staff report .
13 . An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals .
II14. Contouring of the perimeter of the site will need to be shown .
15. All side slopes greater than 3 : 1 will need erosion protection .
I16. Determination of waste water moni tori.ng requirements with the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission .
I17. Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in the
submittals , including valves .
I18 . Information on roof drainage discharge and possible need for retention
pond for wetland pollutant/nutrient loading impacts . Further skimmer
and/or traps shall be provided subject to staEE approval for all roof
I
ill
Planning Commission Meeting
March 15, 1989 - Page 29
and parking lot drainage.
19 . All driveways are to be consistent with the City' s commercial/
industrial standard details .
20. A typical section of roadway to be shown on plans for approval with
concrete curb and gutter throughout the site.
21. Necessary County permits for control of access to CSAH 17 at the
northerly access to the site shall be obtained.
22 . A 35 foot permanent utility easement shall be dedicated along the
easterly lot line of the site for storm sewer purposes . '
23 . The plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian traffic
around the building and site.
24 . Access MUST be maintained for City forces to monitor_ and maintain Well
No . 4 at all times during construction and development of this site
and until such time as Lake Drive improvements are completed .
25. Construction traffic shall not conflict with the City' s improvement
project associated with Lake Drive. '
26. If the City' s 18 inch watermain is not relocated , an easement shall be
provided across the southwest corner of the site and any cut or fill
over this main shall receive prior City approval which will be
predicated on proper remedial actions taken .
27. The applicant shall provide screening for roof top equipment if the
same is visible from a public right-of-way.
All voted in favor except Headla and Wildermuth who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 5 to 2 .
Headla : I think two reasons . Inadequate information available . I don ' t
know what I 'm approving and I don ' t see anything in documentation of the
parking lot and drainage to make a judgment .
Emmings : Same thing?
Wildermuth: Yes .
Emmings : I guess just as my closing comment I 'd say, I think this thing
9
probably should have been tabled in terms of what we should do in terms of
supplying information to the City Council . I think it ' s kind of half
baked and it results in our doing kind of a half baked job but I don ' t
think the applicant should be held up for that reason . I think this stuff
is going to get ironed out between now and the City Council meeting . i
I