1c3. Rome Dev, Preliminary Plat Chan Lakes Business Park r C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: Oct. 5 , 1988
UAUAEC.C. ::: 88: s:. 1988
AL,.'1 Y CASE .
II _ Prepared by: Olsen/v
il STAFF REPORT
I
I PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat Request to Replat Lots 1 , 2 and 3 ,
Block 2 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
I2
w
LOCATION: Lots 1 , 2 and 3 , Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes, ;:,,.:.
Business Park P1S/'
I 9-cor
APPLICANT: Rome Development im .15,01/ %
1450 Park Court Pate s` , =t �
;�
Chanhassen , MN 55317 jSTT
IPRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park
1 ACREAGE: 7. 46 acres Parcel A-3. 79, Parcel B-1. 42 ,
Parcel C-2. 25
DENSITY:
II ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RR; Lake Ann Park
IIS- IOP; Industrial Information Controls
QE- IOP; Component Engineering
IW- IOP; vacant
I W WATER AND SEWER: Available to property
. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Portions of two of the proposed lots to
be platted have been developed (Parcel A & : ) .
I (1) The remaining portion of the property is
undeveloped and heavily vegetated (Parcel C) .
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial
I
II 1-1 ��� �- a "I" y
j\_____z\ ----
-.Ail
f 00s) 3 r.v4,-lies, .
,) 4074a11111 lIttil.r4A.16110 f -
it Allit
IN' am mg
SON .... -
a
LA� 't LUCY e!?i1I1P !P R' EN � `s,'�RJ..
,ai ar„..I :OP 61"N \i+ ri i _i;:e.,j MG NI Iv
• 111 Mr
•••
LAKE ANN J� ,
r
'/ ..- - - - - •:
II -
Rome Development
October 5 , 1988
Page 2
' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The IOP District requires a minimum lot area of one acre and the
' minimum lot frontage on a cul-de-sac of 60 feet (150 feet on
public street) and a minmum lot depth of 200 feet.
REFERRAL AGENCIES
Asst. City Engineer Attachment #2
' Park and Recreation Park and trail fees will be required.
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 1984, the City Council approved a site plan for
an office warehouse facility on Lot 3 , Block 2 , of Chanhassen
Lakes Business Park (Attachment #3) .
On September 8 , 1986 , the City Council approved the site plan for
a mini-warehouse facility located on Lots 1 and 2 , Block 2 of
' Chanhassen Lakes Business Park (Attachment #4) .
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to replat Lots 1 , 2 , and 3 , Block 2 ,
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Currently, Lot 1 contains 1 .83
acres, Lot 2 contains 2 . 7 acres, and Lot 3 contains 2 . 9 acres .
The proposed replat contains three parcels with Parcel A con-
taining 3 .8 acres, Parcel B containing 1 .42 acres and Parcel C
containing 2 . 25 acres .
' Parcel A, with 3 .8 acres, will contain the existing mini-storage
facility. Parcel A contains the required lot area, frontage and
depth and the proposed lot lines are maintaining the required 10
foot side yard setbacks from Parcel B and C. The impervious sur-
face of Parcel A is increased to 75% by removing the westerly
portion (32 . 395 sq. ft. ) to Parcel C. The lot line must be
adjusted to maintain a 70% maximum impervious surface on Parcel A.
Parcel B contains the existing office warehouse facility and
maintains the required lot area, depth and frontage requirements
of the IOP District. The applicant is proposing Parcels B and C
to share driveways at the end of the cul-de-sac and to expand
Parcel B ' s parking onto Parcel C through a cross easement.The
' zoning ordinance permits zero setbacks if parking is shared.
Parcel B, with the existing building and parking, does not exceed
the permitted amount of impervious surfaces .
Parcel C is made up of vacant portions of Lot 2 (mini-storage
facility) and Lot 3 (office warehouse facility) . Parcel C main-
tains the required lot area, depth and frontage (along Hwy. 5) .
I
I
Rome Development
October 5 , 1988
Page 3
MnDOT 1
MnDOT is in the process of improving Hwy. 5 which requires addi-
tional right-of-way. The subject plat (Lots 1 and 2) will be
impacted by additional right-of-way required by MnDOT. MnDOT has
estimated that 40 feet of additional right-of-way will be
required. MnDOT has not determined that the plat should provide
the right-of-way and will be making their decision prior to the
Planning Commission meeting. Should MnDOT determine that they
want the plat to reflect the additional right-of-way, the preli-
minary plat should be amended to provide for the 40 feet of
right-of-way.
Attachment #2 from the Engineering Department addresses ease-
ments.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed plat creates 3 IOP lots . The lots maintain the
required lot area, frontage, depth and setbacks . The proposed
plat results in Parcel A exceeding 70% impervious surface. An
amended plat must be submitted which maintains 70% impervious
surface on Parcel A. Should MnDOT determine that the additional
40 feet of right-of-way for Highway 5 is required to be shown on
the plat, the plat should be amended to provide the required ROW.
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion: 1
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
Request #88-22 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received
September 29 , 1988" and subject to the following conditions :
1 . An amended preliminary plat shall be submitted for City
Council approval which maintains a maximum of 70% impervious
surface on Parcel A.
2 . The plat shall be revised to show a 20-foot wide utility
easement centered on the existing 10-inch diameter watermain
which traverses Lot 2 , Block 1. This easement shall be
extended between Park Court and State Highway 5 .
3 . The plat shall be revised to show the appropriate side lot
and front and rear utility easements prior to final approval .
4 . The final plat shall be revised to reflect the additional
roadway easements for the widening of State Highway 5 if
MnDOT forwards to the City written confirmation that addi-
tional easements are required.
I
I .
Rome Development
October 5 , 1988
Page 4
' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision
as recommended by staff.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends the City Council approve Subdivision Request
#88-22 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received
September 29, 1988" and subject to the following conditions :
1 . An amended preliminary plat shall be submitted for City
Council approval which maintains a maximum of 70% impervious
surface on Parcel A.
2 . The plat shall be revised to show a 20-foot wide utility
easement centered on the existing 10-inch diameter watermain
which traverses Lot 2 , Block 1 . This easement shall be
extended between Park Court and State Highway 5 .
' 3 . The plat shall be revised to show the appropriate side lot
and front and rear utility easements prior to final approval .
4 . The final plat shall be revised to reflect the additional
roadway easements for the widening of State Highway 5 if
MnDOT forwards to the City written confirmation that addi-
tional easements are required.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . IOP District regulations .
2 . Memo from Larry Brown dated September 29 , 1988
3 . City Council minutes dated December 17 , 1984 .
4 . City Council minutes dated September 8 , 1986 .
5 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 5 , 1988 .
6 . Preliminary Plat dated September 29, 1988 .
r
I
r
{
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: I
(1) Offices.
(2) Warehouses. ,
(3) Light manufacturing.
(4) Trade shops. '
(5) Health services.
(6) Printers. ,
(7) Indoor health and recreation clubs.
(8) Body shops. 1
(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
•
§ 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
I
CITYOF .-
cIANHAssEs
+� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission ,c�
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer L)
1
DATE: September 29 , 1988
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Lots 2 and 3 , Block 2 1
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park -
Planning File No. 88-22 SUB, Rome Development
This site is composed of a gentle topography with mature vegeta-
tion scattered throughout the site. The subject lots already
exist as a mini storage warehouse facility located to the east of
Parcel C and the existing one-story block building located to the
south of Parcel C.
Sanitary Sewer 1
Municipal sanitary sewer is available to the site by the existing
10-inch sanitary sewer main which exists within the Park Court
right-of-way.
Watermain 1
Municipal water service is available to the site by the existing
10-inch watermain which exists along the common lot line of Lots
2 and 3 , Block 2 , and continues through Lot 2, Block 2 to State
Highway 5 (refer to Attachment #1) . The plat for the Chanhassen
Lakes Business Park does not show a utility easement. over this
water line. It is recommended that a 20-foot utility easement be 1
place (centered) over this water line through the entire length
of the subject plat.
Access i
The plans propose that the existing driveway and proposed drive-
way from Park Court be joined. The proposed center island
maintains a driveway separation of 12 feet. This separation is
the minimum separation that will be allowed. The two combined
driveways should be appropriately signed to separate the two-way
traffic for the driveways . A signing and striping plan will be
required prior to final approval.
#<;>..
1
1
Planning Commission
September 29, 1988
Page 2
All access to the proposed site shall be from Park Court. No
access will be allowed to State Highway 5 .
' The plat shall be revised to include the City' s standard 5 foot
side lot and 10 foot front and rear lot drainage and utility
easements.
A cross easement document should be executed for the joining of
the driveways and construction of the additional parking area
immediately north of the existing building on Parcel C. This S1
easement should be presented to the City prior to final plat
approval.
Grading and Drainage
Proper storm water retention has been accomplished through the
ponding sites in place for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
plat. The applicant is proposing two storm sewer systems
throughout the parking lot . We find that the ponding that is in
place will facilitate the proposed drainage to accommodate a
100-year frequency storm event and address water quality
standards.
Profiles for the storm sewer system should be submitted to the
City Engineer for approval prior to City Council approval.
The site indicates Type I erosion control along the westerly side
of the parcel. These plans shall be revised to incorporate Type
II (staked hay bales and snow fence) for the erosion control
delineated on the plan set . The City' s standard for the
installation of the Type II erosion control shall be placed in
the grading plans prior to City Council approval.
Details which delineate the amount of rip rap, storm sewer faci-
lities and any energy dissipators shall be submitted to the City
Engineer prior to City Council approval .
' Easements
At the time of this report , MnDOT addressed the need for addi-
tional roadway easements for the Highway 5 widening project. The
applicant will be required to provide the necessary easements as
per MnDOT ' s recommendation.
It is therefore recommended that the plat be approved upon the
following conditions:
' 1 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit .
1
Planning Commission
September 29 , 1988
Page 3
2. The proposed driveway shall maintain a 12-foot separation
from the existing driveway located to the south on Park
Court .
3. The applicant shall supply the City Engineer with details
(storm profile sheet ) for the installation of the storm sewer '
which shall include details for the rip rap, flared end sec-
tions and energy dissipators prior to City Council approval.
4. The erosion control as delineated on the plan shall be '
revised to reflect the City' s standard for Type II erosion
control (staked hay bales and snow fence) . The erosion
control plan shall be revised on the plan set to reflect
the City' s standard for Type II erosion control.
5 . The plat shall be revised to show a 20-foot wide utility
easement centered on the existing 10-inch diameter watermain
which traverses Lot 2 , Block 1 . This easement shall be
extended between Park Court and State Highway 5 . '
6. The driveways (proposed and existing) shall be signed
appropriately to designate one-way traffic for each driveway
(refer to Attachment #1) . A signing and striping plan shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final
plat approval.
7. The plat shall be revised to show the appropriate side lot 1
and front and rear utility easements prior to final approval.
8. The final plat shall be revised to reflect the additional '
roadway easements for the widening of State Highway 5 if
MnDOT forwards to the City written confirmation that addi-
tional easements are required. '
9. The applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the ease-
-" ment agreement between the fee title owner of Outlot C and
the proposed lot .
Attachments I
1. Traffic Diagram.
I
77.777 -,
I ,,
I
, • .
.
I
7 - \`‘ \ .,,
,
4
./
I , „
..- -.___V:
., t.a.•
. '•, 00 .
/
/
.7 \
._.—,
II z
\ \
t tp
4510 li,
4
i 4d• CI"d0 l ...
CP 0. -0
,4> v, 0 ,
3 4, 0 d...,xl„.
--, 0 is. ■,,s, 6
10 cs, v>i, 1, '■0
0
■.0 'SI' S
-8- =_
Y, til I,
41
— .
. ....
il
...,
i Y
i
II
.
. \
>. >3
, 7/
,ek
.
...---______,,
$10e%
I
.
,
,
11 ' < , iii '
1 ;in
, •
1...
. .
I \ - \ 1 I 11 ,m.
\ \
\ 1
I i ' r.
, III I,
,
:
irk \
,
,ILL,
I \ i.:,)
.t.
-4, \
,
;
: .
,
,
, Z
0 1=
,,..1
›,.. 0 I :
\
v, \.
,...
i .
cc .
\ .,„.., \ •
,
\
igi
u.,
\ -..,.,
:
1
ve
\ • ; .,
>.. ,a.
. I 01
.:c it)
cc
III
7.,
i
i
0 0.0 1 Z
I\ ,
\ I,
ti 4
6_ ; C.) i ,
CC
,.1
\ .
... 77.‘ i <
I i I 1 Xi d.inr
r
\ Vie
. >.•
CC .,
I \
,
.
\ \
',
,-".--\ I■•
Z
i OMNI:Pied 3 Hal
s \ \
.... w
,,
....._ _ __ _ ...___.........._
\
,
1 1
\ ,• . .
1 ,...i ' :;:. ..._
t.,-,---- ----.-. ,
\ _
\
I \
, -•■
1 l• ""t,-,9: i • r--1
\ ,
1 cci 1 - -.. —0 I
I L".1 : 0 I .„.,‘-‘s: 1> Is-14
I
÷
01 , X I )'N-4'
.
CC
_.....„,....- ----"--- .------- i
LL. I
CL < I ' 4) 7‘)
cc ,
,
II • A
I
: I-. i
i
, -.4,-
4t.
I Ijf_
' \------ - --------
.:.
. , I -.%'-
I
. ,---- J._ —91 i ....
--...... . - ...e e%
City of Chanhassen 410 I
Carver and Hennepin Counties , Minnesota
In the matter of Chanhassen Planning Case : 84-5 Site Plan Review i
Owner: Roman Roos/Ed Dunn Applicant:same
Street Address : P.I .N. . II
Legal Description : Lot 3, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park I
Purpose: lb allow the construction of a 15,158 sq. ft. office/warehouse
I
building. _
Zoning District: P-4, Planned Industrial Development II
The above entitled matter was heard before the Planing Commission
on December 12, 1984 and up for final
action before the Chanhassen City Council one nber 17, 1984
The City Council ordered that a site plan
(Trot-) be granted based upon the documentation contained in II
Planning File 84-5 Site Plan .
With the following conditions: I
1. The applicant must submit detail of proposed lighting fixtures, signage, and
trash enclosures. II 2. That the northeastern perimeter of the property be landscaped with fast growing
evergreens interspersed with similar species used on the east side of the
property.
3. That all permanent parking areas be lined with concrete curbing.
II
4. That the applicant must meet City and Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District
requirements.
5. That the existing conifers to the north of the proposed building must be
II
preserved.
State of Minnesota) II)ss
Carver County )
I, Barbara Dacy City Planner for the City of Chanhassen,
II
do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing with the
original record thereof , and have found the same to be a correct
and true summary thereof .
II
Witness my hand and official seal of Chanhassen, Minnesota, this
10th day of January , 1985.
II
/‘:. ....., c .-allettal■-■
/ Chanhassen City •lanner I
NOTE :
400111111" II
ta- 1
• Council Meeting Decl2 r 17 , 1984 -5-
Wayne Fransdal - If I would get access to Chaska Road , I would certainly consider
' it.
Acting Mayor Gevinq - If you straightened out the lot lines for "8" all the way to
I the back like you did with "C" you would cut down a lot of the metes and bounds
' description. You live on lot "A"?
' Wayne Fransdal - That is correct.
Councilwoman Swenson - The point that I am making is I am looking at what's going to
happen in the future. We are talking now about whether we are going to allow this
as a metes and bounds or whether we are going to require lots. We have a problem in
either case because "C" is definitely against our ordinances. You are not supposed
to have a lot that is twice the depth of the width .
Barb Dacy - That's only provided for in the R-la District so in this case it would
not apply.
Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the subdivision of Lots 27 and 28 , Murray Hill
Addition. The applicant is required to place such in plat format. Motion seconded
by Acting Mayor Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving and
Councilwoman Watson. Councilman Horn and Councilwoman Swenson voted no. Motion
failed.
Councilman Horn moved to approve the metes and bounds subdivision of Lots 27 and 28 ,
Murray Hill Addition as proposed . Motion died for lack of a second.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the subdivision of Lots 27 and 28, Murray Hill
I Addition provided the applicant extend Lot "B" to the westerly lot line and plat
the property as recommended by the City Manager. Motion seconded by Councilwoman
Watson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson
and Watson. Councilman Horn voted no. Motion carried.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PARK COURT PLAZA , CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK :
Barb Dacy - The property is located in Chanhassen Lakes Business Park at the end of
Park Court and the applicant is proposing a 15 ,158 square foot warehouse and office
complex. It appears that the proposed site plan meets the requirements of the P4
District and we have some minor recommendations such as, applicant , before the
issuance of a building permit, submit in detail the proposed signage, lighting loca-
tion and the access and screening details of the trash enclosures. We also have
made some landscaping recommendations , for example, that the existing conifers be
preserved for screening from the highway and that there be low, maybe three or four
foot high , vegetation between the lot line and the parking area. Finally , concrete
curbing except in those areas that intend to be expanded and as usual , the watershed
district requirements will have to be met and any City drainage requirements that
have been identified in the City Engineer's memo.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the 15 ,158 square foot office/warehouse
building, Park Court Plaza , Roman Roos applicant , subject to the following
conditions:
1 . The applicant must submit detail of proposed lighting features, signage, and
trash enclosures.
2 . That the northeastern perimeter of the property be landscaped with fast growing
evergreens interspersed with similar species used on the east side of the pro-
perty.
' 3 . That all permanent parking areas be lined with concrete curbing.
4. That the applicant must meet City and Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District
requirements.
j Meeting December 171119.4 ® -6- 1
That the existing conifers to the north of the proposed building must be pre-
served.
Notion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor
Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried. '
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RESIGNATION AND APPOINTMENT: Councilman Horn moved
to accept Richie Hemping's resignation and direct the City Manager to prepare a
letter under Council signature. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The
following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilman Horn, Councilwomen
Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried .
Acting Mayor Geving moved to accept the Park and Recreation Commission recommen-
dation and appoint Wallace McKay to serve for a three year term. Motion seconded by
Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilman
Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Lori Sietsema was directed to send a letter to Mr. McKay acknowledging his
appointment.
TRANSFERS AND CLOSINGS OF PARK FUND MONIES:
RESOLUTION #84-66: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption of a resolution
authorizing the closing and transfer of certain funds. Resolution seconded by
Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving,
Councilman Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion '
carried.
POSITION CLASSIFICATION PLAN, 1985 BUDGETARY MODIFICATIONS: Councilwoman Watson
moved to accept the position classification plan for 1985 as presented on this date
including the comments of the City Manager in his memorandum of December 17, 1984,
regarding the Treasurer position. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The
following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilman Horn, Councilwomen Watson
and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried.
COUNCIL PACKET DELIVERY: Councilwoman Watson asked that Council packets be deli-
vered on Friday evening.
REVIEW BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ON TH 169: The City Engineer presented MnDOT plans for
reconstruction of a bridge on Trunk Highway 169 . No action was taken.
Councilman Horn moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The
following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving , Councilman Horn , Councilwomen I
Swenson and Watson. No negative votes. Motion carried .
Don Ashworth
City Manager
1
ti 0 0 r_r__
II City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE 3 LOTS, 108 PIONEER TRAIL, DAVID HANSEN.
) Y Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table this item until th
Cep' a' next regularly scheduled Council meeting on September 22, 1986 pursuant to the
1 OO La David Hansen's request. All voted in favor and motion carried.
TE PLAN REVIE
W FORA 64,391 SQUARE FOOT MINI-WAREHOUSE FACILITY, LOTS 1 AND
rl 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LSR PROPERTIES. •
u 7&' Barbara Dacy: The site is located in the southwest corner of TH 5 and Park
v.1�` Drive. As you recall, about a year ago the most interior lot was considered
by the Council for a site plan review for an industrial building. However,
since then the plans have fallen through and the applicants are proposing the
mini-warehouse storage facility. The proposal contains 64,000 square feet.
What is being proposed is the buildings and the storage units are forming a
perimeter around the site and containing additional storage in the site. A
24 hour security room is also proposed in the corner and there will be a
security gate at the entrance off of Park Court. The proposed hours range
between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. As you all may surmise, because of the
visibility of this particular lot, the City is very concerned about the
appearance from the major entrance into our community. The applicant has
proposed landscaping along the perimeter of the lot, especially along the north
side adjacent to TH 5. Staff is recommending and the Planning Commission also
approved installation of additional landscaping. Also, what is being done on
the north side is that the rear of those units or the wall, what will be seen
is approximately a 4 foot wall with cut-outs along the way. You can see those
i_ on the plans that you have in your packets to break up the expanse a little as
well as the landscaping will aid to that effect. Since the Planning
Commission meeting, the Manager and the applicant met to discuss this whole
visibility issue. We are satisified that you will not be able to see the
center of the site from TH 5. An extensive stand of mature vegetation in the
northwest corner of the site will also aid in screening of the proposed
development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan
subject to the four conditions in the Staff Report. All bituminous surfaces
must be lined with concrete curb, installation of additional landscaping,
II compliance with the Watershed District's requirements, installation of proper
erosion control measures and the Commission added a fifth condition which
requires that no outside storage be permitted which would protrude from the
site so that you would be able to see it from adjacent streets and properties.
Their intent being that if storage is to occur on site, fine but it should not
be visible from adjacent streets and properties. With that, I know that
the applicants are here.
IICouncilwoman Watson said her big concern was the apperance from TH 5 and
that
seemed to be addressed with the landscaping. The only other question was what
11 material was to be used in the wall. Mark Senn stated that it would be either
rock base brick or red brick.
Councilwoman Watson also stated the fact that someone had brought up the fact
1111 that Chanhassen means Sugar Maple in Indian and did the applicant plan on
using any Sugar Maple Trees in their landscaping. Nick Ruehl, Architect
,_. representing LSR Properties, stated they were looking into doing research on
I
7
iltl-
II
f '
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
the hardiness of the Sugar Maple Tree in being so close to a major road to see
where an appropriate place to put the Sugar Maple Trees and it would be no
problem to accomodate the planting of Sugar Maple Trees.
Councilwoman Watson stated that she did not want any outside storage. Mark
Senn stated that there would be no outside storage, that the plan is not
designed for outside storage and they do not intend to have any. Barbara Dacy
•
stated that outside storage is a permitted accessory use in an Industrial
District and that is where that particular use of the land is allowed.
Councilman Geving asked if the Staff had done any calculations on the density
of the green space. Barbara Dacy stated that the site was below the 70% so
that was not an issue.
Councilman Geving stated that he wanted to see the landscaping p g r equirements
for plantings every 80 feet be reduced to every 25 feet to be in conformance
with the east side and the south side. The applicants stated they had no --
problem with that. Councilman Geving stated he was interested in the City
Engineer's comments and that everything seemed to be in order as far as
utilities, drainage, streets. The only concern the City Engineer brought to
the attention of the City Council was potential for widening of TH 5 and what
that might do to, not the project because the buiding will be in place, but
when it happens the frontage of TH 5 will move close to the building and the
rest of the road could be shoved further to the north. Otherwise, he liked
the plan and thought Chanhassen needed it and was all for it.
!!Mayor Hamilton stated that he was surprised when he saw a storage facility
like this being proposed for the industrial park. In his mind it didn't seem
to fit there and he was not real pLeased in seeing it there. He understands
it is one of the permitted uses but at the same time it is not one of the uses
he was looking for in an industrial park. Mayor Hamilton also stated that he
absolutely did not want any outside storage. '
Mayor Hamilton stated that in such a facility there is the possibility of
hazardous materials being brought in and stored in these garages. Mayor
Hamilton was thinking particularly of the incident that happened about a year
ago when a car blew up from explosives that were stored in the car. He asked
what is to prevent the same type of individual from storing explosives in a
garage facility similar to this and having an accident where someone could be
injured again. Mark Senn stated that they can and do control that for
insurance and other purposes. They will not allow the storage of hazardous
materials in this facility. There will be a 24 hour a day caretaker at the
facility. When something goes into these storage units, the caretaker will be
there. Mayor Hamilton asked if he inspected everything that goes into
storage. Mark Senn stated that was the purpose for security purposes and part
of security, as far as they are con:erncd, is what is going into storage.
They do not want anything hazardous cloinl into there. That is not to say that
someone might not put a fishing boat in :►nd there might be a little gas left
in the motor or something like that. There will be a statement in their I
rental materials and brochures which putt a requirement on the applicant to
drain that stuff to any kind of minimal level before storage. The other thing
is that the buildings are constructed totally of non-combustible materials.
Cil
8
II
224
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
It is a brick building, precast ceiling, steel wall and metal door. There
isn't anything to burn other than the contents confined to that specific unit.
Mayor Hamilton stated that if there was an explosion, it wouldn't be confined
to one unit. Mark Senn stated that it would have to be quite an explosion.
Roman Roos stated that because of the insurance rates that they will have to
be paying, they will be watching very closely for toxic materials that might
be stored. He stated that it would be very hard to check every single box
' that comes in but they would be monitoring the contents as closely as possible
because of the insurance demands it. Mayor Hamilton stated that was his
comment. Unless it is in their lease that every time they bring something in
' that it is going to be looked at. Roman Roos stated there would be a
disclaimer that they would have to sign. Mayor Hamilton stated that a
disclaimer would save LSR from harm but not individuals who might get hurt.
' Roman Roos stated that with the landscaping and the wall being built around
the perimeter of the facility, no one would be able to see garage doors or
anything from TH 5. Mayor Hamilton stated that there was a big difference
between Victory Envelope or any other large industrial buildings and it is not
just the visual. When you drive by and see Victory Envelope you know there
are hundreds of people working in there. When you drive by and see your
' facility, there is one employee. Mayor Hamilton said we are talking about an
industrial site, prime land, right in the heart of the best locations of the
whole industrial park and you have one person working there. Roman Roos
stated the project provided a good tax base.
Councilwoman Watson stated she didn't see anything about signage. Barbara
Dacy stated that from her understanding, the applicants will propose one sign
' for the property. Mark Senn stated it would be located out by the TH 5 side.
They hadn't decided on which end of the building it would be located.
Councilwoman Watson stated she didn't want a big red and white sign stamped on
the side of the building. Barbara Dacy stated that the sign ordinance will
give them the right to install a wall sign or a pylon sign.
Councilman Horn stated that he was excited to hear there was going to be
' another building in the industrial park and he shared Mayor Hamilton's
disappointment in this type of facility in that location. He understands that
it is an approved type of use and there isn't much that can be done to deny it
' but he is not terribly excited about this type of facility at this location.
Back in the corner is a better location in his mind.
Councilman Geving wanted to clarify condition 5 which states that no outside
' storage is permitted which would protrude above the wall. He thought what was
trying to be said was that they did not favor any outside storage at all.
Mayor Hamilton stated that, as Barbara Dacy stated, outside storage is a
permitted use so that would be a restriction if there were any outside
storage.
I Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Site
Plan #85-7 on the Site Plan stamped "Received July 23, 1986" for a 64,391
square foot Mini-Warehouse Facility on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park, subject to the following conditions:
9
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
,
II ® .. . ..•
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
I ;
1. All bituminous surfaces not bounded by structures shall be lined with
concrete curb.
I , 2. The developer shall place, at minimum, three more pine trees along
the north lot line adjacent to TH 5.
II:: 3. Compliance with all of the Watershed District's regulations on new
•
construction.
1, 4. Erosion control shall be installed along the east, south and construction limits and conform with City standards for Type ype 1 and 2
west
as noted on Exhibit A.
I` 5. No outside storage is permitted which would protrude above the wall
and would be visible from adjacent streets.
All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed.PP The motion carried.
1 Mayor Hamilton: I'm opposed because I think it is not a proper use of the
land.
1 CONSIDER FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE TO WEST 65TH
STREET/CRESTVIEW DRIVE.
1 Bill Monk: Several months ago the City Council approved preparation of a
feasibility study for sanitary sewer extension to 65th Street and Crestview
Drive based on information provided by Staff and residents in the area about
II inoperable and failing septic systems and that approval was based on
submission of a petition. The petition was submitted by a number of residents
and in reviewing it, I made the determination that they represented
approximately 35% of the homeowners in the area so the feasibility study was
1 finally put together. I'm a little bit slow in getting it complete. Council
has the study before them at this point and a copy was sent to all of the
resident or effected property owners along the proposed route of the sewer who
II would be proposed to be assessed. Although this is not a public hearing,
because of my involvement in this project, I did invite the residents in to
discuss this item with the Council if they so choose tonight so a full
discussion could take place before the public hearing. My intent is not to
I gumble the process but again, with the circumstances of my being here only for
a few more days, I figured this was the best way to get a full discussion on
the item. What I would like to do is just run through the major portions of
1 the report and answer questions, go over potential costs.
General sites involved ate West 65th Street and Crestview Drive, both west of
County Road 117. My initial thought with this project was to service these
1 areas which are outside of the existing Municipal Urban Service Area, that they
would not be servicable by gravity sewer and that a lift station would have to
be placed in the approximate location of the lowest service point in the area
1 which would be at the Crestview Drive/CR 117 intersection and then pump to the
north to an existing sanitary sewer further north on CR 117. In looking at
6
the proposal a little bit closer, had a site survey done, a very quick one but
I
10
11
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II -
Planning Commission Meeting
October 5 , 1988 - Page 8
l
1. No additional alteration to the pond shall be permitted and no
additional fill material is permitted within the wetland area .
2. The wetland area surrounding the pond shall remain in it' s natural
state.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli : Steve, did you want to include that as a condition? You just
wanted to make a note for the staff?
Emmings : Yes , it ' s just a suggestion. I don ' t want it to be a condition.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ROME DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES
BUSINESS PARK, ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (1450 PARK
ICOURT) :
A. SUBDIVISION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2 INTO , TWO PARCELS OF 2. 25 ACRES AND 1. 36
ACRES.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6 ,700 SQUARE FOOT STATE LICENSED
DAY CARE CENTER.
Public Present :
Roman Roos - Applicant
' Jerome and Linda Carlson
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Roman Roos: Roman Roos from the Rome Corporation. A couple weeks ago we
came before the Planning Commission with a zoning text amendment to allow
a free standing day care within the IOP. As of last week we had the first
reading and approval on that so this evening we ' re here to continue that
process . It is actually a two part process . One will be the replat to
allow a site for the proposed day care center and the second would be the
site plan approval . This evening we have Jerome Carlson and Linda Carlson
here. The day care center is going to be used by the employees of Instant
Webb, United Mailings and Victory Envelope and Linda Carlson has been
working with the architect to prepare the overall structure and the use of
that structure for the employees of those companies . I think this evening
I 've got behind me a map showing the Lot 1, 2 and 3 of the original
business park. What we ' re doing in essence, we have Lot 2 in the orange.
Lot 1 and Lot 3. Back in 1984 , I built this building down here. At that
point in time it was my intent and probably noted to Council that we would
eventually put in something in the better portion of this lot. When I _put, -
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 5, 1988 - Page 9
r
II
together this project, we needed approximately the 4 acres to do that. Well
knew this would. . .the plan so this evening what I 'm trying to do is to put
these two parcels together and make them one new lot with this
configuration. That' s about 2.25 acres densely wooded. . .and we think an
ideal site for the type of use. . . To address a couple of the issues on
this replat, at the present time I 've got 3.8 acres on this parcel. As a
matter of fact , . . .creating this new parcel . We' re -about 72% building i
structure, impervious surface on this site so about 2% off. According to
City Ordinances, it has to meet a certain percent. We would have to make
some adjustments there. Possibly a line shift or possibly I 'm going to
II
address the _Council that we have to the property line .the ..7.0%%. We also
have a fence along the green way to the property line and a main road
along with TH 5. So whether that' s a real critical thing or not, I think II
it's easy to address. If we have to shift the line .we' ll do it. I 'd -.
prefer not to do that so we can maintain. . . The other issue I think is
our replat. The size of the parcels and the frontage of the cul-de-sac
and _frontage to TH 5, I think we' re meeting all those requirements . If
II
this replat is recommended for approval of Council , 'then we' ll want to
come back to you with and show you the site plan. I ' ll kind of walk
through that and then I 'd like to maybe. . . I
f Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I
Erhart: Is the applicant agreeing to add the 40 feet of additional
right-of-way to TH 5 if it' s required? Were you willing to add the
II
additional 40 feet of right-of-way, if that ' s required , to show it on. . .
Roman Roos: When we get into the site plan review I can show you where II
that exactly is. That' s right now. . . I don' t know if I should be
addressing the site plan concurrent with this or not. If you want to
just address this issue now and go through the site plan. . .
Erhart: We' re talking about the site plan now. II
Emmings : No . We ' re looking at the replat . I
Erhart: I 'm sorry, the replat. I was just wondering, why wouldn't we add
that as one of the conditions? II
Olsen : MnDot hasn' t formally requested it yet. When I spoke with them
last week on Friday, the person I was talking to was going to talk to the
upper echelon of MnDot to determine whether or not they did want to
acquire right-of-way at this time. They didn ' t have the amount of footage II
of additional right-of-way that was necessary determined yet .
Erhart: That never stops us for asking for additional right-of-way along ,
Pioneer Trail or TH 101 or anyplace else? _ ,w
Olsen: I asked them and explained to them that this was a plat and if 11
they could request additional right-of-way. . . That' s where we left the
issue kind of open. . .to get it onto the final plat . - -
Planning Commission Meeting
IIOctober 5, 1988 - Page 10
r
Erhart :r art : If you take 40 feet off there Roman, what does that do to your
lot size? If you take 40 feet off the northern line that was included in
the lot size.
Roman Roos : Tim, we' ve allowed for that. We' ve put in the extra
' footage. . . The only thing it might infringe upon, and that's not known at
this point in time but we' re back 50 some foot from our property line. . .a
portion of the road extend into that area, that is not a problem but if
MnDot does require that, we can shift that portion. . . I guess an easy way
to show you right now, coming from our property line to this point here,
we come into the building 50 foot so we know, we feel very sure that we' re
clear of what MnDot wants to require in terms of excess land. This
portion right here is the playground and it does extend past the 50 foot
mark into that zone somewhat but until we know from MnDot what is
required , we' ll have to adjust our playground accordingly if it is a
problem. We feel a few years down the stream, . . . to shift that
playground , we feel is a very, very minor problem. . .
' Erhart: I guess this TH 5 improvement is a pretty certain thing.
Roman Roos : I 'm sure i.t i.s .
IIErhart : I wouldn ' t want to see us have to go back and undo something .
Roman Roos : Tim, I think I 'm probably going to lose the first row of the
mini- storage when that happens but yes , I 'm quite cognizant of that and I
don' t, as far as this project, we ' ve allowed for that and I don ' t see any
problems whatsoever . Much like a project that you looked at prior , across
I from the mini-storage on the opposite side is a 25,000 square foot
building . That also was covered with the same type. . .
Erhart: That' s my question.
' Emmings : I don ' t have anything . I think it ' s a reasonable thing to do.
' Batzli : I had a question, the cross easements . Why would we be doing it
on the replatting rather than the conditional use? For parking?
Olsen: Why wouldn' t we?
Batzli : Yes . Why don ' t we have that on the plat rather than on a
conditional use permit?
Olsen : As far as the site plan for the conditional use permit , we can put
it on both.
Batzli : But if this gets built and later the conditional use goes away,
aren ' t we going to have a problem?
' Olsen : It will always be recorded . It will be part of the conditional
use permit.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 5, 1988 - Page 11
II
P
Batzli : So it won' t be recorded contingent upon the conditional use? II
Olsen: If he wants it to have parking on a separate
g separate parcel , he has to
provide that easement .
Batzli : Okay. That was my only question .
Conrad : I don' t have a question. Only thing , Roman I want the 70% ,
impervious surface. You' ve got to get that somehow.
Roman Roos : I think Ladd we can work that quite easily. I don' t want to I
go for a variance. That process is open to me but I think we can. . . The
reason I say. . . Ladd is that 20 foot easement, which Larry' s aware of,
we' re going to have to somehow over here significantly. . . That' s 10 foot II
' on this property line and 10 foot on that property line. So we' ll have to
shift 10 foot to gain the extra 2% and I don' t think we' ll have a problem
because. . . Whether it' s serviced on this side or that side, it' s kind of II
a blending issue because of the green space from the western part of this .
building in that direction. So it' s a technicality and I don ' t think it' s
hard to address and get an answer to. I
Batzli : But if you have to do that , aren ' t you squeezing your building
further down?
II- Roman Roos : I don ' t think so on the setback. We' ve got 10 foot on this
7 t s
side line and 10 foot on this side. The average shift is 10 foot. I
guess the bottom line, if I have to go back to the City and say I 'd like
to have a zero lot line side yard setback for this particular project and
only this project , it does make sense . I 'd rather stay away from the
variance process. If I can logically persuade Council along with Planning
Commission to go this direction knowing that we have this additional 10 ,
15, 40 foot of greenway already tied to that, it ' s skirting the fine lines
if you go back in terms of what was the intent of that ordinance . The
intent in terms of green space. In terms of zoning ordinances, no we'd be
shorter than 2% . I think there ' s a reasonable solution. I guess I 'm
looking towards the Planning Commission for their recommendation. I would
really like to hold this line as it is for the two reasons that I 've
already stated. I don' t really want to shift the lot lines 10 foot or 6 II
or 8 , whatever requires to get to that extra 2% . With the amount of land ,
I guess one of the things that I hurried by is that on this particular
site , we be granted a variance . We' d like to stay with the variance
procedure and since it's. . . I 'm really open. Worse case scenario, I 'd
shift . . . 2% is about, on that site is roughly 2, 000 square foot . . .
Conrad : Roman says. ha' s- .open..- I- think wa-oan make our motion. - . - -
Emmings: If he' s open, have i4__-j,n_ thane as a__condit_i.on it--he caq_Li.nd _aM,.,.
way to work that out with .staff between...-no-w and the Caunci-.1.,.-.
Conrad: I guess we' re not going to tell you how to do it . I think we
want you to do it . How it works . . . , _ - I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 5, 1988 - Page 12
IEmmi.ngs moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #88-22 as shown on the preliminary plat
stamped "Received September 29 , 1988" and subject to the following
conditions:
1. An amended preliminary plat shall be submitted for City Council
approval which maintains a maximum of 70% impervious surface on
Parcel A.
• 2. The plat shall be revised to show a 20 foot wide utility easement
centered on the existing 10 inch diameter watermain which traverses
Lot 2, Block 1. This easement shall be extended between Park Court
and State Highway 5.
11 3. The plat shall be revised to show the appropriate side lot and front
and rear utility easements prior to final approval .
4 . The final plat shall be revised to reflect the additional roadway
easements for the widening of State Highway 5 if MnDot forwards to the
City written confirmation that additional easements are required .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 6 , 700 SQUARE FOOT STATE LICENSED DAY
CARE CENTER.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
Conrad: Before we open this up for public hearing, does anybody have any
significant concerns with this particular permit? I 'm just trying to ,
Roman probably wants to talk to us for 20 minutes here. If we ' ve got some
concerns , I want• to make sure that we give him time . Otherwise , I 'm going
to provide him with some direction to do this fast, if we can.
Anything? Okay, we' ll open it up for public hearing . Roman why don ' t you
take us through kind of quickly. I 'm sorry to do that to you and I 'm not
trying to play this down but I think, I 'm also saying that we orobably
like what we' re seeing.
Roman Roos : It ' s just a 6 , 600 square foot building for the employees
of. . . The building itself, we feel we' ve addressed the parking issue .
We' ve got expansion capability here and possibility here . . . The entry is
I qui.te. . . if you ' re coming i.n . . . identi.fy the project , if you will . The
traffic flow which was narrowly addressed . . . , will be minimal because it ' s
traffic coining in, dropping the children off and back up and drive out to
the Park Court area . The playground, the issue of not . . .MnDot , we think
we ' ve addressed that issue in excess of what MnDot ' s going to require. It
will be about 65 from the center line of the road . We ' re at 50 foot from
the property which is way in excess of that so I think we won' t have a
problem. Jo Ann will have that answer very shortly when she gets back to
MnDot . The playground, if we encroach upon that area , we can shift that
area at that point in time. . . short of that , the landscapin , we ' re
I