5. L1B2 Arboretum Business Park 2nd Request for Site Plan ;pp
CITY 0 F PC DATE: June 3, 1998
ClIAIIIIIISSEN
CC DATE: June 22, 1998
CASE #: Site Plan #98-l 1
_ = By: Generous:v
STAFF REPORT
4
PROPOSAL: Request for Site Plan Approval for a 52,956 sq. ft. office/warehouse building, On
the Level -
r LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition, located east of Hwy_ 41 just
Z a north of Coulter Boulevard
V APPLICANT: Design I of Edina, Ltd. On the Level, Inc.
J 9973 Valley View Road 110 Choctaw Circle
(L. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Q. 903-9299 701-6517
Q
5
ti
�rc -
3- PRESENT ZONING: PUD
ACREAGE: 4.45 acres - 4.
INTENSITY: 0.27 F.A.R -3.
ADJACENT ZONING f>
AND LAND USE: N - PUD, vacant
S - PUD, Coulter Boulevard, proposed All About Lights
E - PUD, vacant
Q W- Highway 41, A2, Landscape Arboretum
Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to site as part of Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition;
1
W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Site is being graded for development as part of subdivision.. The
south end of the building will be approximately 20 feet below
Highway 41 until it is upgraded.
.* 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial
-,
■
• 7 anal \'''g
?cr s�1�__1
a
- . Sri\ .� _ .ui . o� a
lif
•
1-1Pocean • �� :
Oa °
f411 Duct
a
s I-
_ Minnesota
g Landacape
_�J Arboretum
'_: . euar
J t i
tip— ,c
LOCATION z; dg�j
Co It- Bo' '12. A
...ot.W1,k4.- Z:.i.„.,_
Coulter Blvd. co
,Arboretum I C
a Park % �,
>.
i.
ra m
�
2`T� u
W 82nd St L-� I
/
� ,
o . v
tsitt
•
.�i Stoi
-i i n
E•
ms,
> .
m� line. W
1i
•
I
, I tirin, ..
1 Lyman B4i.�
, O o li
o ( J
! co N
8700 11 ��
3 /'
I ,/
�'
O O O O O O O 8800 �I _
U) ci' rn O O O N I r .-
rn r') rn rrnn ram.) COn (N {1•_
r; y 1 - ';f
- % I J-
1
On the Level, Inc.
June 3, 1998
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
This building is similar in appearance to the All About Lights building proposed to the south.
Staff treated this site plan proposal and the previous proposal as twin sentinels for Coulter
Boulevard which create a sense of place and entrance into the development. The applicant is
proposing a 52,956 square foot"L" shaped office/warehouse/showroom building with 293 feet
of wall area on Highway 41 and 261 feet of wall area on Coulter Boulevard on 4.45 acres. The
maximum building height is 28 feet. The majority of the building, visible from public right-of-
ways, is 23 feet high. Entrance features rise an additional two feet above the parapet wall. In
addition, entrance features project out from the building approximately five feet and the building
entrance is recessed into the building and further detailed through the use of columns and arches
above the doorway. The loading dock areas are located on the northeast side of the building
shielded from Coulter Boulevard and Highway 41. Staff is recommending that the applicant
construct an earth berm to help screen the loading docks from Trunk Highway 5 corridor.
Although the Trunk Highway 5 corridor is approximately 1,000 feet to the north,the building
configuration and elevation exposes the loading docks to Trunk Highway 5 and an earth berm
with landscaping would help break the building mass.
Building materials include concrete masonry unit(CMU) in rock face (rough and dull) and
burnished(smooth and polished) textures. The applicant proposes the use of three block sizes: 8
inch by 8 inch, 16 inch by 16 inch, and 8 inch by 16 inch. The primary finish color is tan with an
accent color of beige.
The development design standards state that all walls shall be given added architectural interest
through building design or appropriate landscaping. The buildings shall have varied and
interesting detailing. Staff is recommending that the developer incorporate additional
architectural details of the western building elevation on others sides of the building to provide
visual relief in views from public streets. Specifically, staff is recommending that each outside
corner of the building shall use rock face 16 x 16 inch CMU-1.
As required by the development design standards,all roof mounted equipment shall be screened
from public view by walls of compatible appearing material or camouflaged to blend into the
building or background. Wood screen fences are prohibited. The applicant has not provided
details about the location, size,or parapet height above roof for the city to review to analyze the
screening of such equipment. We are hereby notifying the applicant of the screening
requirement.
This site was identified as Lot 1, Block 4 of the Arboretum Business Park PUD Plan. Building
size was estimated at 57,199 square feet. Site coverage is approximately 65 percent. Up to 70
percent site coverage is permitted. The permitted uses of the property included office,
On the Level, Inc.
June 3, 1998
Page 3
warehouse, industrial or utility services. Showroom space as an ancillary use is limited to 20
percent of the building floor area.
Until Highway 41 is upgraded, the roadway will be approximately 20 feet above the proposed
finished floor elevation at the south end of the building and Coulter Boulevard will remain a
temporary cul-de-sac.
Staff is recommending approval of site plan#98-11 subject to the conditions of the staff report.
BACKGROUND
On May 11, 1998, the City Council approved a site plan for a 50,400 square foot building as one
of two office-industrial-warehouse buildings or one building up to 113,600 square feet.
On July 28, 1997, the City Council approved the following: the ordinance for PUD#92-6
rezoning approximately 154 acres from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development,
PUD, and the PUD#92-6 granting final plat approval for Arboretum Business Park.
On June 9, 1997, the City Council approved site plan#97-6 for Heartland America, a 101,600
square foot office industrial building on Lot 3, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Arboretum Business
Park (attached).
GRADING
On May 13, 1998, City Council approved final plat and grading, drainage, and erosion control
plan for Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition. This development falls within that proposed
grading operation. It appears the proposed grading plan corresponds with the approved grading
plan for Arboretum Business Park 2"d Addition. The proposed first floor elevation will be
situated approximately level with Coulter Boulevard on the east side of the lot and up to four feet
below Coulter Boulevard on the west side of the lot. In the northeasterly corner of the site
adjacent the loading docks, a large flat area is proposed. Staff is recommending that the
applicant construct an earth berm to help screen the loading docks from Trunk Highway 5
corridor. Although the Trunk Highway 5 corridor is approximately 1,000 feet to the north, the
building configuration and elevation exposes the loading docks to Trunk Highway 5 and an earth
berm with landscaping would help break the building mass.
On the Level, Inc.
June 3, 1998
Page 4
DRAINAGE
In conjunction with the City's public improvement project no. 97-1 D, a stormwater drainage
system will be constructed within Coulter Boulevard to convey this site's stormwater runoff into
existing stormwater ponds within the subdivision for pretreatment prior to discharging into
wetlands. The applicant's engineer needs to supply detailed storm drainage calculations and
drainage area maps for the individual catch basins. The calculations shall be based on a 10-year,
24-hour storm event. The calculations and drainage map shall be submitted to staff for review
and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Depending on storm sewer calculations,
additional catch basins may be required throughout the parking lot to adequately address
stormwater runoff from the site.
UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is proposed to be extended to the site from Coulter
Boulevard in conjunction with the City's public improvement project no. 97-1D later this
summer. Individual sewer and water services will be extended to the property line for future
extension by the applicant. Connection to the city's utility improvements along Coulter
Boulevard will not be permitted until the city's utility lines have been tested and accepted by the
City; All of the utilities proposed will be constructed and privately owned and maintained by the
property owner and not the City, therefore, detailed construction plans will not be required.
However, a utility plan sheet will be required with the building permit application. All utilities
shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates and/or State plumbing codes. The applicant and/or contractor will be responsible
for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's Building
Department.
This property will be assessed for the sewer,water, and street improvements under City project
97-1 D, however, according to city ordinance, the property may also be subject to additional
sewer and water hook up charges at time of building permit issuance. Sewer and water hook up
charges are determined based on the number of sewer availability charges (SAC units)which are
determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services upon building plan review. The
applicant and/or the contractor applying for the building permit will be responsible for the
additional sanitary sewer and water hook up charges over and above what is proposed to be
assessed with the City's public improvement project. The 1998 hook up charges for sanitary
sewer and water are$1,216.00 and$1,584.00, respectively per unit.
STREETS/PARKING LOTS
The City's public improvement project no. 97-ID will be constructing Coulter Boulevard west of
Century Boulevard and terminate at a temporary cul-de-sac near the southwest corner of the site.
On the Level, Inc.
June 3, 1998
Page 5
Eventually, Coulter Boulevard will be extended(with a right-in-right-out only) to Trunk
Highway 41 with the future upgrading of Trunk Highway 41. The timing for the improvements
to Trunk Highway 41 has not been determined, therefore, Coulter Boulevard may remain a cul-
de-sac for quite some time.
Without the City's public improvement no. 97-1D, the site plan should be considered premature
since there will be inadequate utility and street improvements to accommodate this development.
Also, the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition has not been recorded yet.
Approval of the final plat for Phase II is also contingent upon the City awarding the bid for
project no. 97-1 D.
The drive aisle widths throughout the project appear to be in conformance with city code. Staff
is recommending industrial driveway aprons be constructed at all access points on to the city
streets. Depending on timing, the City's public improvement project may incorporate the
applicant's curb cut with the City's project. The City has a standard detail plate(No. 5207)
which should be utilized at all access points.
In conjunction with the City's street improvement project no. 97-1D,a 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk is proposed along the south side of Coulter Boulevard. In an effort to promote
pedestrian traffic, the applicant's site plan should be modified to incorporate a sidewalk system
out to Coulter Boulevard at a location to be determined by staff and applicant's engineer.
EROSION CONTROL
The plans propose erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances and protection
for catch basins until the parking lot has been paved. Since the downstream adjacent properties
are undeveloped or basically in agricultural use, there is relatively no need to provide silt fence
around the perimeter of the site.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping requirements for the development include parking lot landscaping and buffer yard
plantings. The applicant meets the landscaping requirement for amount of landscape area. In the
northeasterly corner of the site adjacent the loading docks,a large flat area is proposed. Staff is
recommending that the applicant construct an earth berm to help screen the loading docks from
Trunk Highway 5 corridor. Although the Trunk Highway 5 corridor is approximately 1,000 feet
to the north, the building configuration and elevation exposes the loading docks to Trunk
Highway 5 and an earth berm with landscaping would help break the building mass.
On the Level, Inc.
June 3, 1998
Page 6
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE
Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A
decorative, shoe box fixture(high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole
shall be used for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Any wall mounted lighting shall
be shielded from direct off-site view. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than %2 candle at
the property line.
All freestanding signs be limited to one monument sign per street frontage. Signs must be a
minimum of 10 feet from the property line and must be located outside drainage and utility
easements. The sign shall not exceed eighty(80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than
eight(8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect
the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material
throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. Wall
sign shall be permitted per city ordinance for industrial office park site. All signs shall require a
separate sign permit.
MISCELLANEOUS
Accessibility. The Uniform Building Code Table A-1 1-A requires 5 accessible parking spaces be
provided when 101-150 parking stalls are constructed. The number of accessible spaces proposed
on the Site Plan is shown incorrectly. One van accessible space is required for every eight
accessible spaces. CABO/ASI A 117.1-1992 (C/A)requires a van accessible space to have an eight
foot wide access aisle
Permit requirements. Plans are often bid before the city building code plan review, making
changes necessary for code compliance difficult and expensive to incorporate later. Accordingly, I
would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as
early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements and the code review process.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may
be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
On the Level, Inc.
June 3, 1998
Page 7
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing
areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers,preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: Subject to the revisions contained in the staff report, the proposed site plan is
consistent with all plans and specifications and development design standards for the
Arboretum Business Park Planned Unit Development.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 3, 1998 to review the proposed
development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of site plan
On the Level, Inc.
June 3, 1998
Page 8
98-11, On the Level, subject to the conditions of the staff report with the addition of condition
14. The developer shall incorporate the following architectural detail: 1) each outside corner of
the building shall use rock face 16 x 16 inch CMU-1.
The two items of discussion were the inclusion of additional architectural detailing at all the
outside corners of the building and the requirement of a berm in the northeast corner of the site.
In both instances, the Planning Commission concurred with staff recommendations.
As part of the discussion,the Planning Commission requested clarification of the location of the
sidewalk connection to Coulter Boulevard. The sidewalk along Coulter Boulevard will be
located on the south side of the road. Staff believes that the best location will be from the
southwest corner of the building along the alignment of the southwest driveway to the temporary
cul-de-sac. This location is more accessible to most of the building and is not located adjacent to
a primary trunk entrance.
The Planning Commission also had discussions concerning the interpretation of the PUD design
standards referring to showrooms. The commission felt that discussion was more appropriate in
a different forum. The developer, Gateway Partners,has proposed revised language as part of the
revised Addendum B to the development contract/PUD Agreement that would clarify showroom
space as 20% of the total floor area of the Arboretum Business Park exclusive of commercial
space.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Site Plan#98-11, On the Level, Inc.,plans prepared by Design 1,
dated 4/30/98, on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Arboretum
Business Park.
2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
3. All driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance with the City's industrial
driveway detail plate no. 5207.
On the Level, Inc.
June 3, 1998
Page 9
4. The applicant shall incorporate an earth berm in the northeast corner of the site adjacent to
the truck loading dock area. The berming area shall be up to six feet in height with
landscaping of additional conifers to help to break up the building mass.
5. The City's boulevards must be restored with sod.
6. Site plan approval is contingent upon the City authorizing and awarding of public
improvement project no. 97-1D for Arboretum Business Park 2►,d Addition and recording of
the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition.
7. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance
of a building permit.
8. Connection to the City's utility system shall be prohibited until the city's utility lines have
been tested and accepted by the City. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on
the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The
contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water,and plumbing
permits from the City's building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and
driveways shall be dedicated over the lot.
9. The site plan shall be modified to incorporate sidewalks out to Coulter Boulevard at a
location to be determined by the applicant and staff.
10. Revise the parking on the Site Plan to comply with the building code.
11. Meet with the Inspections Division plan reviewer as soon as possible after approval to begin the
building code plan review process.
12. Refer to the Utility plan. A post indicator valve must be added to the 8 inch water main
going into the building. NFPA 13 1991 Section 4-5.1.1.7.
13. The post indicator must have tamper protection which is connected to the sprinkler system
monitoring. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy#40-1995.
14. The developer shall incorporate the following architectural detail: 1) each outside
corner of the building shall use rock face 16 x 16 inch CMU-1."
On the Level, Inc.
June 3, 1998
Page 10
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application.
2. Building Finishes.
3. Reduced Site Plan
4. Reduced Floor Plan.
5. Reduced Building Elevation.
6. Reduced Landscaping Plan.
7. Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards
8. Memo from Greg Hayes to Robert Generous dated 5/20/98.
9. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 5/22/98.
10. Memo from David Hempel to Bob Generous dated 5/22/98.
11. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List.
12. Planning Commission Minutes of 6/3/98.
_
t I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
ON THE LEVEL-, INC.,
APPLICANT: DCSICaN 1 o LTD OWNER: CH21S 11--IOMP50►J
ADDRESS: 9°I73 VAS-LEY VEELJ RD ADDRESS: I10 CL-I.00TAW C12.
PRA.I Rl E ,M r\1 55 344 G�orl NA i, M NI 5 53 17
TELEPHONE (Day time) °I03-929q TELEPHONE: 701 - C4) 17
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development* — Zoning Appeal
Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review Notification Sign j 5O
X Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
SD .�t ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes f,
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$ Ko.clt)
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE-When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME QN1 1 -4 t= l e V t=L
LOCATION N.E. Cor2Np2 Of MN HWY 4I AN0 COULTQ2 Ir/D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1 E5Locc< 1
TOTAL ACREAGE 4.45 l
WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NO
PRESENT ZONING P up
REQUESTED ZONING PC-1-0
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION DPF C-i:/ tJD U-97721 sk
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION 0 FFT ce- Ai Ott ST A(--
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title,Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extensi.n for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
- -nsions a . . b •- applicant.
,�( iAt ,_ 5- / n '9'8
Sig ..(Arire of •• .plir+ / Date
r . /Lil. I '' • ssJ V? o'IL J74/1'n r 1 (I- ("- g
igna ure o Fee Owner , 42,rNh_ rc' cimcul4 64--24 1 Date
Application Received on . 'f Fee Paid t -X0 Receipt No. )
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
ON THE LEVEL
FINISHES
CLEAR GLAZING
ANODIZED METAL FINISH ON FRAMES TO MATCH CMU COLOR#1, (BEIGE)
CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT, (CMU) TO BE TWO TEXTURE FINISHES:
ROCK FACE
BURNISHED
CMU TO BE IN THREE SIZES:
8"X8"
16"X 16"
8"X 16"
CMU COLOR#1: BEIGE
CMU COLOR#2 TAN
METALS TO BE FINISHED TO MATCH CMU COLOR#2, (TAN)
is \1PR0JECT\chanow\ot1\0TL Al Fri May 01 12: 22: 58 1998
n m T
eto*A100
ill'i:$ L" II
x3.: ? .4 m
1' 5R .. $F R y
10'
dII1i
N B Qo
11
i ,
Y c x' m B
fin .,
i
ii 8q i I Srettg:? IA nag ii OZ
"R0i TRi$2y >g Ail( IR
% s. Til il..1. - F:7. .g 1— 11 lit A
WV
N 3 3-A m t
m o ti
>wSH
7- 1
L� _,_ I 5.ir,r a .w.,e'
b ��° c=. 1 I LE//c :i
iI ' ih
g 1 I \ I I
c 1- m� 9 1 I
1 — ere W.;—I-4---I----' • I— t_ I _
Z i y.v r•e I \ i
1 I
I —oti
- ,. .. : La x I — {
i-
€ � € Z �i 4 9. 1 (�O I I a
AI $ i IQ :J a-4--- ial ---�� -�f----_L of 1 q
I I, - 11 _ I €i I I¢ , 1I 111
m i 4�I I ,•e ...> : i _
A I it I I= I IiT11I I
9g
=e -I 1 --t -1----1ri----I-----1- 1
; `t lig I — i 4 4
ii A =�. ' -•' ''tea'- •. Ql IL_
°'0 Z` I' ‘ I I I I 1 I I It.„b I I I I I Zr I I I I I I a\
Ai
A - b 1 11 IIIIIIIII 4 - - - '
§3 ' 7; a ,Pa [ .\ _ _
,,a e. o_i. NORTH \ \ "� - - - - - _ ------ - II
. .y4 wP S � eve J-- -Is._d ————— G.or.rir�a,�.— _ — _f 1^I
."I fit
�. +o w "ALTER TOrgL pL/Ke yoe "-`m' +1= —
E " f . �! a eeL.�oe�7UlEVARD
',p M!!T COMren. NEW FAGLITY FOR w''' .. .w....
> ON THE LEVEL,INC.iN DESIGN . ='
'i I @ SITE PLAN -. ▪7▪ ---""'
H y q DnU SUMuaRIEs ON THE LEVEL INCO ® `-'
- CODE REVIEW• AABORETUMBUSINESS PARR Er Once in Cyetran Nonrr w - ..r`
VICINITY MAP dW*{ASSEN.MINNESOTA �,^��) �_
E: \1PROJECT\chanow\otl\OTL A2A Thu Apr 30 14: 21: 45 1998
13'4' 1
I i I
' Y -_ET a .
I I It.
Y sglz
I I
44 ROME oolr6c.6a :..-51-
I l -~a•1
'. -_�i—- -—-I-—-—r ! .. !'D�: � �'D-� 7a•D- I� -D- ]•.- I 1 4)
O .— 1
z. I I 2 a.DR I D,1'OR a , I w OR I
rt. I I i I i I I
e I I �~ i I I
i i I i
er
p ----•---1--•—._1.__-_I'1 ---1---- -.-.L.—•— ---- - -
..
I: i : ►' g X 1 1I 1 ( I 11 1
- -, I I # I f I i
I i I I I
o '�o I I 1 I I
o .".4 I } 7 �' + 1 1 I
I I I I I I I I
Ye 12b' 12'0• 12'0- 12'0- .. 9 in.76 '-
rI I�Y I6'� 2a'� I D}I I%.D•I�- i b� 2ab' I '' I xa'o• t' 'i� ' a
}2'D• WV 62'D- , 32'0' 32'D• ' 32'D- , 32'0' # WO'
261'•
U O O • O O O O
\ 1
aa NEW ME Mai au�eu
e q ON THE LEVEL INC D LII@ % ~ -.. -
,, .
yy A OREII>I IIU PARK E.er..,dam... �-- ......lauar
6r�1��11
rs.=
: \1PROJECT\DSGN1\AAL6OTL\OTL\OTL A3
0
0 Egl .
rn o t 0 IIIi O w o
Iro o 4p r 1 i / a
0 A -
z z k
I. ! _
____-
z
III r -— ,, :c _ --� o
n� rn . 4
Lj 1� D -_1 1 _-•_ -
I
T_. Ill
rn #f, . 1 1
0
110 [1: F
a A
z O _ i �_®
D ,,
_ „, .
...
= C• -.I. :
N In III 2.
I.
® Q
a 1utiffn8 1 . > ..... -
_ ;rn
IN
Ill z ®
z Loll 6rn
o
1.
I N .4\; •
L I t)1
IN)
El 1 1 1 .:
11
111.1 El_
LI—
CS
II
n —
�, 2 a
' 1 Y
RI ii n
i N freer co"resa. NEW FACILITY FOR: ON THE LEVEL,INC.
ELEVATIONS n s o ® o ® DESIGN Ls,
¢� . ..___ .
q ON THE LEVEL
I
J • ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK Enflamisn Cuscoss ACM
• CNANNASSEN,MINNESOTA orw�.wrm o+
J: \lproject\dsgn1\LNDSCP\otl_11 Fri May 01 12: 27: 23 1998
_ i M3TIT E ..6.4'
I
j Yam+!`
I. . i f
t�.i., a� ys ,' 18
Ilid 1 ,'-ia
M 411, -P:i -,, .,:g.J i it 1 E. ,.-r..74 it
cf."'
AW
41,1+ .�i, tiI g • \ I, , .. NOMTN 1 1
I 1 4106 4 1 . . ,,, -
i ' \-
\ICY ! ,-,
°-
f.•IY' ,: € E - y ��I
• - is 1 . '
4�� � i �' 9 , c j C
II
.9,V
111
Ai t'i kr MI.I 1,,,, • ,, tip [ ' .-lia ..-f,
y NR.K CUR
° a
01
g g ° ° u a 6 r . 8 tl b 6 U S 0 ° u;I
E ! '. t+ F. ,`,/ilvs it,' w §15'' u u py i"
s I,. C I
5 $^'g E gi" q S i g s s z-m
WiklifiPlii4iiiii
• a S — °Q ' 1 g7",iq Q" 1- 1 cI 1z3 t S ii
I. d
a € i d•q3gF3 d 1" ;11 ! q t ii q14 '
ifaliie 4 1 ( 1 ai ( ii i$ li !' Yiigl i! IllZ1 giY!
.° c i s i E „ a a • F 11
es fliflhtliliii
Oy aZI1 • 1 Iu1 '
1 a
iljIi• ri $ !; 1 u s s
Y < B eg
i- f. LP-1.1f ii g .% vi ti
1 ?3 carnal, NEW FACILITY FOR ON THE LEVEL,INC. ^—w^;^-°�
C-''Y I LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 e o e o e-1 DESIGN T'
-, q�u LANDSCAPE DETAILS ON THE LEVELExcelling Ge�Ho� "''"``
6--. o ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK I"
CMANHASSEN•MINNESOTA °..�.r.�,. wE'•�'-`� .-. rrr-_
/1- t//Z 1/C !
A--pax-,1417 g/2.5/cr/
EXHIBIT C
ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
Development Standards
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone is
to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive
proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development
shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. Photo-
composite images of proposed development adjacent to Highways 5 and 41 shall be submitted as
part of the review process. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality
of architectural standards and site design. Ancillary uses may be permitted as listed below if they
are ancillary to a principal use on the individual lot. Commercial/retail uses are prohibited
except those uses specifically noted below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial,warehousing,and office as
defined below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to
whether or not a use meets the definition,the City Council shall make that interpretation. Permitted
uses shall be allowed on the different Blocks and Lots for which they are specified below. The
Blocks and Lots specified below are those designated on the attached PUD plan. The Block and
Lot designations in final plats approved for phases of development may differ from those specified
below. However,the permitted uses shall continue to be those specified below for the Lots
identified in the PUD plan.
•Light Industrial- The manufacturing,compounding,processing,assembling,packaging, or testing
of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure,with no outside
storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise,vibration,
smoke,dust or pollutants. (Lots 3,4, and 5,Block 1;Lot 1,Block 2;Lots 1, 2, 3,and 5,Block 4;
and the Wrase property)
Warehousing- Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property. (Lots 3, 4,
and 5, Block 1; and Lots 1,2, 3, and 5,Block 4)
Office-Professional and business office. (Lots 1,2,3,4,and 5,Blockl;Lot 1,Block 2; Lot 1,
Block 3; Lotsl,2, 3,4, and 5,Block 4; and the Wrase property)
Health Services- establishments primarily engaged in furnishing medical, surgical and other
health services to persons. (Lots 1 and 2,Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4)
1
Conferences/Convention Center -establishments designed to accommodate people in assembly,
providing conference and meeting services to individuals, groups, and organizations. (Lot 5,
Block 4)
Indoor Recreation/Health Club-establishments engaged in operating reducing and other health
clubs, spas, and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fitness conditioning. (Lot
1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4)
Hotel/Motel-establishments engaged in furnishing lodging, or lodging and meals, to the general
public. (Lot 1,Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4)
Utility Services - Water towers and reservoir. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1: Lots 1, 2, and 3. Block
4; and the Wrase property)
Commercial uses (permitted on lots specified as commercial in development standards
tabulation box)
1. Restaurant, permitted on Lot 1, Block 3 or Lot 4, Block 4. (One stand alone restaurant.)
2. Convenience store with or without gas pumps, not to exceed 12,000 square feet, on Lot 1 or
2, Block 1, only. (One convenience store.)
3. Banks, with or without drive up windows (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4,
Block 4)
4. Day Care- establishments providing for the care and supervision of infants and children on a
daily basis. (Lots 1 and 2,Block 1; Lot 1,Block 3; and Lot 4,Block 4)
Ancillary Uses (in conjunction with and integral to a primary use)
1. Fast Food(no drive-through and only in conjunction with and integral to a convenience
store).
2. Restaurant (only in conjunction with hotel/motel or convention/conference center).
3. Showroom- showroom type display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided
that no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales.
4. Telecommunication Towers and Antennas by conditional use permit only.
5. Car wash, in conjunction with convenience store.
6. Day Care
Prohibited uses
• Contractors Yard
• Lumber Yard
, .F
• Home Improvement/Building Supply ( /"t ` ` = '� . l`?' "�'``` a
• Garden Center
• Auto related including sales and repair
• Home furnishings and equipment stores
2
• General Merchandise Store
c. Setbacks
The development is regulated by the Highway 5 and the PUD Standards. There are no minimum
requirements for setbacks on interior lot lines in the PUD zone. The following setbacks shall apply:
Street Frontage Minimum Setback Maximum Setback
Building/Parking Building/Parking
Hwys. 5 &41 70/50 150*
Coulter&Century 50/20 100
Boulevards
82"d & West Local 30/20 NA
*Lot 5, Block 4,must only meet the maximum setback on one Highway frontage.
The average hard surface coverage does not include Outlots A and B. The PUD standard for
hard surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses. Any one site/lot can exceed the 70
percent requirement but in no case can the entire finished development exceed 70 percent.
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
1. Building Area
LOT/USE ACRES Building Size/FAR PARKING
(s i uare feet)
Right-of-way. . 2 .•2_ - - ... .tee 1.•
TH 41 /dedication:- •z
8211 Street Dedication 1.80
Interior Roadwa 10.54
Part:IantltOpen space . •g _,
Qutlot A&B)
U.land 16.6 30
Wetland 28.7
Ponds 3.01
�..,.._
•.ustrial (30% • ,. r. :�:'a
Lot 3, Block 1 10.02 131,006 262
Lot 4, Block 1 5.45 71,218 142
Lot 5, Block 1 4.41 57,688 115
Lot 1, Block 4 4.38 57,199 114
Lot 2,Block 4 5.40 70,597 141
Lot 3, Block 4 8.98 117,371 235
Lot 1, Block 2 12.23 159,822 320
3
Lot 5. Block 4 23.20 (.4 FAR) 404,279 (3/1000) 1,213
Wrase 2.64 3530b 68
Commercial 1.4 59 r 15 F R J 30 FAR_ -71
Lot 1,Block 1 1.80 11,746/23,520 5/1000 59
Lot 2,Blockl 2.32 15,180/30,320 4/1000)61
Lot 4,Block 4 Office/Hotel 4.06 26,536/53,060 5/1000 133
Lotl,Block 3 6.41 (.10FAR)27937/ (16/1000)447
Restaurant/Office 83,770
- -.
TOTAL w ' ,1�I ) f`f
- ..
•
'95,350.
Commercial sites may develop as office-industrial uses. Square footage for individual lots
may be reallocated within the development, by type, provided the maximum square footage
is not exceeded.
Building Square Footage Breakdown
Office 31% 368,000/(432,000)
Light Industrial 31% 368,000/(432,000)
Warehouse 31% 368,000/(432,000)
Commercial 7% 81,000/(0)
Total 100% 1,186,000/(1,295,000)
*includes the Wrase property. () represents conversion of commercial uses to office-
industrial uses
2. More than one(1)principal structure may be placed on one (1) platted lot.
3. Building height shall be limited to 3 stories or 40 feet.
4. Lot 5,Block 4, is intended to accommodate a major corporate headquarters or office,
research,high end manufacturing with limited warehousing type user. While the majority
of the development is based on 30 percent office space,Lot 5 must have a minimum of 40
percent office use and include multi-story building(s).
e. Building Materials and Design
4
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material
compatible to the building.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color
shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted cinder block.
3. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
4. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
5. Concrete may be poured in place,tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured,
coated,or painted .
6. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials
or curtain wall on office components or, as trim or as HVAC screen.
7. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
8. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material or
camouflaged to blend into the building or background. Wood screen fences are prohibited.
All exterior process machinery,tanks, etc.,are to be fully screened by compatible materials.
9. The use of large unadorned,pre-stressed concrete panels and concrete block shall be
prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate
and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through
building design or appropriate landscaping. The buildings shall have varied and interesting
detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall
unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color,
fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in
keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be
prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate
and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through
building design or appropriate landscaping.
10. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures or within an
enclosure for each lot developed in the Business Center.
11 Each buildings shall contain one or more pitched roof elements depending on scale and
type of building, or other architectural treatments such as towers, arches, vaults, entryway
projections, canopies and detailing to add additional interest and articulation to structures.
12. There shall be no underdeveloped sides of buildings visible from public right-of-ways.
All elevations visible from the street shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual
qualities.
5
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
1. Landscaping along Highways 41 and 5 shall comply with Buffer yard standard C. Coulter
Boulevard, Century Boulevard,and West 82nd Street shall comply with Buffer yard standard
B. The master landscape plan for the Arboretum Business Park(formerly Gateway) PUD
shall be the design guide for all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must
present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process.
2. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan
review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or
landscaping.
3. Undulating or angular berms or elevation changes of 3' in height shall be placed along
Coulter Boulevard, and Century Boulevard. The berms shall be sodded or seeded at the
conclusion of each project Phase grading and utility construction. The required buffer
landscaping may be installed incrementally,but it shall be required where it is deemed
necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be
sodded.
4. Loading areas shall be screened 100 percent year round from public right-of-ways. Wing
walls may be required where deemed appropriate.
g. Signage
1. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty(80)
square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight(8) feet in height. The sign
treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the
development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the
development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review.
2. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign per street frontage.
3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be
introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size,materials, and heights.
5. The Arboretum Business Park PUD shall be permitted two Arboretum Business Park
identification signs. One sign per project entrance, at West 82nd and Century Boulevard
and at Highway 41 and the westerly roadway,shall be permitted. Said sign shall not
exceed 80 square feet in sign area nor be greater than eight feet in height.
6. Wall sign shall be permitted per city ordinance for industrial office park site.
6
7. All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
8. In addition to the two signs identified in g. 5. above, signage for the main entrance on
Highway 5 and Century Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
h. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development. The street lights should be designed consistent with the existing lighting
along the existing Coulter Boulevard.
2. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps)with a square
ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be
used in the private areas.
4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2
candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
i. Alternative Access
1. Each site shall accommodate transit service within the individual development whenever
possible.
2. Pedestrian access shall be provided from each site to the public sidewalk and trail system.
3. The developer and site users shall promote and encourage Traffic Demand Management
Strategies.
4. Each site shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage.
7
• a
m u N Cl) c
. v
W
w
IiH
oy $ a �jU Uti V Z (n M
zri: zu< Q 1 " = Z Z
co▪ co v•
co Tr r r a u . ,1 N
I- a }- Qiga
a Q a 0 ww 0C/, 0
1- F- o } . D. I- CO� ° tee .
Ed 1 * 3:* CC
! I R i`rr kk tey4' V.X ryk r3:-4. ts 11 ° •r L f 7 O .+y ` . ..y� F lv• lfrr +vr i
ji _ti•Ir •�1�LT2}:". r,r *y�.x'9A.-.S�GFE- ..i`•i, 7_ev.,i. `r In_�.la• ' `• '�; t
1 • * :J ▪ .r=
i i ( �:. 1 sS `s�r{p rr.. #;xa a' .. fAy ,,•,,,,,,, r� .0.e. 'w.,
it
iR fii f 1 .'f_tt. 3 a ..
,
•:sty •• . .2 : Li v: \x K • -: •'• t� .,..••.�••�.•..,N.. .J
J .rre" t
te
` _ ;
1 - : `?IIr ' ! •�.•1 k��-1 �.:. Ma ,,,.....10III O
,E' I i. • \ 1 li I.• '• .: :u ;rl•.S [; - - Ili
J ®:.._ •O o
cQ/}�t IA�_ ). I!1'! 1'���/' '/f! •/ V, ', I.li',:•'� !! ram`'` ®�illi, Q
!I',if _i `j: �!'l;' i'i• , 't i N y :%<..r/,If ' J ` M�II
' ::-/r .4:' ::-.1-1° 04"::N.'12..'' •.11--:i. ."-'.....:r.
lif
t: •-''Cr"':0: ▪ ' OI� O.`N-!:•,: �� .mot:c /; - • : �: .
i is i -- N.• ▪ --:...•. V:., r r ! • • ::'4' .Ili
\ . .
r i .--, . 41 11,0 „---. --s,.,1"'"..,-..,1 (1.----rf'52,0"-P t-, ' l;[
144
\ ' '; - -=^ __ _Q7': /0� .0 a, Sri .O • 1-
co) .
,,
ist
.. !
�'! `F .r ;� 1 _▪ `D � _E. I ' • a . • •.Ls;;-� ff..- i - 1— _ I.
= FWD --- I-. �-•— / � J r c, '/1.
OCJCCWZ ; /W Q.
a z -3j'4
LIjoc rs _ w l
� ? o � = o w CIN - = w v a o W °� � , w
to W p � QpQp W Z �' CO = N u, N ? N r0 ` : � W
F- LL ZOW z Lu F- H m H O I'LQ( W 1 H t 1m,z Uu. Z
0 U. = a c " 00 ° a = =� -r0Qua. 4 < U. =,
LIJ
-I -I 3 = LL = J0 mCOU
z O
0
U
1101
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
City Center Drive,PO Box 14-
1anba_sen,Minnesota 55317 MEMORANDUM
Phone 612.9371900 TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
General Fax 612.937..5739
igineering Fax 612.9379152 FROM: Greg Hayes, Fire Inspector/Training Coordinator
%lie SafT!'Fax 612.9.34.52
..,b ueu'uei.,llanllassen.nin.us DATE: May 20, 1998
SUBJECT: Request for site plan approval for 52,956 square foot
office/warehouse building on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park Second
Addition on property zoned PUD and located east of Highway 41 just north of
Coulter Boulevard,On the Level, Inc., Design I of Edina, LTD.
1 have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire
code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the
available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are
submitted,the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed.
1. Refer to the Utility plan. A post indicator valve must be added to the 8 inch
water main going into the building. NFPA 13 1991 Section 4-5.1.1.7.
2. The post indicator must have tamper protection which is connected to the
sprinkler system monitoring. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division Policy#40-1995.
If you have any comments, please call me at ext.262.
GH/be
g:\safety\gh\onthelevel
,City of Chanhassen.A growing co,triunity h:!h e fan label.!!nalit; c1unnnigdowntown,thriving bust*nesse.,an bi`au;1!u1p4ar1';.Ag;tarp!,, to lire. 7.:( h.and pl,a',:
1011
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN MEMORANDUM
690 City Center Drive,PO Bar 1 -
TO: Bob Generous,Senior Planner
Chanhassen,,Minnesota 55317
FROM: Steve A.Kirchman,Building Official v-'C"\—
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax 612.937.5739 DATE: May 22, 1998
Engineering Fax 612.93 7915 2
Public&fen'Fax 612.93.3.2 2Y SUBJECT: 98-11 SPR(On The Level,Inc.,Design 1 of Edina,Ltd.)
11°b www.ci.c141,114/5sen.inn.ils
u.i;.cba,th,nsen.inn.r:c
I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped"CITY of CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAY
0 2 19 9 8 , CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEFT.- for the above referenced project.
Analysis:
Accessibility. The Uniform Building Code Table A-11-A requires 5 accessible parking spaces be
provided when 101-150 parking stalls are constructed.The number of accessible spaces proposed
on the Site Plan is shown incorrectly.One van accessible space is required for every eight
accessible spaces.CABO/ASI All 7.1-1992(C/A)requires a van accessible space to have an
eight foot wide access aisle
Permit requirements. Plans are often bid before the city building code plan review,making
changes necessary for code compliance difficult and expensive to incorporate later. Accordingly,
I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them
as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements and the code review
process..
Recommendations:
The following conditions should be included with the conditions of approval:
1. Revise the parking on the Site Plan to comply with the building code.
2. Meet with the Inspections Division plan reviewer as soon as possible after approval to begin
the building code plan review process.
g:'safetysak`memos'plan`,AIAblte I
The City of Chanhassen.A gron jug commnrrnity with clean lakes,quality schools,a chaining downtown,thriving businesses,and beautild parks.A great place to lire, work,and
CITY OF MEMORANDUM
CHANHASSEN TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner
tCity Center Drive,PO Box 147 FROM: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ! ;`,.
7,.anhassen,Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937 1900 DATE: May 22, 1998
General Fax 612.937.5739
agineering Fax 612.937.9152 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for On The Level - Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum
blic Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Business Park 2"d Addition - Land Use Review File No. 98-15
-`eb wwuci.chanhassen.mn.us
Upon review of the drawings prepared Design One dated April 30, 1998, and the civil
drawings prepared by Schoell &Madson dated April, 1998, I offer the following
comments and recommendations:
GRADING
On May 13, 1998, City Council approved final plat and grading,drainage, and erosion
control plan for Arboretum Business Park 2"d Addition. This development falls within
that proposed grading operation. It appears the proposed grading plan corresponds
with the approved grading plan for Arboretum Business Park 2"d Addition. The
proposed first floor elevation will be situated approximately level with Coulter
Boulevard on the east side of the lot and up to four feet below Coulter Boulevard on
the west side of the lot. In the northeasterly corner of the site adjacent the loading
docks, a large flat area is proposed. Staff is recommending the applicant construct an
earth berm to help screen the loading docks from Trunk Highway 5 corridor.
Although the Trunk Highway 5 corridor is approximately 1,000 feet to the north
however, the building configuration and elevation exposes the loading docks to Trunk
Highway 5 and an earth berm with landscaping would help break the building mass.
DRAINAGE
In conjunction with the City's public improvement project no. 97-1D, a stormwater
drainage system will be constructed within Coulter Boulevard to convey this site's
stormwater runoff into existing stormwater ponds within the subdivision for
pretreatment prior to discharging into wetlands. The applicant's engineer needs to
supply detailed storm drainage calculations and drainage area maps for the individual
catch basins. The calculations shall be based on a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. The
calculations and drainage map shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior
to issuance of a building permit. Depending on storm sewer calculations, additional
catch basins may be required throughout the parking lot to adequately address
stormwater runoff from the site.
City of Chanhassen.A growing community with clean lakes,quality schools,a charming downtown,thriving businesses,and beautiful parks.Agrear place to lire,work,and pia).
Bob Generous
May 22, 1998
Page 2
UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is proposed to be extended to the site from
Coulter Boulevard in conjunction with the City's public improvement project no. 97-
1D later this summer. Individual sewer and water services will be extended to the
property line for future extension by the applicant. Connection to the city's utility
improvements along Coulter Boulevard will not be permitted until the city's utility
lines have been tested and accepted by the City. All of the utilities proposed will be
constructed and privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the
City, therefore, detailed construction plans will not be required. However,a utility
plan sheet will be required with the building permit application. All utilities shall be
constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates and/or State plumbing codes. The applicant and/or contractor will be
responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the
City's Building Department.
This property will be assessed for the sewer, water, and street improvements under
City project 97-1D, however, according to city ordinance, the property may also be
subject to additional sewer and water hook up charges at time of building permit
issuance. Sewer and water hook up charges are determined based on the number of
sewer availability charges (SAC units) which are determined by the Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services upon building plan review. The applicant and/or the
contractor applying for the building permit will be responsible for the additional
sanitary sewer and water hook up charges over and above what is proposed to be
assessed with the City's public improvement project. The 1998 hook up charges for
sanitary sewer and water are$1,216.00 and$1,584.00, respectively per unit.
STREETS/PARKING LOTS
The City's public improvement project no. 97-1D will be constructing Coulter
Boulevard west of Century Boulevard and terminate at a temporary cul-de-sac near
the southwest corner of the site. Eventually, Coulter Boulevard will be extended (with
a right-in- right-out only) to Trunk Highway 41 with the future upgrading of Trunk
Highway 41. The timing for the improvements to Trunk Highway 41 has not been
determined, therefore, Coulter Boulevard may remain a cul-de-sac for quite some
time.
Without the City's public improvement no. 97-1D, the site plan should be considered
premature since there will be inadequate utility and street improvements to
accommodate this development. Also, the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 2°d
Addition has not been recorded yet. Approval of the final plat for Phase II is also
contingent upon the City awarding the bid for project no. 97-1D.
Bob Generous
May 22, 1998
Page 3
The drive aisle widths throughout the project appear to be in conformance with city
code. Staff is recommending industrial driveway aprons be constructed at all access
points on to the city streets. Depending on timing, the City's public improvement
project may incorporate the applicant's curb cut with the City's project. The City has
a standard detail plate (No. 5207) which should be utilized at all access points.
In conjunction with the City's street improvement project no. 97-1D, a 5-foot wide
concrete sidewalk is proposed along the south side of Coulter Boulevard. In an effort
to promote pedestrian traffic, the applicant's site plan should be modified to
incorporate a sidewalk system out to Coulter Boulevard at in a location to be
determined by staff and applicant's engineer.
EROSION CONTROL
The plans propose erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances and
protection for catch basins until the parking lot has been paved. Since the downstream
adjacent properties are undeveloped or basically in agricultural use, there is relatively
no need to provide silt fence around the perimeter of the site.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance with the City's
industrial driveway detail plate no. 5207.
2. The applicant shall incorporate an earth berm in the northeast corner of the site
adjacent to the truck loading dock area. The berming area shall be up to six
feet in height with landscaping to help to break up the building mass.
3. The City's boulevards must be restored with sod.
4. Site plan approval is contingent upon the City authorizing and awarding of
public improvement project no. 97-1D for Arboretum Business Park 2nd
Addition and recording of the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 2nd
Addition.
5. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for a 10-
year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review
and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. Connection to the City's utility system shall be prohibited until the city's utility
lines have been tested and accepted by the City. The sanitary sewer and water
lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the
property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for
Bob Generous
May 22, 1998
Page 4
obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's
building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and driveways
shall be dedicated over the lot.
7. The site plan shall be modified to incorporate sidewalks out to Coulter
Boulevard at a location to be determined by the applicant and staff.
jms
c: Anita Benson, City Engineer
\'cfs1\vo12Neng\dave\pcbn the level.spr.doc
Y
r r
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, June 3, 1998
at 7:00 p.m.
- oulevard
City Hall Council Chambers
690 City Center Drive
U5'
SUBJECT: On The Level Site Plan Coulter Blvd.
APPLICANT: Design 1 of Edina, Ltd. r
�
LOCATION: East of Hwy. 41, s r m
just north of Coulter Blvd. -'
2nd St. _
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, Design 1 of Edina, Ltd., is requesting Site Plan Approval for a 52,956 sq. ft.
office/warehouse building on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition on
property zoned PUD and located east of Hwy. 41 just south of Coulter Boulevard, All
About Lights.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 21, 1998.
THE MINNESOTA LANDSCAPE ARBORETUM
3675 ARBORETUM DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
COEUR TERRA LLP
3610 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101
WAYZATA, MN 55391
CHASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS
3610 SOUTH HIGHWAY 101
WAYZATA, MN 55391
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
EAST OF HWY 41 JUST NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD, ALL ABOUT
LIGHTS.
AND DESIGN 1 OF EDINA, LETD. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A
52,956 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1,
ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 2ND ADDITION,ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND
LOCATED EAST OF HWY. 41 JUST NORTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD,ON THE
LEVEL, INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Carrie & Tom Christensen 8681 Alisa Lane
Chris Thompson 110 Choctaw Circle
Robert Davis 9973 Valley View Road
Thomas Bothun 9973 Valley View Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Any questions from fellow commissioners?
Brooks: I have one. Actually it's kind of a request. In the future can you tell us what these
businesses do because that would help me understand if I'm just looking at offices or if they're
storing lights. Are they making lights? I mean it would just give me a little more background.
In this case do we know, I didn't, All About Lights, and maybe the applicant can tell me or you
can tell me or somebody.
Generous: I can tell you. They, what is it wholesale lights.
Tom Christensen: We sell lights to builders.
Generous: They're only a portion of it. They have approximately 11,000 square feet of the
55,000 square foot building so there will be additional tenants in that and that's why it's office
warehouse showroom space. The limitation on the building site precludes a lot of distribution in
there so you won't have any large warehouse terminal type of congestion. And On the Level is a
building company. Contractors.
Brooks: All right.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman. Tell me what you said about the architectural treatment of the corner.
The 16 x 16 whatever you said didn't make sense.
Generous: Maybe on the elevations. On each of the corners,this...shown an area where they've
used the larger block to help define that corner area. And I just wanted to make sure that they
10
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
continue it on the rest of the corners of the building. On this elevation for the All About Lights,
you don't see the treatment on the northwest corner of the building and that was, I'm
recommending that that be continued around that to give some...to the design.
Joyce: Any other questions?
Burton: A couple questions Bob. These two buildings seem virtually the same and they're right
next to each other and I'm looking at the conditions, the recommendations that you have and
which recommendations that has an item that the other one doesn't have. I'm just wondering on
the first one,number 3 where you talk about the architectural treatment. It's not... Is that
intentional?
Generous: Well they don't have one of the,they don't have the entrance on the north elevation.
Because the second building is L shaped, they have two fronts and so I didn't have to continue
mimicking the entrance treatments. And then of course they don't have the additional windows
on the non frontage elevation so I dropped those two requirements.
Burton: And then the other one was number 6 on the second. Site plan approval contingent
upon the city authorizing and awarding public improvement project and in the first one isn't tied
into that?
Generous: I thought I had it in both.
Hempel: It's number 7.
Burton: Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. I missed it. I've got to read it more carefully.
Aanenson: No, that's good. You're reading it.
Burton: I don't have any other questions or anything.
Joyce: I have a question Bob,just a general question. Now the Gateway is the developer,
correct? Who's the overall developer of this?
Generous: Gateway Partners.
Joyce: Gateway Partners. So this is separate company that's come in to develop this site?
Generous: Yeah, they purchased this lot and they're going to develop the parcel. Or the parcels I
should say.
Joyce: Is that how we're going to do this whole PUD or Gateway is going to parcel this off...
Aanenson: They may. But they still have to meet the same design standards.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Joyce: I was...and I'm not understanding where the sidewalks are here and I'm trying to get the
vision of what's going to be behind these buildings and how we're going to incorporate these
buildings into whatever kind I'm using for pedestrian access... Do you have anything you can
help me out with, that'd be great. Otherwise I'm going to ask the applicant.
Generous: Why don't I have Dave.
Hempel: This site plan is the All About Lights located on Lot 1, Block 2. Just south of Coulter
Boulevard in the cul-de-sac. In conjunction with the city project, we're installing a 6 foot wide
concrete sidewalk on the south side of Coulter Boulevard. The terminus at the cul-de-sac.
That's will tie in further to the east with the north/south street of Coulter Boulevard... Staff has
put in a condition or remark in the staff report about the extension of a sidewalk from the
building down to the future sidewalk... The other site.
Joyce: Dave, wait a second. Now, since we're on this All About Lights. They have the loading
areas here. Is that going to be, is that a street back here? Part of the street or what is that?
Hempel: I can expand on that Mr. Chairman. The intention is for a shared parking and truck
loading facilities in the future with the adjacent parcel. The common curb access swale off of
Coulter Boulevard here. The driveway will also be utilized by the city for maintenance on the
water tower which is proposed directly south of this site.
Joyce: Is this a through street then or...? Does it go through?
Hempel: The drive aisle will go all the way to the south property line... Coulter Boulevard to the
north of the building will be a temporary cul-de-sac...lower trunk highway 41... So essentially
the parcel we have east of here will be the mirror type building.
Joyce: ...docks pointing this way.
Hempel: Correct.
Joyce: Okay.
Hempel: Elevation approximately the same within a couple of feet.
Joyce: Okay. Thanks Dave.
Hempel: The other building that's On the Level, on the north side of Coulter. Coulter Boulevard
is to the south. Again,this is directly across the...from All About Lights. This parcel is...will
have it's own...facilities, driveway. There's a pretty good elevation change as you continue to
the north...10 feet lower than this driveway.
Joyce: How do we connect this site with the rest of the development?
12
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
Hempel: From a pedestrian standpoint?
Joyce: Right.
Hempel: I guess at this point you're going to be crossing Coulter Boulevard in this cul-de-sac.
There's also grade challenges there as well. The east end of the drive aisle...Coulter Boulevard
and continuing to the west towards the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac will actually be 6 to 8 feet
higher than the building...see how pedestrian moves with...
Joyce: I kind of envisioned this project as really being...some campus affect and that kind of
thing. I don't know, it's a concern... Okay, thanks Dave very much. Any other questions for
staff? No? Okay. Would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission please?
Tom Christensen: Good evening. My name is Tom Christensen and 1 reside at 8681 Alisa Lane
in Chanhassen. My business is at 7801 Park Drive in Chanhassen and we have, my wife and I,
Carrie, own All About Lights and we've been in the business for three years here in Chanhassen.
We want to stay here. Before when we first came up with this project, we basically were
thinking of actually leaving because we couldn't find anything. That's why we decided to build
the building and because there weren't any other places that we could go and that's why we came
up with this project. We did a lot of work on designing the project. We wanted to make it look
like a showcase which I think we've done very well at doing so. What I'd like to do is have,
there is a couple of things in here that we would like to have Bob Davis, who is our architect,
address if we could.
Bob Davis: Good evening. My name is Bob Davis. I'm the architect on actually both of the
projects that you're combining this evening. I think we want to back up and take each building a
little bit separate and go through some of the features of it so that, I hear a little bit of confusion I
think from the staff here. Let's take a look at the board that's...can we get the map up on the,
can we focus in on... Okay. This is Coulter Boulevard. Possibly a water tower planned here...
We're talking about the lot here and the lot here. They're across from each other, north and
south. This road, Coulter Boulevard has a cul-de-sac proposed and a future connection of
Highway 41. The comment was made about the back here of this lot is a drive to a southern
point, city access to a water main. Let's go down to this floor plan, the site plan. Okay.
Joyce: This is All About Lights we're talking about?
Bob Davis: All About Lights. Southern property. So Highway 41 will be on the bottom.
Coulter Boulevard is here. Temporary cul-de-sac. This will be the future connection. Highway
41 is proposed to be lowered about 14 feet from where it is now. The building is 55,000 square
feet. This is your Highway 41 frontage. Coulter Boulevard frontage. We're recessing the
building back at two points. There is loading docks at these points. There is a drive in door at
these points. So we're screening to some extent a truck parked in here at the loading dock by the
building extension from Coulter Boulevard. We're then also providing landscaping on the end
here. This is the street connection. This is the common driveway between this property and
future development to the east. And this will be used by the city as a street to get to the water
13
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
tank location over here. Take a look at the elevation. This is the elevation. We've got quite a
long elevation. There are five entrances shown here. We're projecting the entrances out 4 feet on
the side and across them and recessing back in 4 feet and then recessing back in another 4 feet...
These will be quite prominent. 24 foot high height here. 26 foot here. This is higher for a
number of features. It accents where the business is located. This will be the sign band. This
will help screen the, it will screen the roof top air conditioning. The proposed roof top air
conditioning will be behind the parapet... In order to not have a very repetitive pattern, I think
your site plan will show that these window sections that are 12 feet wide are not all the same.
Some are higher than others and where they're lower down, they're filled in with burnish block
so that the pattern of the window shape carries through. The size of the window is different. The
size of the windows also are subtly changed in that the end two panels of these windows are
narrower than the rest of them. So that we have a rhythm, a pattern going here with the windows.
As you go down the row they're not all the same. They change in height and they change in
width. When we get onto the next building you'll see that we come with a different arrangement
and window styles and we think we'll get this variety. The two buildings do have the same color.
They have the same materials. They have a little different patterning with those materials. Let
me go through. We're talking about rough block. What's commonly referred to as rock face
masonry block. And this material also comes in a burnish pattern, which is a brown finish,
which gives you some different color textures again. You can pass these around. And let me
show you some photographs of a building we found that used these colors and these are ones that
are being specified as the color. Can we pick these up? I need to apologize. The color
reproduction that you got...really didn't, they actually may not,they didn't carry through very
well. Hopefully these color photographs will. This will hopefully help you understand the
collection of material. We have two colors of material, a light and a dark which you have in the
sample. We have the standard masonry unit and then we have the larger, 16 x 16 unit which is
referred to in the report. We have rock face and we have burnished. And we have there in the
pattern I'm using a fair amount of dark versus a fair amount of light. And we found a building
that uses the identical colors that we're talking about. We've used quite a different patterning of
this. We're not using the burnish here. We're using the rock face. I think your elevation will
show our selection. Bob, I guess I'd like to clarify what you're asking for on the corners. We're
talking about this large block now. I'm quite comfortable that we've shown two colors, rock face
and burnished in two sizes. And I think we've got a good pattern and...with variation and I'm
comfortable with the way it is. Let's go to your elevation to make sure we understand what
you're asking for.
Generous: Where you have these larger showroom windows,you show that you're using...and
all I said is, is suggesting that you continue it around where you have the window treatments.
Bob Davis: We intend to do that. The burnish block will be continued between all windows. So
the windows read visually, architecturally as a continuous stripe, even though there's a lot of
things going on...
Generous: So this...comes out and the other thing was, to create some type of treatment using
the larger block around the window and I'll let you work out some patterning to that that mimics
this but on a smaller scale.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Bob Davis: Okay. I'd like to suggest an alternate idea but, and then the last one was in reference
to the corner, 16 x 16 large block.
Generous: ...in this corner, I'd just continue it around the building so you have it there, there,
there and there and there...
Bob Davis: Can I offer a compromise? It's intended to be on the corner here on the side of the
windows because we have that modular to work with. I'd like to offer using it on the four
outside corners of the building. It is a fairly expensive system to mesh in with the other block.
You saw...saw and then go back to your pattern. I didn't feel it necessary on the back loading
dock to go through that kind of an expensive detailing from the...and that's kind of where we.
Joyce: Okay, so let's straighten this out then. We're talking about recommendation number 3.
The first item is the outside corners of the building. Is that what we're talking about right now?
Bob Davis: Yes.
Joyce: Okay. The outside corner of the building should be rock face 16 x 16. You're agreeing
with that?
Bob Davis: The four corners of the building.
Joyce: Each outside corner. Isn't there four corners?
Bob Davis: Well there's a lot more because we're talking about...by the loading dock too.
Joyce: Oh, I see what you're saying. So what you're saying, what you would propose is the four
corners, the four major corners of the building. 1, 2, 3, 4. North, east, south, west or however
you want to explain it. And then you're saying you want as much architectural emphasis put on
out by the loading dock. Is that how I'm understanding this?
Bob Davis: Right. I guess it'd be a matter to some extent of where the economics of this go. I
think we've got some real good things going with color and block and texture and in fact if you
look at these, we're using two colors,rock face and burnish and two sizes. We're using 16 x 16,
the standard to make the module and then the 8 x 8 pattern. We've got a lot going. I'm
comfortable that we're doing well. I think you'll be very pleased with the color. I think there's
some good earth tones here.
Joyce: I guess I need to remind you that part of the PUD agreement was that we treat each facade
equally, if I remember correctly as part of the agreement that was reached, performance PUD.
I'm just making that note. Do you have any, are those the only concerns you have is that item
number 3?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Bob Davis: Right. I know the report asks for I think...and the owner is comfortable with that
request. That would be these...
Joyce: Well, on item number 3,just so I'm clear and the rest of my commissioners are clear.
The only issue you have is with those corners. You're okay with the north roadway being
enhanced by the 16 x 16 inch?
Bob Davis: I would rather do that. That is not an entrance. That's a patio area off from the
inside which there's no sidewalk to it. There's no drive in front of it. There's no, there's no
intention that the public would come into that side wall. I prefer to go another way and let the
owner develop that as an outdoor patio showroom for light fixtures. To be accessed from the
inside of the building. And when you go out and there would be a patio.
Joyce: Talking about an outside area?
Bob Davis: Sure.
Tom Christensen: Basically what we're going to do is on the outside of that area,people will be
able to walk out onto the patio and...there is a patio here. What we're going to do is we're going
to have plants,bushes, going all the way around that so there will be landscape...
Joyce: ...come in front of us to do something like that, is that correct or not? ...discussing, it's
not in part of our.
Aanenson: I guess we weren't aware of that so.
Joyce: Yeah. I'm not comfortable in discussing that issue right now.
Aanenson: I guess we would like clarification on exactly what the intent of that. Is it retail
wholesale space. How much is going to be lit up...
Joyce: We're not concerned with that right now.
Bob Davis: I'd like to propose we delete item 3 and let the architectural character be developed
or modified within the guidelines of what we presented. I think we've...
Joyce: Okay, that's something for the commission to consider is item number 3. Is there
anything else that we need to look at?
Burton: On number 3 of item 3, didn't you say though that that's already doing that?
Bob Davis: Well the one item, I think...maybe I didn't clarify my plans... The burnished
block...all the window patterns and the request was and our intention was to carry the burnished
block around the side. This side between the windows. So the face would read the same
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
between windows on both elevations. The intent was, the burnished block would fill in the
window section pattern.
Burton: I'm maybe not getting it. So you are doing item 3 of number 3 then?
Bob Davis: ...
Burton: Recommendation 3 has three items in there and the third item, you're doing it?
Bob Davis: Right.
Burton: So it's not an issue.
Bob Davis: We just wanted to elaborate...
Joyce: Are there any other conditions that you feel uncomfortable with?
Aanenson: ...maybe the best way is to correct it in the plan. Then we know we've got it right.
When you do the final site plan make sure the site plan has that detail on there...
Joyce: ...got lost a little bit there. Do you want to present anything else on this particular site?
Bob Davis: No. I think we're...answer questions on this project.
Joyce: Okay. Does anyone have any questions on All About Lights?
Sidney: Just one question. I was looking on the PUD plan and it looks like there is a spot where
they show a development sign for Arboretum Business Park being placed on the corner of this
particular lot. Is this true? Do you anticipate having a sign on your property? Because if that's
the case, then I think...
Bob Davis: On the development plan?
Sidney: Yes, on the PUD plan.
Bob Davis: My feeling is that probably wouldn't go in until Highway 41 is connected to Coulter.
Sidney: Well I'm still saying, in that case it would interfere with your landscaping. The
landscaping you have...I'm not sure where the placement might be.
Bob Davis: Well I think we can coordinate that with staff and if that's a reality that's going to
happen fairly soon, then some of this landscaping should be moved to some other location.
Sidney: Yes. And I want to see about adding that to condition 4. That to revise the landscaping
plan for the trees and placement of the development sign.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Bob Davis: Okay.
Aanenson: What we can do is check with the underlying developer and see if that's still their
intent. That's a good point but we can resolve that and see if the developer plans on putting a
sign there or not. If they are, then we'll modify the landscaping.
Joyce: Any other questions about All About Lights?
Blackowiak: I have one question. Currently what type of area for floor space do you have for
retail sales over on Park Drive?
Tom Christensen: We really don't do retail sales. We are wholesale only. We don't do retail
sales.
Blackowiak: I've been over there and gone into the showroom and talked about ordering lights
and.
Tom Christensen: Are you remodeling your home?
Blackowiak: Actually it was my mother. She was just looking for a light. So we went into your
showroom. I was just curious...
Tom Christensen: ...we don't cater to retail. We don't advertise to retail. Our business is to
supply to builders. So basically when a person is building a new home they come to us...buy
fixtures for lighting for their home.
Blackowiak: Right. So I as a retail customer could come in and buy fixtures?
Tom Christensen: If you want to, yes. We don't turn them away.
Blackowiak: Okay. So what type of a retail or what type of a showroom floor do you have right
now space wise?
Tom Christensen: 1,800 square feet.
Blackowiak: 1,800, okay. So then, and I guess I might be getting ahead of myself a little bit too
Kate because right now I look at development standards talk about 20%and if this is 11,000,
that's 2,200 square feet of retail, or I don't know. Maybe you don't want to say retail. I don't
know why but.
Generous: Showroom.
Blackowiak: Showroom space. So you're going from 1,800 to 2,200. Would outdoor
showroom space be considered in that too?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Tom Christensen: The outdoor is not, that is not going to be a showroom outside. That is going
to be an area where people can go outside...and at night we can have just basically they can see
what outdoor lights, landscape lighting can do for their landscape.
Blackowiak: Well I'm just kind of worried because you know you've got the 20% restriction and
I'm just wondering how that's divided up. You know if you're going to, if you're considering
outdoor, which it sounds like you are, that that is part of it and again, maybe I'm getting ahead of
myself so.
Joyce: I don't even know how to handle it because...I'm not interested in looking at the outdoor
portion and I guess...what you see is what you get.
Aanenson: But there is still a condition on the showroom part.
Generous: They would be able, as part of this building approximately 11,000 of the total
building can be showroom.
Blackowiak: Okay, so does that limit any one tenant or could one tenant be totally showroom?
Yeah, exactly.
Generous: Conceivably yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. So he could, okay. That's what I was curious about. It was like 20% per
tenant or total.
Generous: The design standards are written for the entire building.
Blackowiak: Okay. And the intent was.
Aanenson: To be not retail. It was supposed to be an industrial park. There were specific
conditions that the Planning Commission and the Council put in that you would be limiting retail
type uses and it was a short list but...
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Joyce: Allyson.
Brooks: I guess now I'm confused. We're not supposed to have retail but we have retail, is that
what you're telling me?
Generous: Not their primary use. They're a wholesaler. Direct to the builder if you will.
Brooks: So we consider that different? Because they're selling to different people.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Generous: Yes.
Brooks: This is why it would be good to have this in the beginning. I guess that's my only
question.
Joyce: Okay, thank you. We can move on to the second...that's On the Level.
Chris Thompson: I'm Chris Thompson from On the Level. I live at 110 Choctaw Circle in
Chanhassen. I've been in business for 13 years. Single family homes. I'll be doing some office
out of this and storage area for my business and be leasing the majority of the space to other
tenants. I think the only question we have is the item regarding the berm on the northeast corner
of the building. We're already, I believe and Dave you might, I think you said 8 feet drop to the
other property. If we add another 6 feet to that,that might be a possible erosion problem and I
don't feel the berm is necessary...trees.
Joyce: Dave, do you want to discuss that item.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. The area of the berm that I was recommending was
back in this triangular section. To try to break up the mass of the building and also some
screening from potentially Highway 5 which will actually be about the same elevation as
Highway 5. It is quite a ways away but if you drive down Highway 5 now, you can see quite a
distance... The area was right back in here...
Joyce: Is there any question about erosion?
Hempel: As the grading plan has it all flat. The slopes are...the property line here. 3:1 slopes
are out here. This whole area is basically flat as proposed in the grading plan. You also bring the
grading back up to lessen the slope... It's just an idea to try and help break up the view from
Trunk Highway 5.
Chris Thompson: It isn't a big issue. The other thing too is, the office complex that would be
going on the adjacent lot would also be blocking that view from Highway 5.
Hempel: They'll be quite a bit lower. ...grading plan for the adjacent site but it is quite a bit
lower. With a large building, 24 feet, it may help screen some of that. We won't know until we
actually see what comes in.
Joyce: Okay?
Chris Thompson: Okay.
Bob Davis: In case you're forgotten, I'm Bob Davis. If you look at it, it's across...Coulter, TH
41 and Highway 5. All About Lights is on this lot. We've now gone across the street to this lot
here. The subject question was berming back here in the corner. It was our understanding that
this lot in the corner was saved for a major client, a large size and that property we anticipated to
20
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
screen this loading dock and we had oriented the loading dock...corner away from TH 41 and
away from Coulter. Let's go then to the floor plan here. To pick up the orientation again.
Coulter,cul-de-sac,Highway 41 and this is the adjacent property to the north. We have...we
have an L shaped building. The loading dock ends back in here so we are protecting it from the
street here...the screening of the loading dock. Here again we're bringing out the building...part
back here. Half of it's screened already from the building side. We're using the same colors.
We're using the same materials. There are some differences in these buildings. We pick up the
elevation... If you look at A3, the building on the... You can see the window pattern is different
than the other building,particularly the corner window has a decorative pattern to it and the, if
you go back to the southern length,you see the end window on each end of the building has a
decorative pattern. You see this window here on the corner has quite a different pattern. These
windows then are the same width but they're a different pattern than the other building. These
windows are lower the backs at the other end of the building on the south elevation. We pick up
a decorative window on each end of the building. The entrances are quite similar in both
buildings. We again use the 8 x 8 and 8 x 16 and 16 x 16 pattern of block. Any other things we
need to pick up? I think some of the elevations were carried over, subject to carry over from the
other building presentation so I think I'll go onto questions then at this point.
Joyce: Okay. Any questions regarding On The Level?
Burton: I have a question for staff actually. It's sort of the same question I asked earlier. Why,
to me, to my untrained eye these two buildings are virtually identical and the one building has
this corner treatment and you suggested...corner treatment on this one you don't. I think that
would be noticeable... I don't know if the intent is to make them look different or if you'd like
them to look the same or why...why you want it on one but not the other.
Joyce: Your intention is to?
Generous: To continue that same condition.
Joyce: Can you help us out here Bob?
Bob Davis: Well our intention is that that pattern would be on this corner, this corner and this
corner. The three street corners. Maybe you can clarify. Are you asking for the other three
corners?
Generous: Yes.
Bob Davis: I have not shown that...intended to put it there.
Generous: That was the, on both of them would be the same idea that you continue every outside
corner.
Bob Davis: Okay. That may be the only difference we have. This is about...area back here but
there's, I think there's about a 14 foot drop in grade from this somewhat flat area down here.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
That was...didn't think he wanted to grade the grade, actually this is on an adjacent property, the
14 feet. Another 6 feet higher adjacent...
Hempel: ...recommending an isolated berm. Undulating berm out in this area in here. A spot
berm. Undulating with landscaping on top of it to try and break up... landscaping here on top of
the berm. Not a continual berm along the whole back corner.
Bob Davis: I think you're saying you're comfortable with that.
Chris Thompson: Correct.
Bob Davis: Now we'll just ask for any questions.
Joyce: Okay. Anything else from anyone? I'll get back to my original question. Have we
decided how we're going to pull a sidewalk out to the boulevard here?
Bob Davis: I don't think we have but I don't think, the condition is we need to do it. The
sidewalk appears to go on the south side of the road. I think we're talking about crossing over
the grass, what would be the boulevard between the curb and the parking with a length to get
across to the sidewalk to the south.
Joyce: Excuse me, are we going to have a sidewalk on both sides of Coulter Boulevard?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman,just one on the south side.
Bob Davis: There's a sidewalk on the west and south side of the building so my suggestion
would be, I think we can agree and accept the language that we need somewhere a link for the
person walking along the sidewalk to cross over the grass area and get to the sidewalk proposed
on the other side of the street. Where that goes I think staff and engineering will work out.
Joyce: Thank you. Okay,thank you very much. Appreciate it,thank you. This is open for a
public hearing. Can I get a motion please to do that please? Items 3 and 4 are open for a public
hearing. Would anyone like to address the Planning Commission at this time on either of the, All
About Lights or On The Level,please step forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close
the public hearing.
Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Joyce: Thank you. Allyson Brooks.
Brooks: Well, I want to say that even though we're sort of debating the retail or retail issue, I do
like the idea of keeping the business in Chanhassen. You know I think we really need to promote
that and respect that. The buildings are okay. In terms of corner treatment where the loading
docks are, I guess I don't, I mean it would be nice but I don't have a big issue with that because
22
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
this is a loading dock area. Other than you know in the future if I could just get the information
on what the businesses are again because of the All About Lights, that would be great. Other
than that, oh the other thing I also was going to say was, Kevin I don't think you're going to get
your campus feel. I don't see it coming your way.
Joyce: I've had a problem with this development...
Brooks: I think it's a pretty straight forward office industrial park. But however, other than the
comments I just made, I don't have any other problems with the project.
Joyce: Thank you. Alison Blackowiak.
Blackowiak: I guess I really don't have much to say. No, nothing I guess.
Joyce: Do you have any problems with, ...contention with All About Lights as far as, well both
of them because... The rock face situation.
Blackowiak: I think that.
Joyce: The suggestion is to have it on the four corners.
Blackowiak: Yeah. I would say, at a minimum on the four corners, and even each outside corner
I don't think would be that much more expensive. You're talking about an 8 x 8 inch block
versus a 16 x 16. I mean the multiples are there. It's not that big a deal to take two 8's on and
put a 16 in so I don't buy the saw in argument really. So I really don't think it would be that
much of a difference. Again, at least at a minimum four corners. Preferably each outside corner.
And the berming. I guess we have to do both don't we. Are we talking about both of these right
away?
Joyce: Yes, we're talking about both. We'll have two motions but yeah.
Blackowiak: Okay. Then I do want to say on the On the Level.
Joyce: I'm sorry. Allyson, did you want to make a comment on the second one at all? Should I
come back to you?
Brooks: Oh, on the berm. I think we should go with the berming idea.
Joyce: I apologize for that.
Brooks: That's fine. I should have...
Joyce: Thank you.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Blackowiak: Yes, I agree. And if we're going to talk about On the Level too, then I agree that
we do need some type of berm undulating from, I realize there might be a difference in elevation
but we don't know when that corporate person will come in so I think in the interim we have to
have a berm there and fully support that.
Joyce: Thank you Alison. Ladd.
Conrad: I have nothing else to add. I do like, for big buildings these are, I like the design. I
think staff report's fine. I think the berming on the second issue makes some sense to me. I like
it. When you take a look at the elevation, the other,the two other street and south elevations are
quite nice and then take a look at the other elevation from the loading dock and I think it's done
nice inside. I think Bob commented on the corners. I have to go with Bob's recommendation on
this unless the applicant can come in and give us a specific reason cost wise why it shouldn't
happen. I think it's a nice touch. I think it will help in some areas that possibly need some help
but other than that, I think it's fine. Both of them...
Joyce: Thank you. Matt.
Burton: On the All About Lights project, I guess the only real issue here that recommendation 3.
And on the first question, I think they've agreed it'd be the treatment on the four corners on the
first item so that doesn't seem to be an issue. The only one that's really an issue is the second
one above the doorway and on the third one they said they're already doing it. On the doorway, I
don't really have a problem if you left it the way it was. Then the only other comment on that
one was I suspect the retail in your showroom issue, I don't really believe is before us so I think,
it seems to me it's more of a showroom but I guess it's not really an issue here. Then on the
second building, the On The Level building. As long as we have the condition about the corners,
and I would limit it to just the three. And on the first one, it mentions the four corners...not the
loading dock corners. And I guess with those items, I was fine with it.
Joyce: And...on both All About Lights and On the Level. You're talking about both buildings
on four corners?
Burton: I think that the On the Level building really needs to have the three.
Joyce: Oh, the three corners. Okay.
Burton: Yeah. And then on the berm issue, I would agree with the staff recommendation of the
berm.
Joyce: LuAnn.
Sidney: Well I like the design of the building. I think that architecturally it is very pleasing for
that type of building. I think it was well designed. I agree with Ladd's comments that I'd like to
have a condition to include all corners in the treatments that Bob is suggesting. The reason I say
that is because for the PUD we have design standards. We're looking for a higher design
24
•
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
standard for these buildings and I think you should at least, as a commission, I'd like to keep the
four corners in this condition to City Council. They might tear it down or might agree with it.
But I do think that it does add more interest to the building and as Bob has recommended in the
staff report. I guess other than that,berming is fine. I agree with the comments about that. I'll
just point out then concern about that sign and then the impact of Highway 41 on any
landscaping that might be coming on the development. I'm not sure when that's going to
happen. It may never happen in my lifetime but it might wipe out all your trees if they start
grading so you might put that into consideration.
Joyce: My comments basically echo most of what the commissioners have said. I don't have a
problem with either project. I will probably suggest that you leave in the condition number 3 and
if you feel strongly against that I'd definitely bring it up to City Council. I agree with Ladd that if
there are some economic factors that you can show that makes sense as to why you shouldn't
have the entire building have the same architectural design...please bring it up to the Council but
I'm comfortable leaving it as a staff recommendation on that. I also agree with Dave. I think we
need a berm in there. I know the view shed. You can see right through almost to Highway 41.
Who knows when the rest of it will be developed. So I'd have to agree with the staff in that
regard too. The only issue that I do have and it's a general issue is, I had a higher expectation for
this development to be perfectly honest with you. I really did. And it's not, I don't see it coming
along. I thought we'd have more sidewalks. It's be more integrated and I just, I don't like the
way it's kind of being piece mealed put together. As a planning commissioner I think we should
have a vision of what this is going to be and I hate to use the term campus feel but I think we're
losing it here. I think we're getting just a bunch of businesses. It's going to be a business park
and that isn't what I bought in on as far as the PUD. I'm just making that statement. That's the
way I feel about it and I'm hoping that other project will come in and we can try to integrate this
development into something that is integrated rather than just pieces of businesses all over and
they're just a business park treatment. So we need two motions here to send this up to City
Council. We'll start with the All About Lights. Please make a motion.
Conrad: I make the motion that Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 98-10,
All About Lights prepared by Design 1 dated 4/30/98 subject to the 14 conditions of the staff
report.
Joyce: Thank you. And a second please.
Blackowiak: I'll second that.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Site Plan #98-10,All About Lights, prepared by Design 1, dated 4/30/98,subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Arboretum
Business Park.
25
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
3. The developer shall incorporate the following architectural details: 1) each outside corner of
the building shall use rock face 16 x 16 inch CMU-1, 2)the north doorway shall be enhanced
through the use of rock face 16 x 16 inch CMU-1 in proportion to the other building
entrances, and 3)burnished 8 x 8 inch CMU-1 shall be used between the showroom windows
on the north end of the building.
4. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to include two overstory trees in each of the
three sodded areas in the rear of the building.
5. All driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance with the City's industrial
driveway detail plate no. 5207.
6. The city's boulevards must be restored with sod.
7. Site plan approval is contingent upon the City authorizing and awarding of public
improvement project no. 97-1D for Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition and recording of
the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition.
8. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance
of a building permit.
9. Connection to the City's utility system shall be prohibited until the city's utility lines have
been tested and accepted by the City. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on
the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The
contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer,water, and plumbing
permits from the City's building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and
driveways shall be dedicated over the lot.
10. The site plan shall be modified to incorporate sidewalks out to Coulter Boulevard at a
location to be determined by the applicant and staff.
11. Refer to Utility plan. A post indicator valve must be added to the 8 inch water main going
into the building. NFPA 13 1991 Section 4-5.1.1.7.
12. The post indicator must have tamper protection which is connected to the sprinkler system
monitoring. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy#40-1995.
13. Revise the parking on the Site Plan to comply with the building code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 1998
Joyce: That has been passed and will go to City Council on June 22nd. The second motion is for
the On the Level.
Brooks: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 98-11, On the Level,
Inc.,plans prepared by Design 1 dated 4/30/98 subject to conditions 1 through 13.
Joyce: Thank you. Is there a second?
Blackowiak: Go ahead LuAnn.
Sidney: Okay. I'd like to include condition 3 from the previous motion.
Joyce: Why don't you just add that down as, add the language and put it down as condition 14.
Make it condition 14. And we'll add that language.
Brooks moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan #98-11, On the Level, Inc., plans prepared by Design 1, dated 4/30/98, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Arboretum
Business Park.
2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
3. All driveway access points shall be constructed in accordance with the City's industrial
driveway detail plate no. 5207.
4. The applicant shall incorporate an earth berm in the northeast corner of the site adjacent to
the truck loading dock area. The berming area shall be up to six feet in height with
landscaping of additional conifers to help to break up the building mass.
5. The City's boulevards must be restored with sod.
6. Site plan approval is contingent upon the City authorizing and awarding of public
improvement project no. 97-1 D for Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition and recording of
the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition.
7. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance
of a building permit.
8. Connection to the City's utility system shall be prohibited until the city's utility lines have
been tested and accepted by the City. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on
the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The
27
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 1998
contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing
permits from the City's building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and
driveways shall be dedicated over the lot.
9. The site plan shall be modified to incorporate sidewalks out to Coulter Boulevard at a
location to be determined by the applicant and staff.
10. Revise the parking on the Site Plan to comply with the building code.
11. Meet with the Inspections Division plan reviewer as soon as possible after approval to begin the
building code plan review process.
12. Refer to the Utility plan. A post indicator valve must be added to the 8 inch water main
going into the building. NFPA 13 1991 Section 4-5.1.1.7.
13. The post indicator must have tamper protection which is connected to the sprinkler system
monitoring. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy#40-1995.
14.. The developer shall incorporate the following architectural details: 1) each outside
corner of the building shall use rock face 16 x 16 inch CMU-1.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
RSS/PERMA GREEN, INC. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATION OF A FLOOD PLAIN,AN INTERIM USE PERMIT SITE PLAN
REVIEW TO ALLOW A GOLF IMPROVEMENT CENTER/DRIVING
RANGE/OFFICE/CLUB HOUSE AND VARIANCES TO THE SIZE OF BUILDING AND
HOURS OF OPERATION AND A CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE/
CLUBHOUSE TO BE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREAT
PLAINS BOULEVARD AND TH 212 ON PROPERTY ZONED A2,AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT, RSS GOLF IMPROVEMENT CENTER.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tom Braman 8040 Stevens, Bloomington,MN
Chris Bixler 3179 Devon Lane, Mound, MN
Jeff Helstrom 8276 Scandia Road,Waconia, MN
David Albright 7814 130 Street West,Apple Valley, MN
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
28