Loading...
8. Site Plan Review for Gateway Partners, Steiner Dvlpmt CITY 0 F CHANHASSEH PC DATE: 5/7/97 5/21/97 CC DATE: 6/9/97 ~ - CASE #: 92-6 PUD By: Generous/Hempel:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request site plan review for a 101,600 sq. ft. office and industrial building on proposed Lot 1, Block, 3, Gateway Addition, Heartland America - LOCATION: West 82nd Street east ofHwy. 41 ':' ~ ) J L... L t APPLICANT: Steiner Development 3610 South Highway 101 Wayzata, MN 55391 Gateway Partners c/o Steiner Development, Inc. PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate (proposed PUD) ACREAGE: 10 acres INTENSITY: F.A.R. .29 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A-2; vacant S - A-2; vacant E - A-2; vacant W - A-2; Minnesota Landscape Arboretum :( - ~ L.I WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer will be available with Phase.N of Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Improvement Project. An interim connection may be made to the Chaska sewer line on 82nd Street. - PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: This site has varied topography, including wetland and upland wooded vegetation. - f) 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial SteinerIHeartland America Site Plan May 21, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing a 101,600 square foot office/industrial building on Lot 3, Block 1, in conjunction with the first phase of development. The proposed building is 28 feet in height. No information has been provided on the building HV AC. However, the design standards for the development state that all roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. 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. In response to comments at the 517/97 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing to revise the building elevation to incorporate an arched, recessed treatment at the entryways and false entryways rather than the proposed grid system. The applicant has added an additional archway treatment to the south building elevation. In addition, painted panels with reveal edge to mimic windows shall be continued on the north and south elevations. The applicant is proposing terra cotta colored entrance features and accent band with plum colored accents; light putty colored top trim and below window trim stripes; off white colored panels; and dark putty colored accent stripes above the windows. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the site to the public sidewalk and trail system on West 82nd Street and out to the north/south street. In addition, the applicant shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage on site. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed site plan subject to the conditions of the staff report. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan submitted as part of the site plan for Steiner Heartland does not meet the minimum requirements for an industrial site. City code requires eight percent of the vehicular use area to be landscape. The applicant has revised the plan to add five landscape peninsulas to the easterly parking lot. Each landscape peninsula must have one shade tree. Landscape peninsulas less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed. The buffer yard requirement along the north/south road and 82nd Street is buffer yard B. The applicant shall install 17 overstory, 35 understory, and 52 shrubs along the north/south road and 5 overstory, 11 understory, and 16 shrubs along West 82nd Street. The western side of the proposed building has eight loading docks that will face two neighboring uses. The proposed landscaping includes evergreens concentrated at the northern and southern ends with minimal evergreens along the western property line. Additional evergreens could be added to the proposed groupings to allow the planting to wrap around the western comers and provide more screening of the loading areas from the street. Neighboring buildings may not need Steiner/Heartland America Site Plan May 21, 1997 Page 3 to be screened as heavily if they too have loading docks in the same area. The developer is also proposing a landscape area between properties. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The plans appear to match the development's grading plans. The slopes along the west property line are proposed at 2:1 which are fairly steep and difficult to maintain except with weed whips. Erosion control blanket is proposed to be installed upon completion of site grading. Storm sewers are proposed to convey parking lot, rooftop and site runoff to north/south street and east/west street. Staff recommends that the storm sewer in the rear of the building (truck loading) area be redesigned to connect back out to the north/south street. This will also accommodate runoff from the future expansion. In addition, the east/west street may not be constructed until Phase III. Storm sewer in the southeast comer of the site should be redesigned to drain into the storm sewer adjacent to 82nd Street West. This line conveys runoff to a storm water pond which discharges into Wetland "C". UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water is proposed to be extended in conjunction with the City's public improvement project No. 97-1 which is anticipated to be completed in October of 1997. If the sewer/water system is not functional if may be possible for this site to temporarily connect to Chaska's sewer in 82nd Street West. STREETS The parking lot is fairly well laid out. Access points are proposed from 82nd Street West and the proposed north/south street. With the future building expansion it may be appropriate for another access driveway. Based on site grades the future east/west street appears feasible. The drive aisle appears to be 26 feet wide which complies with ordinance. The plans propose valley gutters across the driveway entrances to promote drainage. Industrial driveway aprons should be used instead of the valley gutters at least off of 82nd Street West where truck traffic is anticipated. The City has a standard detail (Plate 5207) that should be utilized. EROSION CONTROL Type I erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained around the perimeter of the site except the west side until all disturbed areas have been revegetated and removal has been Steiner/Heartland America Site Plan May 21,1997 Page 4 authorized by the City. Storm sewer inlets shall be protected with silt fence, hay bales or rock filter dikes until the parking lots have been paved with bituminous. MISCELLANEOUS The City's boulevards must be restored with sod. A trail and/or sidewalk may be installed on 82nd Street West and/or the north/south street. The site plan drawing may need to be revised to account for this, i.e. pedestrian ramps at driveway access points, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 7, 1997 to review the proposed site plan as part of the Planned Unit Development for the entire 150 acre site. The site plan was tabled to permit the developer to provide the city with additional graphics and building elevations to assist the city in evaluating the proposed building. In addition, the Planning Commission directed that the applicant investigate additional architectural treatments for the building. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised site plan on May 21, 1997. The Planning Commission voted 6 for and none against to recommend approval of site plan #97-6 subject to the conditions of the staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves site plan #97-6 for Heartland America, a 101,600 square foot office industrial building on Lot 3, Block 1, Gateway Business Park, shown on plans prepared by Ankeny Kell Architects, dated May 14, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. The storm sewer in the rear of the building shall be redesigned to connect to the storm sewer proposed in the north/south street. The storm sewer in the southeast comer of the site shall be redesigned to drain into the proposed storm sewer along 82nd Street West. 2. All driveway access points shall be constructed per the City's Industrial Driveway Detail Plate #5207. 3. Erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained around the perimeter of the site except the west side until all disturbed areas have been revegetated and removal authorized by the City. Storm sewer inlets shall be protected with silt fence, hay bales or rock filter dikes until the parking lots have been paved with a bituminous surface. SteinerlHeartland America Site Plan May 21, 1997 Page 5 4. 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. 5. The City's boulevards must be restored with sod. If a trail/sidewalk is installed along 82nd Street West or north/south street the site plan drawings shall be revised accordingly and include pedestrian ramps at driveway access points. 6. Commencement of construction for this development is contingent on the recording of a final plat for Gateway Business Park. 7. Increase evergreen plantings on northwestern and southwestern ends of building to screen loading area from road. 8. Plant materials used shall meet minimum requirements. Revise Heartland plant schedule to reflect ordinance requirements of 7' evergreens. 9. Each landscape peninsula must have one shade tree. Landscape peninsulas less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed. 10. The buffer yard requirement along the north/south road and 82nd Street is buffer yard B. The applicant shall install 17 overstory, 35 understory, and 52 shrubs along the north/south road and 5 overstory, 11 understory, and 16 shrubs along West 82nd Street. 11. Watermain shall be looped and extended to the west side of the building. Hydrant spacing shall not exceed 300'. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshall for exact locations of additional fire hydrants. 12. No Parking Fire Lane signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of signage and painted curbing. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 06 1991. 13. Install a post indicator valve on the water service coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 14. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.502. Steiner/Heartland America Site Plan May 21, 1997 Page 6 15. The building must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. (Copy enclosed). Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. 16. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #36-1994. 17. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991. 18. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy regarding pre-fire plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #07-1991. (Copy enclosed). 19. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Inspection Division policy regarding water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. (Copy enclosed). 20. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding fire sprinkler systems. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division #40-1995. (Copy enclosed). 21. The applicant shall add painted panels with reveal edge to mimic windows on the north and south elevations. 22. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the site to the public sidewalk and trail system on West 82nd Street and out to the north/south street. 23. The applicant shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage on site." A TT ACHMENTS 1. Building Perspective dated 5/14/97 2. Revised Site Plan dated 5/14/97 3. Floor Plan dated 5/14/97 4. Building Elevations and Entrance Dated 5/14/97 5. Entrance Detail dated 5/14/97 6. Planning Commission Minutes of May 7, 1997 7. Planning Commission Minutes of May 21, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF OFFICEIINDUSTRIAL USES. SUPPORT COMMERCIAL USES. AND PARK AND OPEN SPACE: REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE. A2 TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. PUD. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 12 LOTS. 2 OUTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND MITIGATE WETLANDS: AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 101.600 SQ. FT. OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON PROPOSED LOT 1. BLOCK 3: INTERIM USE PERMIT TO PERMIT SITE GRADING: ALTERNATE URBAN AREA REVIEW (AUAR) REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR GATEWAY ADDITION. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41. GATEWAY PARTNERS. STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Bruce Buxton Rich Wrase Mark Wentzell Brainerd, Minnesota 405 Cimarron Circle A.K. Architects Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions for staff? Skubic: What do we have in here that would prohibit say a Cub Foods or a Best Buy retail store? Generous: Under the intent section. Commercial use, retail uses are prohibited except for those uses specifically... Skubic: So they're not permitted uses you're saying. Generous: Yes. They're strictly prohibited. Skubic: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, the institutional square footage minimum. You were advised, or the applicants said 250,000 is too great. Why did you set it at the 250? Was there a rationale for 250 versus 100 versus anything? Generous: No, because basically that was...Lot 9, Block 4. That threshold. And if you get something that large you'd probably get a university, college type. ..potentially research institute. And we did, this is one of the concerns we want to have a high quality development on that comer.. .this, the design criteria... 35 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Peterson: Other questions? Joyce: Bob, have we thrown out any idea of housing in here then? Is that what we're saying? Generous: That's correct. Joyce: So when we talk about support, commercial support here, we're really limited now because you're only dealing with the people that are there going for their office work and that kind of stuff. Generous: Unless a convention center with... Joyce: Okay. I'm just curious, and I'm not quite understanding this. You said in the report it says that there's going to be, I'm looking at traffic signals on the north and south road and Highway 5. Generous: Yes. Joyce: So there will be signals there for the traffic going east and west on Highway 5? Generous: Right. It will be north and south.. . Joyce: Wow. That's pretty close to Highway 41, isn't it? Hempel: A quarter mile away. Joyce: It is a quarter, I guess all right. Okay. I just, it would seem like a lot of backing up to me but if we have a big traffic report so evidently they know what they're talking about. I was just curious about that though. Okay. Thank you. Peterson: Bob, why don't you kind of just give us a general update on the Wrase property and where we're at with those discussions and the access, etc., etc., that was the issue last time. Generous: The access would be required under.. .the developer would provide a.. . driveway access into their property. My understanding from the City Attorney was... Peterson: I assume we're not close within, before going to Council etc., etc. We're weeks or months away. Generous: I don't know exactly... Peterson: Okay. Other questions of staff. Blackowiak: I may have missed this but Bob, what happened? What is the progress of the park negotiations? I know that the Park Commission had talked about acquiring some more of the 36 ... Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 land and since Lot 1 of Block 2 is no longer multi-family, what's happening for that southeast quadrant? Generous: They're still negotiating that. It won't be resolved probably until the... There's a compromise position that we're... Staffs preference is to preserve.. .developer has to have a developable piece of property. .. We're getting closer I believe. Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? And if so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Fred Richter: Good evening. I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. With me tonight is Howard Dahlgren, part of our planning group and John Uban. John Uban will be making the majority of the presentation regarding the overall PUD issues. And Mark Wentzell, an architect with Ankeny Kell Architects will talk about the Phase I building and kind of run through the exterior concept of that and the site plan on that. Just I guess one thing just to lead off and reiterate what Bob has stated. We've had several work sessions with Council and I think it's fair to say we've got a line pretty well figured out as to the boundaries in that southeast quadrant. Approximately someplace in this area which will be an industrial site and...park issue with the Council with the final resolution of the dedication or purchasing the land. That was a big issue...pretty well focused now. I think with that, John can kind of run you through our development and then we'll turn it over to Mark Wentzell who will talk about the architecture. John Uban: Well the last time we were before you we did have a residential component that we talked about quite a bit and as pointed out, in looking at an enlarged park, now about one-third of the site is being considered for park, which includes basically the whole easterly one-third of the property. This in a way changes the character of what we're proposing. It means we are condensed into a smaller parcel. So what we have left is a set oflots. This is really a plat. It's a set of lots that we have configured on this property with the north/south street primarily serving lots, and in exchange an east/west at some future phase, out to Highway 41. So we'll have, when we end up maybe 90 acres of developable land. 100. In that neighborhood that can be developed. In addition, the Wrase property has already been discussed.. . going to be included in with the development by virtue of an easement or driveway access that would get into.. .site so they don't have to have direct access to Highway 41. And that will be integrated in with the site plan through Lot 1. So that that is all tied together. A condition we anticipate a water tower site there. On the perimeter, we're talking about enhanced setbacks that are part of the Highway 5 corridor treatment. We talked about a lot of landscaping. Almost a wall of landscaping, and I will show you that plan. And the interior is then different. The interior is treated differently to accommodate these buildings and each one of the sites is graded to it's own separate plateau and between the sites we have these terraces that create a backdrop for each of the buildings, and that's what I'll focus on before we get into the architecture. This drawing, once again, here's Highway 5. Here's Highway 41. 820d Street comes across to about here and then turns to the south. Everything colored in here is the proposed park area. North/south road up to Highway 5 where there will be a full intersection. The traffic study has indicated that this is absolutely necessary. In order to have an industrial park here, we have to have this intersection signalized so that it works. Otherwise it's not an industrial site. Coulter Boulevard is still being considered by the City, whether or not it should go in or shouldn't go in. The traffic study said that this will 37 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 operate equally well with or without this road in place so that is still a future decision. Obviously it allows for more parkland to be usable if that road isn't built. The road over to Highway 41 is one of our last phases of development and in that we would anticipate that Highway 41 will be improved. Lowered to minimize the grading. . . tie into that. The grading on the site anticipates these changes that will take place when Highway 41 and Highway 5 are developed. And we will, after our first phase, create a second phase grading plan that precisely shows the cuts and fills and quantities which are hard to do at this point. We have talked about some of the things with staff that Bob brought up and we will continue to work with staff to kind of fine tune some of these elements, like the land use where we would like to have a bank or financial institution. That's an important part of a good service base for business and the same with servicing automobiles, restaurants, these sorts of things. There is a significant industrial base to the south in Chaska that they, themselves do not have good services. So we find this to be an appropriate place to accommodate services that are... Weare not anticipating a large institutional use, at least initially. It would probably be unusual, a 1 in 10 sort of chance that something of a huge magnitude would come along but we think a smaller number would work and would work well within the park without really over burdening the tax base scenario for the development. I think: the important thing really to consider then is our landscape plan and our signage and what we're proposing to do. We have illustrated here, and you can see it in different colors, a naturalized, re- establishment of the terraced slopes throughout the development. These basic areas create the grade changes between each individual lot and are fully naturalized. That means an extensive planting of trees, native turf, flowers, everything so we kind of return some of the natural terrain that is now under cultivation back to it's original form. And then all along the perimeter with a gateway landscape feature at the comer of Highway 41 and 5, this is all planted in as well with both evergreen and overstory trees. With the landscaping we're trying to blend into the road system the landscape. Not just put up sort ofa wall of trees, but let's spread it out a little bit and make it look more natural, which two things have to be done and we need the flexibility to do it. One is to be able to plant in right-of-ways so that the trees or shrubs can blend closer to the street surface. And the other is to have a variety of sizes of plant material. Instead of everything being 6 foot or 8 foot tall, or something, that we have a variety so it really looks like a naturalized planting. So these are the details we'll present as we bring each individual development to you. So by planting in the right-of-way it tends to give a visual narrowing of the streets, which calms traffic and really I believe makes a much more attractive development. We have over 400 trees, just trees alone. Lots of shrubs, just in this perimeter planting and the terracing. Each site will have it's own landscape in addition so there's quite a bit to be planted for the site. We have coordinated lighting. The signage, we're asking for signage larger than what has been talked about with city staff. But primarily at the entrances of the three main entrances in which we really need a gateway monument that expresses that this is an important site. And understanding that the perimeter is going to be heavily landscaped, there won't be these immediate views into the site itself. So what we have is a presence that needs to be expressed at the entrances. Tastefully done. And we have right here as an example of the type of sign age that we're proposing. Some nice stone, boulder, masonry work with a logo and the name of the park placed on there. That's important. That's an important part of developing a high quality park that has that type of signage. And we're just asking for subtle increases. A few feet in height. The ability to have finials or caps come off the monuments that might be higher yet. An exact design will be before you when we're ready to build it. These types offlexibilities where we hope you understand and present to you this evening. In addition, tying into the overall site will be a pond. 38 .J Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 All the water quality issues are being addressed in the engineering. Traffic has been studied. An indirect source permit is being processed. We have over 2,000 potential parking stalls here. We don't know for sure but since the potential is there, we're processing an indirect source permit and because we have over 500,000 square feet of potential building on the site, we are also doing an alternative urban area review, which is an alternate way of doing the environmental review when you have an excellent comprehensive plan and when you have excellent ordinances that control many of the things that are ofa concern in an environmental review. You already have much of that in place so that process merely meets the criteria and the law and expresses all of those concerns in that document. That is presently being published and being distributed to all the agencies for review. .. . show you the type of building. This is an interior building. Not a building seen from the perimeter, so it's inside the park building. Industrial building and will show the architecture and treatment of that structure. Fred Richter: Mark is going to be showing you.. .you'll see more green space which is indicative of the 70% maximum coverage. From our. ..standpoint, we're open up the development, Phase 1 in '97 and '98 of 82nd Street. So this would be Phase 1 and possibly the comer of Lot 2. And then we go over here. '99 to 2000 is the potential for this lot here and possibly these. Then when a full intersection opens up, and we've talked with staff, the comer lot, the larger lot. The one that actually is anticipated to be a little different than what Mark will be showing in that we're guiding this one to a kind of corporate user. A high tech manufacturing. One that's going to be a multi-story building and more green space. Another just clarification. In the commercial, guided commercial and this is also so what Mark will be showing you probably will be indicative of this area here, which is the primarily industrial, multi-tenant or end user building with these being guided a little bit differently. Mark. Mark Wentzell: Thank you Fred. This is the site plan for that first building that Fred just mentioned. 82nd Street and then the proposed north/south road. It's approximately a 10 acre parcel with one building placed in the center of which. . . the first tenant coming into this section and future tenants later so it becomes a modular kind of building layout. We have two entries to the site. One off of 82nd, which is a truck traffic entry and then more parking for an entrance off of the north/south road. Parking is related along the edge of the site. Along the front and forward boundary of the site where the monument sign... The building is approximately 645 feet by 160.. .service yard in the back with some additional employee parking... Also there's a proposed future expansion of the building shown right here.. .parking and surface area here for the loading dock. This is a computer generated perspective of the building. It shows the massing and scale of the building. This is a view, this is the southeast comer of the building right here. It shows a typical entry... that comer. They're repeated then along the building at regular intervals so they can be subdivided for tenants. The idea behind each entry, which is a significant feature of the building, is there a recessed entry rather than a projected entry. It keeps the, I think the massing of the building more consistent and here's an opportunity to create a shelter entryway around here. We have some grillwork and some changing colors.. . that you'll see in the coloration I'll show you in a just a moment. So this is generally this large kind of feature right here and the building matches the scale of the structure. The multi-tenant building. .. the street faces the building. Parking is right out here and then the back yard across here is where the service area is. This area through here would be...is the embankment up to the next site, the sort of terraced area. That will be covered again with the native grasses and heavily landscaped.. . 39 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 This will explain a little more about the materials and coloration of the building. Since this is a pre-cast concrete building with insulated wall panels and metal structure within. It's an efficient, long lasting building system. To give the building character we wanted to look at both scales. At the small human scale and also to scale the entrance canopies and the entry features to the scale of the building. So we have a series of entries along here. Some will be actual entries for a particular tenant. Some will be just recesses to modulate the facade if a tenant doesn't need this additional entry space. So we're showing here five entries and three kind of just regulated appearing like entrances. Again we've painted these in sort of a shades of earth tone. We started out with the lower portion of the building with a light beige color and then above that a warm gray band. And then a little lighter, an off white kind of color and then a gray cap give dimension to the height of the building and. .. And then most of the features. .. sort of a warm ochre brown color to identify those entries and to give them the prominence. We then recess that entry and side. The sense of shadow will help identify the entries and also protect them and then an ornamental grillwork is in there to add some detail. I have here a photograph of a similar building, if you can see that very well. But again it's somewhat.. . concept with the recessed entry here and this dark area here looks somewhat brighter color and then the ornamental grillwork gives that some enthusiasm right at the entryway. This is again a painted, pre-cast building. Similar to the materials that would be used on this building. Peterson: Would you pass that around, if you would. Mark Wentzell: The back side of the building, the loading dock side is painted in the same coloration with a single. .. cap across the top and then the lower.. .loading docks will be painted to match and then the back is painted with the off white color. A little bit simpler than the front, and again this is the north side that is the future expansion and this is the south elevation with this entry actually being from the southeast. And this is the major one across three sides facing the proposed north/south road. And I think that completes my explanation of it. Yes. Peterson: If you would, just a few questions. We talked about the colored material and the banding. Do you have any of that with or have you met with staff to let them review the types of materials that you're going to be using? When you say paint it scares me. Mark Wentzell: Well it's a cementitious paint product made for painting concrete. It's not house paint but it is in any color imaginable because it is a paint product. It's not an aggregate or an actual concrete product. I think there's several reasons for that. One, you get more consistent color than you do if you're trying to use a natural concrete product. We have a greater variety of color and we have the ability to put color on the building where we want it rather than as a pre- cast panel which are made in 8 foot wide segments by the height of the building and you have to pretty much stick with the color of that panel. So it's a little more flexibility. I think if you see these photographs, the ability to get nice, warm colors. Kind of natural colors is quite. .. We can provide the actual paint samples of the colors. Fred Richter: One addition, in the pre-cast technology, this is a lot of reveals are put into the pre- cast panels so as you talk about a color change, there is an architectural real crisp reveal that starts to highlight, as you can see in that picture so this gives legitimacy to the color change. It's really a way to take and develop a larger building and get it.. .like a day like today when you get a 40 ~ Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 lot of moisture, the exposed aggregate starts to modulate in color lots... Something that actually allows in 10 years, whatever to update the color. To freshen up... We think this is a state of the art, something we're seeing from the pre-cast companies that have it in other industrial markets. .. Peterson: So as far as longevity of the paint itself. Mark Wentzell: It's significantly different than the old days of putting let's say like a latex paint on a concrete wall. This is not that kind of system. This is, it's not going to flake or peel or blister off. Peterson: It's just going to fade. Mark Wentzell: It will fade like any paint, particularly bright colors will fade, and it will have to be repainted sometime in the future but you're getting very long lead times. At least a 10 year cycle now on these paints. I think maybe even 15. As a matter of fact a lot of these have never been repainted. And it's consistent with the buildings that you see to the south. The what, Flouroware building and. Fred Richter: All the.. .I'd say the majority of those are painted with... This technique, with the architectural reviews.. . actually a little more sophisticated... Peterson: The ones with the dark blue is what you're talking of! Fred Richter: ... the older buildings, some of them are just standard concrete panels. Some of them are exposed aggregate. Some of them have painted stripes. Some of them have a masonry band. Mark Wentzell: You can see in those pictures how the reveal system works where it's not just a paint line but an actual reveal where the paint colors change. That will be done here. Joyce: I have another question here. In your development standards, item II of the building materials and design. It says each building should contain one or more pitched roof elements. How is that incorporated? Fred Richter: We talked with staff, maybe Bob you want to answer how you define a pitched element. Generous: Well it varies. In this specific site plan.. .entryway with the grill system and coloring... pitched roof element. The Byerly's went with the vault system. You know it varies. .. .on Dell Road and Highway 5, they did those... Something that ties it in with the rest of the community but gives it it's own... Joyce: I'm obviously thinking more of. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Fred Richter: Yeah, the roof. I think when we talked to staff today, the...might be generalized. It isn't literally a pitch but to achieve the objective of giving the building entry identity, scale, spatial modulation of the long walls. That type of thing. Joyce: Okay. I don't know if this is the right time to ask this question but we have all the, you said there was going to be some parking back behind this building? Mark Wentzell: Yes. ... parallel parking. Joyce: Okay. What kind of tenants, is this a warehouse type of situation or what? Is this office and warehouse or? Fred Richter: The anchor tenant... they're a 70,000 square feet facility. 12,000 offices. They're a direct mail marketing firm. So they would have not only their purchasing, front offices, catalog, publishing, that would be in the 12,000 square feet. Then the rest of it would be basically distribution. . . Joyce: So 10% of the building is for office and 90% is for warehouse. Fred Richter: Yeah. That is the anchor tenant.. .12 over 70. Joyce: Or 12 over 70, I'm sorry. Okay, that's 15-20%. Fred Richter: The remainder of the building, roughly 30,000, we would probably estimate probably 20% for office. It varies. We've had buildings right now very similar dimensions and all that, our first tenant is 50% build-up. In other words, 50% office. And in this... The overall, a facility like this probably 20%. Joyce: The thing I'm leading up to then I guess is, I believe we have to address something in the parking with the islands, the landscape islands and things like that and I'm just, with that it seems like a lot of parking to me and I just, I hate a building surrounded by parking. So how are you going to address those situations? Fred Richter: I think the islands, Mark did you want to address that. Mark Wentzell: We had... that comment and I forget exactly... Our thought is that because there's...repeated row of parking. You know aisle after aisle, that you get the parking lot heavily surrounded by greenery, just one aisle deep so that putting an island here really doesn't add a lot... If it was a double row or you know three rows deep, then the islands do a lot more for the parking lot to break up the asphalt. Fred Richter: If we can work it out with staff.. . other communities it's pretty common. What happens here is if you get more greenery in the parking, you obviously reduce your parking. . . so I think there has to be a balance... pretty close to landscape. Joyce: Thank you. 42 .. Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Peterson: This is a public hearing. I'd like to hear a motion to open up the meeting to a public hearing and a second please. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I hear a motion to close the public hearing, and a second. Joyce moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Bob, would you share your comments please. Skubic: Well I don't have a great deal to say about this. I do have a question of Dave. We typically don't allow landscaping trees in the right-of-way. What are the implications of doing so? Hempel: Typically we don't. Or we have in some residential communities where the homeowners association that maintains them. They enter into what's called an encroachment agreement which spells out maintenance responsibilities and if they fail to do it. . . we're not responsible for damage or maintenance in the right-of-way. This particular subdivision does have a very wide right-of-way. 80 foot wide right-of-way.. . areas will be 36 feet wide.. . additional turn lanes so there may be some opportunity here to utilize some of that right- of-way area for landscaping. Typically on a collector type street, Coulter Boulevard for instance, we would have a streetscape plan where we will plant boulevard trees... with the city project. .. . open for ideas for landscaping. Skubic: Okay, thank you. Regarding the institutional square footage. I don't have a strong feeling on that. I guess 250,000 square feet is prohibitive, I would consider a reduction. I don't know what to what. I think I need more convincing on that and more background. Just a couple details. The building is a little bit plain, especially on the south side and it fronts 82nd Street. There's no windows on the south side. I think it needs to have some architectural features on that side. We typically get some materials in here to look at. I certainly don't expect you to bring in an 8 foot by 20 foot pre-cast slab but we like to look at materials to see what they're like. I don't have anything else to add. Peterson: Kevin. Joyce: I have a couple questions and Bob, maybe you can help me out on this. What do we have, six motions here? Is that what we're looking at? Generous: Five. Joyce: Five, okay. The second motion is for the actual PUD, and I'm sorting through here. Is there, in the conditions something about signage? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Generous: That would be the design standards. Once this is final. Joyce: Then we go into those conditions? Okay, that explains that for me, thank you. All right, because we just went through that signage business with the 8 inches. I didn't want to do that tonight for sure. I suppose that will also incorporate the multi-story possibility on Lot 5 and that kind of thing. Is that? Generous: Yes. Joyce: Okay. All right. As far as the Heartland America, I guess I didn't ask the question about condition 7. There was a request for increased evergreen plantings. Has that been taken care of? Is that in the presentation? Did they increase those? Generous: No they haven't. Joyce: They have not? Fred Richter: We have to, once we figure out... Joyce: All right. Okay. It's a huge development and in some ways it's nice to have one developer. I think that's a plus but then it can be a minus too. I hope it's not a cookie cutter type of situation either, but since we'll be looking at each site plan it doesn't sound like it's going to be. As far as the banking facilities, or I think there was a question to whether that would be an allowable usage. I think that's a good usage. That's my feeling on that. Thank you very much for this. This is very nice and helpful. I like being able to, when it's reduced and you can look at these things. I will have to agree with Bob though, once you go to City Council, it'd probably be good to have some samples of materials and stuff like that so, I mean I think you are aware of that. Otherwise, I'm pretty satisfied with it. Peterson: Good, thanks. LuAnn. Sidney: I'm pretty satisfied as well and I guess I have one comment about architectural details on the building. Personally I'm not a great fan of the metal grid or that kind of design element above the door and I guess I would like to see some other options for the design of the building if possible. That's all I had. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: This is an interesting review meeting. I think City Council did a real nice job. I attended their meeting when they talked about this project. We don't have their notes. Their Minutes. I think that would have been real helpful to have seen their Minutes because I thought they gave some direction to the developer and we don't have privy to that. So you don't know if we're meeting what their requirements are or not. Just one comment. I think Bob, we've just got to, when the Council gives real clear direction to the developer, we've got to see it. We do. They had some insightful things and I think they were very positive. I thought it was a really 44 ... Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 good interchange between the developer and Council. I guess it's such a big project, I guess we lose sight of the fact that we're looking at a PUD fIrst and then there's some other stuff that's going to happen but we now merged the two and I think it's really overall, I think it's easy to water this down and... I don't have many comments on the PUD. I think it's moved in the right direction. I think the developer's doing a good job. I think the staff report, from what I can tell, is on the money but that's just a guess because I didn't take the notes from the City Council meeting but, and I'm going to make, I want to make, I think we should approve the PUD tonight. Secondary, the other item before us, I'm the last person on this commission that gets involved in architecture but I didn't, and maybe it's our new way of presenting things. But I can't relate at all to what I saw tonight. We always have building materials here and I don't, I'm not even the one that wants it, you know. I'm pretty much the one that would let developers do their thing and staff reviews it and makes it fIt. But I couldn't relate to what was presented tonight. And it may be the presentation. It may be the materials. I know I need a better front elevation so I can relate to what it is. I couldn't let that go through. It doesn't mean I'm against it. It just wasn't what we typically see. Back to the big picture, the PUD for Gateway. The only thing that I see, and I think the staff report is good. I made one note and the only note dealt with sidewalks. Are there any? We probably connect to a trail but in an industrial like this, do we have sidewalks? Generous: We will on the north/south boulevard. Conrad: Do I know that? It's in the subdivision. Generous: And under the design standards we have... Conrad: And how do I know that? Generous: On page 13. W e typically say sidewalk or pedestrian access or some type of. . . Conrad: So we have a master thinking. What I don't want to do is piecemeal it. There's, that's okay. Well, is there a master plan for connectivity for sidewalks in an industrial park like this? John Uban: The problem is it's hard to see on your television I think but we have indicated all along here, the north/south, east/west if that takes place. It also shows a trail in here. It also shows Highway 5, Highway 41 and the same for 82nd Street. So we have a big loop this way. We're connecting into the park north/south and then the trail along the State Highway. .. We're also proposing that, we'd like. .. between the curb and trail. Conrad: Thanks. And Bob you started the presentation with a whole series of questions and I don't know that we've really provided any direction yet. One, I can't remember what you said. And I think at the bare minimum we should get out with at least giving you some direction on that so as it goes to City Council they have, you know they have some direction. Well, as we end talking about it, I think we have to address the issues that you brought up. If they were the developer's issues or your issues. Bottom line, the site plan's fIne with me. Looks good. It's where...it looks good to me. I like it. ...the building that's presented. I don't know. I'll listen to others. I haven't heard any critical comments so if somebody else makes the motion, that may fly through. I just, again it may be the new format of presentation here but I think we should have 45 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 materials. We should have a pretty good front elevation rendering. And I didn't see that tonight. And I guess the bottom line is, the architectural detail, I think as LuAnn said, makes me a little bit nervous. I'm not, pre-cast is fine. We haven't ruled it out. It just wasn't up to what we had been seeing from almost every other developer that's been in here in the last year. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: I'm going to start with the traffic. I think I was really surprised to see that SRF could ever put any kind of an assumption in their report that Trunk Highway 5 would ever be six lanes. I think that is appalling. I can't believe that they could think that TH 41 would be four lanes. The transportation system plan has been out in draft form with the Metro Division for almost a year. They've had every access to it. There is no excuse for SRF to come in and do a traffic report saying that Highway 5 could ever be six lanes. You know we were talking before about a traffic report was done for another development you know and everything's fine. Well when I see this, I question the traffic reports. This is not fine. This is completely out of the realm of reality. And I think that you know again this development, and there's nothing that I suppose can really be done. It's really going to put a lot of pressure on Trunk Highway 5. It's not going to make it six lanes. It's just going to make a lot of traffic. I agree with the Parks and Recreation Commission of their preference that the boulevard not be extended through the park preserve. I think it would be nice to just leave it as it is. As for the Wrase property, I think I discussed before, I believe that building is 19th Century building. Didn't we discuss that the last time it came forward? 1880? Right. I would like to see something that if that property ever goes away as part of the development, there is some mitigation done for the historical record. You know whether we move the building or we don't move the building, take into consideration that we are removing a piece ofChanhassen's history and we do something to mitigate that damage. Finally, as for the building that Ladd was talking about. I found the building to be quite ugly. I don't like the pre-cast building. I think they have no class. They have no style and they have no individuality. They look like anywhere. There was nothing attractive or special about either of those buildings that passed in front of me, and maybe as Ladd said you know, if we saw the materials it might be different but just from the photographs, I thought they were particularly ugly and I thought even the loading dock area, I realize nobody sees it but it's still pretty poor to look at. Aesthetically, it was not a very nice building. And other than that, the development as a whole I have nothing against but those are some of the issues that I came up with but that traffic study is really alarming. I'm sorry Dave. To have SRF come in with six lanes is amazing. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that a little bit. We, staff does have concerns with a lot of the assumptions in the traffic report. We reviewed it in about a couple of hours but we have a lot of questions to go back with to SRF. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Brooks: Thank you. Peterson: Alison. 46 ~ Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Blackowiak: I too agree that overall I like the PUD. I'm personally glad the residential component is out of it because I didn't really feel that that ever fit into it so I'm glad to see that's not a part of that anymore. Regarding Coulter Boulevard, I too would prefer that that not be extended through the parkland. Not only do you have a nice, you know Outlots A and B. You've got the wetlands and the park area. You also have the O'Shaughnessy property immediately to the east which is I think just a wonderful opportunity to leave an area untouched. We do have residential to the southeast of this and that would just be a nice chance because if we put the street in, we're just going to have lots of traffic going through this park very quickly and that's a fact. And regardless of what happens on TH 5 or TH 41, it would be nice if we didn't have to put the Coulter Boulevard extension through this parkland as well as through the O'Shaughnessy property. The Heartland building, I wouldn't go quite so far as Allyson but I was rather uninspired. Like she said, it's everything else. I mean we see this building everywhere. We've talked about PUD's and how they need to show us something a little bit more. A little bit extra. We've got, we want to see a little bit more in design standards as I understand the PUD ordinance and I didn't see it there. I would like to see that again. I would like Heartland to come back and show us the materials like Ladd said. Show us something a little bit more inspiring. A little more interesting maybe than your run ofthe mill industrial building that you can see on any area in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area so that's basically it. Peterson: Okay. I think we have a diverse opinions tonight. I think there's a consistent theme however on the PUD, as my thoughts parallel that. I think the idea presented tonight and the uniqueness of a terracing is going to be a tremendous asset to the community and give a generally unique feel. I agree with the other comments. I think one of the things missing, as I was talking to staff today that I had a difficult time with regarding the Heartland building itself was, is that we didn't have renderings of the building really before that were of the scale that you can get a sense. I don't remember what scale it was. It was relatively small where we really didn't get a sense of really what the building was going to look like. We had the top views and the parking lot views but as far as the side and front and rear rendering to the building, they're really small and hard to get a feel for what we're really experiencing. I think it is necessary for us to make an informed recommendation to Council that we see that again. See the building and see the styling of it more than what was presented tonight. I was squinting at the monitor tonight on the pencil drawing to kind of get a sense of really what I was looking at. I really couldn't get that from the pencil drawing. Bob made a comment earlier that I think the south side of the building clearly needs some more architectural lines. I think that to me is at a minimum and I'd like to refrain from making further comments on the front until I really get a feel for it and right now I don't. We had done some very nice things with those building materials around town and I'm not saying that this isn't there yet but again I don't know, and I can't make a recommendation up to Council until we see a little bit more of it so. That's the extent of my comments. Do I hear a motion? We have five so. I'! Blackowiak: Well I'll start with an easy one. I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD. Joyce: I'll second that. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Joyce: I'll take my turn. The Planning Commission recommends preliminary approval of PUD #92-6 for an office industrial business park and preliminary plat approval for 12 lots, two outlots and associated right-of-way subject to conditions 1 through 29. Peterson: Second? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary approval of PUD #92-6 for an office/industrial business park and preliminary plat approval for 12 lots, two outlots and associated right-of-way subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer will be responsible for surface water management fees pursuant to ordinance. Staffhas estimated the water quality fees at $528,255 and water quantity fees of $497, 127. Water quality credits will be given for the creation of on-site water quality ponds meeting NURP standards in accordance with the SWMP. Water quantity credits will also be given for payment of assessments and/or construction of trunk storm sewer lines. Final SWMP fees will be determined upon review of the final grading, drainage and construction plans with each phase of the project. Surface water management fees are only applicable to the lots being platted and not outlots. 2. The developer shall supply the City with an overall phasing plan of the grading including the amount of earthwork involved in each phase. 3. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the following items: a) Lot 1, Block 1 shall be revised to accommodate for a drive access over the easterly 40 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 to service the Wrase property. b) The proposed storm water pond at the northeast comer of 82nd Street West and the north/south street shall be reconfigured into a more north/south configuration to minimize tree loss and preserve natural slopes adjacent to the wetlands. c) The north/south street between Coulter Boulevard and the cul-de-sac street shall be realigned 50 to 75 feet westerly to reduce wetland impacts and give slope relief along the east side of the north/south street adjacent to the wetland/park property. d) MnDDT's review comments shall be incorporated into the final grading and development plan. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 e) The grading plan may need to be revised to insure predeveloped runoff rates are being maintained to Wetland C. 4. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the City Council ordering public improvement project No. 97-1. Without the project, preliminary plat and/or final plat shall be void. 5. The developer should be responsible for extending sanitary sewer service to the Wrase parcel which lies directly north of Lot 1, Block 1 as a part of the overall site improvements with Phase I. 6. Depending on the amount of sanitary sewer discharge from Lot 3, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 may not be able to develop until Lot 3 is connected to permanent sewer facilities. 7. The installation of a temporary traffic signal and/or auxiliary turn lanes at the intersection of 82nd Street West and Trunk Highway 41 is required with Phase I development. The developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this traffic signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume on 82nd Street West. The developer shall also be responsible for future costs associated with the local share of the traffic signal to be installed at the north/south road at Trunk Highway 5. Financial security to guarantee the installation of these traffic improvements will be required from the developer in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. 8. The street right-of-way width adjacent to Lot 4, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 shall be expanded to 100 feet wide to accommodate future turn lanes. 9. The east/west street will be restricted to a right-inlright-out only at Trunk Highway 41. All lots shall access onto interior streets and not Trunk Highways 41 or 5. 10. All public streets and utilities constructed by the developer shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the developer-installed public streets and utilities constructed by the developer will be required in conjunction with final platting for staff review and City Council approval. 11. The developer shall be required to enter into a PUD AgreementlDevelopment Contract with the City and provide a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee site improvements. 12. The developer shall be responsible for the installation or costs associated with the installation of street lights. The City's standard street light along industrial/collector-type streets are 25-foot high corten steel street lights. Location of the street lights will be determined upon review of the final construction drawings. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 13. Type ill erosion control fencing will be required adjacent to wetland areas. Additional erosion control fence may be necessary at the toe of steep slope areas and adjacent to storm water ponds after the grading has been completed. 14. The storm water ponds and/or temporary detention ponds shall be constructed in the initial grading phase to minimize erosion off-site. Erosion control blankets will be required on all slopes greater than 3: I. Revegetation of the exposed slopes shall occur immediately after grading is completed. 15. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod after completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 16. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 17. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for lO-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed stormwater calculations for 10-year and I DO-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 19. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 20. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas.. 21. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. 22. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the I DO-year high water level. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 23. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10: 1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 24. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer. 25. Final grades adjacent to Trunk Highways 41 and 5 will be subject to review and approval of MnDOT for compatibility with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5. 26. Increase landscape plantings to include 400 trees in addition to buffer yard plantings and individual site plan landscaping. 27. A 10' clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 28. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. 29. Existing structures on the property which may be demolished require a demolition permit. Proof of septic and well systems that are abandoned are required. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Next motion please. Sidney: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for Gateway Business Park subject to the conditions of preliminary PUD #92-6 approval. Peterson: Second? Skubic: Second. Sidney moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for Gateway Business Park subject to the conditions of preliminary pun #92-6 approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Next motion. Skubic: I'll recommend that the Planning Commission recommend tabling of Site Plan #97-6 to allow the applicant to improve the presentation and the architecture of the building. To take another look at that. Brooks: I second. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Fred Richter: Just a question of staff. One, we're nervous about our schedule. Would it be possible if we had...overall, the notion of pre-cast, the coating. Ifwe come back with larger renderings, and even have some options on some of the colors.. .basic industrial concept... address the details of this. Again the Planning Commission and come back. .. I think the comments I heard were one of not really understanding this. We apologize for that. We should have had larger elevations. Materials is kind of tough since it is a piece of pre-cast. .. that we showed you in that photograph. The idea of the reveal over on the openings is just kind of the basic concept that has various elements.. . several different options on that. The basic concept... 600 feet long. And Bob, I guess I'm asking you also, schedule wise. If it gets tabled, we Can come back when. .. ? Peterson: We can take it in two weeks so it would be the following Council meeting. We're not talking major delay. Fred Richter: I have no problem with the comments, ifl understand you right. I'm reading that it's a matter of detailing more and maybe looking at some options and carrying our concept out a little more... Peterson: Yeah, I think the sense, the general sense is this is the first building of what you're presenting and what we consider to be a fine development so we're taking maybe even extra care with the first building sets the tone quite often to the rest of the development so, and what we're saying is we haven't got a feel for what that tone is yet. Further discussion to the motion at hand. Conrad: Could I make a comment, just so. Yeah, I think part of it was presentation because we can't even tell. I don't have a problem with the 600 feet but it looked pretty boring. So when we say we couldn't tell, that's the truth. We couldn't tell because we couldn't see. But there's a feeling inside that you haven't broken up 600 feet very well and we've done that in Chanhassen almost every building. We're breaking, not, we don't want two 300's. The 600 is okay but we're looking for those design elements that can help break up that monotony of that long span of space and I didn't see it in what I saw so, there's some surface stuff and then maybe there's some depth behind it that I just want to be sure right now. Peterson: Any further discussion to Bob's motion to table? Skubic moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #97-6 for Heartland America. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Dahlgren: Mr. Chairman, a point of timing. Are we talking about tabling from two weeks from now? Peterson: Work with staff on that but I think that was the plan. Is that the final motion? There's one more. Brooks: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval oflnterim Use Permit #97-1 for Gateway West Planned Unit Development site subject to conditions 1 through 15. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 Peterson: Second? Skubic: I'll second it. Brooks moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #97-1 for Gateway West Planned Unit Development site, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide the city with a letter of credit in the amount to be determined by the City Engineer based on earthwork quantities, maintenance of erosion control measures and site restoration. 2. The applicant shall pay the city a grading permit fee as required by the Uniform Building Code and pay for all city staff and attorney time used to monitor and inspect the grading operation. The inspection fees shall be computed at a rate of $30 per hour per person. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the watershed district. 4. The applicant shall work with City staff in revising the proposed grading plan to an acceptable stormwater management plan in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Since the stormwater management plan for the subdivision has not been fully approved, the applicant's engineer shall provide an interim storm drainage and erosion control plan including but not limited to construction of temporary sediment basins in accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook in an effort to minimize erosion off the site. 5. Upon completion of the site grading, the applicant's engineer shall supply the City with a letter certifying that the grading has been completed in compliance with the proposed plan. 6. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer is encouraged to pursue acquisition of this handbook and to employ these said practices. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the excavation and site grading is completed. Topsoil and disc-mulched seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of the graded areas unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise. 7. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed Minnesota PCA or EPA regulations. If the City determined that there is a problem warranting testing, such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997 8. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and no work on national holidays or Sundays. Hours of operation on Saturdays are limited to 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. If complaints from residents are logged with city staff regarding Saturday operation, the hours shall be reviewed by the City Council. 9. The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel construction entrances during the grading operation. 10. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully restored. The applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon completion of site grading. The city engineer will determine the appropriate time and authorize the applicant to remove the erosion control measures. 11. The applicant shall notify the city engineer of all drainage tiles encountered during site grading. The city engineer shall determine the appropriate abandonment or rerouting of all existing draintile systems. 12. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be used along the north perimeter of the site. Erosion control fence surrounding the wetlands shall be the City's Type III version. 13. This grading permit approval is conditioned upon the City authorizing public improvement project No. 97-1 to extend trunk utility service to the site. 14. The grading permit shall be conditioned on approval of the preliminary plat for the Gateway West Business Park PUD by the City Council. 15. The developer will be responsible for monitoring the effects from the construction activities and mitigating any such effects." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Generous: The car dealership's off for the 21 st. Joyce: What was that? I'm sorry. Generous: The car dealership was supposed to come to you on the 21st and they requested to be withdrawn again. Oh, another new business. I'm supposed to remind you on May 19th we're having the citizen kick off meeting for the Comp Plan amendment schedule. It's open to the Planning Commission and City Council. Basically staffwill run it but if you want to listen to what people have to say. Peterson: You'll be sending out a notification? 54 .... CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, Ladd Conrad, Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, and Bob Skubic MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Plamler; Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager, and Philip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 101.600 SO. FT. OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDING (HEARTLAND) ON PROPOSED LOT 1. BLOCK 3: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HWYS 5 AND 41. GA TEW A Y PARTNERS. STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff before the applicant makes their presentation? Blackowiak: I have a couple quick questions. On page 10 of the revision that you gave us. You're requiring a multi story building on Lot 5. That's the northwest corner ofTH 5 and TH 41, is that correct? Okay, and is this some type ofa requirements you've put into any other PUD or is this the first time it's been used? Generous: This is the first time. .. On the Villages on the Ponds they needed the vertical. . . Blackowiak: Okay, and why did you think a multi story was appropriate for that? Generous: .. .goes back to the idea that we want some type of a grand entrance into the community and... It's difficult to plan for what... Blackowiak: Okay. And then on page 11, at the very bottom you're talking about landscaping. Can you just clarify for me what the difference between buffer yard standards C and Bare. Generous: As part of the city ordinance, we've established transition buffer yards and they're quantitative standards that developers go through. Buffer yard B is more a boulevard. Buffer yard C is more intensive landscaping and it provides a better screening. In fact then we felt that within the interior of the development on the north/south. .. 82nd Street, you didn't really want to have the screening. You wanted to get the boulevard effect and then.. .on the exterior we would like to sort of hide the development. . . Blackowiak: Okay, so C is boulevard. B is screening basically? Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 1997 Generous: No. B is boulevard and Cis. Blackowiak: B is boulevard, okay. I'm sorry. Generous: And I can go through the technical. . . Blackowiak: Okay. And then does that explain then, I mean I might be getting ahead of myself a little bit. Does that explain the changes in the tree requirements? Generous: For along the north/south boulevard... Blackowiak: Okay, good. Thank you. Peterson: Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Fred Richter: I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. Glad to be back here this evening. What we'll have is a presentation. We've got materials. I'll try to address the issues of making it more understandable, and I think we've also had the architects take a little deeper look at what they thought was appropriate given some of the feedback at the last meeting. So what I'll do is I'll call on Dwayne Kell, principle and President of Ankeny Kell Architects who has some, the boards. Some handouts. We've got some material samples and try to clarify what was given to you in the handout. You did get a handout I believe mid-week or late last week that showed the perspective and that was taken at a different angle than some of the other details so hopefully this is a little clearer. Dwayne is here and will hand that out and we'll kind of go over some of Ankeny Kell's thoughts on the building exterior. Dwayne Kell: Thank you Fred. I'm Dwayne Kell with Ankeny Kell Architects in St. Paul. I'll leave these on here. Hopefully you'll be able to see them. What I handed out to you is a detail of an elevation and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. I'm also going to give you a sample board, which is a more accurate description of the colors. The color Xerox machine isn't quite into all the refinements of the colors so. . ..and as Fred mentioned, this is the actual pre- cast with the reveal and some of the coloration that you'll see in the elevation and we'll talk more about this, and I'd pass it around but it's pretty heavy. What we've done this last couple of weeks is, as Fred mentioned, took into consideration some of the feedback that we received at the last Planning Commission meeting and have revised the elevations substantially from before in order to accommodate some of those concerns. Primarily what you're looking at on the screen that's showing. Can you see it on the screen? So what you're looking at, at the top elevation here is the east elevation which arrays the openings and the patterns and the modulation of those entrances. Each of the entrances has been modified to include a shallow arched detail, which is much more traditional in terms of, and softer in terms of some of the architecture that exists in the community of Chanhassen. In addition we have identified specific signage areas which are located immediately over the doorway entrances. The banding that you see has been increased substantially horizontally in order to break down the scale of the building vertically and to give more articulation to that facade. Window placements reflect the use inside of the building for 2 ,I Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 1997 offices and solid areas. So basically the detail that you see is an actual detail of one of those entrances and all of the coloration is basically defined within the reveal system that's part of the facade. So as you see the purplish color that's adjacent to the doorways, again to try to break down some of the scale of the entrances. To make it more human scale is within a reveal as well as the color banding that's horizontally placed on the panels. Each of the facades is, or each of the entrances is recessed approximately 5 feet which creates significant shadow lines and more articulation to the facade. And as you see the elevation along the south, the entrance detail goes around that comer so that it again modulates that part of the building. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Skubic: I have a couple questions regarding your entrance elevation here. Would this be the shadow that we see here in black? Dwayne Kell: Yes. The shadow is shown as black, right. Skubic: And above the near the signage here, would this is window or is that opaque? Dwayne Kell: No. That will be a solid panel but it will be recessed so it will be within the shadow area and it will be painted. That putty tone color that you have on your sample board. Skubic: Okay, thank you. Peterson: The depth of the recess is going to be approximately how much? Dwayne Kell: 5 feet. Each of the entrances. Sidney: I see on your elevation that you have what looks like notches in the top of the panels. Are those the downspouts or? Dwayne Kell: Those are basically overflow scuppers for the root: To relieve excess water that might accumulate if drains get clogged on the roof. Fred Richter: They're required by code. The drainage is interior with the building. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? One more. I think, turn to the parking lot. I think this may have been recommended by staff. I'll look for comments by Bob too. We've got a couple of. ., but a couple of center islands on the east side of the parking that we've kind of put to separate out the expansiveness but I think currently the size of them doesn't really allow any trees to be put in there, or at least doesn't portray them to be put in there. I'm wondering whether or not, and what the rationale was for putting those in there. Whether staff recommended that. And if so, I guess I'd like to hear from staff as to the true rationale for putting those in there. Generous: Weare recommending that.. . Peterson: Is that, is it really big enough for trees to go into those or not? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 1997 Generous: You can put a tree in a 4 foot wide area. Fred Richter: It is a tree. We have islands...I know we're working on the final number with staff. We recognize we have to break up the parking... Peterson: All right. I don't have any further questions. Does anybody else? Sidney: I guess one thing about the type of signage that you propose for the building. Dwayne Kell: Fred, maybe you can address the signage issue. Fred Richter: Well, I think we probably, our drawings indicated, because it's probably we've got one large tenant initially. This is potentially a multi-tenant building and with that we would have signage over those entrances. That signage under this scheme would be signed. Limited to that dimension. We really haven't worked out the details. Whether it's just letters on the wall or panel. Most likely, one of the things we like about this approach, we could put just letters on the wall which we think is a little more. Sidney: Yeah, 1'd vote for that. Fred Richter: And because of the fact that we can repaint them when tenants move out every 5 years or something. So that is something that we would be going to... Dwayne Kell: Also on the signage issue, the intent of that band was to more or less frame the sign and create the place for it consistently throughout the building so that a panel In back of it wouldn't be as desirable as just placing it on the band itself Fred Richter: .. . about this archway, we will probably have some down lighting up into the archway so at night... We're actually, we think this is architecturally a big improvement to what we've done the last couple of years in addressing the overall issues and trying to take an office warehouse, manufacturing building... Peterson: All right, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open it to a public hearing and a second please? Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so now and come forward and state your name and address please. Conrad moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 4 >ill Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 1997 Peterson: Commissioners. Bob, any thoughts regarding this presentation? Skubic: It's very nice. I think the applicants have done a good job of, when I first looked at the perspective from the front I was, had a very good initial reaction. I think it's a vast improvement. I'm happy with it. What more can I say? Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: Yeah, I like the plan as it's presented and think it's a good improvement over the past presentation. I guess one thing I was going to ask about the bicycle parking and storage on the site. I guess I didn't see where that was. That was my only question. But other than that I guess it looks fine to me. Peterson: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, far better presentation. Thank you for doing that. That's night and day. Fred Richter: You notice we had to bring the boss in tonight. Conrad: Well I noticed that changed too but, no. It's good. You reduced the size of the scale but also the presentation and what you gave us was what we wanted to see so thank you for doing that. No other comments. Blackowiak: I agree. Much better and Allyson and I were just commenting. It would be nice to have windows over these doors. That might be asking a little much. I do think it's much better. Thank you and a little more glass might be nice but. Fred Richter: We had that option but the tenant... Blackowiak: It would be a nice feature. I'm sure it would be more expensive but. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: W ell like Alison was saying, we were just sort of muttering between ourselves that yeah, more glass would. I think more glass would give it that little extra character and again, you know I understand it's expensive. Just something to keep in the back of your mind. I think it would look really nice, particularly consider the archway and whether that's feasible or not, I don't know but I agree with everybody else. You know 2 weeks ago I was fairly rude about the fact that I didn't like the building and I have to say this is much better and the presentation really made the building come to light and gave me a much better feel for it so yeah, I have no problems with this building. And thank you for taking the time to make a presentation. Peterson: Good, thanks. My thoughts are the same too. It is a tremendous benefit, I think the Council will appreciate your time and effort put in also. I think it will give a much better 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 1997 perspective of really what they're approving so I totally agree. With that, may I have a motion and a second please. Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #97- 6 for Heartland America, a 101,600 square foot office building on Lot 3, Block 1, Gateway Business Park shown on plans prepared by Ankeny Kell Architects dated stamped April 4, 1997, subject to conditions 1 through 23 as presented by staff. Conrad: Second. Skubic moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan #97-6 for Heartland America, a 101,600 square foot office industrial building on Lot 3, Block 1, Gateway Business Park, shown on the plans prepared by Ankeny Kell Architects, dated stamped April 4, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. The storm sewer in the rear of the building shall be redesigned to connect to the stonn sewer proposed in the north/south street. The storm sewer in the southeast comer of the site shall be redesigned to drain into the proposed storm sewer along 82nd Street West. 2. All driveway access points shall be constructed per the City's Industrial Driveway Detail Plate #5207. 3. Erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained around the perimeter of the site except the west side until all disturbed areas have been revegetated and removal authorized by the City. Storm sewer inlets shall be protected with silt fence, hay bales or rock tilter dikes until the parking lots have been paved with a bituminous surface. 4. 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. 5. The City's boulevards must be restored with sod. If a trail/sidewalk is installed along 82nd Street West or north/south street, the site plan drawings shall be revised accordingly and include pedestrian ramps at driveway access points. 6. Commencement of constmction for this development is contingent on the recording of a final plat for Gateway Business Park. 7. Increase evergreen plantings on northwestern and southwestern ends of building to screen loading area from road. 8. Plant materials used shall meet minimum requirements. Revise Heartland plant schedule to reflect ordinance requirements of 7' evergreens. 9. Each landscape peninsula must have one shade tree. Landscape peninsulas less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed. 6 ~ Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 1997 10. The buffer yard requirement along the north/south road and 82nd Street is buffer yard B. The applicant shall install 17 overs tory, 35 understory, and 52 shrubs along the north/south road and 5 overs tory, 11 understory, and 16 shrubs along West 82nd Street. 11. Watermain shall be looped and extended to the west side of the building. Hydrant spacing shall not exceed 300'. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of additional fire hydrants. 12. No Parking Fire Lane signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of signage and painted curbing. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 06-1991. 13. Install a post indicator valve on the water service coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 14. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.502. 15. The building must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. (Copy enclosed.) Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. 16. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Polley #36-1994. 17. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991. 18. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy regarding pre-fire plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #07-1991. (Copy enclosed). 19. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Inspections Division policy regarding water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. (Copy enclosed). 20. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding fire sprinkler systems. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division #40-1995. (Copy enclosed). 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 21, 1997 21. The applicant shall add painted panels with reveal edge to mimic windows which shall be continued on the north and south elevations. 22. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the site to the public sidewalk and trail system on West 82nd Street and out to the north/south street. 23. The applicant shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage on site. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO.6-I. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions for Todd? I guess you got an A on your verbal presentatIOn too. Sidney: One comment I guess I was noticing the PUD plan as it's attached. I don't think it's up to date in terms of information. Gerhardt: Yeah, that was the most current plan that I had. I think that is the reference so they understood where the project area was. That will not be included in that plan itself. And Bob will make sure that the developer...A good point. Peterson: Other questions? Does this require a public hearing? I don't think It does, does it? Gerhardt: It's not on the Planning Commission agenda. It does on the City Council and this coming Monday, the City Council has that scheduled to take city input. And we also provided notice over to the School District and County and to date we have not received written comments. However, the School District does have us on their schedule for the 29th to give them an overview of the project. Peterson: So all that's really needed from us is just the approval as presented tonight? Gerhardt: Yeah. I think it was 2, or 3 weeks ago that you did approve the PUD for this area and basically that's when you took your action on this. ... through their application they have met the state requirements and they have made all.. .so when you made your motion basically that night, you have approved the development consistent for the city and the overall development. However under Minnesota Statute.. . recognize that issue by.. . and the plan does call up for a water reservoir built in the area. Future possibility of extension of Coulter Boulevard. Parklands that are to be used as part of the development... transferred from the developer to the city. And a trail system and the intersection changes. Traffic signals and the intersection construction. All that is outlined in the plan as public improvements that need to be.. .also know that we are going 8 JiI