PC Minutes 3-6-07
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 6, 2007
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jerry McDonald, Kathleen Thomas, Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon and
Debbie Larson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mark Undestad and Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Thor Smith 2139 Boulder Road
Phil DeNucci 9186 Springfield Drive
Richard Simmons 530 Summerhill Drive
Corey Bergman 6791 Redwing Lane
Tom Koehnen 795 Ponderosa Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
HEARTLAND BUILDING EXPANSION: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 31,200
SQUARE FOOT OFFICE WAREHOUSE EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING 101,600
SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY ZONED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 7975 CENTURY BOULEVARD
(LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK), MARTIN WOODY
ARCHITECTS, PLANNING CASE 07-05.
Public Present:
Name Address
Peter Kordonowy 810 Ramsey Avenue
Martin Woody 4048 Spruce Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Kevin, do you want to start?
Dillon: You mentioned there would be a safety concern if windows were put in there. What's
the safety concern?
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
Generous: Well just, the warehouse space they have, the equipment that they use in there, they
can run into that. It's really pushing, storing things up against it and pushing against the window,
you could run into. Cracking it.
Dillon: And who's the tenant going to be?
Generous: It's Heartland.
Dillon: And what's the nature of their business?
Generous: The applicant would probably be better to talk about that.
Dillon: Okay, I'll ask that when they get up. Those are the only questions I had right now.
Larson: I didn't have any.
Thomas: No, I do not.
McDonald: Kurt?
Papke: What's the spirit of the transparency? The 50% transparency. Just to remind everybody,
why do we require that?
Generous: That's to provide a vision to the community, some night time light if you will from
buildings out to the street so that people can look in and see activity. In this instance they
wouldn't be able to see activity back there really.
Papke: Isn't that true of a lot of office industrial type buildings?
Generous: Well office space you'll see people working at night and you can see life in it, but in
the warehouse space really is not conducive to that.
Papke: I'm just struggling a little bit with the rationale behind this one. I certainly understand
the safety concerns and I certainly understand the applicant's desire to do it, but I'm not fully
grasping what, you know what our rationale is.
Aanenson: When we put this PUD together, it falls in line with the highway corridor study that
we wanted those buildings that had presence along collector roads, that would be more
articulated. As Bob said, sometimes it's the light spilling out of a building, but you can see light
in a building so you don't look at an expanses of dark walls. So in this instance the fact that it
still has some articulation and has lighting underneath those panels that Bob showed you, that's
another way to get, so the building has some life to it. You're not just in a cold space when so
you're driving along that road. This does face a road that in some day in the future will be
connected to 41. Right now it's not. As Bob Generous indicated, that this building, if it were to
become office building could be modified to meet that requirement. Unfortunately, as the
building was laid out, it now has frontage on two streets.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
Generous: Three streets.
Aanenson: Three streets, and that's a little bit more, for an office warehouse, a little bit more
onerous to try to meet that requirement, because typically what we say is when your street
frontage should be the most articulated. In this circumstance it's three sided. So it's a little bit.
Papke: And how big of a variance are we allowing on this? It wasn't clear from the verbiage.
Generous: It's varied 10% rather than 50%.
Aanenson: On a small segment of that building, yeah.
Generous: Yeah, just on the north elevation.
Papke: Okay. And if the usage were to change, the building were to change hands, what would
be our mechanism at that point in time to revert to the 50% transparency.
Generous: As part of the remodeling process, they would have to come in for a building permit.
McDonald: I guess I'd like to pick up on that too because I'm having a problem with this. We do
not like to grant variances. We like to make sure that if there's a reason for it, we should
probably relook at our regulations to begin with. This makes sense from the standpoint of it's a
warehouse. I understand that. But if we're going to say it's 50% as far as going to have
windows, should we be looking at maybe something that says usage instead of just building by
itself because otherwise the other problem I have with this is, they're putting the knock out's in
there. It' in there for the windows. You know we're making them go almost to the step of the
windows. You know do those knock out's and you should be able to meet it. And yet in their
letter, what they're saying is is that, it becomes burdensome to put the windows in, but they're
doing the knock out's. I'm having a little bit of a problem. Are we going to create a problem for
ourselves with anybody else that comes in, again with warehouse and those things. It does make
sense not to have all the windows. I understand that. But should we be looking at something a
little bit deeper than this? I mean what, as you said, what was the intent of having the windows
and what you've articulated to us is, yeah it's for office space and for you know people being able
to see in, but we're applying it very broadly here and now all of a sudden we've taken a
warehouse, which why shouldn't they have windows?
Generous: And I believe that's part of the reason we have the variance process to look at those
unique circumstances. We like to put the onus on them, or developers to meet our standards and
then justify why they shouldn't.
McDonald: Okay. And again I'll ask the applicant when they come up but I don't see where this
is a big burden. So okay. With that I guess I would ask the applicant to come forward and add
anything that you wish to add.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
Peter Kordonowy: Chairman McDonald, commissioners. Peter Kordonowy with Summerhill
Commercial Real Estate. I'm the property manager of the building, the Heartland America
building and I represent the owner. Appreciate the opportunity to discuss the building expansion
and looking forward to moving forward on this project. This is the architect Martin Woody, and
he can speak to the specific façade transparency issue. I think what he'll say is, even if we
continue the punch out's on that north elevation, we will still need a variance. We're not going to
be able to hit the 50% with the design. The building was designed in 1997 under those design
criteria, and we actually can't hit the 50%. Now if we do continue the glass along the north end,
we'll still be inadequate but I think from an ownership perspective, I'm not an owner. If they had
to do that they would continue the glass on the north end, but it was in the design criteria of the
building when it was built in 1997, and actually exceed those criteria by having continuous glass.
The building does not have glass on the east side currently. And a good portion of the east side,
there's not glass. But we could do as much glass on the north side as you'd like, as is on the east
side. But we'd still be inadequate for the requirement.
Martin Woody: Just to kind of reiterate what Peter had mentioned was, continuing the existing
fenestration along the addition and along the north side. If we kept the same window pattern,
even adding all the windows along the north side, we'd still be quite shy of the 50% requirement
with the façade. The transparency requirement, which was adopted in 2001 and this building
was built in '97 so. And then they do have a problem on the inside with storage up against
windows because they utilize racking up against, of the exterior walls since they're loading and
unloading the rack and comes in conflict with the windows on that side. We agree that you
know should the building even become converted to office on that side, we'd be willing to add
the windows at that point.
Papke: Just to clarify, the fenestration, 50% transparency was enacted after this building was
originally approved and built?
Generous: Correct.
Papke: So to some extent there's a grandfathering issue here. Also from a continuity and
symmetry perspective, as you mentioned, it would certainly from an aesthetic goal, you'd like to
continue the same patterning of the windows probably at most rather than all of a sudden coming
up with a solid strip of windows there, just to meet this new code requirement.
Martin Woody: Sure, there's some economies here as well. The pre-cast panels that are utilized
in this construction, they're 8 feet wide so it's easy to punch a 4 foot window in a panel like that.
If we say wanted to add a band of windows it would, one it wouldn't you know be consistent
with the rest of the façade and it would add cost to the building because we'd have to run beams
and what not to make that happen.
Peter Kordonowy: Just to touch on that, I think it would create an unusual building because
you'd have a strange addition look and then the existing building, and it would have a hybrid
design that would not be complimentary to the park.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
Martin Woody: There's some, the existing south side of the building, where it is warehouse
again existing now, there's reveals that mimic windows on the north side but there's not windows
so, we're just trying to create that same appearance on the north side as well. A majority of the
building frontages to the east so.
McDonald: Anything else Kurt? Okay.
Thomas: I think I'm okay, understanding a little bit better about the continuity of the building
and trying to stay within the same look and feel of the building so that helps.
Larson: Seems pretty straight forward to me.
McDonald: Okay. Kevin.
Dillon: So what is the business at the north end of the building?
Peter Kordonowy: Yes, it's Heartland America. They are a mail order, home goods, or not home
goods. Electronics, company. And they have computers, electronics, knick knacks. Globes, if
you will. Just things people like to buy across the country. And so they're a mail order
company. Heartland America and they're a catalog ordering business.
Dillon: Do they take up the entire building?
Peter Kordonowy: They're in 90,000 feet of the 100,000 square foot building. And so they
would fully occupy this expansion, and so the good news is they're a local employer. Obviously
increases the tax base in Chanhassen and being in Chanhassen's been a good thing for them and
so this will be, this is an expansion for them.
Dillon: I don't have any other questions.
McDonald: You're going to have to understand a little bit about where I'm coming from on this
because I really, we deal with a lot of variances and I have a real problem granting variances
because if you grant them too easily, at that point why have them. It's real easy for people to
come up here and say well you granted a variance to so and so. My problem with all of this is,
again within your letter we talk about a hardship. I don't see a hardship. I see this based upon
more or less usage instead of what the ordinance may have been pointed out to start with but I
hear what you say about the grandfathering, the design criteria and those things. And I can buy
into that. I'm okay. It's just you know one of the things that I probably want to talk to staff a
little bit more about is, I think we need to relook at this. That there needs to be something that
talks about usage. Warehouse, I would agree does not need windows, but at the same time I
don't want someone else coming in here later on using you guys as an example and saying that
we don't need windows either because we're going to store stuff in this particular part of the
building. So I am going to go through this in some detail because I do want to create some kind
of a record here that there's a reason for all of this. Now one of the things on the knock outs, you
had mentioned something about those and that would be a requirement going forward, but what I
visualized is that, I mean a knock out's kind of pre-cut into an area and you just kind of knock it
5
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
out and it breaks at that point. That's not what I heard you say. What you're saying is that if we
have to put windows in in the future, someone's going to have to go through a big effort it sounds
like to put those windows in from the cut out panels. So this isn't just an easy, knock out that
you would expect from furniture you buy that's already pre-cut and hit it and a piece falls out.
Am I correct in that?
Martin Woody: It's a little easier process with masonry construction versus pre-cast.
McDonald: Okay. And then you mentioned things about other beams and everything. Yet what
happens to the structural integrity of the walls? Is something going to have to be done there to
shore those up if someone comes in and does something?
Martin Woody: No, not in a pre-cast panel. They're structural panels that are 8 feet wide and the
windows in this building, they're 4 feet wide. They fit in the center of the panel, so it's as easy as
coming back. The manufacturer comes back with a saw and actually cuts the opening.
McDonald: Okay, so if this gets converted then to an office space, this is not an extraordinary
cost that's going to really, it's going to be a cost but I mean it's not something that someone can
come back to us and claim, yeah because of this it's creating a hardship. This is not something
that's extra ordinary as far as having to redo the building. Putting in new supports. I mean you're
just putting in windows and the grouting and anything that would go around those.
Martin Woody: Right. There'd be no special, or extra structural items needed to put windows in
the panels, no.
McDonald: And again if I'm understanding, the main reason why you want the variance is
because structurally the rest of the building, the way it's built, this architecturally fits into that
pattern.
Martin Woody: It does. If you look at the building as a whole, actually the building, all the
buildings in the development there, they're all real similar construction. Window types. What
not. You know each panel has a window in it and structurally that's about what you can do with
these panels. Putting in a strip of windows or a ribbon window system, not only would it you
know destroy the character of the entire building but it would cost quite a bit more to make that
happen.
McDonald: Well from that point, the building wouldn't match the existing building.
Martin Woody: Right.
McDonald: Then the other thing, this entire building will be used for storage and for warehouse
usage, is that correct?
Martin Woody: Correct.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
McDonald: That is the primary purpose in doing this, so that the company that's moving in there
can store things that they're selling. They need the extra space for that.
Martin Woody: It's storage and distribution.
McDonald: Okay. I guess other than that, I mean that's the only questions I've got about this
really was dealing with this variance that we're looking at granting here tonight. I just want to
make sure that we do it for the right reasons.
Martin Woody: Yeah, I guess we wouldn't be asking for a variance if we didn't really need it.
McDonald: Well I understand that. Even, or one of the things you said was, even if it meant that
you'd still have to get a variance on the north side. Could you explain what you meant by that,
because even at that you wouldn't be able to meet the 50%.
Martin Woody: Right. We wouldn't be able to meet the intent of the ordinance the way it's
written if we put windows in every panel along the north side.
McDonald: Okay.
Martin Woody: Along the north side and the addition side. We'd still be short. I think we'd
only make it up to 30%.
McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions, unless someone else wants to come back with
something. Then I guess at this point I would open it up to the public and thank you all very
much.
Martin Woody: Thank you.
McDonald: If anyone wishes to come forward and speak on this matter, please do so now. Well,
seeing no one come forward, I will close the public meeting and I'll bring it back up for the
council for deliberation and Kevin, do you want to start?
Dillon: Yeah. You know I'm inclined to vote to grant the variance. I think that kind of given
you know, it's either this or there's some other variance that we may be granting, or we wouldn't
do anything at all and that would be harmful to the business and therefore present a hardship. I
think that it makes sense. You know it's the right thing to do for this property. So your point
Jerry about you know every we kind of straight down I'll say slippery slope of granting too many
variances. I don't think we do that. I mean I think you know when these requests come before
us, I mean there's always questions and challenge and properly considered and every one's a
unique circumstance and by granting this one, I don't, it's not, and I don't want to mischaracterize
what you said but I don't think we opened the flood gates to more or anything like that. There's
going to be unique situations all the time. We just have to deal with those as they come.
McDonald: Okay, fair enough.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
Larson: I'll agree with what Kevin just said regarding that. I won't repeat it. But also to the fact
that it was grandfathered in in '97 and you know the fact that the city changed their views on it
you know just a few years later, I'm all for keeping the style the same. You don't want to mess
with the integrity of the structure you know and I think it's a nice design. It's an industrial
design. Why mess with it. I mean if it's not really hurting anybody, I am inclined to go ahead
and vote for the variance.
Thomas: I'm going to also agree with the other two. I do agree that staff did a good job of
bringing together the proposal and working with the applicant as to how the building will need to
look and with it being that the ordinance was the way it was in '97, and now asking for
additional, everyone's saying the same thing. We would have had to grant a variance no matter
what so, I'm inclined to vote the same as well.
Papke: I'm wondering if there isn't an opportunity here for a compromise, given that the street
on the north side is eventually going to run out to 41. It's going to be reasonably high traffic.
They're already putting in the knock out's for the windows. I guess one idea I'd float for
discussion here is, if we had them put in the windows on the north side and they hit the 30%, that
to me doesn't sound quite as ugly as 10%. And I don't think it would be over burdensome and
again, I think it would give the building a uniform look to it. I think just to have no windows in
the addition is going to make it look a bit odd, and to put in a strip window to meet the code is
going to make it look odd. So I'm wondering if meeting the applicant halfway doesn't have some
merit. Any thoughts?
Larson: Is there any way that we could do it, have it be a condition as to the point where that
road does open up, then it would have to be changed, or something like that.
Papke: But then would you have them just, are you talking about putting in the windows or
putting, or meeting code when the street goes through?
Larson: Meeting code. Well no.
Papke: But then they'd have to change the whole north side. They're not going to be able to
meet it you know without ripping up the whole.
Larson: …changing the windows at that point, but why do it now, you know what I mean? If
it's not an issue at this point but at some point where it becomes an issue.
Dillon: It's an aesthetic issue.
Papke: It's an aesthetic issue now, and in the future, they're proposing putting in only a 10%
transparency on the north side right now which means punch out's but no windows. Why not put
in the windows, why not stipulate the windows now so at least it's uniform on the north side?
Larson: It's an industrial building.
Papke: It already is.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
Larson: I know but.
McDonald: That's my point about the variance to begin with. Maybe the variance, maybe the
regulation is wrong. Maybe it shouldn't be 50%. That's the whole point of looking at this is that,
if we're going to have warehouses and industrial buildings come into town, we can't look at each
one and be granting variances. We need to decide what it should be. What is appropriate for the
use. We should not put burdens upon people that they cannot meet, and that's my point in all of
this was to bring that up is that, 50% does sound like a rather high number and again, if it's based
upon usage of the building, that should be factored into it. And it's not in this case.
Papke: As you stated when we opened, we're not, we can't change the rules here tonight.
McDonald: Right, and I'm not proposing that we do. What I again stated was that's probably
something we need to go back and ask staff to look at.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could just add something too. We did include for you findings of fact
of why we supported the variance and I just, while they're embedded in there, I want to make
sure it's clear what our rationale was on that. The fenestration requirement is any street frontage,
so because this is a 3 sided lot, and it's, the use of the building is predominantly warehouse
storage, it's an anomaly in that respect. It should eliminate it from that requirement but the
requirement did change. That would be one, some of the rationale. And the other one is,
keeping in mind that this is a 25% expansion of a building that doesn't meet code, so while we're
talking about 50%, it's 50% of that 25% expansion. So we were looking at that incremental
change. Because our non-conforming says that if it's over 50%, then if you look at just a non-
conforming building, because this was a smaller percentage, I just want to keep that in
perspective. It's not a brand new building where we, you know it's following a prevailing pattern
that they've already set in place, so it's trying to find that, what's the best way to get to the desired
goal, and that's where we struggled and did recommend what we did in the staff report.
McDonald: Well then part of what you're saying there is, that gets back to the grandfathering
clause that what was there as existing must have met code at the time it was put up.
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: Yes, so they don't have the 50% currently on the existing street, so when you're
going beyond that on that extra 25%, so that's when we went back and said, is that onerous?
Does that seem rationale? What's the nexus for that and that's where we struggled and kind of
said, if we can provide that in the future the changes, but the way it's set up with that high of a
building, it's set up to be office, excuse me, storage, warehousing with shelving and, could it be
converted in the future? Sure, as any building in the city could. But that would probably involve
a lot more structural stuff which I think Chairman McDonald, went back to your question. How
much detail would be involved or how much work would be involved in changing that use.
McDonald: Yeah, I guess with all of that, as Kurt has said, you know we're not here to change
rules. I think what we're…this particular applicant because of the other things, it's just the way
9
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
that it initially comes through. Any time you're going to grant 40% variance, I think we need to
look at why are we doing that much.
Papke: The only thing I'm kind of stuck on here is, if we're going to grant this, and why would
we not at least have the applicant put in the same number of windows in you know, the same
ratio of windows in the addition that they have in the base building? If we're going to grant a
variance, why would we allow the applicant to go backwards in the fenestration ratio. You know
it should at least maintain parity with what they already have. That's kind of what I'm getting
stuck on. You know if we're going to grant the variance, why should we go backwards? That's
one thing we try not to do with all of our variances.
Larson: Is it all on the same side? I mean maybe I read this wrong. But isn't there a side of the
building currently that doesn't have windows, or no?
Generous: Yeah, the south elevation doesn't have windows either.
Martin Woody: And the east elevation doesn't have windows as well.
Papke: What we're kind of stuck on is, what I'm kind of stuck on is the north side.
Larson: Why not extend it conforming with what they've already done?
Papke: That's what I'm proposing, right. Are you, does the north side have windows all the way
along or does the north side just have the punch out's? Right, and what the proposed addition
has how many?
Martin Woody: Well the east side.
Papke: On the north side.
Martin Woody: On the east side there's, part of it is windows and part of it is just reveal. So a
lot of it on the east doesn't have windows as well. On the south side, most of it is reveals.
Doesn't have windows. So there isn't a string of windows along the whole entire front of the
building.
Papke: What about the north side?
Martin Woody: The north side there's 6 windows existing on the north side.
Papke: Maybe I'm, do I have my bearings backwards or are you pointing at the west side?
Martin Woody: This is north.
Generous: So that's how this is sitting.
Martin Woody: North is this way. Along this east wall it's not a continuous band of windows.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
Larson: So am I understanding it correctly or no? What you're adding, where you're adding,
you're not putting new windows on the north edge, correct?
Martin Woody: Correct.
Larson: And then what about that little clip box corner? What's that?
Martin Woody: There's 2 windows and an entrance on that. You can look here, it's an oblique
angle here. There's 2 windows on each side of the entry. This is the, facing north and east. And
this is the entire east elevation from here on. And this is the north. So this is, we're using this
entire area as warehouse.
Larson: Okay.
Martin Woody: And on the south side of the building, it mimics this. There's just reveals here
where there's no, the entrances are there. The entrance façade detail is there but there aren't any
windows along there.
Larson: So really the only windows are on the east side?
Martin Woody: Right, and this is where the, this is the office area contains about this much, so
this is actually open warehouse with the windows on the east side so.
Larson: Okay. And does it pose a problem currently?
Martin Woody: I think there is, that's a different function…part of the warehouse.
Peter Kordonowy: The south side of the building actually has some windows come down part
way about a quarter. Currently Heartland America does not have any windows in their
warehouse and they have about 75,000 square feet of warehouse. So the east side, the long side
of the building where the warehouse starts, doesn't have any windows.
Martin Woody: Along the east side.
Peter Kordonowy: On the east side, the current site. But currently Heartland does not have any
windows in their warehouse area.
Martin Woody: So it's not continuous with windows all the way along the east face of the
building. There's reveals where windows could be.
Peter Kordonowy: It stops right where the office, their office is about like this and so this entire
length is non-windows until you get actually about the middle 50% is revealed edge on the
existing building.
Larson: Okay.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
Dillon: So anyways Kurt, to your comment about should we try to ask for a compromise, I think
it's probably worth asking, but then the safety concern with the glass in the warehouse and all
that stuff so, it's something that maybe we should pose to the developer just to get their reaction.
McDonald: If you wouldn't mind getting coming back up there and addressing that.
Peter Kordonowy: Sure. Well I do know that Heartland, we want to work with the City of
Chanhassen and maintain the integrity of the look of the building and they don't have any glass
in their current warehouse. Would they prefer to maintain that? They probably would strongly
prefer it. Like to reach some kind of an equitable compromise. Still have the building look nice
and uniform. It would add windows to their warehouse. They currently do not have that. If it's
necessary they'd have to live with it. They probably would end up blocking it or something like
that or screening it or plywood or something, but it could be done.
Larson: Which means there's still no light coming out of those windows.
Papke: You're not accomplishing the goal if you block the windows. Okay.
McDonald: Okay, any other comment? Then at this point I would open it up for a
recommendation.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve Planning Case 07-05 for a 31,200 square foot office warehouse expansion to an
existing 101,600 square foot building with a variance to permit only 10% building transparency
on the northern building elevation. Plans prepared by Martin Woody Architects dated February
2, 2007, subject to conditions 1 through 25 as stated in the staff report.
McDonald: Can I have a second?
Larson: I'll second.
Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve Planning Case 07-05 for a 31,200 square-foot office warehouse expansion to
an existing 101,600 square-foot building with a variance to permit only 10 percent building
transparency on the northern building elevation, plans prepared by Martin Woody
Architects, dated February 2, 2007, subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2.The developer shall incorporate a gathering space in the northeast corner of the site including
benches and or tables overlooking the natural areas to the east.
3.If the interior of the north end of the building is converted to offices, windows shall be
installed along that area of the building.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
4.The developer shall extend a sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk on Water Tower
Place and include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
5.The applicant shall have a minimum of 9 canopy trees, 23 understory trees and 23 shrubs
along Water Tower Place.
6.The applicant shall replace the evergreens located in the northwest parking lot peninsula with
overstory, deciduous trees.
7.A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before building permit issuance which specifies
size, quantity and species of proposed plantings.
8.The building addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
9.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
10.Inlet protection shall be installed around all catch basins after installation and maintained
until final stabilization occurs.
11.The plans shall be revised to address issues that could arise as the result of run-on in the
northwest corner of the site.
12.Silt fences shall be installed with J-hooks to prevent runoff from running around the end of
the silt fences.
13.Until building construction begins, the rock construction entrance shall be 75 feet in length in
accordance with the City’s standard detail.
14.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
15.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2007
16.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
17.Provide drainage area maps and calculations to ensure that they are the same as what was
previously accepted.
18.Provide rational method calculations for the storm sewer.
19.Ground (i.e. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%. Paved grades shall not be
less than 1%. Grades along curb line must not be less than .5%.
20.Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan.
21.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
22.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
23.Areas disturbed areas in City right of way must be sodded.
24.Show heavy duty and light duty pavement sections on the plans.
nd
25.Access for tractor trailers shall be limited to 82 Street.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHANHASSEN HIGH SCHOOL: REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
DISTRICT, A2 AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD TO OFFICE AND
INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT, OI; SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES FOR
A HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS INCLUDING AN APPROXIMATELY 406,000 SQUARE
FOOT, THREE STORY BUILDING, ATHLETIC FIELDS, CONCESSION BUILDING,
STADIUM, STORAGE/MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS AND PARKING LOTS;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON SITE. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE
TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK.
APPLICANT, ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC., AND INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT 112, PLANNING CASE 07-06.
14