PC 1995 11 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 1, 1995
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and gave an introduction of
how the Planning Commission meeting would be conducted.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Bob Skubic, Don Mehl, Ladd Conrad, Mike Meyer
and Jeff Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin
A1-Jaff, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CROSSROADS PLAZA 2ND
ADDITION INTO 4 LOTS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,742 SQUARE FOOT
TIRES PLUS FACILITY LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS
DISTRICY AND LOCATED NORTH OF HWY 5, EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD ON
WEST 79TH STREET.
Bob Generous p~esented the staff report on fids item.
Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point, from commissioners? Okay, seeing none.
Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission?
Ron Fiscus: Yes. Good evening. Ron Fiscus...representing Tires Plus. As Mr. Generous
stated, I think the one issue that we would like some further guidance on and offer some
suggestions as to the condition we put on, is that roof. We're in concurrence with the staff on
the other issues and have worked very diligently with both planning staff and engineering
staff to resolve those issues, both on the subdivision that the city is putting together and the
site plan, building plans for Tires Plus. Perhaps some drawings that give some color to the
black and white transparencies that were shown can help provide some further input into that
roof issue. As we talked last time, we talked about some potential roof ideas. We raised the
issue of the type of roof style that's seen rather prevalently in Chanhassen, like on the Market
Square properties, where you take a portion of the front of the building and take it back to a
reasonable point and then cut off the roof feature at that point. So here we're suggesting that
maybe the end of the showroom area, this showroom depth is this face of the building. Take
it back to that point and cut the roof off at that point so it would just be a straight peak that
would extend back from the peak of the front parapet, clock tower feature and then go
straight back to this point. It's probably one of the more simple statements but we think it
would be in keeping with a lot of things that you already see in Chanhassen. Once again
there aren't any rooftop mechanical issues to try to screen on this building. Everything from
mechanical in nature is either on the ground outside the building or within the building. Two
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
alternative studies have been looked at. The other issue we talked about last time, which is
the possibility of extending what was shown on the first alternative clear on back to the back
end of the building. Having this peak ridge extend the full length of the building. Our
concern there is that at this point it becomes kind of massive and awkward looking as it
extends the rest of the area. So as we were looking at some other alternatives to share with
you here, to get some more guidance, actually what shows up here and the bottom piece are
two other alternatives. One being to take this highest point of the showroom parapet wall and
put a roof on top of that. And the other alternative being to step that roof down as it goes
over to this portion adjacent to that showroom and the piece that sticks out in front of the
building, right in this area where this...wall steps down and then coming in there and then
putting another roof structure at the lower level there. I guess our reaction overall to this is
that perhaps it provides a better end point statement to this development. One of the things
that we were encouraged to do by staff, as we got into the beginning stages of this project, is
to provide some screening from the properties, the railroad track and properties to the north of
this project, and to really define an end point to where this project is that northerly edge of
this, and our sense is that by putting a roof like this on that building might really do a better
job of making that kind of a statement. Any of these alternatives are certainly acceptable to
Tires Plus. The preferred one would be the simplest statement that we had talked about last
time. That being this that does tie in so nicely to a number of the other roof features in
Chanhassen. Second choice would frankly be probably be this choice. So we would
welcome any insight into that that you can give us. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Fiscus? I have one. On the north side, what
would be the treatment that you would see. I know that on the north side of this building the
elevation goes up. The grade goes up so you will be seeing down on the north side of this
building from those stores or that entertainment area that will be there. So on the north side,
it will appear flat until you get to the south side of the building?
Ron Fiscus: Much as the backs of a number of the other buildings in the downtown area.
Farmakes: We don't have any materials do we?
Mancino: Do you have materials with you?
Ron Fiscus: We do not. It's a brick exterior. Red brick exterior. Standing seam steel roof.
The awnings are a vinyl, red vinyl awning. And this is a tan drivit.
Mancino: Did we have them at our meeting, our first meeting?
Generous: No.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mancino: So we haven't seen materials?
Farmakes: I'm concerned about the red roofs and red awnings. How that fits into the
surrounding structures. What I hope we don't have happen here is the stuff we've got going
on at the end with the fast food. The buildings that we have coming up here follow fast food
color structure where we get our klaidescope of bright reds, yellows and greens and things
like that. If it's more terra cotta or it's more from an architectural nature color, it'd be better
serving the city than some sort of bright red. Since you don't have the materials in front of
us, and obviously the roofing material is provided. Or the colors are custom colors it comes
in or you have to match a color, it would be nice for us to see that type of material. A magic
marker drawing on a piece of architectural paper does not...
Ron Fiscus: I recognize that having the colors on a sheet of paper doesn't quite feel the
same. Tires Plus has gone to a number of other communities that were rather restrictive or a
strong concurrence about the color representation. And...provide some attraction to the area,
as they are occupying a back portion of this site, with the red can provide that...Can actually
match into some other colors that you have...in the area. And perhaps it's something, as we
were looking at alternatives prior to the last meeting and working the entire building, I guess
I would tend to agree with you that if the entire building had a pitched roof to it and that
entire thing was red, that might be a rather strong statement. Here it takes on more of a
character of an accent and the predominant, the over powering sense you're going to have is a
very high quality red brick facility. Light tan, lighter tan brick as an accent across here but
all of those things going very nicely here.
Farmakes: We've run up against this over the years where we have operations that come in.
They're looking for high visibility and they want the red striping. We had a few buildings
that have went up and we've tried to pass ordinances that try to give us what we want as far
as an end plan once the city's primarily up and running and completely filled up. I've always
found that, or at least we have a couple of different ordinances. One is the PUD ordinance
that talks about the issues of building structures being overtly different from others in the
surrounding area and then we have the Highway 5 issue dealing with garish and bright colors.
There are no other buildings that I know of that have red doors in Chanhassen and as I said, I
think the issue here is one of color and if you have a bright red and you're interested in being
some sort of stop sign from Highway 5, I don't think that would be best serving the city.
We've asked other developers to be sensitive to that issue and I think we should be holding
any of the applicants that come in to the city to the same criteria that we try to come up with.
A sensible blend between stores that want to be seen by Highway 5 and some sort of tasteful
application of architecture in the city. We really are a fairly low impact city. Most of your
signage and so on is moderate and you can be seen from the street. It doesn't really require
the overkill of dayglo awnings and roofs.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mancino: That can certainly be put in a condition that we set forth and also with the
condition that for the City Council, all the materials be brought to show City Council on the
colors, etc.
Farmakes: I would however like to mention to some of the new members on the commission.
Preferably we like to see materials when we look at these structures because you're going to
find that you're going to be somewhat surprised, either pleasantly or unpleasantly when these
buildings go up. That gee, that wasn't quite what I thought it was. So hopefully, particularly
in this case, without having the materials in front of us, we're pretty much voting on things
that we don't really have the criteria to vote on.
Ron Fiscus: If I may offer one more comment. A year ago, a little over a year ago we
approached the City of Apple Valley, and Apple Valley as you know has gone through a
much needed change in what they define as their downtown area, which is the comer of
Cedar and County 42. They established some very stringent criteria for how they wanted this
area to appear and some of the comments as they were going through the planning process on
that downtown area came out was that they didn't like the constant change of one color to
another and the signage that the next person's sign had to be larger and brighter than the one
before it to attract attention. They had shared some concerns about Tires Plus standard
building prior to, or at the time we started opening discussions with them about whether or
not Tires Plus would fit into that kind of environment. As we got into it, Tires Plus agreed to
design a special building for that Apple Valley setting that would address some of those
criteria that the city had established and yet the city recognized the need for Tires Plus to
keep some of it's standard statement which is that red identifier. As we got into it, the Tires
Plus was very pleased with the facility. The Minnesota Shopping Center Association was so
pleased with the facility or how pleased Apple Valley was with it, that they gave that building
an award for the best building under 10,000 square feet last year. This is that building. This
is the building that as we started talking to the city administrative staff and...process, they
said well our image of Tires Plus is this fairly plain, concrete block building that really
doesn't do anything for anybody witty a lot of overhead garage doors. What can you do
about that? At that point we directed their attention to this Apple Valley building and the
general reaction we got was that's a very nice facility and is something that would
compliment that redevelopment project very nicely so that's kind of where we've been coming
along in this project as we've been interacting with staff.
Mancino: Appreciate that. Appreciate hearing that. Any other questions?
Mehl: The blue areas that you're showing there I assume is glass.
Ron Fiscus: It's glass, right.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mehl: Is that intended to be shaded blue in some way or are you looking at just clear glass?
Ron Fiscus: Clear glass.
Mehl: Okay. Any kind of a sun screen, a smoked appearance?
Ron Fiscus: It isn't intended to be.
Mehl: Okay. The other comment I would have I guess I agree with Jeff. I'm not sure about
the red roof next to the red brick are just a little off in color. We'd have to look at materials.
I think they're not, maybe not contrasting enough or, we'd have to see the materials.
Ron Fiscus: As we've gone into the Uptown area required brick. Maple Grove required
brick. Apple Valley required it. Burnsville required brick on these facilities. The red
awnings, the red trim does blend very nicely with that red brick.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please.
Meyer moved, Conrad seconded to open the public heating. The public heating was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission, please come up now on this issue. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close
the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to close the public heating. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Comments and remarks from commissioners. Commissioner Skubic. Would you
like to.
Skubic: I really share Jeff's observation mostly. The concerns about the color. And I agree,
without having samples in front of us, it's really hard to tell. I can tell what I like and
unfortunately by the time I see it, it's usually too late. Everything will be up. So I'm
sensitive that the roofline matches the, compliments the adjacent structures. I think this is
something that staff can work out with the applicant. I like the number 3 roofline. The
pitched roof on number 3 by far. That's real nice and I think it's consistent with the strip mall
to the east that's being renovated and also consistent with one of the other plans we have
before us tonight. The office industrial building. So I really like that.
Mancino: Commissioner Conrad.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Conrad: Well I appreciate the more data on the subdivision from staff. I think the applicant
has done, the subdivision looks good. The only thing that I would put in would be the
overall subdivision, you want to keep 35% green space so I'm real comfortable with allowing
this one to go over that but in total we just have to adhere to that. There's no reason we
shouldn't. The site plan looks good to me. I don't care. The applicant did a good job. I
appreciate what you did going back to two alternatives that I think are better than what I saw
before. I think they meet the intent, from what I can tell. I think Jeff's comment about a
bright red is valid. A rust. You know I don't mind what I'm seeing here but I think the point
is, I'd like to, we'd like to see the color. I certainly don't mind a reddish tone. Whether you
call it terra cotta or not, I think that's attractive. I'm looking at some colors that I think are
attractive. They may not be the real ones but I do agree with Jeff's point. We don't want a
typical McDonald's red type roof. I think that's the extent of my comments. I think it's much
better than what we saw before.
Mancino: Commissioner Meyers.
Meyer: Nothing additional.
Mancino: No additional? Commissioner Farmakes.
Farmakes: I agree with what's been said. Again I'd like to reiterate that when we see these
things, the materials would be extremely helpful. You can bet that when the architectural
firm is showing this to the client, that they are showing the materials. I don't think that it'd
be inappropriate for us to see those materials. In looking at the version that I've seen, I prefer
the one on the lower part of the screen, with the exceptions that we continue to see these
types of buildings say that this is very similar to Target. It would be helpful if, I think in
keeping more with the Highway 5 designs or the intent, is to try and do something about
some of the edges or the square. If you're looking at this building from the side. It isn't
necessary I think that you have to have a pitched kind of fake roof all the way around it but
even if there was more of a cap or an extended cap on the roof level so you don't have a box.
And I would throw that out as a comment for staff in discussing this issue maybe again with
a lighter color on the cap. Part of the roof with the staggered level of the roof, or excuse me,
the pitched roof that you've added to the front area. That would be enough, when you view
the two together and from the side, that you would, we'd be breaking this up somewhat. My
concern is that we kind of come up with a facade where it kind of looks like Frontier town.
You have a building in the front, all the rest of the buildings from the side look the same.
Mancino: It looks like a set.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Farmakes: Well like a set, yeah. But again, if you can extend out a cap, there are things that
you can do by extending out the cap that break up the square. And typical squares in nature
are non-existent. We make them and a little bit goes a long way to break that up. Anyway,
if we continue to take the same solution over and over again with these buildings, we're going
to create a very sameness to everything and that really, we need to be careful with that in one
way but again when we're trying to plan these things and come up with ordinances, hopefully
there's some variation that we get from the applicant. As it is right now, cities tend to look
very much dated by the materials that are being used currently in commercial construction.
You're seeing a lot of these metal roof structures now, particularly in the commercial retail
level of these buildings going up. And little extra details of stone details I think are going to
be important that not everything look the same. Version 1. Version 2...character. The other
issue with regards to the windows. I'm concerned that we add on or we add in that if we're
not going to require smoke windows, reflective windows. If their intent is to advertise in that
space, that we be cognizant of what that is or omit that. Because of the amount of glass
space that's facing to the south.
Mancino: Omitwhat? Anysignage?
Farmakes: In the glass. The tire places, if you're familiar with Rapid Oil Change and so on
and a lot of them put up these temporary banners and so on in the window. My concern is
with that much glass, that we don't get an S in one window. A big A in another and then L
in another and an E in another. That's 8 feet tall or something. It's not again to restrict. I
believe that you would use some allowance for square footage in window signage but again,
the distance, this is not a pedestrian area. The distance to the highway is fairly considerably
so to have workable signage and advertising will be an issue. And I think if they're allowed
temporary banners and so on for opening and that type of thing, it still would be a concern.
They have clear windows.
Mancino: Staff, what is the ordinance for that? I mean we do most of the architecture in the
front is windows and what is our sign ordinance?
Generous: 50% can be in temporary signage.
Mancino: So that glass could be filled up with 50% signage?
Generous: Yes.
Farmakes: Is there a square foot cap though? To that 50%?
Rask: No. There was not in the sign ordinance...and we agreed on 50%.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Farmakes: That's a lot of window space. Is your intent to utilize that? You say it's not?
You would not object to an ordinance, or an amendment being on there to limit that?
Mancino: A condition.
Ron Fiscus: If you wish to use that down...for the people driving by right close... I would
probably object to restricting it...so you don't occupy 50% of the window space you don't get
the big SALE letters that are visible from the highway, then I'm having a problem reducing
that down...
Mancino: Well that might be a good condition to let the applicant and staff work that
through.
Farmakes: The last issue on monument signage for this development. If we make it
architecturally compatible, with what architecture will we make it compatible?
Generous: Probably the front one but we don't know what that looks like yet. I meet Friday
with the architect.
Mancino: But that will still come through the Planning Commission.
Generous: Yes.
Ron Fiscus: If I may offer a little clarification of that. We are working with Applebee's
architect currently to resolve that and my sense is it will be more in keeping with Applebee's
architecture.
Farmakes: Alright. I don't have any further questions.
Mancino: Commissioner Mehl.
Mehl: I agree with Jeff that some type of a small inward beveled roof line around the
perimeter of the building could add some interest to the, what would be the east and west and
north. North sides. You tend to get rid of that upper square comer. It could make it more
interesting. And I agree with the advertising of the windows. Even with the large amount of
glass that's there, we really have to watch how much is going to be allowed in there. That's
all I had.
Mancino: Thank you. It's come a long way. I think it looks so much better. I have just a
couple concerns and a couple questions for staff. I see this building as having almost two
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
fronts only because when the north side of the railroad gets developed as an entertainment,
they will be looking at this building and will be getting out of parking lots and going into this
entertainment complex. So that this building does not really have a back, or shouldn't
because of what's going to be developed on the north side. Am I correct in seeing it that way
Bob?
Generous: Yes, you will have the entertainment district if you will.
Mancino: Right there and it will be looking onto this so I would like to make sure that both
landscaping wise and adding a new roof element will have the back also be aesthetically
pleasing. Maybe not quite as much as the south side but that the north side have the correct
amount of landscaping too so it doesn't feel like the back of the building, because I do think
it has two fronts. My other question has to do with parking lot. Bob, could you put up the
last overhead that you had up that showed where the parking lot for this subdivision may
have access on both the west and the east side.
Generous: On the west side, it would be looking along this... This is the bank's drive thru
with one way traffic going towards the west. The other one would be down in the southeast
corner of the development if they choose to make that connection for the second phase.
Mancino: Okay. My concern is, and I read over the Chanhassen Vision 2002 newsletter that
we all received, was that one of the points that it made is that the foundation of the plan were
talking about park once, shop twice. And what I found over at Market Square, parking in
Market Square. We parked at Wendy's. One of us went to Pet Jungle. One of us went to
Lawn and Sports and we had to cut through a huge parking lot and I found with children that
is not pedestrian friendly. You can hardly park once and shop twice because the parking area
is so big and there is nothing that, for public safety, allows you to walk to all these different
places. I don't have the solution but I would like to see the city come up with one in these
big parking lots that are going to be multi-use for 4 and 5 different retail spaces. Anybody
on the commission have any solutions to that?
Mehl: I have one comment. I counted the number of parking places that were going to be in
the restaurant parking lot. I got 90 to 100. Is that what's required for that restaurant space?
Or could some of those parking areas be done, or be rearranged in such a way to get them
better traffic flow. Maybe some additional landscaping. Maybe some pedestrian walkways.
This sort of thing.
Generous: Well they have improved that pedestrian walkway. The first answer is, it's not
sufficient for the site that's specifically on the restaurant site. There will be cross access and
parking agreements so there's shared parking within the development. And also with the
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
connection, the bank will be losing some parking spaces so they'll get shared parking with
this development also. This is a little too small to do it. Like I said, we have provided the
best pedestrian opportunities that we saw based on the layout on this site. With both ways of
the entrance boulevard, there will be sidewalks on both sides and then there will be these
connections to east and west.
Mancino: So there is perimeter pedestrian sidewalks?
Generous: Correct. And also...
Mancino: Okay, but we haven't come up with a solution to diagonally or once you're on the
east side, to get to the west side of the parking lot.
Generous: Not from internally, no.
Mancino: No internal sort of pedestrian sidewalk. I would like staff to work on that concept
as we get bigger parking lots. How do we allow people to some sort of an internal
pedestrian, whether it's even painted on the asphalt, etc.
Generous: Yeah, I don't know. Part of the problem is if they do that, they eat up their
impervious surface and we need so much landscaping in the parking lot so maybe it's a credit
along that line. Yeah, it's something we could look at.
Mancino: Yeah, I understand. Appreciate it. Thank you. Those are my only comments.
Do I have a motion?
Conrad: Sure. Just before I make a motion.
Mancino: For subdivision.
Conrad: The subdivision is neat. It's real simple. But it's really, the simplicity is almost,
you take it for granted but it's really quite nice. I don't think anybody has said that. When
you have the shared parking for four buildings, you get a couple buildings up front. This is
neat. It's also neat that we do have some accesses possibly going to the neighboring property
owner so in it's simplicity, don't ignore how nice this particular subdivision is. I like it very
much. A comment about the parking. We blew it when we built Target and you know, that
was a massive parking lot and we had opportunities galore there. This one's too small in my
estimation to really do something useful. That really functions. Tough to deal with this one
but those are some add on comments but I'll make the motion on the subdivision that the
Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of Subdivision #95-13, Crossroads
10
Planning Commission Meeting- November 1, 1995
Third Addition, plans prepared by Peters, Price and Samson dated July 12, 1995, if that's still
the right date. Is that the right date?
Generous: For the subdivision.
Conrad: For the subdivision, okay. Replatting Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd
Addition into 4 lots subject to the conditions in the staff report plus the deletions that staff
made that maybe I didn't get totally down. I know we deleted number 1 and we deleted
number 6.
Mancino: And 7.
Conrad: And 7, okay. And then there was an adjustment to, there were some wording
changes to 2, is that right Bob?
Generous: Yes. Delete all but the last sentence and then modify.
Conrad: Okay. But I'm not going to repeat that. I bought what you said and it made sense
so you can get that in. The only addition that I'd make to this would be point number 20.
The condition be that overall 65% impervious surface will not be exceeded. And that's the
extent of my motion.
Farmakes: Will you take an amendment?
Conrad: Maybe.
Farmakes: An addition. I asked that staff to work out the details from the architecture that
was discussed.
Conrad: This is just for the subdivision. Not the site.
Farmakes: Okay, I'm sorry.
Mancino: Second to the motion?
Meyer: Second that.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends City Council
approval of Subdivision #95-13, Crossroads 3rd Addition, plans prepared by Peters, Price &
Samson dated July 12, 1995, replatfing Lot 2, Block 1, Cn)ssroads Plaza 2nd Addition into 4
lots subject to the following conditions:
1. Detailed construction plans as well as as-built plans will be required upon completion.
.
The preliminary plat itself appears to be acceptable. The appropriate drainage and utility
easements will be dedicated with the plat.
.
Existing landscaping along West 79th Street will be in conflict with the proposed
driveway. These trees will need to be relocated.
.
There is an existing concrete driveway apron on West 79th Street located in the
southwest comer of the site that will need to be removed.
.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be used
adjacent to the grading limits.
.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
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 accepting the utilities
and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign.
.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 2 year, 10 year and 100
year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance
with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and
approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed
and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water
12
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
level and high water level calculations in existing basins and created basins. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
10.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
11.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply
with their conditions of approval.
12. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way.
13. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the wetland
mitigation areas into the surroundings is recommended.
14. Prior to filling the wetlands, the City shall receive all necessary permits to complete the
project in accordance with the WCA and Army Corps of Engineers.
15.
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.
16.
Erosion control fencing (Type I) shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage
plans prior to final plat approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around
the perimeter of the site prior to any work commencing.
17. The condition be that overall 65% impervious surface will not be exceeded.
All voted in favor and the motion cmried unanimously.
Mancino: May I have a motion for the site plan.
Conrad: Yeah I'd make that motion too. I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission
recommends the City Council approve Site Plan #95-10, plans dated October 20, 1995,
prepared by Yaggy Colby Associates for Tires Plus, Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd
Addition, subject to the conditions of the staff report with the following changes. On point
13
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
number 6. That the Planning Commission recommends the third alternative as the elevation.
The third alternative provided by the applicant as being the design of choice by the Planning
Commission but with the one exception that the cap be placed on the top of the roof line on
the east, north and west. I'd revise number 7 to add that the staff will insure that landscaping
to the north is adequate to soften the hard view or to soften the view from the entertainment
center to the north. I'd add number 13. That the applicant be required to bring in the
samples of the roof and the brick to the City Council with the intent that the roof not be, the
intent that the roof be a more natural reddish color at most. Not a bright red and that will be
for the staff and the applicant to review before it gets to the City Council.
Mancino: Second please.
Farmakes: Can I make an addition to that or friendly amendment? When you say the roof
materials, can you also add the details and the structure, being the awnings and the doors and
SO on.
Conrad: Yeah.
Mehl: One other thing too. Are we all clear on which is design number 3?
Conrad: Yeah. I think everybody here knows but it's the third, it's the bottom of the new
alternative.
Mancino: It's the double pitch.
Conrad: Good point.
Mancino: Thank you. And do I have a second to that motion?
Farmakes: I second.
Mancino: I'm sorry, any discussion?
Conrad moved, Fmmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve Site Plan #95-10, plans dated October 20, 1995, prepared by Yaggy Colby
Associates for Tires Plus on Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Building is required to be fire sprinklered per NFPA 13.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
2. Ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
o
,
o
o
,
,
10.
11.
Submit radius turn dimensions for approval.
Signage will only be permitted on the south elevation and must comply with city code
requirements. No panel signs will be permitted. A separate sign permit will be required
for signage.
Grading of the site must be consistent with the master development plan that will be
required of the plat.
The third alternative, which is the double pitched roof, provided by the applicant as
being the design of choice by the Planning Commission but with the one exception that
the cap be placed on the top of the roof line on the east, north and west.
Revising landscaping plan to locate all proposed trees outside the Minnegasco easement.
Staff will insure that landscaping to the north is adequate to soften the hard view or to
soften the view from the entertainment center to the north.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be used
adjacent to the grading limits.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply
with their conditions of approval.
The private utilities shall be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant
and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
12. The applicant shall enter into a site development agreement with the city and provide
the necessary security to meet the conditions of approval.
13.
The applicant is required to bring in the samples of the roof, brick, awnings and
detailing to the City Council with the intent that the roof be more of a natural reddish
color than a bright red.
All voted in favor and the motion cm~ied unanimously.
Conrad: Madam Chair, can I make a comment? Can I make another comment?
Mancino: Yes you may.
Conrad: I did not address the window space. And I think City Council can. We have a
brand new ordinance in town. We just looked at it. I really hate to all of a sudden identify
this project as one that we're going to change that ordinance to because we see a few more
panes of glass so that's why I didn't bundle that in Jeff. I'm real nervous about doing that and
about setting individual window specifications. I did want to bring it up because I think City
Council should review it but I want them to hear my comments. We have a new ordinance.
It's there. We screwed around with it. We thought about it a long time. I don't really like to
get in and nit, I'm not sure it's nit picking because it's a valid concern but I don't know, I felt
uncomfortable.
Farmakes: You may want to review that ordinance because I'm not sure, we did at one time
have a...
Aanenson: There is a cap based on the wall area. It can't exceed the wall area for that
district.
Conrad: It may be okay but again, that's.
Mancino: And it's passed. When does it go in front of the City Council?
Generous: November 13th.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING:
SIGN HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 6 1/2 FOOT HIGH ENTRY
MONUMENT SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF LANDINGS DRIVE
AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KENNETH DURR.
Public P~esent:
Name Address
Kenneth Durr
Craig Miller
4830 Westgate Road, Mtka 55345
6450 Minnewashta Parkway
John Rask presented the staff repo~ on this item.
Mancino: Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission?
Ken Durr: My name Ken Durr. I reside at 4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka. At the time
that the preliminary plats were developed and submitted, I did submit the day following,
holding all of the applications, 20 some copies of this that we had prepared originally. Prior
to any of our work being done on the property. With that was a drawing showing, which was
on the screen there that Bob had on. Showing the drawing dimensions of the sign.- The
actual signage area...about 4 feet under what is allowed. The height of the lattice work is I
think 6 foot 5. Foot and a half higher than what the ordinance requires. Now I did have
these were prepared by our office. We had these run at Kinko's and there were 20 some
copies. Where they went, I don't know. But we assumed that being that this was included
with the application, and the sign detail, that we didn't have to do anything further. That was
an error. Staff report states that one of our landscaping plans only shows one monument.
Originally we had three. There was the lattice work on this side. The gatehouse in the
center. And more lattice work on the other side, as the three proposed. We dropped that idea
when we were required by the city to open Ironwood Road through our subdivision. Because
we knew once the four additional people who were not residents of Minnewashta Landings,
that we could not ever control that by a gatehouse because the association did not include
those people. We always, up until finally determining to drop the gatehouse and the other
monument on the other side, we always did show three but I think maybe the staff didn't
recognize that on the drawing that they referred to with one monument, there are really three.
They're indicated in red. It says monuments. And there are three of them but in black and
white they may look like trees rather than monuments. The...ordinance states 5 feet. We're
in excess of that and that's our error in not checking...and following procedures but I really
did not know that that was featured as a problem. Interestingly, even our appraisal for the
subdivision which was done back in May 26, 1994, the appraisal has the same entry
17
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
monument. And essentially there, it's nearly identical to the...that's near to that which we
could possibly do. Now since that...driving down Highway 7 after this occurred, and just
observing the various subdivision signs all along Highway 7. There is not a sign along
Highway 7, the main subdivision on the south side of TH 7, from TH 41 to Minnewashta
Parkway, that is 5 feet or less. Every sign is over 5 feet. Some of them as high as 10 feet.
And I have taken pictures from, here's one at 8 foot 2 inches. There's one over on TH 41
that's over 8 feet. Any number of them. There's Minnewashta Heights. Sterling Estates.
Minnewashta Manor. All of them along Highway 7 and some as much as 10 feet and every
one is in the highway right-of-way so I concur that yes, we acted without a permit. We're in
excess of the 5 feet. We have a spent a great deal of money and time and effort and concern
on trying to develop the very best looking community that we could. We didn't just do this
hap hazardly. A lot of thought was given to the total planning concept. The size of the sign.
The coloring of the sign. The color of the lettering and all to make it as aesthetically
pleasing as possible. And we receive nothing but compliments from neighbors on it and not
one objection to anything that we've done to the entry. So yes, we're in violation but we have
spent a great deal of money and effort for signage was $7,000.00 and it is done, not just all
out of wood. It has a steel structure inside of the wood so that the posts are steel mounted in
concrete. It's the same type of structure that's used in the Arboretum for their signage for
their arbors and the people there have gone to great expense to finding the best materials that
will get longevity and service from their use at the Arboretum. And I had a lot of
conversations with them. I even used the same person who does their signs. Pete Boyer who
happens to be a building contractor does all of the Arboretum's arbors and signage work. So
I employed Pete Boyer to build this and we did it with the same materials, same techniques,
the same preservatives as they use at the Arboretum. I'm confident that the longevity of it is
going to be very good. We've used similar procedures before on lattice work that is 25 or 26
years old now and has held up very well. And it does hold up well at the Arboretum. And
we do have a sufficient money in our homeowners association to handle anything that needs
to be done as far as maintenance. We're not going to have a shabby look by any means after
all we've spent on the subdivision. It's a look that I think is important in character. It's in
good scale and good taste. But it exceeds 5 feet.
Mancino: Thank you very much. This is a public, oh. May I have a motion to open for a
public hearing please.
Meyer moved, Skubic seconded to open the public he~uing. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission.
Craig Miller: My name is Craig Miller. I reside at 6450 Minnewashta Parkway, which is
directly across from the Landings entrance. One of the signs...and the sign is there when I'm
18
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
working in my yard and when I look out my front window. It does not restrict my view of
the lake. It's done in good taste. It's not gawdy. It represents the area very well. It fits well
with the landscaping around it. In short, if I have no objections to it, I can't see why anybody
else would.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Seeing
none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Skubic moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: First of all, could you answer the question as to why from TH 41 west to
Minnewashta Landings there are signs on Highway 7 or south of Highway 7 that are higher in
height than what the ordinance says.
Rask: Most of those are older subdivisions. I can't say that they went in after we had a sign,
or before we had a sign ordinance or not. I don't know that. I would assume they were in
before the sign ordinance, not this latest revision but before we really had any standards.
Looking back at other subdivisions in the city, we have a great number of permits for other
subdivisions for their entry monument signs and if you look at other subdivisions throughout
the city you'll notice that the vast majority of those do meet requirements. They are low
profile signs. They are not over 5 feet and conform to the other regulations so I would
assume that it's just because they are older subdivisions.
Mancino: Excuse me for a public service announcement. Kevin Snyder has his lights on.
It's a red Ford Bronco parked in the lower lot. And we'll stop proceedings until you come
back. Just kidding. Thank you. I assume if it's a newer one with a newer ordinance you
would be out there talking to them? Okay, thank you.
Farmakes: What would you attribute to the recent developments that we're seeing the same
problem. With Rottlund and Lundgren.
Rask: Yeah, I don't know where we've missed there. Obviously if you've got two there's
something going on. I mentioned though responding to Nancy question, it hasn't always been
a problem. We've got a whole filing cabinet full of permits that show people have come in
and they've applied and even you look at all the subdivisions we've got going in, we haven't
had a problem on the other ones. They've come in and asked for permits.
Aanenson: Maybe I can respond to that a little bit. Some of the newer subdivisions that
have gone in have been in the Parade of Homes. They're marketing to a different identity.
Some of the other subdivisions that we've had prior to that aren't going in with the same
19
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
priority because there's a different marketing technique and so signage has become more
important on some of these subdivisions.
Farmakes: As a "monument" versus a.
Aanenson: A statement, identity. Exactly. Which maybe we haven't seen as much before.
Where they wanted to match, similar to like the Lundgren where they wanted to match kind
of their theme of what they're trying to do. Just as Mr. Durr has indicated what he's trying to
do...
Mancino: And the other hard part is, we are not a design review board here. We're the
Planning Commission to uphold the ordinances that we have. Comments from the
commissioners. Mr. Mehl, would you like to start.
Mehl: Yeah, I think it's a very attractive sign. Very well designed. It looks great. It's
probably going to stand there a long time you know with the materials it's made out of. I
don't know how maintenance free the lattice work is but aside from that I think that the sign
could be scaled down and proportioned down to be basically the same sign and the same
attractive sign to fall within the ordinance.
Mancino: Okay, Commissioner Farmakes.
Farmakes: I think there are other precedence of mistakes being made by builders, developers
in regards to city ordinances. And criterias from the outside looking at problems sometimes
seem petty and bureaucratic. However, when you're coming up with ordinances, we do not
tag onto the end of the ordinance as a form of law saying, unless it looks good. And that is
not an excuse to ignore criteria that we have here and we do have variance criteria to give
variances. I agree with the city staff that the criteria is not being met here, in any one of the
several guidelines. I agree that the sign could be reconformed to have the same appearance
and fit within the parameters. I am somewhat concerned that we're getting a rash of these
from developers. I'm wondering about the intent of following the ordinance. And it seems
that they continue when they're off or they forget about the plans, that they continue to be
taller. They don't have a tendency to be smaller than the ordinance, so I think.
Mancino: But we don't know about those.
Farmakes: Well, that's neither here or there. It's just an observation. My point here on this
issue before us is a procedure issue. If we say that this is okay for this, because it happens to
look good, that is not a criteria for a variance. Nor is criteria that we add on when we're,
when the city is passing ordinances. I think that this should be handled the way that we've
20
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
handled the others, as an issue and we should be consistent with how we deal with this.
Otherwise we're then creating a precedent situation where if we could...well that's okay, we'll
look the other way...
Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Meyers.
Meyer: It's been very well covered...nothing additional to add.
Mancino: Commissioner Conrad.
Conrad: Whereas typically I enforce our ordinances, I guess I'm a little bit showing some
sensitivity in this particular case, probably because I didn't buy the ordinance in the first
place. Probably because an entry monument sign is significant. Can create a sense of place.
A sense of welcome. I don't think our ordinance allows that to happen. It's meant to
minimize the impact of signage whereas in many cases signage can be a real positive thing
for a major development. So that's why I'm vacillating here. I don't have, I haven't made up
my mind what I want to do. I really buy following up the ordinance again. The ordinance is
relatively fresh, as I said before. Here's a case where we have something that's fairly well
designed, and I probably lobbied for a design bonus, if I recall what my position was when
the ordinance was going through. So I'm sort of caught between what my feelings were then.
A case where I think this is probably an attractive sign. Well designed. Not offensive. Not,
you know it's not doing anything bad. Yet the ordinance is there so I'll stop my comments at
that.
Mancino: I was going to say, and who decides the design bonus? Commissioner Meyers. I
mean Skubic. Excuse me.
Skubic: I'm going to support the ordinance. I believe it's put there for a right reason.
Certainly maintenance I believe is an issue and also the size that we're trying to level the
playing field here so that there aren't any advantages. Should the City Council decide to
approve this, as they have on some previous situations, I certainly hope that they will take
staff's recommendations to insure that the maintenance is covered by the homeowners
association and also some penalty fee be added.
Mancino: Thank you. I also support what Commissioner Skubic has just talked about. As
hard it is for me, I think the design is very good. I think all the thinking has been done to
design it well. To make sure it's constructed well and will weather time and I have no doubt
that the homeowners association will maintain it. 100%. We still have a new ordinance and
it may be, from these last two, what would be Longacres signage that was done on Highway
41 and this one, that we look again at the ordinance. We may want to do that and do some
21
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
revision but as it stands right now, I too would say that a variance, or hardship hasn't been
established here. May I have a motion please?
Farmakes: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission deny the variance request for a 7 1/2
foot high entry monument sign for the following reasons that's listed, 1 thru 3 from the report
dated November 1, 1995.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Mehl: I second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Fatanakes moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the
vmiance request for a seven and one-half (7.5) foot high entry monument sign for the
following reasons:
The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a
variance.
,
Neither the size, physical surrounding, shape or topography prevent the placement of a
sign which meet ordinance requirements.
o
The alleged difficulty or hardship appears to be self created because the applicant could
have reduced the overall height of the sign while maintaining the same size area.
All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carded.
Mancino: When does this go in front of City Council?
Rask: On the 27th.
Mancino: On the 27th of November. Thank you.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING:
SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO MONUMENT SIGNS ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 761 WEST 78TH STREET, RICHFIELD BANK.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Kuchner
Jan Susee
Kevin Snyder
6625 Lyndale Ave. So., Richfield
6625 Lyndale Ave. So., Richfield
2170 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights
John Rask presented the staff repot~ on this item.
Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning
Commission?
Jan Susee: Thank you. My name is Jan Susee. I represent Richfield Bank and Trust and the
Richfield State Agency that owns this property. This sign is not designated as an advertising
sign. We immediately took that off when we saw the report, which was about 8 times it's
mentioned that it's advertising. Well that's not the intent. If you know the site, you're driving
right in front of the drive up tellers and it's safety to get cars to go to the right... I'll also point
out that our monument sign is actually only 15 square feet in size. It's approximately 3 x 5
and the bottom base is not necessarily, there's nothing on it. It's a back lit sign which is the
same so you can see the directional signage that's there. We've spent a great deal of money
on a sign and we probably have bar none, the most expensive sign in the city of Chanhassen
or probably the surrounding area. The fountain out front is costing well over $100,000.00 as
part of the package we were trying to develop a very high quality building. High quality
signs. Our actual signage on the building is less than permitted. We could have had quite a
bit more. It's actually 87.5 feet for each of the signs. That's the actual size they indicated...
The square footage, if you call this a monument sign, the 15 feet that's actually used plus the
46 feet on the fountain side, is less than would be allowed as well. And this is just an
attempt to make the building attractive and make it something more than just a cold sign
saying go this way. It just isn't right. That building is too expensive of a building. Too
attractive of a building within the needs of the city and clearly meets all of the actual size of
the building. I'll also point out that this isn't a single use building. There are at least 5 other
tenants in the building and there are no signage for those. We restricted those in their leases
so they can't have individual signs. And this is just to direct people where to park. We've
got 5 different businesses. We've got a drive-up coming right out in front. It's an attempt to
make an attractive sign that designates where people should drive.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open
it for a public hearing. Excuse me. Is there anyone else from the applicants that would like
to present? Okay. May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing
please.
Meyer moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time. Seeing none,
may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing.
Meyer moved, Fmmakes seconded to close the public heating. The public hearing was
closed.
Farmakes: May I ask a question of staff?. Before we proceed.
Mancino: Yes, before we proceed. Go ahead.
Farmakes: I didn't get a chance to ask in regards to the comment but I'd like that clarified
from our engineer or city staff. Just chime in whoever thinks they should cover this. There
is a do not enter sign at the area coming in. The applicant made a comment about safety.
Knowing where to turn. You only have one other way to turn. Do you feel that that's
covered in the issue of safety?
Hempel: I can respond to that. If you're referring to the access off of Kerber Drive, when
you turn in. When you turn into the site, you're approached by the drive-up, or the exit from
the drive-up teller windows and it was our recommendation at the site plan review process to
put do not enter signs, one way signs at that point.
Mancino: At the south side.
Hempel: South side. As shown on the site plan here.
Mancino: Okay.
Farmakes: So those, my point, do you concur that an additional signage with this, if this is
fulfilling, it's enhancing that safety or do you feel that that's self explanatory. That if you
have a do not enter sign, and there's only one other way to turn, does it need additional
signage is what I'm saying to...people driving in there, in your opinion.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Hempel: In my opinion, based on the traffic signage manual, I'd say the signs that they show
here, the do not enter sign is adequate for the traffic flow.
Mancino: Thank you. Any comments from, or questions from commissioners?
Commissioner Skubic.
Skubic: Well I don't have any strong opinions on this. We certainly aren't enhancing the
building by advertising on this sign and it certainly is, as the applicant said, a quality sign and
I can see the advantage of some directional information on the sign but once again I'm
hesitant to override our ordinance so I don't know. I'm undecided on this. I'll listen to the
rest of the commissioners.
Mancino: Commissioner Conrad.
Conrad: Staff's report is appropriate. There's no doubt. Functionally you can direct traffic
within our ordinance. I support the ordinance and staff report.
Mancino: Commissioner Meyer.
Meyer: I'm concerned about the safety issue. I feel satisfied that that's adequate...support
staff's report.
Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes.
Farmakes: No additional comments.
Mancino: Commissioner Mehl.
Mehl: Yeah, I agree. We don't need that sign. The sign that are there are adequate. Do I
understand it correctly that they can put a 4 square foot directional sign in there and it would
seem to me that they could put some good effort into styling and shaping, positioning of that
sign that it could be very functional and very attractive.
Mancino: Thank you. I have no additional comments. I do support staff report. I think a
directional sign would be welcoming there. Telling people that there is an auto bank or cash
machine and where to go. And sticking with the ordinance, the size of the sign. May I have
a motion please?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial for the
request for the sign permit variance #95-9 for the November 1, 1995 based on the findings
presented in the staff report 1 through 5.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Mehl: I'll second that.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Ftumakes moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council deny the request for the Sign Permit Vmiance #95-9 based on the findings presented
in the staff repo~X and the following:
The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a
variance.
.
Richfield Bank has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with
two wall signs and fountain sign.
3. Provisions exist in the City Code for the use of directional signs.
4. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance.
All voted in favor and the motion cmried unanimously.
Mancino: When does this go to City Council?
Rask: On the 27th.
Mancino: November 27th. Please follow it onto City Council, who will make the decision.
Thank you.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND
GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Don Halla
Robert Bruno
Mark and Kay Halla
6601 Mohawk Trail, Mpls.
1601 E. Hwy 13, Bumsville
770 Creekwood, Chaska
John Rask presented the staff repot~ on fids item.
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? I have a couple. Where else do we have
nurseries? Retail nurseries. Where can they go now? Is the only place where, central
business district? I know Lotus Lawn and Garden.
Rask: Yeah, business highway where we have Lotus Lawn and Garden there. Don't know if,
I don't believe it's in the CBD. I think just business highway.
Mancino: So it's business highway which is where else in the city do we have business
highway? I mean I'm an avid gardener. Where can I go for retail in our city to a nursery?
Or will I be in 10 years from now, from what we have set up.
Rask: Currently the zoning districts we have, I don't know if there's a whole lot of vacant
land for that type of use or if there's areas that would be suitable.
Aanenson: That was one of the reasons why we looked at the temporary use ordinance
because we've had...to provide that retail outlet...on a temporary basis.
Mancino: So, but I'm a real gardener. I mean I'm not a temporary Target gardener. I mean I
want the real thing. I want to pick my perennials. I want to you know, so that I would go to
business highway district? That is where they could locate because what I'm hearing you say
is that right now we have our wholesalers. We have the, I guess it is the Gorra property on
Highway 5, north of Highway 5 between what is it, Kerber and Galpin. And that's an
interim?
Aanenson: Yes.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mancino: And we also have the Wilson Tree Wholesale Nursery on.
Aanenson: Yes.
Mancino: And that is also interim at this point?
Rask: Yeah, I don't know what the current status is. If it's still operating under a conditional
use from some time ago. I don't believe they've gone through the interim use process.
Mancino: Okay. Those are just, I just wanted to know, where they are right now and doesn't
the Wilson's have a retail space place on 2127 Is that also BH zoning?
Aanenson: BF. Business Fringe.
Mancino: Business Fringe. So they could also be in the business fringe. Okay, thank you.
Does the applicant or their designee wish to make a presentation?
Don Halla: Good evening Madam Chairman, commissioners. I'm Don Halla, Halla
Nurseries. We believe our landscape nursery and garden center should be permitted in the A2
zoning. We requested a zoning text amendment after we recently asked for staff's permission
to build another greenhouse. The building department said that we did not need a permit
since the greenhouse would be an agricultural building, with agricultural products being sold.
However the planning department said no, because we are intensifying our business which
they feel is a non-permitted use. The planning department said that the zoning does not allow
us to exist. We realize our grandfather status does allow us to exist. Halla Nursery has been
a retail nursery since 1962 at our Chanhassen location. In 1973 a permit was issued to build
a structure to house our landscaping, garden center and sales office... Since that time we have
always carried dry goods, plants, tools, animal feed, bird accessories and other items related
to the development and care of landscaping and plants and animal habitat. Prior to 1994 we
stocked and sold these items in our office building, our greenhouse and in a display and
storage building. In 1990 the city changed their ordinance without notifying us. In 1993 we
built two buildings, mainly for the purpose of equipment storage and planting of bare root
nursery stock. No permit was required. In early spring 1994 we built another building to
condense the products which we were displaying and selling from our office building,
greenhouses and... Again, after inquiring of the city building department, we learned that no
permit was required. Not until the summer of 1994 were we notified that the change in the
ordinance affected the legal status of our business. Why were we not notified when we
inquired previously about building permits? Probably because the nursery business is guided
by the State and Federal government as an agricultural business...horticulture. Just as
farming, greenhouses and... We feel that when the city changed it's ordinance, and zoning for
28
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
A2 land in 1990, and error was made by not including landscaping nurseries and garden
centers as an A2 permitted use. There are several other nurseries in the community still
grandfathered in, in non-compliance with the A2 ordinance. The ordinance should have taken
into consideration these families and businesses before it was adopted. The restriction should
be the same for everyone. A2 is agriculture. This means Arboretums, nurseries, garden
centers, farms...greenhouses, all of which may or may not include retail sales. The zoning is
silent as to retail sales. Halla Nursery is a licensed landscaping nursery, game and poultry
farm. We have been all of these for many years. Homes are permitted and usually are part
of any agricultural business. My son and his wife live on the nursery property. The city staff
has stated that there would be certain A2 zoning areas which are suitable for garden center
nurseries, by Section 20-1 of the ordinance. Defining nursery means, an enterprise which
conducts the retail and wholesale sales of plants grown on site as well as accessory items
directly related to their care and maintenance. Arboretum means a collection of plants. Is
permitted in the A2 zoning. Is this not what a nursery is? Our Minnesota Landscape
Arboretum is located on A2 land. It has a retail store which sells jewelry, trinkets, books,
clothes, blankets, cards, quilts, housing items, and Christmas gifts to name a few. It is also,
has a restaurant. They called their store a variety store in a conversation that I had with them
last Saturday. They do not sell plants or plant supplies, except at all their fund raisers where
nurseries, like us, donate products for sale to help fund the continued growth of this valuable
asset. Nurseries are likewise a valuable asset and service to the community. They grow
plants of many types and kinds, which are sold to beautify our homes and businesses.
Nurseries must make a profit to survive. Unlike the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, we
don't have the ability to get grants, volunteers and fund raisers to continue our existence.
Nevertheless, we are a valuable asset to the community. Our nursery presently has 100 acres
of land but we do not necessarily need all 100 acres for our operation. Recently we have
been approved for a subdivision that would leave at least 12 acres for the nursery business
and the remaining land for 2 1/2 acre average residential development. Charles Cudd
Builders, a fine home builder now building Bearpath and Big Woods in Eden Prairie, has
been working with us to create a development that makes the nursery like an Arboretum. A
plus for the neighbors to enjoy that want to live in a country atmosphere among the peacocks
and flowers. We are looking forward to being an attractive asset to this new subdivision, just
as we feel we are for Chanhassen. Over the years we have donated trees and plants to the
parks, the churches and other non-profit organizations. We raise over 20,000 perennials and
annuals each year and we also grow thousands of shade trees and shrubs and ornamentals.
These plants are grown to be part of the beautification of the world in which we live. And in
particular Chanhassen. We hope the community grows and that we will remain an integral
part of it. We are a third generation family business. We do not feel that it is our business,
which has existed since 1962, is an interim use business. Because we have needs for another
greenhouse and because city staff has complained to us that our nursery did not complain
with the A2 zoning, we are requesting the ordinance amendment. In the October 25th memo
29
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
from planning, the planning staff listed certain conditions that would apply to retail and
wholesale nurseries if added as an appropriated use in certain locations. We commend the
staff for their thoughtfulness and desire to develop the community in an organized and precise
manner. However we feel some of these recommendations may be harsh and not particular to
a business that has existed prior to the zoning changes. We would like to negotiate some of
these items with the city. Kay Halla, a registered landscape architect on our staff, has worked
as a county planner in Howard County just outside Baltimore, Maryland. She would be
pleased to work with the city to negotiate appropriate A2 requirements for a nursery and
garden center. Some of the items and conditions we wish to negotiate are, in your list item
number 3. This should be line with regulations regarding businesses. Most nurseries, farms
and greenhouses would have plant and yard areas within 100 feet of the street. The 500 foot
setback of the yard building and storage would require a site of at least 27 1/2 acres. If you
take 500 each direction, it comes to 1,000 x 1,000. Multiples out to 22 1/2 acres. Take the 5
acres in the middle and you have 27 1/2 acres required to do that. And wouldn't allow a
home, which is permitted in A2, to be part of the nursery. Screening the nursery with a fence
would make you think it's a junkyard, and located behind it. Not plants and supplied to
beautified our homes and neighborhoods. Growing plants are attractive. They're not ugly or
repulsive. A nursery by it's nature is an outdoor store. Fencing is not required for farms or
other A2 permitted uses which may include such things as manure piles, or junk equipment.
Item number 5. If hours are set by the city, they should be in keeping with other businesses.
Farms and the Arboretum that are permitted in the A2 zone. Large farms and the Minnesota
Landscape Arboretum have speaker systems. They should be permitted but controlled if too
loud or abusive. As a family business, most farmers, nurserymen, and greenhouse operations
along with the Arboretum, would not like to feel that they would have to close or liquidate
their business unless the economics were such that they could not exist. Is it fair for the city
to tell the landowner that he much sell his property and cease making a living? This is what
an interim or conditional permit does. Most nurserymen and farmers are very good stewards
of the land. They love working with plants and animals and enjoy the beauty of outdoor
work and living. It is hard work. Most work 60 to 80 hours a week to earn a living in the 7
to 8 months in which we have to grow a crop. Their work benefits all of us through food
production, beautification and helping keep our earth healthy and alive. Society needs to help
and encourage all agriculture or we won't have a society. We need extra greenhouse space to
help accomplish this. We want to cooperate and facilitate Chanhassen in it's growth into the
next century and beyond. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you.
Don Halla: I believe Kay Halla has something she wants to say.
Mancino: Thank you. Any other of the applicant would like to present?
30
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Robert Bruno: Madam Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Robert Bruno. I
represent Halla Nursery and I want to make just a brief presentation for you here...on the
definitions involved in this issue which I think aren't addressed in the staff report .... from
Don Halla's presentation, there's a great variety of commercial activity that goes on at the
Halla Nursery and has gone on for many, many years. Since 1962. However when you
attempt to apply what the city has defined as a nursery or a wholesale nursery or permitted
uses that are described in the A2 zoning, you come up with very inconsistent results. One of
the permitted uses in A2 zoning district is agriculture, and the city staff hasn't defined that for
you in the staff report but I think it's a very enlightening definition. Agriculture, according to
Section 20-1, the definition section of the City Code...commercial use of land. And
I...commercial, whether they're raising a livestock poultry, growing and producing fruits,
vegetables, field crops and nursery stock, including tree farms. And choose and cut
Christmas trees sales. The term does not include commercial raising of fruit or any animals
or the operation of riding academies, commercial stables or kennels. The way this issue
arises, was out of the request to build the additional greenhouse, which at first blush would
seem to be an agricultural use. However the staff has interpreted the definition of agriculture
here to exclude retail sales or retail activity, even though it's not mentioned anywhere in the
definition. And because there were going to be grown within that greenhouse products which
would then be sold at retail, that converted it into something other than agriculture in the
staff's mind and you see in the staff's report other definitions, depending upon what the issue
might be, you see definitions for what a garden center is, and there's inference that the
nursery would be a garden center. You see a definition of what a nursery is and in some
respects...some parts of it are nursery. Not all of it. But I think you have to look at the
definition of agriculture here to see that what we are requesting here really means a
consolidation and a clarification of all of these definitions which I think are really conflicting.
If you look at the term agriculture, it uses the word commercial use of the land. It doesn't
mean, it didn't say wholesale. It didn't say but not retail. It said commercial. It used the
broadest possible language to define what agriculture meant and certainly...farmer who is
growing crops, is intending to sell them. It's not intending to eat all their crops or compost
them. They're engaged in a commercial activity to dispose of those crops by sales and
certainly there are retail sales which occur on agricultural property...look any further than the
orchards or in fact the Christmas Tree cutting is a retail activity which is contained right
within the definition of agriculture. Eggs can be sold off of a farmer's place. There are many
retail sales. I think the definition of agriculture implies that there is a retail component and
there could be a retail component of it but I don't think that has really been brought up to this
body's attention in the staff's report. All of these definitions, depending upon what Mr. Halla
wants to do with his property, the staff will point to another definition and say well, you don't
really qualify on this. Therefore we can't allow you to construct your greenhouse. What we
are attempting by this is to try to make some sense out of the patchwork of definitions that
we have. To simply say that nurseries are a permitted use in the agricultural district, this is
31
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
an idea that was suggested to us by the city's attorney. By Elliott Knetsch who suggested that
this makes a great deal of sense. That it's not outrageous to think that a nursery should be in
an A2 zoning. You see it all over the place. It's not an idea that is repugnant really to
common sense. And so as a means of trying to, instead of trying to deal with all of these
definitions, try to make them all conform to each other. Try to make them exclusive
definitions, we would simply request that we allow as a permitted use nurseries which is what
the applicant has requested here. And I think it certainly makes a great deal of sense for this
body and for the city to give some direction to what is included in an A2 district rather than
leaving it to some court to try to sort through all the various definitions of nurseries and
wholesale nurseries and garden centers and agriculture to try to decide what this body or this
city means when it says that certain activities are allowed in the A2 and we can definitely
make that decision here and the City Council could make that decision by making the
amendment that we've suggested to allow nurseries to be a permitted use in the A2. That's
the only reason...
Mancino: Thank you Mr. Bruno.
Mark Halla: Good evening. I'm Mark Halla. I reside at 770 Creekwood, Chaska mailing
address. Right on the nursery property actually. Let me just first point out that we've been in
business since 1942. I'm the third generation. That's important to me. We've been in
Chanhassen since '62. Agriculture is allowed by the current zoning. We are agriculture. No
question about it. State and federal law considers horticulture an agricultural type of business.
The entire agricultural gross product, horticulture is nearly half of that. That's corn, soybeans,
horticulture. We're half of the entire agricultural product of the nation. We're under federal
law. Federal labor law as agriculture. We pay overtime different than standard businesses
because we're agriculture. We were just recently, a couple weeks ago, down in South Dakota
at their Ag...Career Day. It's a job fair. We've been invited two years in a row now. They're
an agricultural college inviting us to go down there and hire their students. There seems to
be a difference in opinion on retail. Exempting us from being agricultural. That seems in the
past we've always come to that bone of contention. Because we were retail, we're no longer
agricultural and I have to say that I strongly disagree with that. The agricultural industry as a
whole, in the end at least, if not right up front, is a retail business. No question about it.
Can't go to store and buy something that's produced from the farm without considering that a
retail sort of business. The corn huts are allowed. They're a retail business. A farmer selling
his goods and they're allowed to put up a stand and sell from a stand but the question in this
case is, are we allowed to have a building or a greenhouse to sell our produce from. We
want to be permitted by code. We feel we already are permitted by Code. You've heard the
definition of agriculture out of the code book. That permits us. We don't ask...difference of
opinion is there. We're trying to bring this before you to get some feedback and get approval
and hopefully get this resolved so it meets everyone's end. We realize the city is...folks for
32
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
being here tonight and putting in their time and doing this. This is a good city. It's coming
along really nice. It's a lot of struggle and a lot of work needs to be put in to see that it
happens in the good way. We're growing this rapidly, it's pretty tough to control it. I'm
starting to think that if we...process and try and work it out. The staff obviously has concerns
in making an amendment to the ordinance of this magnitude. When you start saying okay,
we're going to change the whole thing. Everything A2. Now someone can come in and put
in a retail business as long as...shrubs around it. I think that is a concern that everyone needs
to understand and listen to. It's a little different when you've got a business that's been there
since before the city was a city. Back when we were a village. We've come along with the
city. We've grown together. We'd like to think that because now the city is growing, that
we're not going to be snuffed out. We're not going to say we're no longer allowed because
things have changed. We think we've got a great business. I know Nancy's been out there. I
don't know what you think. Hopefully you're pleased by it. We've got an awful lot to offer
this city and it just seems to me to try to limit us or snuff us out is a disservice to the
community. Where's a gardener going to go? Basically you're saying okay Lotus, you get all
the business. Halla's out of the picture. They're not allowed. By putting up a greenhouse
that's not expanding our business. Not at all. In fact it's protecting our crop. We believe
we've got State and Federal laws that allow us to do that. We have the crop and plant
material that have a right to be protected. We'd like to continue to do so. I have some
suggestions on how we can resolve this. The city may not want to simply change the
ordinance. Maybe that's not what needs to be done. There's a couple of different things that
could happen. Change the zoning to allow retail garden centers and nurseries...change the
code and we're done with this. I don't know if that's the best resolution, and that's why you're
here and hearing both sides of the issue. You could amend the ordinance to allow existing
retail nurseries and garden centers to continue. Maybe that's the solution .... what's existing at
the time this code is enforced, let's amend it to say you can still continue. You're acceptable.
We're not going to say you're no longer acceptable and then every time I want to do
something, I have a battle. We came to the city to ask on this building, even though it's in
the present code book that a greenhouse...in your presentation talked about greenhouses being
an agricultural building...a temporary structure...you're supporting our argument that we
shouldn't be here tonight. We should have been simply said, go ahead. Build your building.
Greenhouse. Temporary structure. It's agricultural land... So you could make it as simple as
allowing the existing properties that are already there to continue. The other thing, and this
seems a real simple solution. Is simply to agree that horticulture is agriculture. We're
already allowed by the code, no different than the Arboretum...Thank you for your time. Any
questions?
Mancino: Thank you. No. Mr. Bruno.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Robert Bruno: Let me just add one thing. I would just discourage all of you from spending
any time on the interim use issue because Halla is not at all interested in applying for an
interim use permit on his property. So there really are no applicants who are interested in
applying for an interim use. Halla is not. So I think that would be a diversion from the issue
here and I'd hate to see us waste the time trying to come up with a whole bunch of criteria
over what interim use should be when there's no one that really wants it.
Mancino: Is there anyone else from the applicant wishing to present? Okay. Seeing none,
may I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please?
Fmmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public heming. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: Anyone wishing to speak on this matter? It's open to a public hearing. Seeing
none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second.
Fmmakes moved, Skubic seconded to close the public heating. The public hearing was
closed.
Mancino: Gosh, lots of questions. Mike?
Meyer: Yeah, just for the record, I'm going to abstain from this one. I do have a conflict of
interest so I'm going to step down for this vote.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Other commissioners, your comments and questions and maybe
even needing more information on this. Commissioner Conrad.
Conrad: Well I think staff did a good job of analyzing the pros and cons and it's always
tough when issues are presented. A community grows. Neighbors come in. We will fill up.
That's not an agricultural community anymore. It's going to be residential. What we're up
here doing is trying to figure out how it becomes that way and sort of put some organization
to it. It's hard to have it all ways. It's hard to be agricultural. It's hard to be retail. And it's
hard to be residential. And you kind of have all of those and we have neighbors moving in
and it's right now, we have an agricultural district but if you're here every two weeks, you see
how many new developments are coming in and not necessarily what I always wanted, but
that's what has happened. Your neighbors are selling out and they're building other things.
So what we end up doing is putting in ordinances to protect those people that are moving in,
and sometimes that doesn't feel like it's fair to those who have paid taxes and done a good job
of doing a good business and in many cases are a source of community pride, which I think
the Halla Nursery has always been that. So anyway with that aside, which took us no place.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
I appreciate the report that staff did and I think the analysis is appropriate in my mind. What
they did do. We are zoning for the entire area. We're not zoning for Halla. We're zoning
for agricultural area and we, you know if nurseries, that agricultural area will, based on the
landowners, turn residential. They're selling. That's the way it is. So what we have to do is
make sure that our zoning codes reflect that long term. At this point in time, the only
question, you know my hope would be, I have two hopes. One, I agree with the direction of
the staff but two, at this point in time I really don't have a need to restrict the Halla operation.
This is one of those issues that more than likely I wish wasn't here. And so at this time
Madam Chair, what I'm telling you and the staff, I think their analysis is right. I don't have.
Mancino: ...an interim use permit?
Conrad: I think the logic of what they're doing, or how they analyzed this is appropriate. On
the flip side of the coin, I don't really have a need to restrict the Halla operation at this point
in time. Hearing that interim use permit is not what they're requesting, I don't need to go
forward with an interim use permit. So therefore.
Mancino: So therefore what?
Conrad: We're back where we started in my mind. We're not, you know I'm saying that I
need to know how, I go back to, how does that greenhouse impact anything? I don't know
the business. I don't know why that is not allowed. I'd like to see how it could be allowed
and not impact.
Mancino: An ordinance.
Conrad: An ordinance change.
Mancino: Staff, that's a good question.
Aanenson: Herein lies the problem. It's a wholesale nursery. They've indicated they don't
meet that criteria. We're of the opinion, and we made the interpretation, we've got different
categories in the definition. Agriculture is one category but there's also, we differentiated
wholesale nurseries from agriculture, from nurseries, from gardens. We gave different
definitions because we believe there are different types of agricultures. So if we go with the
underlying standards and say it's a permitted use, we're trying to find some resolution to allow
this to happen and that's why we recommended. If we say it's a permitted use and we go
with the underlying district, do we let them add on? Not worry about parking spaces. The
number of...underlying district and say, as long as you maintain the 10 foot sideyard setback,
there's no criteria?
35
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Conrad: No.
Mancino: No, we couldn't do that.
Aanenson: That's our concern with a permitted use. You open it up and then somebody
opens up and has farm property and they put up a building for retail purposes, and part of it
has to do with shrubs and they're selling other things, but they're also for agricultural
purposes, where do you draw the line? That's why we're trying to establish some criteria.
And the other problem, as we pointed out in the staff report is, you may want long term or
people invest in more permanent type buildings and now we've got maybe 6 permanent type
buildings out there and they leave the property. I'm not saying Halla's are going to leave.
But let's say somebody else does this and they leave. Now someone buys the property and
they've got 4, 5, 6 buildings in the middle of a residential district. The likelihood of that
converting, and that's always the intent of the interim use is that it becomes something else,
then we've got some of the retail in the middle of what may be residential.
Conrad: Being grandfathered in Kate means what in terms of an interim use solution?
Aanenson: Well the problem is, when they called for the agricultural building, it's not. It's a
retail building.
Mancino: It is for retail sales?
Aanenson: Right. And so we've got a building on that that's retail.
Mancino: It's for retail sales of agricultural products.
Aanenson: ...There's no review from planning staff as far as the number of parking spaces or
anything like that. Access. Those sort of things were never reviewed by the planning.
There's building code issues but there's also planning issues so we're trying to separate those
two. Unfortunately they just talked to the building people. It was never asked...but we're
trying. We believe that we can work to some way to, we want to try to resolve it. There
was another solution on the table and this was another option that was given by the attorney.
The City attorney. It was never our recommendation that it be permitted. That we try to
come up with some resolution. Some standards. Certainly if they want to sit down and meet
and review some of these standards, we'd be happy to do that. Come up with some other
criteria, as Mr. Halla indicated, we'd be happy to do that but I think we're uncomfortable
saying carte blanche permitted. I mean that's, you can put a lot of intensity on a piece of
property without any control and I think that's something we don't want.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Conrad: So again, being grandfathered in gives them the right to do what they're doing
today.
Mancino: And not have any control.
Aanenson: But they've improved that and now they have some non-conforming out there.
They have a retail building. That's non-conforming.
Mancino: Just wait please until we finish.
Conrad: So basically they can be non-conforming. Do what they're doing today.
Aanenson: You cannot expand a non-conforming use.
Conrad: Okay. And the only one solution is to put the interim permit in place.
Aanenson: Well to do some sort of it. They want to do the permitted use. We're saying
we're uncomfortable with the permitted use. We'd rather do the interim use.
Mancino: And then we can have the controls on it for retail.
Aanenson: Or even a conditional use. You're kind of leaving it in perpetuity because it goes
with the property so really the only temporary...and whatever length you give that interim use
permit.
Mancino: And the other wholesale nurseries right now, what is their sunset?
Aanenson: Well like Holasek is in an industrial zone.
Mancino: Okay, but Wilson's?
Aanenson: I think that one's, I'm not sure...
Mancino: Somehow I would like to know what the existing interim permits are for the
wholesale nurseries. I'm sorry, I interrupted you.
Conrad: No, no, that's good. That's good dialogue. I guess I'm thinking, taking it through.
There has to be control. And I think my preference is to explore the interim use. And maybe
some of these aren't appropriate in terms of the term, and I don't want to feel wishy washy on
37
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
that but I can, you know there's just some things that need clarification in my mind, like
outdoor storage and things like that.
Aanenson: Certainly, and we'd be happy to meet to work some of those out.
Conrad: And maybe that's what made me feel a little bit uncomfortable with it. I just didn't
know how it applied and so I guess my recommendation is to again take the staff 100%.
Take a look at the interim use permit process. See if staff and the Halla's can come up with
something agreeable, but also knowing we're not, I think I want to be a little bit sensitive to
their needs to stay in business but also sensitive, I hope they hear, I hope you hear that you
are running a retail business and that's a whole different thing. It really is and agriculture, I
know retail fairly well. And you're running a retail business which means you start, if you
want to run that kind of business, then you have to live up to certain standards and that sort
of goes with the territory. So if you want to do that, we have to make sure that those
standards are there so, again I'm playing both sides of this Madam Chair but I think it's
important that the Halla's know that that just sort of goes with the territory if you expand a
business. We have to be, we're concerned with the safety and all that other stuff, so anyway.
Mancino: What would you like to see? ...see something coming back?
Conrad: Yeah, I'd like to table this tonight and see if they can look. And maybe the Halla's
don't want the interim use permit. That's what I heard their attorney say. But to me, it's
probably suits them far better than any other solution. I don't know that we're going to be
attracting any other nurseries into Chanhassen with the interim use permit but it might be a
way that we give them to expand their business, yet have some degree of control. It's really
almost to a degree spot zoning. It's not spot zoning but we're, in my mind I think we're
being, it's a fair way to proceed.
Mancino: Mr. Halla, if you'll wait until we're done then, thank you. Commissioner Skubic.
Skubic: I concur with Ladd.
Conrad: Geez, what did I say?
Skubic: I can't remember.
Conrad: I don't know. Sorry about that.
Mancino: Is that all you have to say?
38
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Skubic: That's all.
Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes.
Farmakes: Just a couple of things... Definition of retail business. This isn't a court of law
and Mr. Halla and his attorney can argue the definition of retail business and agricultural but
that doesn't really take place here and our opinion on that is personal. There's no lawyers
here... I've always considered, and they can comment about this...Ladd's definition of retail.
You sell manufactured goods. You're not selling eggs out of the chicken coup. You're
selling manufactured goods also, along with your organic crops. Those goods are not
necessarily manufactured on site. You have a wholesale retail situation going on there and in
defining what the restrictions are for retail...follows that. And you can't be kind of both but
none of the above. I think therein lies the problem, as Kate said. I'm uncomfortable with
doing broad based definitions of zones for one business and I agree with the way staff looked
at this as an overall... I don't think that it is the intent that we...as a transition or sunset comes
on agricultural products...urban area, obviously what Chanhassen's becoming. That...or to
convert to another form of business that is allowed or permitted, and we could combine that
with good planning that deals with the issues of retail sales, or whatever else we tend to come
up with that fits the definition of being good for the community. I have no problem with
that. I don't like the issue of going beyond and saying that this is a grandfathered use, you
can go ahead and increase that usage. Just let us know what it's going to be. That's not good
planning. And I think that the city is correct is defining, no you can't do that. We have other
uses that are out there that are grandfathered, such as mining and some of the other ones that
are not conducive to what is being planned for the city and we're saying that you can do this
because you're already grandfathered in. We started this particular...you can't expand it. And
I think that we pretty much follow that across the board. I don't recall ever us making an
exception to that rule. So I think it's a good one to follow. And I am, I'm not sure what to
do with it even if we table it because I've been told the applicant doesn't, isn't applying for
what I see is the only solution for this issue. We can...so at this point...I'm not sure what
useful information that we give back to the applicant other than sitting down with the city and
trying to work out something that would apply to that overall definition. I don't think that, as
I said, it would be appropriate for us to do a zoning for one business.
Mancino: Well maybe by tabling it staff and the applicant can get together and kind of work
through some of these.
Farmakes: That may be and you're going to have to deal with the issue then obviously of the
retail business and I'm not certain that I hear that. That that's going to be defined in City
Hall. It's not going to be defined here, I know that.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mancino: At this meeting. At this meeting. Commissioner Mehl.
Mehl: I've gone through the staff report several times. I've heard what all the commissioners
here have said, and I've listened to the applicant. All of it in various ways makes a lot of
sense. What everybody's had to say. The result is, I'm confused. I don't mind telling you
that. In the staff report we talk about temporary use, interim use, permitted use, conditional
use. I guess I'd maybe kind of like to see some kind of a side by side comparison of these
things and how it relates to the city and how it relates to the Halla Nursery. Something that
we can look at and do a direct comparison. I'm having trouble sorting it all out. Especially
in light of what Halla's goes and the comments we've heard from all of you. So again, I'm
confused.
Mancino: And you would like to table it for direction?
Mehl: Yeah, I think I would. I don't know what else to do at this point. I don't feel it's
enough information I've heard for me to make a decision.
Mancino: Excuse me. Mr. Halla, you wanted to make a comment?
Don Halla: If you're done I would.
Mancino: Okay, this is the one and only comment.
Don Halla: We're not expanding the business. We're actually making it smaller. We've
agreed to develop approximately .... acres of our land. With the keeping of the 12 acres in the
center. We're, by asking for a greenhouse, we're not increasing anything. We're just putting
a roof over existing plants that are there are today that are growing outside. We want to be
able to garden...better quality product, instead of starting after the thaw. When we put up the
new bUilding in 1994, we took down a building. We eliminated a little over 5,000 square
foot building and put up a 4,700 square foot, all... Even with that, you know working with
the city to bring that up to B2 requirements. B2 requirements. Health and safety codes...
even to the extension of taking out our existing toilets and putting in new bathrooms in order
to facilitate the new rules that are involved in the city. So we have been trying to cooperate.
We have been working with the city. We've been trying to accomplish things that were
proposed of us. We've come to a stalemate about our greenhouses. Originally when we
started talking to the city, they said give us a plan of what you want to do and we'll go ahead.
They entered into a lawsuit with us over this building. They said if you do this...show us
what you want to do in the future. We'll agree to it and we'll do it. Those things are
changing. Now they're saying it's going to go...we find that acceptable. We do want to
condense our buildings... We do want to... We're willing to develop the 80 acres that are
40
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
there. We also have some of the top name developers that think this is a major asset. They
want to use the nursery as an asset where people can walk through it. They do not look at it
as a negative. They're talking about building homes of half a million dollars. They wouldn't
do that if they thought the nursery was...thanks.
Mancino: Thank you. Staff, do you understand where the commission is directing you to
go?
Aanenson: Yes.
Mancino: Do you feel you have clear direction? Okay. I really don't have too much more to
add. I am one of those users, without question... It is a retail agricultural. I can understand
the combination only because they get their perennials from out of state. They ship a lot of
them in yet they grow from seed some of them here on their own property I'm sure in their
greenhouses. I do feel, and I don't want see spot use zoning at all but I think that there are
ways to have a nursery surrounded by residential. I think there would need to be very strict
conditions. I have myself on our property, been the victim of I think it was Gardeneer who
used the Middle School West as a place where they in the 80's had a lot of their landscape
material and their equipment when they housed...at the middle school. And at that time the
City Council said fine. We're not, the middle school isn't open. If we're going to let other
small businesses in the area, and use part of it for their landscape operation. And although
we have probably 300 feet of woods inbetween our residence and the middle school, I can tell
you that I was not delighted at 7:00 on Saturday mornings hearing the equipment going. And
that was when they got all their plant material and they got their crews ready at 7:00 in the
morning on Saturdays and actually worked there on Sundays too. So I do think that whether
it's interim use, conditional use, that we think about these conditions for the adjacent
properties and then for the businesses. So with that, do I have a motion?
Farmakes: I make a motion to table. I'm not sure I'd call it an application at this point. But
I'll make, this issue. I'm not sure which one I'm referring to here. I'd like to table, I'll call it
an application dated October 25, 1995.
Conrad: For landscape nurseries being permitted as a legal use in the A2 district, if you
wanted to tag that in.
Farmakes: That sounds very good Ladd. I'm not sure which one you're reading that from.
Conrad: I found that someplace here.
Mancino: Do I have a second?
41
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Conrad: Yeah, I'll second that.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Fmmakes moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table an amendment to the
City Code for landscape nmsedes being permitted as legal use in the A2 district. All voted in
favor, except Meyer who did not vote, and the motion carded.
Conrad: Can we have some discussion?
Mancino: Sure. That was before the vote.
Conrad: Yeah, I know. Did you say that?
Mancino: Yes.
Conrad: And I missed it, okay. Are we asking staff to review the interim use process as the
prime vehicle to allow the applicant to get done what they'd like to? And are we suggesting
that permanent zoning allowing nurseries as a permanent use in the A2, have we ruled that
out?
Aanenson: Ladd, what I got from Don, if I can interrupt, is that he wanted to see comparison
of the pros and cons of that and we'd be happy to do that.
Farmakes: But I think there's...issue is the definition of retail agriculture. If you're in
disagreement about that and disagreement...because somebody's particular operation might be
a little different. It might be more than just growing trees and bushes.
Mancino: You could have Frank's Nursery.
Farmakes: Well I'm just saying that yeah.
Mancino: You could. You could have a Frank's Nursery.
Aanenson: That was our issue. But we'd be happy to do a comparison. I think that's a very
appropriate question that Don asked. We'd be happy to show you that.
Mancino: That would be good. Appreciate that. Does that satisfy you?
42
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Conrad: I just want to make sure staff, no I want to make sure we were closing in, if we
could, but I think...examine other alternatives. There are many alternatives.
Mancino: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF APPROXIMATELY 61 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 3 LOTS
AND 20UTLOTS, SITE PLAN REVIEW OF TWO 64,000 SO. FF. BUHJDINGS;
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; AND VACATION OF AN EXISTING RIGHT-OF-
WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP AND LOCATED IN THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5, CSM CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Murray Kornberg
Jim Paulet
Mark Kusnierek
Steve Schwanke
Howard Dahlgren
Tom Rockford
John Dietrick
2575 University Avenue, St. Paul
12125 Technology Dr, Eden Prairie
9369 126th Street, Savage
6110 Blue Circle Drive, Mtka.
2360 Aquila Avenue No, Golden Valley
CSM Corporation
RLK Associates
Shatanin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point? Commissioners?
Commissioner Farmakes asked a question that could not be heard on the tape regarding the
berm on Highway 5.
AI-Jaff: The berm meanders between 4 and 6 feet.
Mancino: But it doesn't show it meandering.
Farmakes: Well yeah here, it covers up half the building.
Mancino: So it's something we should ask the applicant.
Applicant: I would be happy to address that.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions. The applicant will answer that for you.
Farmakes: The tenant mix on this. Are you looking at the signage plan based on maximum
tenancy or?
A1-Jaff: They will have, at this point the only thing that we know is, they foresee 33% office
space and the rest being office warehouse.
Aanenson: When we first saw this plan, it's a little bit different than what we've seen in a
traditional office. Basically what we've seen in the past is build to suit. Something that takes
up the whole space. There certainly is a market nitch for this in the community. That was
one of our first concerns was, as you recall the history of when we had the Medical Arts
building that came in. The signs went up. Nobody intended that to happen. We originally
envisioned that to just say Medical Arts building and people would know. We certainly
understand that their need on Highway 5 is a little bit different type of thing and you've got
specific people that have kind of flexible spaces. People are going to be moving in and out.
Maybe it's a start up company. Eventually find another place so we certainly understand the
market that they're trying to hit and believe if we can get the appropriate signage and the
right scale, that it makes sense for this type of a building. So we don't know, as Sharmin
indicated, all their users yet. But it's a tenant, at least my understanding, of flexible space.
Some people may need loading spaces. Some people may not but.
Farmakes: So I'd imagine we'd look at it based on maximum tenants for the maximum
amount of signage.
Aanenson: Right. Yeah, you're correct. And that's what Sharmin asked for and that's what
she's saying that was delivered. We wanted to see that package. What ultimately was, if it
was maximized, what the sign band would look like.
Farmakes: The reason I bring it up is that we haven't quite seen anything like that on the
highway at this point.
Aanenson: Except for the Merit building.
Farmakes: For the exception of a few buildings. If we go up 169, and we go up 494 we see
it, quite a bit of it. Several small companies with the signage in a row lined up and down
that close to the highway. Since our drawings don't have that, and we're talking about
Highway 5 standards and the issue and intent of the design, what we're trying to avoid. It's
something of a concern for me when I look at this because we always seem to run up against
44
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
the problem, it seems to me when I think about these things is, is it an office building or is it
retail and now is it a warehouse or is it an office building and, but it looks like it's retail.
Mancino: And it will have showrooms so it is going to be.
Farmakes: Well several small, I don't know, how many did we count out there?
AI-Jaff: Eleven. On the north side.
Farmakes: So the general appearance would be similar, it would seem to me, like Byerly's or
something where you've got several small signage in a row. Different colors. Different.
Mancino: Type face.
Farmakes: Type faces and logos and so on.
Aanenson: Yeah, that was why we asked for the sign package. We saw that problem that you
would struggle with that, as similarly we did, when it first came in but again, we feel like
there is a nitch for this in the community. We support it but we all had the same concerns
that you do and hopefully we can get the right standards there.
Farmakes: When you looked at the berming in relationship to the Highway 5 standards and
talking about the issues of putting parking adjacent to TH 5, this looks pretty good but when
you're talking about the depths of the berm that you talked about, it seems like this is over
enhanced.
Mancino: No. That's a real. Look at those trees. Those are 40 foot trees.
Farmakes: What are your feelings on that?
A1-Jaff: I asked for the grading plan to be shown on those drawings and that's what the
applicant has put together. The trees are 5 years old.
Farmakes: I guess so, if I'm on the other side of the highway, perhaps standing in the
drainage ditch. That's probably what it would look like...
Mancino: And you can be very specific about these so. Any other questions for staff at this
point? Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission or their designee.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Tom Rockford: Thank you Madam Chair and members of the commission. My name's Tom
Rockford. I'm representing CSM Corporation, the applicant. I'd like to introduce at this time
other representatives of CSM and our consultants at this time. Murray Kornberg is here
representing CSM. Murray is the Vice President of CSM. Mark Kusnierek is one of staff
architects and he will be walking you through part of the building and site plan. And
representing our consultants, RLK are John Dietrick and Steve Schwanke and John will be
walking you through the site plan and be happy to answer any of the questions or concerns
you have that you've raised to date. What I'd like to do at this time is give you a brief
history of CSM. Kind of who we are and what we do and also a little bit of the history on
this particular project. I did omit to introduce one other person who is here and that is Jim
Paulet who represents DataServ. Obviously the owner of this parcel. CSM Corporation has
been in business for about 20 years. We're actually celebrating our 20th birthday this year.
20th anniversary. We were established in business as Colonial Services and Management
back in 1975 and basically we are a real estate and investment firm doing business in about
14 states across the country. CSM Investors was formed in 1981 as a vehicle to do the
acquisition and development work. CSM Investors relies heavily on CSM Corporation for the
property management of all the properties that we own. Over the last 4 or 5 years CSM has
probably been one of the most active local developers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Over
that period of time we've developed over a million square feet of industrial space. Very
similar to the type of product that we're proposing for this site. Some of the projects that are
ongoing that CSM is working on right now that you may be familiar with include the Golden
Triangle Business Center in Eden Prairie, which is 150,000 square feet of office warehouse.
This is located on Washington Avenue and 76th Street. Just north of the Minnesota Vikings
practice facility at Winter Park. Again, it's a product that is very similar in what we're
envisioning for the site here in Chanhassen. We're also just finishing up Vernon Shops which
is a small 20,000 square foot commercial project on 50th and Vernon in Edina. Just have
started Phase II of the shops at Lyndale in Richfield right on 494 and Lyndale Avenue South.
About 107,000 square feet of commercial space. And in the process of kicking off probably
one of our biggest projects to date which is Boulevard Gardens in Minnetonka. A mixed use
project that consists of about 250,000 square feet of commercial space, along with some
multi-family. And that's located at 394 and Hopkins Crossroads. So we are quite busy. As I
mentioned, or as I probably haven't mentioned, we own and we manage all our real estate.
And we are in it for the long haul. We are not someone who is in the business to make a
buck today and gone tomorrow. We have been and will be around for a long time. Our
current portfolio consists of about 3 1/2 million square feet of industrial space. Around 2 1/2
million square feet of commercial space, and upwards of 6,000 multi-family apartment units.
We also have a small, about 160 unit hotel that we manage. That we own and manage.
Relative to this site we've been in negotiations with DataServ for probably 2+ years on this
site here in Chanhassen. We've never developed any property in Chanhassen. We're very
bullish on the site. We're very interested and optimistic of what we can do at the gateway to
46
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
the Eden Prairie, excuse me, the Chanhassen site there on Dell and Highway 5. And very
proud of the product that we do and we feel very sure that you will be equally as proud of
this product. I guess at that I'd like to turn it over to John Dietrick from RLK who can walk
you through the site plan. And again, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
We'd be happy to answer them for you.
John Dietrick: Thank you Tom. Is this an okay location for the board? Facing the cameras.
Thank you. As Tom had mentioned, my name's John Dietrick. I'm from RLK Associates and
we have worked with CSM, Murray in regards to laying out the site and being responsible for
the site planning and...civil engineering and traffic reports that have been submitted to date.
We are excited about the Phase I development at the northeast comer of East Lake Drive and
Dell Road for the CSM property. The Phase I development as has been submitted is
approximately 10+ acres, which is about 1/2 of the 21.3 acres that CSM is looking to
eventually acquire from DataServ property, which is all north of East Lake Drive. This Phase
I development is going to initiate a few items that need to be addressed in the overall site
development for this eastern comer of Chanhassen. One of those is the replatting of the
property, as Sharmin had indicated where we're looking to call it the East Chanhassen
Business Center. Secondly would be the storm water ponding down in the southeast comer
of the site that will essentially pull a majority of the water from the CSM property and from
the future DataServ property. We are working at this time with city staff for the actual
configuration, design and location of how that property eventually looks so Outlot B as we
are proposing it at this time may change a little bit, depending on the actual size of that pond.
But it will be built to the NURP standards and Walker standards for the proper water quality
and water quantity issues. Thirdly, it's going to precipitate the gateway statement for the city
of Chanhassen. We're very excited about having an opportunity to start to set that stage for
the gateway for Highway 5 as visitors and residents start to come traveling through Eden
Prairie and into the site. Into the city, excuse me. And I will be quickly walking you
through the site plan issues. Landscaping, parking arrangements, berming and screening and
then I have some perspective sketches. The ones that were handed around to put on the
overhead and I'll be happy to address any specific questions in regard to those. Mark
Kusnierek will then address the architectural elements and the signage elements for the
building and...proposed building materials at that time. The site design, as we've chosen to
look at it, was to try and place the building a few feet below grade of Highway 5 so they are
set down into the landscape and then utilize the space between the parking and the property
line to the north for berming and proper screening of the parking. We realize the parking is a
sensitive issue along Highway 5 and we've taken great care to look at how to break up those
intimate parking lots, as we're calling them, with landscaping and with berming so that the
buildings will read, the parking will be suppressed and that we have the ability to service the
proper office users and clients of these buildings with easy accessible parking that would
circulate around and through the site. Currently MnDot is about, owns property about 70 feet
47
Planning Commission Meeting- November 1, 1995
in width from the edge of the roadway. The parking is set back from the property line 35-45
feet, which allows for some significant berming and then the buildings are set back
approximately 115 feet from the property line. In total the buildings are about 185 feet from
the edge of roadway for the Phase I development. The landscaping that we have proposed on
the perimeter of the site is where we will try to concentrate the key elements so that we can,
the plant materials that have been chosen were from the pallet of the preferred planting list
from the city where we're looking to use significant hardwoods of maples, oaks, hackberries,
locust, shag bar hickories along with conifer plantings and low shrub massings. Trying to
look at clustering of the plant material and utilizing ornamental and flowering crab apple trees
so that we can have seasonal color along with the winter color of the evergreens. We also
wanted to start setting up a pallet of a strong boulevard overstory planting tree that would
encompass and ring the entire site. With this landscape we're excited about looking at
extending out the gateway beyond our property line. I know the staff report talks about no
planting or berming within public right-of-ways. We feel that's an issue that we should
address and we should work cooperatively with the city and MnDot so that this gateway
treatment of landscaping will be fully addressed, because MnDot currently owns property that
goes 40 to 60 feet in from the corner and I think it would be a win/win situation to try and
pull that landscaping out of the public right-of-way of course under close supervision and
working with the city. We've also suggested extending the irrigation out to the back of the
sidewalk along Dell Road so that we have an opportunity to maintain that landscaping and
keep it green and beautiful throughout the year. Again, that's an image we want to present
for the CSM project and we feel that's an image that the city would like to see also. In terms
of the landscaping coming around the site, we're concentrating the landscaping more on
overstory trees, especially along East Lake Drive. We have indicated we would do some
additional conifer plantings in order to help screen some of the views coming off of East
Lake Drive for the service and loading areas that are completely screened from Dell Road and
Highway 5. The parking that we have looked at has been woven throughout the site with
joint accesses between the two buildings and at the far western side. We anticipate that
would be a joint access for the future development of Outlot A. By having a one bay wide
parking lot, we have maximized the area between the parking and the property line that we
can provide screening so that those parking lots will be hidden. In terms of heights of berm,
we have a 4 to 5 foot high berm height along Highway 5. Along Dell Road we have a 6 foot
high berm. Along East Lake Drive we have a 6 foot high berm in the areas of the loading
dock and it goes down to about a 4 foot high berm in the areas between East Lake Drive and
where the loading service areas are not located. The berm height is set so that the parked
cars will be screened from view. It will screen a portion of the building. Approximately 3 to
4 feet up on the building. We feel that it's still an acceptable view shed for the building but
yet we can suppress the amount of cars that will be seen. The entire perimeter of the parking
will not been seen along Highway 5. Perhaps upper edges of roofs would be seen in certain
locations. Dell Road would be completely screened. The parking itself has a number of
48
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
peninsulas scattered along the north side of the property and also we're setting it up along the
far western side between the future Outlot A. We anticipate this would be a major view shed
corridor between the buildings where there'd be a much wider spacial dimension than what we
have between the two central buildings at this time. We are also requesting to leave the
central parking area and the eastern parking area as they are designed without adding
landscape peninsulas within these two areas. We feel with the one bay width, we are meeting
the intent of the ordinance by clustering the green areas and landscaping and screening the
parking lot on the perimeter. With the overall site plan that we also look at the exterior
lighting that will be done and be kept in scale with the building and we will use colors that
will be compatible to the window emollient and with the signage colors that Mark will be
addressing. With that I'd like to quickly just go through the perspective sketches and I'll be
doing those on the overhead. There will be four perspective sketches that we will present.
The first three will be looking west towards the site. East of Dell Road. Essentially at the
Dell Road intersection for B. C would be looking more straight on to the building from
Highway 5 and D would be looking east back towards Dell Road from the eastbound lane of
Highway 5. A at this time picks up the existing oaks that are over on the Tandem site in
Eden Prairie and starts to see how the building profiles will look as they're set into the
landscape. Again the profile of the buildings are approximately 22 feet in height?
Audience: 24 at the max.
John Dietrick: 24 max. But the floor elevation is set down from the location, or elevation of
the roadway to provide a little bit lower profile. The tree massings are probably more in the
5 to 10 year range. Not the 5 year range. When you're doing sketches, you take a 60 foot
tree and show it at full view or when it goes in at you know 10 feet so you have to, there's a
little bit of license here but I'd say the plant material has been set up to be in the 5 to 10 year
time frame from the day of planting. But you can start to see the building hedge line and the
roofing. Perspective B. Again, to look at how the site is going to be viewed from the
intersection of Dell Road where you have the existing traffic signals out there and with the
corner landscaping, we hope to keep that profile open. Again have the row of trees which are
sugar maple to start to fill out and eventually provide a...and a backdrop to what that gateway
concept for the landscaping will be. Perspective C looks at the building and how it's going to
be read with the berm that will be running on the south side of Highway 5 and on the south
side of the MnDot property. We again will be coming up on the building approximately 3 to
4 feet in that location and once we start putting in the clustering of plant material, the
ornamentals and the conifers, there will be peaks and view sheds into the building so that
there will be added interest to go along with that facade as the building has it's indentations
and color scheme between the signage panels and the...The fourth perspective looks west. Is
viewing east from approximately the eastern or western property line of the future Outlot A.
The berm is higher at this location. The road and topography does drop from the 934 range
49
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
down to the 920 range by the time we get down to the Dell Road comer. The floor
elevations are 923-925 and we anticipate Outlot A will also be stepping up. The berm here
as seen from the eastbound lane will screen this building a little bit more as the grading plan
is drawn at this time. Perhaps it's a little too high...these are the grades that are shown on the
grading plan and this is the perspective that you would see with that grading plan as we are
proposing it at this time. With that I would like to turn it over to Mark who will talk to the
signage issue, or I would be happy to address any questions at this time also.
Mancino: Any questions from staff at this time? I mean commissioners. Thank you.
Mark Kusnierek: I'm Mark Kusnierek. I'm the project architect for CSM Corporation. On
the issues of the signage for the building, CSM as a corporation wants to provide signage for
our tenants but make it pleasing to the eye. Our signs are of one single color. We do not
allow multi color signs within those. I have brought examples of other projects and signs that
we do provide. I'll pass them around. These signs, when they need to go up, the tenant will
have to come in for their individual sign permit at that time. Your question about the
multiple signs being along these elevations. We do not perceive a whole lot of signs because
our tenants tend not to be of small square footage. The depth of these buildings, these will
be large square footage... Within the staff recommendations I wanted to get into a little bit
more with letter (h) where it states individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. We
also propose that with our sign criteria that a logo of 30 inches in height. This would also be
of the same color as the individual letter sign. We also provide as a back-up to the staff
report, how they would be constructed and lit. These are back lit signs which is a halo light
that is approximately 3 to 4 inches of light that surrounds the individual letter and/or logo as
the tenants would like it. That brings up the issue of letter (f) which no illumination signs
within the development may be viewed from a residential section south and west. To the
south we do not perceive any signs. To the west there is the possibility that signs would be
along this edge. At this time we don't believe it is an issue because Outlot A is not
developed as of yet and we would like to bring it up at that time. Also the fact that
DataServ's building would also be blocking some of the view from the west. The staff has
explained the building exterior as well as the computer generated drawings show what the
materials will look like as well the material board... I do not wish to explain into that any
further unless you any have specific questions towards that. Any questions?
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Seeing none, thank you.
Mark Kusnierek: Thank you very much.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mancino: Anyone else from the applicant wishing to address? Okay, thank you. Thank you
for such a complete presentation. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and
a second please.
Meyer moved, Fmmakes seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do.
Jim Paulet: Members of the commission, my name is Jim Paulet. I represent DataServ.
We're located at 19011 Lake Drive East and we are the sellers in this land transaction. We've
been working with CSM for a couple of years now and we would like to voice our support
for CSM's plans. And I'd also like to add that in the time that we've worked with CSM,
we've also developed a very favorable impression of CSM Corporation. And that is really my
primary reason for getting up here. Getting up here to voice my support for the plan. There
are however a few unresolved economic issues present in the report, which greatly affect
DataServ and I'd like to point them out if I could for your consideration. The first one is
really between DataServ and the CSM Corporation. I just wanted to point out that DataServ
is currently working with CSM on the distribution of payment for it's surface water
management plan. Second issue is DataServ would like to know, or needs to know that if,
and this is in Section 2-1. DataServ needs to know if the replatting of our site south of Lake
Drive East is required in this plan, will require the payment of a park dedication fee upon
completion so it's just an issue we'd like to...unresolved, we'd like to talk about. We'd also
like to know going forward how the city plans to finance the completion of Dell Road as it's
also indicated in the plan that is a requirement that Dell Road be completed. Another issue is
Section 2-5. We'd like to know more about DataServ's responsibilities concerning the
applying for permits for storm water management. Since the substantial portion of the
ponding is going to take place on our site, I guess we need to know what our responsibilities
are, and those are still unresolved. I'd like to point out that DataServ does not want these
issues to delay the approval of this plan. We clearly have an interest in the success of this
project. We feel however that we would be remiss if we did not point out the need to clarify
and ultimately resolve some of these issues going forward. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address?
Tom Rockford: If I may, I'd just like to comment on the one point that Jim brought up
relative to Dell Road. We did meet with Todd Gerhardt this afternoon and with Dave and we
think we have come to an understanding as to how we can proceed on that. I'd like to
address that in the development agreement that will obviously come an agreement. We don't
view that as an issue.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mancino: Maybe Mr. Paulet needs to know a little bit about that.
Tom Rockford: Then we will certainly bring him up to speed on that.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission.
Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second?
Fmmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Mancino: Staff, a couple of the questions that were brought up. Who's responsibility will it
be for the storm water management and what's going to happen in that outlot? Or Mr.
Hempel.
Hempel: Madam Chair. We met today with Mr. Rockford and some members of CSM
regarding the SWMP fees. What I call SWMP fees. Surface Water Management Plan. And
we will be looking at those fees closer to determine the actual credits that they have coming
when the final construction plans, as we get closer to that. To determine how much
additional ponding they actually are providing. What size pipes they are providing. Those
sorts of items so we can determine the credits back against the parcel. We would be crediting
the individuals or applicant that is installing the improvement. We would credit the
development that's before you tonight, Lot 1 and Lot 2. The remaining outlots, as they come
in to develop would be responsible for their own surface water management fees at that time.
Since the regional pond would be in place, the regional truck storm sewer would be in place,
there would be no further credits to be given to those outlots as they plat.
Mancino: Okay. And what about park dedication fees? Park and trail fees.
A1-Jaff: They did not pay it originally.
Mancino: They did not pay it originally?
Aanenson: We don't know.
A1-Jaff: We don't know that and they're not aware of whether they paid it or not.
Mancino: So you need to check and get a hold of Mr. Paulet and let him know those issues,
okay. Thank you. Comments and questions and recommendations from the commissioners.
Commissioner Mehl.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mehl: I think it's just a great looking project. At some point in time here in the staff report
they referred to trash dumpster locations. I wonder where those are going to be and how
those are going to be hidden with wing walls or, are going to service several of the tenants. I
just wanted to bring that up.
Mancino: Okay.
Mark Kusnierek: As far as the trash enclosures, they would be back within the truck port
area, close to the buildings. They would be constructed of two wing walls coming out of the
same material as that of the back, which would be rock faced block with a wooden gate of a
decorative nature. So they would not be viewed from any room other than the interior truck
lots.
Mancino: Thank you. Commissioner Mehl, do you have any other questions or comments?
Mehl: Those blue pyramid objects on the roof, are those functional or decorative or, I'm
looking at these photos here and I'm having a hard time really visualizing them with respect
to their size versus the rest of the building. I'm trying to get a visualization as to.
Mancino: Proportionally?
Mehl: Yeah, proportionally. How they're going to look and there's one photo that doesn't
show them on here and a couple of these photos just show partially and I'm just curious as to
what their preference and I know we want to get some kind of a beveled roof element up
there and I'm just wondering if this was an attempt to do that.
Mancino: Okay. Mr. Kusnierek.
Aanenson: I'll show it on one of the overheads.
Mark Kusnierek: The elements that you're looking at are decorative in nature, to add a little
bit more emphasis, to also fit within the Highway 5 overlay that has been established by
Chanhassen.
Mancino: But they are specifically on the east and the west.
Mark Kusnierek: To define major corners within the building. We did not want to put the
emphasis within the...area at that point because that has a secondary access within the project.
When the full project comes into phase, or Phase II. We want to put the emphasis on the...
53
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mancino: So that decorative would be just on one comer of the building?
Mehl: Okay. So I understand that, it's going to be on the northeast comer and the northwest
corner.
Mark Kusnierek: There are two of them lying here and then there would be a single one
down here. Emphasizing this, and...
Mancino: And approximately how much proportionally will the pyramids be seen?
Mark Kusnierek: The 3D photos are fairly good renditions of them. They are, I believe they
are about...
Mehl: Okay, thank you. That's all the comments I have right at this point. I think it looks
like a well done project. It's going to look great over there.
Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes.
Farmakes: It's a nice quality building going in there... First of all I enjoy seeing the
materials. I want to say that again how much I personally am thrilled that we actually have
materials. And the, when I first saw this plat I was somewhat concerned about the issue of
berming. That's why I brought it up earlier and the issue in regards to Highway 5. It's kind
of a bit unfortunate that we see a string of again kind of quasi retail type signage up and
down the highway again. That's what I thought we were trying to avoid. I'm not saying that
this is that. The signage plans, same color. Same type signs that the applicant is saying that
there won't be a maximum use but...argue that here. The one thing that I found that over the
years that I've been here, typically that I'm most surprised of, is the actual berming. When
we discuss the issue of berming. I have been dumb founded that either we have approved it
with the thinking that something's actually covered, and it wasn't. And on the opposite
extreme, we approved something and it covers half of Carver County, in the case of
Minnewashta Landings. I was surprised by the height of that berm, and I approved it. But I
guess what I'm saying is, when I look at berming as a form of shielding buildings, it all
depends on where you're standing and what direction you're looking at. And hopefully that,
coupled with the distance back from the highway, and a reasonable amount of time to get the
landscaping to go, it's obvious that you've looked at that carefully and I can see that you've
addressed that issue. I'm, short of getting out there and putting up a little height line, I'm
going to trust your professional capabilities that that's going to be shielded and if you say this
is a reasonable expectation, what we're viewing here is factual, it seems to me that let's
address that issue. The one thing I'm somewhat concerned about would be how it was
shielded from the south, although as opposing to additional warehouse development and
54
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
primarily those large gaps in the southern exposure there with truck traffic coming in. I'm
concerned that those are just basically a flat warehouse side. I'd like to see perhaps
something up where if you had the trees and landscaping area, something again in the facade
breaking up that square. More in line with what you're doing everywhere else on the
building, or at least something to give that relief from the comers.
Mancino: Are you talking about where the docks are? Where the trucks come in to the dock
area?
Farmakes: Correct.
Mancino: Will those, if I'm not mistaken, will be bermed in front.
Farmakes: Right, but what I'm saying is that if we're seeing the building itself from the top
of the buildings, we're assuming that the building's going to be all covered up there. And
getting back to my previous comment. I'm not exactly sure that that's the situation. That by
time you get up to the roof level that that's going to be covered up. And that's quite an
expanse...for the plans and look at the scope of that, that's quite a long straight line. And
again the berm, according to the plans, varies considerably from the entrance there off to the
side. So anyways. It's not something that I guess I'd sit down and vote to deny. So much of
the rest of the building is following within the lines of the guidelines, except for that southern
exposure there...I think it's looking quite well and the only thing, as I said, I was
uncomfortable with was the parking along the highway, which is something I thought we
were avoiding but you've addressed that issue I think to where I'm comfortable...
Mancino: Commissioner Meyer.
Meyer: Let me just ask him. You're comfortable because of the berming that they've done
there?
Farmakes: If it looks like this plan, and I'm hedging that. I want to qualify that. I
personally have had trouble over the years when we've look at these things, and I've been
either surprised one way or the other. To give you an example, Byerly's. Supposedly we
bermed that somewhat, the parking lot. You can see the entire parking lot. Except for the
stop sign. That's the only thing that's probably bermed is when you're coming up to the stop
sign. The Minnewashta Landings. I was surprised by the height on that. And as I said
before, it's hard sometimes to in real terms get the scope of berming in relationship to the
building. And the...looking pretty good. I don't see any cars there. In fact I see the majority
of the building is bermed. You can do it two ways. You can either say no parking along
55
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Highway 5 or you can talk about the issue that staff believes that that's a significant berm and
that's a representational issue.
Meyer: Okay.
Mancino: Any other comments?
Meyer: Nothing else.
Mancino: Commissioner Conrad.
Conrad: I like it very much. Couple of quick questions. One to staff. Sharmin. Wetland
analysis. Were the wetlands not on our map? Meaning are these not inventoried wetlands
that we're talking about. And I'll say that, I'll tell you why. Somebody met with the Wetland
Conservation Act's designated technical evaluation panel. And I thought we had an ordinance
and so this refers to them and I'm kind of interested about how this played with our ordinance
and therefore my next assumption was, this was not an inventoried wetland and under an acre
and a half or whatever our regs are.
A1-Jaff: There was, what Diane Desotelle, our Water Resource Engineer looked at and said
this is a wetland and wanted other professionals to look at it and confirm whether it is or not.
And it was decided that no, it wasn't. And that's why the additional group of people were
brought in. And through the panel it was decided that this is not a wetland.
Conrad: Okay. It was not jurisdictional. What does that mean?
Aanenson: It was exempt. Diane was concerned. There was some ambiguity whether or not
it met the wetland criteria so she brought in another expert to validate whether it was or
wasn't and the opinion was that it was exempt.
Conrad: Okay. In terms of the, just a couple points in the staff report. What governs the
height of the letters? And height of the logo. They would like a 30 inch logo and do we
have a reg that says, it can only be this or was that sort of just staff saying.
A1-Jaff: The applicants submitted a criteria for their signage. So we took it and put it in the
form of a condition of approval. Because of the location of the building, that's the only
reason why we did it this way. I mean if it was a planned unit development, then yes. We
would develop our own criteria. But in this case, only because of the location of the
building, this is going to be the first building that you see as you drive into Chanhassen and
56
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
we wanted to make sure that there is some rhythm and rhyme to the signage as you drive
down the highway.
Conrad: Okay. Okay. So if we decide to allow a 30 inch logo, we're not breaking an
ordinance someplace?
A1-Jaff: No.
Aanenson: This came from their direction.
Conrad: Okay, good. When I came in here I was real worried about signage. That was
probably my biggest concern and they did a very nice job, in terms of presentation. It really
took, I was very worried we were going to have a smattering of different looks out there and
it's very nice. At least if it follows, maybe the pictures that were floated around. That's some
good quality stuff and I like that. If we can follow that, then I'd feel comfortable allowing a
30 inch logo if that's what they're thinking their tenants would like.
Mancino: And the same color as the lettering.
Conrad: Absolutely. Yeah. So again what I see is what I really like. It's real nice. I don't
know what to say about the signage on the west side of the site. I don't know how to reword
something there. I see a need. I don't know that we are impacting residents. I just, I don't
know how to deal with that one. That's (f) in number 2.
Mancino: But if we aren't impacting residents, they can have it.
Conrad: That's pretty much my philosophy, but I don't. I guess that's a wording that
somebody could probably put in there, yeah. The landscape peninsulas in number 3. Staff,
could you tell me about, that. Is that just breaking something up that we think needs to be
broke up?
A1-Jaff: Actually I'll discuss this very quickly. This is the area where the landscape island
would need to go, according to our ordinance. We met with the applicant and they indicated
that if they did locate the island, let's assume in those two locations, they'll end up using
parking spaces. Losing parking spaces. The only other alternative for them to locate the
parking would be back where the screening for the loading areas would be located. If it's an
alternative between islands along the east portion of the site or berming to screen the loading
dock, we'd prefer that this remain and just exclude those islands. We had to point it out
because it's in ordinance.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Conrad: It is? Okay. I think that's it. I like the project. It's very nice.
Mancino: Commissioner Skubic.
Skubic: Yes. I think it's a very nice project also. Very nice site plan. Nice architectural
building. I like it and I certainly support industrial development in Chanhassen when it's
done this well. The signage, I appreciate the applicants bringing in some photos of some
comparable signs and also the renderings. It seems to me that the signage is going to be
obscured most of the year by the landscaping anyway. Couple things I'd like to get some
clarification on. As I understand it, the land to the south of Lake Drive was retained by
DataServ with the exception of Outlot B. Is that likely to be developed by DataServ or
somebody else? Or further subdivided in the future?
Aanenson: Yes. DataServ will probably be building on that site.
Skubic: And it's not part of this subdivision?
Aanenson: You're talking about the south of Lake Drive, correct? Yes.
Skubic: And regarding the responsibility for the payment for the traffic signals, specified
developers and/or property owners. Is there somewhere in the process where they'll be further
defined?
Hempel: The language that we inserted here at the 12th hour on that condition. It's kind of
an after our meeting this afternoon. We didn't know how much to put into security. As
Sharmin mentioned at the beginning. We didn't know how long the security was going to
have to be held. We didn't know, depending on the land use of what goes in out here. Even
if a traffic signage will meet warrants at the year 2005, 2007, so there's a lot of what if's out
there so we kind of threw in a blanket one here and said, if a traffic signal is warranted, the
city installs it. We assess it back to the benefitting property owners. Benefitted ratio and this
way they're open to that. We're able to assess them without a public hearing process. There's
no way to be more specific at this time. This meets our needs from a legality standpoint as
far as being able to assess for the traffic signal in the future. Meets their needs of not having
to put up security at this time. It seems to be a win/win situation.
Mancino: Thank you. Again, thank you for such a complete presentation. It answered so
many questions and I think it's a wonderful design for the entrance to Chanhassen. And I
know that staff and the applicant have worked hard on this. A few of the questions that were
asked I would just, so that Mr. Dietrick knows, I would support certainly enhanced
landscaping in MnDot right-of-way but I can't grant it to you. In fact what does happen
58
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
staff?. Is that something that the applicant deals with MnDot on? Does the city get involved
in that at all?
Aanenson: We found out what happens when you enhance our landscaping.
Mancino: Oh, what happened?
Hempel: We got called when we did Perkins recently. They are very concerned about the
landscaping in the right-of-way. That's something the applicant will have to work with
MnDot and enter into a cooperative agreement potentially for that.
Mancino: That's up to you but I just wanted you to know that I'd certainly support that. The
landscape peninsulas on the east side that you asked about on Dell Road. I, like some other
people, I mean this is hard. It's, this Block 1, Lot 1 building has three street sides, if you
will. Three entrance sides that everyone can see. I would suggest, make a different
suggestion to staff and that is that, we are obviously trying to buffer the parking lot.
Overstory boulevard trees that are deciduous, do not really buffer the parking lot. So my
suggestion would be that along the east side of Dell Road there, that the perimeter of that
parking area be lined with a low arborvitae. Something coniferous. That's year round. It
doesn't get any taller than 6 to 8 feet. Therefore you will screen the parking lot and you can
still also have the deciduous boulevard trees next to Dell Road, and I think that that would
work out well and not put in any islands. That would be my suggestion. Secondly, I too am
concerned about, as Commissioner Farmakes was, about the berming and making sure that we
don't see the parking area from Highway 5 because it was a major issue for us on the
Highway 5 task force. And so again when I hear of a 4 foot berm, I know 4 feet doesn't
cover the height of a car so I would like to see 5 or 6 berm and some of those, or a lot of the
plantings be at the top of the berm and making the berm wide enough so that you can
actually get trees, balled and burlapped trees in there. Also for staff and the applicant, I do
see that the sizes of the trees are not what meets our ordinance. So there are coniferous trees
must average 7 feet so that we get different height plantings. We don't have just 6 foot, and I
know you'll refine that but just so you're aware of that. My concern from East Lake Drive is
of the dock area, and again I would like to see berming there and a deciduous, or a coniferous
tree coverage so that you can't see through the docks from East Lake Drive. And that could
be the 12 feet on center or double row so that there is very opaque buffering. I don't think I
have any other issues or any other questions that you asked us to look at. Those would be
my only suggestions. Look forward to seeing the building. Motions. Let's see, we need a
motion on the site plan review please.
Conrad: I'll make a motion that the City Council approves, that the Planning Commission
approves Site Plan Review #95-18 as shown on the site plan received October 2, 1995 subject
59
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
to the conditions of the staff report with the following changes. To number 2, letter (f). That
the signage on the west side of the site will be allowed or declined based on visibility to the
neighborhoods residents. Change to (h). That in addition to what staff has, that the logos
would be permitted to 30 inches, provided the standards are carried out for this signage that
are comparable to the quality of the examples presented at tonight's meeting, and I'm sure
there could be a better way of stating that, but that's the intent. Point number 3. Madam
Chair, I buy what you said. I just don't know how to rework what's there so if you'd like to
make a friendly amendment after I close, I think that might be appropriate.
Mancino: Okay.
Conrad: Those are my comments for the site plan.
Mancino: Friendly amendment to 3 would read, applicant must provide perimeter coniferous
landscaping in the east parking lot, and I would say on Dell Road. And that the screening of
the truck loading area along East Lake Drive, or both of them, must be increased and include
coniferous double row screening the entire length of the dock area. Screening may include
berms, ornamental and evergreen trees. Let's just say screening may include coniferous trees.
And we'll go ahead and keep in extended peninsula parallel to the entryway. It could be
considered.
Farmakes: May I ask for clarification?
Mancino: Yes.
Farmakes: The issue on west side signage. If there's no frontage on the west side, are we
violating any issues of ordinances?
A1-Jaff: We're limiting each building to two frontages. To two sides.
Farmakes: But if we have signage, if the signage is limited to two, even though there's no
frontage on the west side.
Mancino: Street frontage. So they couldn't put signage on the west side anyway?
Al-Jaff: The ordinance reads.
Farmakes: You may want to clarify that.
A1-Jaff: One sign per street frontage.
60
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Farmakes: Or we can add to that, if it doesn't violate other ordinances. Because I think
we've denied other applicants.
Aanenson: So say consistent with the city's sign ordinance.
Conrad: Very definitely.
Mancino: So we really don't even need.
Conrad: My addition. Well.
Mancino: Do you want to just keep it in there?
Conrad: Based on, yeah. Let's keep it in but also we should add, based on ordinance. Based
on our sign ordinance.
Mancino: Okay. A second to the motion?
Farmakes: I'll second the motion.
Mancino: Any discussion on the motion?
Conrad moved, Fasmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan Review #95-18 as shown on the site plan received October 2, 1995, subject to the
following conditions:
The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on
the building.
.
Signage criteria:
a. Each building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to
the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
b. Wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontages as shown on the sign
plan dated November 1, 1995.
c. All signs require a separate permit.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
o
,
d.
The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights.
No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential
section south. Signage on the west side of the building will be allowed or declined
based on visibility to the neighbotfloods ~esidents, and consistent with the city's sign
o~flinance.
g. Back lit individual letter signs are permitted.
ho
Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height, and logos shall not exceed 30
inches in height and consistent with the standards for the signage.
Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the
sign.
The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop
sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of both sites. A detailed sign
plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided
prior to requesting a sign permit.
The applicant must provide two landscaped peninsulas in the east parking lot and one in
the central parking. Screen of the truck loading area along East Lake Drive must be
increased to include coniferous double row screening the entire length of the dock area.
Screening may include berms, ornamental and coniferous trees. The applicant must
provide perimeter conife~ous landscaping in the east parking lot, along Dell Road.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Additional fire hydrants will be required. One fire hydrant must be relocated.
Contact Fire Marshal for exact changes and modifications.
b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signage and yellow curbing must be provided. Contact Fire
Marshal for exact "Fire Lane" areas.
62
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
o
,
o
.
10.
11.
c. P.I.V. (Post Indicator Valves) must be installed. Show on utility plans.
d. A ten foot clear space must be provided around fire hydrants.
Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall
be submitted.
Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The building setback line and
erosion control fencing shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to
final plat approval. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal
approval.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
The applicant shall upgrade/extend Dell Road south of Lake Drive East to the south city
limits as well as install a storm drainage system from Lake Drive East to the regional
pond site. All public utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance
with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City
Council approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building
Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the
necessary permits from the City.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water ponds in accordance with
the City Surface and Storm Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and
approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed
and post developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water
level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, 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.
63
Planning Commission Meeting- November 1, 1995
12.
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.
13. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way.
14. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be
a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level.
15.
A regional water quality and water quantity pond shall be provided on site to pretreat
storm water runoff prior to discharging under Dell Road into the Eden Prairie wetland.
The proposed storm water pond 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. The stormwater pond shall be designed to 60% to 75% phosphorous removal
efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend
into the landscape is recommended.
16. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in
accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations.
17.
The proposed commercial development of 21.3 acres of which 10.23 acres are being
developed shall be responsible for a water quantity and quality connection charges in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. These fees are payable to
the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The final water quality and quantity
connection fees will be determined based on final construction drawings.
18.
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.
19.
The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Rod is
expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost
participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full
development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. The traffic
signals, when they meet warrants, will be installed through a city public improvement
project. The developers and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural and
substantive objections to the special assessment, including but not limited to hearing
requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the properties.
64
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
20. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
21. The parking area for Lot 2 shall maintain a 10 foot side yard setback along the west
edge of the property.
Ail voted in favor and the motion cmried unanimously.
Mancino: Second motion please for a subdivision.
Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center as
shown on the plat received October 1, 1995, with the following conditions as listed by the
staff, 1 through 8.
Aanenson: We added number 9. The cross over easement.
Skubic: 1 through 9.
Mancino: Second?
Meyer: I'll second that.
Mancino' Any discussion?
Skubic moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission lecommends the City Council
approve the pleliminm'y plat fol- Subdivision #95-18 fol- Chanhassen East Business Center as
shown on the plat leceived October 1, 1995, with the following conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance.
.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City Best Management Practice
Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the
parking lot is paved.
65
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater
calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm event, 24 hour duration. Individual storm
sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine
if sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
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.
.
The appropriate drainage and utility easements should 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 of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
7. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary right-of-way for the upgrade
'of Dell Road.
8. The site with the DataServ building shall be shown on the plat as Lot 2, Block 1.
.
The applicant shall dedicate a cross-access easement over Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lot 2,
Block 1 and Outlot A.
All voted in favor and the motion cmaied unanimously.
Mancino: This will go onto City Council.
Al-Jarl: On the 27th.
Mancino: November 27th. Thank you very much.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated October 18, 1995 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: Final plat plans and specifications and development contract was given for Halla
Great Plains Estates on the 23rd so we hope within 30 days that plat will be recorded. And
then conceptual and preliminary plat was given for Autumn Ridge 2nd. That was the one
66
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
that's north of Galpin adjacent to Highway 5. I think we end up with a good mix of units and
there were some of those in the 4, 8's and then there's some single loaded walkouts.
Mancino: Were there any changes from what we saw?
Aanenson: No. I don't believe so. But the good news is, I think we're going to get a portion
of those, at least a third of those will be in the affordable range so that's good.
Mancino: And affordable means?
Aanenson: Which is around $115,000.00.
Mancino: But none are rentals?
Aanenson: No. They'll all be owner occupied.
Mancino: Thank you.
Aanenson: That's all.
Mancino: Any ongoing items?
Aanenson: I mentioned and we left it off the agenda but we still need to pick a Vice Chair.
Because it was Ron. I think it would be appropriate if Nancy's gone and has to leave, that
there's a Vice Chair.
Mancino: Okay. Do we have nominations for Vice Chair?
Conrad: It should be somebody new.
Meyer: I nominate Don.
Mancino: Okay. Any other nominations for Vice Chair? Would you be willing to accept
Vice Chair?
Mehl: Well I just question whether or not it's fair because I don't know what I'm doing yet.
Mancino: And you think somebody else does?
Conrad: Yeah I actually.
67
Planning Commission Meeting - November 1, 1995
Mancino: You learn a lot being.
Conrad: But I think you should, and I don't want to be too contrary but I think somebody
should be here for a little bit of time so you have some sense. I guess I'd nominate Jeff.
Farmakes: I've done it already though.
Conrad: That's okay.
Mancino: So Don I'm hearing you say you would rather not be Vice Chair.
Mehl: I didn't say I'd rather not. I just said that, I'm just wondering since I don't have more
than what, two meetings behind me here and I attended some during the summer, if the
situation arose to do the job, fill your chair in two weeks, I'd have a problem with it.
Mancino: Well thank you for being so open. Any other nominations. Do we do this by
secret ballot?
Aanenson: You can draw lots. I'll put some of those sticks together.
Mancino: So would you like to keep your name or?
Mehl: For?
Mancino: For Vice Chair. Or would you like to take your name off.
Mehl: I'll keep it on, sure. I believe in jumping in and getting your feet wet.
Mancino: Two nominations. Jeff and Don.
A vote was taken to elect a Vice Chair for the Planning Commission and Jeff Farmakes was
elected to serve as Vice Chair for 1995.
The public po~ion of the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. The
Planning Commission then had open discussion on the following items: Industrial Lane Use
Study, Livable Communities Act, and DataServ Remodeling.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
68