PC Minutes 9-18-07
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING:
POWER SYSTEMS BUILDING EXPANSION: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FORA 12.300 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO A 27.800 SQUARE FOOT
BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. AND
LOCATED AT 8325 COMMERCE DRIVE. APPLICANT. POWER SYSTEMS.
PLANNING CASE 07-21.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Harley Bergren
Gary Bergren
David Thun
Todd Mohagen
George Beniek
8104 Highwood Drive, Apt G 108, Bloomington
8893 Hidden Oaks Drive, Eden Prairie
6490 Bayview Place, Excelsior
Mohagen Hansen Architects
1000 Twelve Oaks Center Drive, Wayzata
412 West 76th Street
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Keefe: Start down here. Kevin, you have any questions?
Dillon: I do not. Kind of looks pretty straight forward.
Larson: Did I read in here that the parking, we didn't need to add parking with the addition, is
that correct?
Generous: Right. They have sufficient park on the site. They're showing some proof of parking
so they have, yeah. They have the numbers quantitative wise that our ordinance requires, but
their operation they don't need that.
Larson: Got it. Okay. That was the only one I had.
Thomas: It's self explanatory. I'm good.
Keefe: I had a couple questions. Do we typically sign for the tractor trailer entrance or how do
we you know direct that or enforce it or do we just leave it up to them to?
Generous: Generally they'll put truck entrance. It doesn't make a lot of sense for tractor trailers
to go on the west side.
Keefe: Yeah, I mean it looks like it's a natural way to go but I didn't know if we needed to
require any signage associated with that or anything.
Generous: I don't think so.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2007
Keefe: Okay. It says the area being disturbed is less than one acre. The lot area is 2 1/2 acres or
something along those lines but it does say if it exceeds an acre. Do we not know whether it
exceeds an acre in terms of?
Generous: Our estimate was it was under an acre, but just in case.
Keefe: Yeah. And what do we mean by being disturbed? Is that just.
Generous: Any grading operation.
Keefe: Okay.
Generous: They turn the dirt, it's disturbed and then they may have to go and get a separate
permit.
Keefe: Okay. And then the signage, this is you know, the sign is going to be what, painted on?
Or is it an attached sign or is it?
Generous: No. They're just showing a possible sign location on there. They're not sure that
they'll actually use it. We said if part of their site plan review they should show a location if they
even contemplate that so that it would.
Keefe: Okay. If they add one they can come back for permit on that or something.
Generous: It'd be administrative permitting. It'd be through, they'd have to follow the standards
in the city code.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. And then just one last question in regards to you know walkways or
pathways on this particular site plan. It connects well with the path system or sidewalk or
doesn't that have that or?
Generous: I don't believe there's any out there.
Keefe: Yeah. Is that something that typically we would try to do in this area?
Generous: Well in the newer developments we haven't provided that. In some of the older, like
this was in the mid to early 90's that it came through and we didn't require as much. I know that
on Lake Drive I believe they have it and then there's a trail down at the end.
Keefe: Alright. That's all I have. Is there an applicant? Like to come up and say, give a
presentation.
Todd Mohagen: I'm Todd Mohagen, Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group. We're the
architects on the project. The owners of the building are here and the tenant, Power Systems. A
representative from that company. Thank you so much. I think there's really no issues that we
have with the exception of there was a note, the last note about the trees. On the west buffer
8
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2007
yard, if we could go to here. There's 10 feet from here to here. We'd prefer not to have over
story trees in there just because it would conflict with the building. The roots and the leaves.
Maybe if we could be a little, we could work with staff on locating those trees. I mean if that's a
requirement, I don't think that's an issue. It's just that we'd prefer that that would limit us to that
area. That it could be in here or there. It could be a pretty small area. Do you have the
landscape plan by chance?
Generous: It should be.
Todd Mohagen: Ifwe could modify that, we would work with staff to locate you know the
appropriate number of trees I think would probably be better. The concern is this would be a
normal sized tree and if we start putting them along here, our concern is that it interferes with the
building.
Keefe: You know in terms of, you know in the staff report it says that they wanted to have some
trees along that end. I mean was consideration taken into account in terms of what the applicant
is saying?
Generous: We can. The 4 trees are just a quantitative, how many trees you need on that western
side. The actual location is something that we work out all the time. We allow people to group
trees. You know it'd make sense to put additional trees to the southwest corner of the site. West
of the parking lot in front of the building to provide some of that shading to the building and the
parking lot. Sticking something on the north end isn't an issue.
Todd Mohagen: I guess, we don't have any issue with it. It's just, the way that this reads, I
would read that to mean that that would mean this portion of the building. I mean maybe it's as
simple as saying the southwest. Or near the parking area.
Keefe: Or maybe work with staff. Alright, anything else?
Todd Mohagen: No.
Keefe: Okay. This is a public hearing. If anybody would like to comment or questions, please
step to the podium. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Bring it back here and let's start
over here.
Dillon: You know I think it's, there's kind of just a way to work it out between staff and the
applicant on the trees and just to make a win/win. I'm sure that can be done and I'm totally in
favor.
Larson: Yeah, I agree.
Thomas: Ditto.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2007
Keefe: Alright. And I'm comfortable with the applicant working it out with staff in regards to
the location of the trees. They're better at doing that than I would be in terms of locating them so
with that I'll take a motion.
Dillon: I'll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve Planning Case 07-21, Powers Systems for 12,300 square foot expansion to a
27,800 square foot one story office warehouse building, plans prepared by Mohagen Hansen
Architectural Group dated February 16, 2007, subject to the following conditions, number 1
through 13.
Larson: I'll second that.
Keefe: I guess I would make a friendly amendment to modify 12 to say, the applicant shall work
with staff in regards to the location of trees and shrubs.
Larson: What if we combine 12 and 13?
Thomas: Yeah instead of. . . because it says it all together maybe.
Keefe: Yeah, I think I'd be alright with that. You know the combine 12 and 13 and essentially
say, the applicant will work with staff in regards to submitting a revised landscape plan which
accommodates staffs recommendations in terms of tree planting and shrubbery. Is that alright
with you?
Dillon: That works for me.
Larson: I agree.
Keefe: Alright. Already have a second. Friendly amendment.
Dillon moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that City Council approve Planning Case 07-21, Power Systems, for a 12,300 square-foot
expansion to a 27,800 square-foot, on-story office warehouse building, plans prepared by
Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group, dated 02/16/07, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. A window shall be added to the south elevation of the most westerly office in the building
expanSIOn.
3. Tractor-trailer units are prohibited from using the proposed new (westerly) access.
4. If the area being disturbed exceeds one acre, the applicant must obtain the necessary permits
from the MPCA and the Watershed District.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - September 18, 2007
5. The applicant must ensure that the Engineering Department is contacted a minimum of 48
hours prior to connecting to the public storm sewer.
6. The applicant must submit a $1,000.00 escrow for the replacement grate over the public
storm sewer at the new driveway.
7. The grading plan must be signed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
8. The building addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
9. All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
10. The water service at the southwest end of the building (proposed addition location) must be
relocated/revised in such a manner that fire suppression water supply is not located under the
proposed addition (Ref. NFP A 24).
11. The applicant shall plant two trees near the parking lot.
12. The applicant shall install a west bufferyard planting that includes 4 overstory trees, 9
understory trees and 14 shrubs. The applicant shall work with staff to submit a revised
landscape plan prior to building permit approval."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to o.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 4,2007 as presented.
Acting Chair Keefe adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
11