PC 2000 09 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Alison Blackowiak,
Uli Sacchet, and Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Lori Haak, Water Resource
Coordinator; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; Matt Saam, Project Engineer; and Bob Generous,
Senior Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUESTING TO EXCAVATE A 100' X 50' POND IN A
WETLAND AREA ON A 5.0 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 610 WEST96TH STREET,
ROBERT BOECKER.
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of staff'?
Conrad: Sure. Why does staffwant this?
Haak: Well, I wouldn't say staff; you mean the proposal in general?
Conrad: No. You're saying that this is good. Usually we expect something to be improved and in your
staffreport nothing says we're improving anything. So I've got to be straight, it's not a good staffreport. I
don't know why we want to look at it right now. Usually we have a reason to alter a wetland and there's
not a reason. So Lori you've got to be an advocate. I expect you to tell me that we're going to improve
something.
Haak: Well I believe this will improve the quality of the wetland in that area. I think that excavating will
provide an opportunity for some other species to grow in that area. It will, right now as I said it's a
monotypic stand of reed canary grass in that particular location where the applicant has proposed the
wetland alteration and I think deepening the wetland at that point will provide additional habitat for
plants.
Conrad: So it's an improvement. Bottom like you're saying that's an improvement. We don't have a
problem with, you're not worried. Okay, you're not worried about any downstream situation.
Haak: No. Once we.
Conrad: You feel that the diversity of wetland vegetation will be improved, even though you're digging it
to 6 feet which is a pond. What are we going to get out of the pond?
Haak: It provides additional habitat. It's diversity. Correct. With the grade on the side slopes, the 3 to 1,
4 to 1, or the 10 to 1 side slopes, it provides variation in topography which allows different types of plants
to grow.
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Conrad: Around the edge?
Haak: Around the edge, correct. Right.
Conrad: So in the staff`report, the applicant shall reseed wetland, okay. Where do I Know that? Lori,
how do I know that?
Haak: In reseeding those areas, that is what will occur. The seeding of the sloped areas will encourage
different plants to grow because of the changes in hydrology.
Conrad: Okay. Again, when we screw around with the wetland, I want the staff`report to tell me why.
And you're an advocate right now so you're telling me that this is a better, this is better than before and
that's your position. So it's real important that you're an advocate. It's not an applicant came in and
wanted to do it and we couldn't figure out why not to let him do it. It's real important that we say this is a
better mix and, I buy what you're saying right now. I didn't see it in the staff`report. Didn't see a reason
for doing it. Your comments are valid but I really want you to be an advocate for this versus just a passing
it along to us. That's all.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I just had one quick question. It's not clear to me why the applicant's doing this.
Is it just for aesthetic purposes?
Haak: That is not part of the application that we receive. We don't require that information of the
applicant and I haven't been provided with that at this point. So I can't speak to that. I don't see the
applicant present so. The applicant may show up and be able to answer that question but we don't require
it in the application at this point.
Peterson: Okay. Other questions?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Is this my mic?
Peterson: It is now.
Kind: Okay. I don't want to steal your's. Lori, do you feel that the excavation, the alteration will impact
drainage on the neighboring sites and that's why you're adding a condition or, tell me a little bit more
about that.
Haak: Well, there is potential for the spoil material. The applicant has not quantified the amount of
material that will be left on site versus the amount that will be taken off`site. So that condition is being
added in hopes, well in the expectation that staff`will be able to determine whether or not storm water
pattems will change because if the applicant leaves 1,200 cubic yards of material on site, there could be a
significant impact to other properties adjacent to this particular parcel.
Kind: So in your condition are you including language that says something about drainage pattems won't
be changed from what they were prior to the alteration?
Haak: That's correct.
Kind: Something like that?
2
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Haak: Yep. The condition that I would recommend would be that the applicant shall maintain the
neighborhood storm water drainage volumes and pattems that existed prior to April, 2000. To ensure this
condition is met the applicant shall provide a grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing existing
and proposed 2 foot contours prepared by a professional engineer for staff review and approval prior to
pond construction. And that April,2000 is a date prior to the original cease and desist order that was
ordered on the property. So it's prior to any of the alterations that have occurred on this parcel.
Kind: Okay. And then I did go take a look at the site today. I'm assuming the wetland is that area that is
low and it looks like it's been mowed so it's not real wet right now. Am I looking at the right area?
Haak: Yes. The area is not particularly wet first of all primarily because we've had a fairly dry year. The
winters have been fairly dry for the past several years as you may be aware if you like Snowmobiling and
that sort of thing. But there has been mowing that has occurred on site and that was, that occurred I
believe last evening and I was not aware of it until this aftemoon so.
Kind: So it's a new deal?
Haak: Yes.
Kind: I mean are there rules about mowing dry wetlands? Or not so wet wetlands.
Haak: State law doesn't address it. In the Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota Rule 8420, but it seems
to me that the intent of the city's ordinance and code moves in that direction to prohibit alteration of
vegetation which is what the buffer strip ordinance does in effect. I pulled out a couple things that I
thought were pertinent in this case. In City Code Section 20-407 it talks about the applicant for a wetland
alteration permit shall adhere to the following principles in descending order of priority. Avoiding the
direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the wetland. Minimizing the impact
by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and it's implementation, and I think those first
two apply in this case because the wetland has been mowed. I think that there has been a change in the
degree or magnitude of the wetland activity. And having seen that this aftemoon it has given me pause to
consider and go over some of the issues that were presented earlier to me that some of the information that
I was given was that it was not intended to be mowed and I was under the impression that there wasn't
going to be any additional alteration. So I put that before you just for your consideration.
Peterson: It's been mowed for a number of weeks by the way. I noticed it at least a money ago. I thought
it was an alien landing strip for a while. I couldn't figure out why it was there.
Haak: Actually there was one parcel directly adjacent to Highway 101 that was mowed and actually there
was additional mowing that went on last night and it is a greater area and it's obvious that the person who
was mowing it had difficulty in some areas. It's kind of tumed up the dirt in the wetlands so that gave me I
guess greater concem than just the alteration permit we have before us.
Aanenson: Can I just add a comment then on number 5 that Lori originally put in. Certainly with the
wetland alteration you have the chance to add any conditions that are reasonable and that's why that
condition got put in. About the buffer strip which we think, Lori talked about. If a building permit was to
be issued today, a lot of record, he had to maintain the 75 foot setback but certainly that's not our intent.
The direction we move is to provide a buffer strip so on this circumstance I'd recommend that we do go
back and put a buffer strip of some sort or no mowing policy and that may need to be marked like we do
with wetlands as they come in today. That there be a buffer strip monument placed on the site. That no
mowing occur as a condition.
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Kind: So what exactly is our latitude with wetland alteration permits because sometimes.
Aanenson: You can attach any condition that's reasonable. So again, taking number 5. Lori originally put
in there 0 to 20. I don't know if she wants to modify that but certainly we can look at.
Haak: That condition was just basically taken from the policy and as I said before I hadn't realized that a
lot of record prior to that 1992 date so that's why that condition was there and if you wish to modify that
condition, it's certainly something that you can do.
Kind: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: Mr. Chair. Question about, back to the removal of material from the pond area. And you said
we really don't know what the applicant, the quantities they intend to haul away and actually leave on the
site. I have a concem about the quality of the soil. Do we know anything about that? If it's much or not
and if it's mnoff somewhere and we'd have trouble with that. Can we find out about the soils at all?
Haak: We don't know anything, to answer the first question. We don't really know anything about the
quality of the material at this point. As far as erosion control, water quality and that sort of thing, that's
why we are recommending the silt fence on all downstream areas adjacent to all the spoil piles so that
would address the erosion control issue. As far as the buildability of the material, if you wanted to get into
that, we just don't have that information at this point.
Sidney: Do you think that would be valuable or, I guess I'm kind of worried about that in some ways. Just
that it's not going to stay in place.
Haak: I can defer to Dave if he has something to add.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman and planning commissioners. I would think the applicant, he must have a home
for this material otherwise he's going to have a lot of soil to put on his property. The wetlands soils
occasionally, quite frequently honestly are used in berms and so forth on site. Your big commercial sites,
they come upon organic materials and they build berms out of it. And the wetland soils on this site could
be re-spread over the site and re-planted and fit quite well onto the property. Our concem was that if he
starts just mounding dirt up, we're concemed about the neighborhood drainage pattem. We did have a
phone call from one of the residents in the area concemed about mnoff on adjacent properties and so forth
so, we wanted to make sure that was addressed and we think that will be adequately addressed by a
required grading, drainage, erosion control plan so we can see exactly where it's going to be placed and
from that we can also determine how much material's going to be placed on the site and how much
material would have to be hauled off to another site.
Sidney: So the quality may not be a concem?
Hempel: I don't believe it would be. It basically tums into a topsoil type of material.
Sidney: Okay. So kind of peat like kind of thing.
Hempel: I'm assuming so with the wetland characteristics, yes.
4
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Sidney: Okay.
Peterson: Okay, Uli?
Sacchet: Yeah. I was a little baffled by this mowing business too and it's obviously a pretty low grade
wetland in that area. Now there's also an area that's kind of dug up. Is that where actually the pond would
go?
Haak: Yes. As I mentioned earlier it was the site of a cease and desist order. There was wetland fill that
occurred and the black dirt that you see on site now is where the fill was removed from the wetland so it
was restored to grade and then the fill was placed on the upland area. So the disturbed area that you see
down by the wetland now is where the wetland had been restored.
Sacchet: And that's where they want to make the pond.
Haak: Right. The pond would be placed in that same low area.
Sacchet: And they were actually moving the dirt offto closer to the house so they didn't want to, most
likely use the fill on their own property we could assume from that. I mean that's an assumption. We
don't know.
Haak: Yeah. We're not certain at this point.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that's the question I had.
Peterson: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so,
please come forward.
Kim Lee: Hi. We're Roger and Kim Lee. We're at 600 West 96th Street.
Peterson: They're not the applicants. We have to wait for a public hearing.
Kim Lee: Oh, I'm sorry.
Kind: Just a couple minutes.
Peterson: You can just stand there if you want to. Motion and a second for a public hearing.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: That's why I said stay. Please come forward.
Roger Lee: We probably have just some more of some concems. We live to the east of them so we would
want to know how our land would be affected by a pond next to our property. I know all the water right
now drains down to the back of my property into his property and so on.
Peterson: Can you point out where approximately you are, if you can figure out that map.
Roger Lee: Where I'm at? I'm the comer. I'm the 101/96th Street. Right here.
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Peterson: Okay.
Roger Lee: So my land is actually probably the only land that's really useable, except our lower part does
get wet at times.
Peterson: Is your's mowed?
Roger Lee: It's fanned.
Kim Lee: Our's is fanned.
Roger Lee: I have alfalfa in the back there. It's been fanned for years before I bought it, except for the
lower westem part of mine where it's usually wet so the farmer got stuck and stuff`so that just, we just let
that go natural.
Kim Lee: The wetlands that were right next to us are pretty much gone now because they are totally
mowed as of last night.
Roger Lee: Well he's been mowing inbetween there for quite a while. Since he had the property. So
we're concemed about who, if you build a pond, how it will affect our land. And then if you have a pond,
who's going to maintain the pond? I mean where's the water going to come to fill the pond?
Kim Lee: How are you going to keep that pond filled and keep it just being just muck and more mosquito
infested? I mean we have two very, very small children right now but a pond that open with, there is no
vegetation going to be around it at this time. It's almost clear and you put a pond there and it's open water
6 V2 feet deep. It makes no sense to put it right there. I've heard of, by 96th Street them talking about
maybe putting the pond more towards the center of the wetlands. Down a little bit further. I've heard of
them possibly doing it there. But right on the edge now when it's all been mowed. It's just out in the
middle of nowhere now. It's just. If he could see it from his house or if it was to look at it for beauty or
something but it's over the hill. It's down and I'm really worried that in heavy rains it's going to drain
more onto our property. Where is this water going to go? And actually even when it's dry, how are you
going to keep it filled?
Peterson: Okay. Dave, can you maybe respond to that one?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, planning commissioners. I suspect the water table in the area is probably pretty
high and by excavating the pond down 6 V2 feet will reach a static level of water probably of 3 V2-4 feet
deep. The only recharge mechanism would be precipitation from snow melt or rainfall event, which would
sheet drain into it and as it fills up would just naturally overflow as it does today. Sheet drain off`the
property. As far as vegetation goes, once the pond's been excavated, there's a requirement for reseeding
with wetland type vegetation so I imagine that you would have a variety of wetland types from cat tails to
what other wetland vegetation. I'm not sure of the term, the names of them but, so it would have some
vegetation growth around the edge once it's been reseeded.
Peterson: Does that answer your questions generally?
Roger Lee: I guess we're just really worried about the maintaining of it. Who's going to make sure that
it's kept up the way it's supposed to be and the vegetation is there and is the city going to come out and
check on it periodically? Monthly? Yearly?
6
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Kim Lee: I mean this property is supposed to be protected and right now.
Roger Lee: You know we've already affected the animals down there just by mowing and stuff`and we've
got the pheasants and animals out there.
Peterson: You may actually have more with deeper water. You know I think you'll probably get different
kinds of vegetation. Different kinds of animal life that you don't have so. I mean there's equal numbers.
Kim Lee: ...pond and in front of the pond then, maybe to one side there will be wetlands but like you
said, where he's putting it now, and maybe you have to do a buffer of like 10 feet around, but on three
sides of it that pond's going to be open. The rest of it's been mowed. Cattails, everything. It's gone.
Peterson: Other questions?
Kim Lee: I don't think so.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts on this one please.
Kind: Oh Mr. Chair, I'm curious about Ladd's original comment that for wetland alteration permit we
need to have a good reason to do it. And the applicant hasn't stated a good reason to do it. Is that true?
Aanenson: I'll leave that up to Lori to make that interpretation.
Peterson: Yeah, I think Lori stated that you have a better environmental position with the pond than you
would with a wetland that essentially dries out on a regular basis.
Kind: I'm thinking more from the applicant's point of view. What the reason is but.
Peterson: Again, I don't think that's for us to, as much as we'd like to get into that, I don't think we
should be. Who wants to start out with their comments?
Sacchet: I can start.
Peterson: Please.
Sacchet: It seems a little bit half cooked. This whole application. I do agree with Lori's interpretation.
From my understanding I believe it's going to be an enriching element in terms of allowing more variety of
species of plants and other wildlife. However, I'm very concemed about the pattem of this thing being
mowed and I share your concem about how is it going to be maintained. I personally would support
making a pond there if it's clearly put into context of enriching the environment. I mean if it's going to be
a pond that is on three sides of it mowed, I wouldn't consider that enriching the environment. And it could
be even a hazard to some extent in certain ways. So I would support putting a pond there with a buffer
strip around it and all that but I think it might make sense to table it so there can be a little more mature,
this whole concept. And worked out in terms of actually defining the benefits. Of making a clear
framework around it to make sure that when we grant this variance it's being granted for the benefit of the
environment, of the city and not leave that undefined. That's my comment.
7
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Peterson: Staff; do you think if we were to table that, that you could enhance your comments you've
already made tonight or not? I mean can you off'er anything more if we table this and come back in 2
weeks?
Haak: I can't speak for the applicant's intent on the project and I can't speak for how the applicant will
maintain or enrich. I can speak for what I've been submitted and certainly I can enhance my portion of the
report. Make it more clear or concise, whatever, but I cannot, I really can't speak for the applicant's intent
or his.
Aanenson: Maybe I can frame it a little bit differently. Can we put a condition on there and ask, what's
the impact.., doing a check and balances makes sense for the pros and cons and then also maybe modify the
conditions to make sure that there's no mowing. What's the appropriate buffer based on the scale of
neighboring properties, those sort of things. And if we can't get to that point then look at the
recommendation again.
Sacchet: IfI might clarify Mr. Chair. My vision with this is not necessarily trying to pin down the intent
of the applicant because I think we've established that that's not really our concem. But our concem is the
intent of why we would grant this variance, which the intent is to improve the environment and enrich the
wetland. So that means we put an intent on it. That's basically what I'm proposing.
Haak: And I'm not certain that the applicant would go along with that is basically what I was headed with
that. So I'm not certain that that would be desirable to the applicant if we began to tack on conditions like
that. So certainly I can have that conversation but I should let you know that I'm not certain that that's
what the applicant has planned for the property.
Peterson: And again, that's.
Conrad: That's okay.
Peterson: Yeah.
Conrad: You're the advocate. Seriously. You are the advocate. You are saying to us, trust me. We're
not trusting the applicant. We're trusting you. I agree with what Kate said and Julie said. I think we
should table it. I think we have to have our reasons for granting it in the staff`reports so we can go back to
the staff`report and say that's why we did it because you were going to do this. Real important.
Peterson: Good. Other comments?
Burton: Just that I think the applicant has to make clear that this is going to be an improvement to a
wetland and if he's just going to have like a duck pond he's not going to get it through us so, I think he's
got to understand that if he wants to come back.
Peterson: Doesn't mean that it couldn't be a duck pond.
Burton: Just without the grass around the edge, yeah. Pro duck.
Sidney: Mr. Chair, I feel like I want to use the term compelling reason and we don't have that in front of
us right now.
8
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Peterson: Alright. Is there a motion?
Sacchet: I move to table.
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Wetland Alteration
Permit #2000-3. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER
PUD AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A ONE STORY, 67,664 SQ. FT. OFFICE/SHOYVROOM
BUILDING LOCATED AT STONE CREEK DRIVE BETWEEN TH 5 AND COULTER
BOULEVARD AND PROPERTY ZONED PUD, BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER,
PHASE I, CSM CORPORATION.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Bob, if we change the drive aisle and increase that, and you talk about increasing the berm,
how's that going to affect the parking ratio? Have we looked at that I assume? As far as the number of.
Generous: The berming on the north elevation, we believe would go into the right-of-way. MnDot's
looking at a swale system for storm water purposes and they actually their parking lot is lower, at a lower
elevation than the proposed swale so they're going to have to build that up. So on the north side it's not
going to impact it. One of the beauties about this project is we're requiring him to provide cross parking
and cross access arrangements. That's one of our concems that they provide the sidewalk connection to
the trail system. This north, east comer of the church site is an adequate area for providing additional
parking, if that becomes an issue on this property. So the ratio's not, we don't believe there will be a
problem.
Peterson: Any other questions of Bob?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. When you say 25% manufacturing and then you say light manufacturing. Can
you define those activities?
Generous: Light manufacturing?
Sidney: Yes. I'm thinking noise. Ifthey'll have noise producing activities.
Generous: I don't know if our code provides it specifically but it's you know, high tech industries.
Computer manufacturing would be considered light manufacturing. What else would be?
Aanenson: Well it'd be similar to what we have out on TH 5 and Dell Road. That's all zoned similarly.
Same builder of this building. We don't know who the tenant is. It's going to be multi-tenant and as each
business license comes in, we'll have to review that. Not business license but as each tenant finishes...
license requirement at that point. That's where we do check it for noise generation or like that. Until they
get tenant finish. Right now what you're approving is the shell of the building.
9
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Sidney: Okay.
Peterson: Any other questions?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I've got a few things I'd like to clarify. One stipulation in here is that MnDot
will permit the applicant to do landscaping in the right-of-way. Is that a reasonable thing to expect?
Generous: We believe so.
Sacchet: You think so, okay. Then there's this other statement. The only other reduction to the design
standards would be to reduce the maximum building setback to 110 feet which would eliminate the
opportunity for four rows of parking to the north of the building. Can you explain what you mean by that?
I wasn't quite sure.
Generous: Well under the design standards it says there's a minimum setback of 70 feet and a maximum
building setback of 150 feet. So that we couldn't get, well design standards are like 100 and 24 feet
would give you two rows of park. Two double rows of parking. But this, we're reviewing the site plan.
This is the specific proposal for this site so I'm not sure that that's going to be an issue. If they get
approval, they're going to build this building.
Sacchet: Okay. And can you clarify a little bit this thing with the sidewalks. That was a little bit...to me,
where exactly the sidewalks you would like them to relocate to and all that. I couldn't find the site that
easily.
Kind: Me either.
Generous: It's on the, the sidewalk I'm talking about is on the west side of the building. Right now they
show this extension out and say with a note that it will be connected to the trail. In this area it's a pretty
steep slope. If they do that it's going to require stairs. We want them to push it towards the south. Right
now we're saying come over here. We've had discussions with the applicant if they can find a way to
connect up here, that would be fine. The whole intent is so that we can get people walking on the sidewalk
and connect over to our trail system and potentially to this parking area that's necessary for the building.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Then you pointed out briefly where you see that column element in the
elevation. I didn't quite catch it. There are these four little stick things that little rounded group sits on.
Is that where you see the more columns or?
Generous: I was looking at the, between the, there's the canopy entrance and then you have three windows
on that same plane. It would be in, between the middle windows.
Sacchet: Between those windows.
Generous: Coming up and I'm not, I was thinking either one that goes all the way to the roof or you could
have one that's truncated and it would just go above the columns up above the windows and then the block
stepping out. So that there's a little raised area in there. But it would help to lift your view up.
Sacchet: That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that. In terms of the lot coverage, we say we permit
averaging so we're actually looking then at the whole PUD to make sure that.
10
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Generous: Right. And specifically we're looking at the two lots east of Stone Creek Drive. The rest will
be averaged.
Sacchet: So we'll remember to balance it when the other one comes in, is that automatically you guys are
going to do that?
Generous: That's part of, because it's a PUD it's all linked together.
Sacchet: It is linked together that way. Okay.
Generous: When they do the site plan, or the subdivision approval you'll have all the accompanying
conditions in there.
Sacchet: Okay. Now there is the comment about the Highway 5. The elevation difference of 4 feet. How
does that play into, that made me a little uneasy. How does that play into this whole project?
Generous: That's, in the extreme western portion of the project. What we're going to mitigate that is that
they concentrate on the groupings of landscaping. If you remember the landscaping plan, they had it a
little bit in depth. And that's also where we came out if we can project the landscaping out from the
property line rather than just in that 10 foot strip. But expand it. We can get better coverage of the site
and specifically the parking lot is what our concem was. And incorporating the berming in that will help
to screen the asphalt area.
Sacchet: So this shouldn't be concem, okay. I think one last one, since this is in the Bluff`Creek area
here, who checks that it's in line with all the Bluff`Creek stufi~
Generous: As part of the design standards, that's where we came up with those setbacks. We based that on
the review of the natural area that was in place before this project started.
Sacchet: So you have actually done that?
Generous: Yeah. That's why we have the smaller setback on the north lot and then it's larger as you go
down. And it varies throughout the project.
Aanenson: Maybe I just can give you some background on that. That was done with the original PUD
when the church came in. It was the first user and the PUD standards were established with that project.
All the setbacks and all that with that project so this is being measured up against that.
Sacchet: Okay. That's all my questions. Thank you.
Peterson: Any others?
Burton: Mr. Chair. I have one question for Bob. As you come up Stone Creek Drive from the south, after
you kind of get by where the church is, it looks like it's pretty much a straight shot to the building and that
you would see quite a bit of the southem side. I'm not a real big fan yet of the southem side of the
building and even if you screen a lot off`to the side, you're still going to have a pretty good shot at the
building from the road, aren't you?
Generous: Well I believe you could get the upper level but we should basically be able to cover the doors,
overhead doors and the lower part of the.
11
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Burton: But the road's going straight into it. How do you?
Generous: Well with the berming at the end of the road.
Burton: You're saying the road will go up?
Generous: Well the road goes up to I believe it's 948 or 9 and then the berm's up to 954 and that we want
extended out. The street is actually, what is it? 5 feet or 4 feet below the top of the berm. So if you're
looking.
Burton: So the street's going to go up. You're going to drive kind of upwards to the building and then, are
you going to, after you go, are you going to go over the berm and come down a little bit? Is that what
you're saying?
Generous: No. On the back side, the street will.
Burton: I think it's number 5 are you looking for? Again, I see what you're showing me there on number
5. I guess my question is, the berming that's shown is on either side of the road, isn't it?
Generous: It's on the north side of the road.
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Bob, maybe you should pull out the landscaping plan that shows where it goes.
Peterson: The berm should be covered, except where the road goes through the berm you'll see it there but
that's about it. It's all bermed right there on both sides.
Burton: This is?
Peterson: Yep.
Kind: Matt, did you see this? This is all trees. And you go this way to get in there.
Peterson: Yep, there you go. Spread that out.
Generous: Okay, this aerial, come up Stone Creek Drive. There's a berm at the end of it with your
evergreens and shrubs and trees on top of that.
Burton: Okay, I see what you're doing. I didn't catch that. The berming there straight ahead. I thought it
was stopped either side.
Generous: No. that goes down and they're saying, it goes up also. That's where the use of retaining walls
may be required to extend that out.
Burton: Okay. That's good.
Peterson: Other questions?
12
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Bob, as long as you've got that landscaping plan out there. Do you view that as
100% year round screening of those loading docks?
Generous: With the use of evergreens, except for this small area in here. But then you have, we can
incorporate some shrubs or something in there to help with that. But you have the berming is going to be
the 100% screening. You can't see through that and then it's the area above that with the indepth with
evergreens unless they die or are moved, they should provide that.
Kind: At that point though the berm is, I don't know what the scale is that we're looking at here but it's
pretty thin but that's going to be retaining wall or something.
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: To get it higher.
Generous: To make it go up, yes.
Kind: The PUD requires 100% screening.
Generous: Of loading docks according to the city's ordinance though. And that was, that was either
looking at this, could we do something architecturally to that elevation or do we, can we hide it? And in
this case we can hide it and concentrate on the public exposure on Highway 5.
Kind: Okay.
Peterson: Any other questions? Thank you Bob. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so,
please come forward and state your name and address please.
Suzanne Bemdt: Good evening. My name is Suzanne Bemdt. I'm the project architect at CSM
Corporation who is the developer for Bluff`Creek Corporate Center. Address is 2575 University, Suite
150, St. Paul, Minnesota. I'd like to start off`by thanking the Planning Commission and the planning staff
for considering the Bluff`Creek Corporate Center for site plan review and PUD minor amendments. I'd
like to just kind of update you on recent developments for CSM Corporation development in the area. In
1999, the summer we completed three buildings at the Southwest Tech Center which is south of Lake
Drive East, which currently is fully leased. And we just finished construction of the sixth building of
Chanhassen East Business Center located south of Highway 5, which we hope our previous developments
have shown our quality of construction and design that you'll be able to continue with our development. I
guess to start off`I have just four of the conditions I'd like to discussion in the report. The first item is item
number 7 on page 10. And this one I just was wondering if we could go a clarification on the wording. It
states the developer shall be required to provide berming to screen the parking lot and a minimum of 5 feet
above the parking lot area on both the Highway 5 and the Stone Creek frontages. And this may require the
use of retaining walls. I was just a little concemed as far as the 5 feet above the parking lot area. It seems
like the intent of the staff`is to have it, as far as the Stone Creek frontage, to have it 5 feet above Stone
Creek Drive. The cul-de-sac area. Is that correct Bob?
Generous: Whatever would hide the views.
Suzanne Bemdt: Right, so I mean the vehicles on the, I just want to make sure that we're not looking up 5
feet above the truck court.
13
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Peterson: Where ever you are from the parking lot, and their views.
Suzanne Bemdt: Exactly. So I guess just my comment is if we could possibly change, do an amendment
to the condition to state, the developer shall be required to provide berming to screen the parking lot a
minimum of 5 feet above the parking lot area south of Highway 5 and a minimum of 5 feet above the Stone
Creek Drive cul-de-sac.
Peterson: Bob, are you comfortable with that?
Generous: I think that will work, yeah. As long as we get it spread out on grade.
Suzanne Bemdt: Okay.
Peterson: Next.
Suzanne Bemdt: The second item is number 9 and maybe quickly I could just go through the elevation
once again. In designing this building we tried to achieve the design standards that are recorded in the
Bluff`Creek design criteria. As you can see in the elevation we have projected canopies that are arched at
all of the entries. Variations in building height and colors and materials. We have projections at the
intermediate entries in addition to decorative materials for accent banding and a decorative reveal in the
EFIS material. We also tried to compliment the development to the south which is the Family of Christ
church which has already received site plan approval. In that respect we looked at, looking at getting the
same proportion of masonry and EFIS in the elevation and then also a similar comice at the top of the
parapet. I guess what I'd like to address in this item, Bob lists out some specific changes to the elevations
and I guess, since the location of this site is farther west in Chanhassen, the market demand is not as high
as our other buildings and therefore the budget for the building is limited. Therefore we're a little
concemed with the changes requested that we may exceed our budget for this building. I guess what I'd
like to propose in the spirit of good relations that we would be willing to work with the city to consider
alterations to the building as long as that, they keep within our budget for the project.
Peterson: Okay, next.
Suzanne Bemdt: That's okay?
Peterson: We need to discuss it as a commission.
Suzanne Bemdt: Alright. And so I'd just like to do an amendment to that. That the developer is willing
to work with the city staff to consider alterations to the building in order to increase the architectural
detailing to the building as long as the changes remain consistent within the budget of the project. The
next item is item number 10. And the first portion which Bob had discussed earlier is in regards to the
realigmnent of the sidewalk to the south to connect to the trail without the need for stairs. I just have a
request on that to give us a little more flexibility in designing that sidewalk. We'd like to request that the
condition be amended to state that the developer will re-route the sidewalk on the west side of the site to
provide a trail connection that will not require the use of stairs. And therefore this amendment will allow
us to look at different altematives to achieve the same results that Bob is looking at, and I know he
referred to that earlier. That that's the main concem and is not requiring the stairs to the connection to the
trail.
Peterson: Bob, your response to that.
14
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Generous: Well the intent is yes, we don't want it to be too steep either so we could probably work that
out.
Aanenson: Well I'd be careful on that. I mean the intent of this PUD was to have shared parking. If it's
inconvenient then the whole premise of it falls on it's face so I think we have to be really careful with that.
I mean we already have shared parking and there may be times. We don't know who the mix is going to be
but we want to make that parking convenient so we don't have a problem. It's got to be convenient.
Peterson: So noted.
Aanenson: Notsteep. Not inconvenient. Stairsarejustpartoftheproblem.
Peterson: Okay.
Suzanne Bemdt: Alright, the second portion of item 10 I'd like to address is, that requires a sidewalk
system to be installed adjacent to the building to allow employees and customers to walk to the building
entrances without having to walk through the parking lot. This will be a multi-tenant building and the
employees and customers will be able to park within close proximity to their entrances and will not need to
walk from one entry to the next. We've done a number of buildings in Chanhassen and have never been
required to put a sidewalk adjacent to the building and so far I've not received any complaints or concems
from the employees or customers for that building. Therefore we'd like to propose an amendment to the
condition to state that the developer will provide landscaping possibly in replacement of the sidewalk. We
feel that the landscaping will enhance the building and the view from Highway 5 and also benefit the
employees and customers of the building more than a sidewalk would.
Peterson: Thoughts on that one Bob?
Generous: I like the pedestrian connection.
Aanenson: We require it in Arboretum and Gateway. It is required in other ones. They have done other
projects in the city. I'm not sure that's the same sort of shared parking situation. Again it's, can you get to
where you need to be conveniently. It doesn't work in Minnesota always to walk in the parking lot.
Peterson: Okay. Noted.
Suzanne Bemdt: Okay. Item number 26 is just a clarification on that item. The last sentence states that
the developer shall coordinate the adjustment and/or relocation of the right-in, right-om with MnDot. In
discussing this with the seller, Land Group Incorporated, they have informed me that during the additional
taking of the right-of-way for Highway 5 it was arranged that the right-in, right-om will occur on the
property to the east and therefore is no longer relevant to our property. Land Group has fumished me with
documentation to this effect and therefore I'd like to have that portion removed from the conditions. This
is a portion of the document. But it does say, it is agreed and understood that the 60 foot access opening
located between the right-of-way boundary markers B-24 and B-909 on right-of-way plat No. 10-08 will
be extinguished. This is the portion that addresses that.
Peterson: Staff"s interpretation of that?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman maybe I can address that one. That's fine. We're willing to delete this on
confirmation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation that we have arrived at an acceptable
relocation point to the property to the east. Currently the plans stand today, construction is underway and
15
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
the plans show a right-in, right-out being built in that location. I have not been notified of any new
location. There have been discussions of it. I've not formally seen any documentation deleting it though.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, but if it has moved than they've already met the condition so it's.
Aanenson: It's moot. If it's been met, then the condition, it satisfied the condition. If it hasn't, then we
can make it a condition.
Hempel: Right.
Suzanne Bemdt: Alright. As far as the remaining 31 conditions we are happy to work with staff and
achieve the results that they're looking for. So if you have any other questions for me.
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I do have one question. Condition 7. When you were requesting that the 5 foot
specifically apply to Stone Creek. Can you tell me what the elevation difference is between Stone Creek
and the parking lot?
Suzanne Bemdt: Yeah I do have that written down. I believe it's, as Bob stated, 494 is Stone Creek. Let
me find that here. Oh here we go. Stone Creek Drive is at 949, excuse me. And the berm, the height of
the berm is 954 and then I believe the truck court, do you know that Ken? 951, okay. So it is a little bit
higher so it would create the berm to be higher if we were looking at it from the truck court, which I don't
think is the intent of the stafl~ It's more the view from the cul-de-sac.
Aanenson: No. From Highway 5 the corridor starts. You're not supposed to see the parking in the front
either. The intent is to screen the parking in the front from the highway.
Blackowiak: Right, but I'm thinking about coming up from the south on Stone Creek. Are we trying to
screen the, you know what is our intent?
Aanenson: To screen the loading docks.
Blackowiak: Just the loading docks?
Generous: Right.
Blackowiak: So if it's 3 feet higher or 2 feet higher, then I think that we're, there's a big difference. I
mean 2 feet is a big difference between Stone Creek and the parking lot so are you getting the same effect.
That's my question. Wouldn't it be smart for us to take the 5 feet and put it on the parking lot side and
measure the 5 feet from the parking lot side as opposed to the Stone Creek side.
Generous: That would give you a higher berm.
Blackowiak: Correct. And I think that's maybe what we want. Okay.
Aanenson: Well I think it's best to leave the footage out and say it needs to be what it needs to be to
effectively meet the ordinance require which is to screen. And let's not leave...accomplish it and
effectively landscaping. Whatever that number is to make the screen.
16
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Peterson: Yeah I agree. Okay, thank you.
Suzanne Bemdt: Thank you.
Peterson: Motion and a second for public hearing please.
Burton moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Chairman Peterson asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak at the public hearing.
Burton moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: The public hearing is closed. Commissioners, please offer your thoughts.
Sidney: I guess I feel fairly comfortable with the project. I'm a little concemed with the massiveness
maybe of the front of the building but there is a lot of articulation and variation and the setback is
somewhat proportion to the building so I feel comfortable that way. I am concemed about us directing any
architectural detailing. I do agree with the applicant that they may wish to simply state in condition 9 that
we would like the applicant to work with staffto increase the architectural detailing. I think the architect
should have some flexibility in this case to meet the intent in terms of what...
Aanenson: Can I get a little bit of clarification? We think because the church is very vertical. It's sitting
high on that, that we're trying to tie this building into that, the vertical elements. I heard the applicant talk
about cost constraints so I'm not sure how much... I just want to make sure that you give us some clear
direction of what your expectation. Just what you would like to see changes. I mean we can get there but I
need to understand, or Bob and I need to understand what exactly you would like to see as far as changes
so, otherwise I feel like maybe our hands are already tied, if that makes sense.
Peterson: Let's hear the other commissioners comments and move ahead. Anything else to add? Matt,
anything?
Burton: I guess my comments are pretty much along the same lines. I like the project and I think the
stafl~s done a good job. I like the staffreport and pretty much agree with it right down the line and I was
not really in favor of changing 9. And I'm not sure what the happy medium is but the PUD does require
that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. So I don't, I
want to have some sympathy for budget. I don't have a lot. If they want to go into this PUD, they've got
to meet the standards. SolguessI'mkindofatalossastowhatlwoulddirectstafftodo. I would default
to what they've suggested already and would leave it at that. And they can still work with the staffbefore
they go to the City Council if they want to come up with a different proposal but I'm in favor of just the
staffreport as it is.
Peterson: Okay, good. Thank you. Any other comments?
Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll continue on down the line here. Number 7. The condition number 7. I think we
should just take off the measurements and put some specifics in about parking lot needs to be screened and
the loading docks need to be screened and the applicant must provide 100% screening for loading docks
per the PUD agreement, and just kind of leave it at that. Number 9. I kind of like a compromise position.
I think the base with the larger blocks is a nice idea to kind of give it a foundation. I'm not as convinced
that the column elements are necessary so I would be willing to strike that last suggestion of adding the
column elements. I'll wait to hear my other commission members point of view on that. Number 10, on
17
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
the sidewalks. I guess I'd like to leave the condition the way it is in the staffreport. I think that's pretty
clear and reasonable. I think it's important to have good pedestrian movement. And overall the south
elevation does give me some concem but I'm satisfied if they meet the 100% screening that we could put
the emphasis on Highway 5. And then one other condition I would add, which is kind of a nit but a big nit
and that is that the applicant shall correct the location of the site plan by changing the words Eden Prairie
to Chanhassen on every page. That's it for my comments. I'm interested in your perspective on the
columns guys.
Peterson: Any other comments?
Sacchet: Well overall I think it's a pretty solid project. I agree that taking out the measurements of the
berming makes sense as long as we have the intent specified. Our thing is not how many feet. Our thing is
to make it screened properly. I do like the idea of making it architecturally more appealing but I would, I
kind of wonder where we put some flexibility into it and tell the architect what they have to do. That we
let them work with the columns and see what they can come up with. I like your suggestion of the
additional accent with the gray brick and then the columns but I would not go as far as tell the architect
what they have to do in that domain. Kind of leave that to the architect to work with that and see what
they come up with. The sidewalk thing, I'm really tom. I mean there's no point in putting sidewalks there
if nobody's going to use it but that very much depends on the nature of the tenants that are going to be in
there. We don't know what that's going to be. So we could play it safe and say well, we want to cover all
the bases because you're not going to put a sidewalk in later. So I'm not very clear on that. That'smy
comments.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anything else?
Blackowiak: Yeah I'll add a few comments. Something nobody's really touched on is the fact that it's so
dam close to Highway 5. I really am not convinced that that's the place for this building to be. I
understand that MnDot changed it's right-of-way acquisition. I think that's, they can do that. The city's
intent seemed to be a certain number of feet back from the MnDot right-of-way so I'm not sure ifI want to
even get into what City Council was intending when they went through this but I just would like to say that
I think it's awfully close and I'm a little scared about that. The other thing that really kind of bothered me
was the south elevation. Again it's a screening issue. We've got neighbors to the south that are across
Coulter Boulevard but they're going to be able to see that, and I want to make sure that it's well screened.
Whether it's through berms, wing walls, whatever it takes. I mean this needs to be totally screened from
view and I don't know if it's 5 feet or 3 feet or whatever the height is for the berm but we need to make
sure that through a combination of different methods that it's adequately screened from the neighbors, both
from sight and from their hearing anything that's going on over there. And to the specific conditions that
Ms. Bemdt addressed. On number 7, I guess you know I could take out the 5 feet but what's the intent of
screening. Number 9. It does need some architectural changes. I think it needs to be beefed up a little bit.
I agree with Matt when he says that he's not terribly sympathetic with keeping within budget. Let's beef it
up a little bit. Let's make it look good. Number 10, I really feel that we do need to have the trail
adjacent. Realigned to the south and sidewalk system. When we do have shared parking lot, as Kate
pointed out, it's important to be able to get from Point A to Point B. Now whether or not tenants within
the building are moving around is really not the issue. The issue is movement from site to site and when
you're using the cross access agreements for parking, I think that we need to provide those movements.
Make the movement easier from those sites. And then 26, leave as is. And then the drive aisle change, I
have no problem with that either. And yeah, that's it. Thank you.
18
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Kind: Mr. Chair, Alison brought up a point that I wanted a clarification from staffon. Is the amendment,
the minor amendment to the PUD, is that changing the distance of the building from the Highway 5
pavement?
Generous: No.
Kind: Okay. So it's not closer to Highway 5. It's just who owns the property inbetween it that has
changed.
Aanenson: Right. Additional slope easements.
Sacchet: IfI could just tack one more question to that. Now the first part of what we were looking at here
is the amendment to the design standards. That is just for this particular project. For this particular site. I
mean we're not affecting anything else.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Generous: Because this is the only property that abuts TH 5.
Sacchet: Okay. I just want to be real clear about that. Thank you.
Peterson: Anything to add Ladd?
Conrad: Very little Mr. Chairman. 10 should stand. 7 is changed. 9 is debatable but there, I think the
intent of the staff` was absolutely on target there. So I'm always, I think like Matt said, we're not architects
but staff`needs some guidance here because, if the applicant comes back and says it's out of budget. Well
then we haven't given any direction so, you know we've, somebody's got to word smith number 9 fairly
well in the motion. I think the intent of what staff`is trying to do is absolute so whoever makes the motion
has to make sure that's the intent. If the architect comes back and says that's absolutely atrocious, we
should listen to that. But intent is what, you know whether it be the larger blocks. I find those appropriate
but I'm not an architect. I don't want to be.
Peterson: Alright. My comments parallel Ladd's exactly so I will entertain a motion please.
Kind: Mr. Chair I'll make the motion, ifI can find it. I move the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the minor amendment to the Bluff Creek Corporation Center Design Standards changing the
required parking setback from Trunk Highway 5 to 10 feet.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Burton: Second.
Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor
amendment to the Bluff Creek Corporation Center Design Standards changing the required parking
setback from Trunk Highway 5 to 10 feet. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Second motion please.
Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan #2000-11, plans
prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated August 18, 2000, subject to the following conditions 1 through
19
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
34. Let's see, with the following changes. Number 7. The developer shall be required to provide berming
to screen the parking and the loading dock area. This may require the use of retaining walls. The
applicant must provide 100% screening for loading docks per the PUD agreement. Number 9. The
applicant shall work with staff`to create more architectural interest on the Highway 5 elevation. And a
new condition number 35. The applicant shall correct the location of the site plan by changing the words
Eden Prairie to Chanhassen on all plans. And then do I need to read the drive aisle language?
Peterson: No. That will be inserted.
Kind: Okay. On number 32.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Sacchet: I wonder if we could add a little more meat to number 9. 9 sounds a little skeletal to me.
Peterson: Let's see if we can get a second.
Sacchet: Second it and give me a friendly amendment.
Burton: I'll second.
Peterson: Any discussion? Uli, do you want to try to tackle number 9?
Sacchet: Would it help if we say something like, what you said. Advise the applicant to work with staff`to
increase the architectural interest such as and then use some of the language that's already there?
Aanenson: Or may include, or something like that.
Sacchet: Or to include.
Kind: For example?
Sacchet: For example. I think that would help.
Conrad: Irregardless of budget. That's not an issue.
Kind: Okay, I'll accept that amendment. Do you know what that amendment says?
Blackowiak: Excuse me Deb, I'd also like to add. You said incorporate larger concrete block face blocks
along the Highway 5 frontage and I would suggest that we continue that around the base of the entire
building.
Kind: That's true.
Blackowiak: You just said Highway 5.
Kind: That's true. Well I did say rock face blocks along Highway 5. I was just looking for architectural
interest on 5.
Blackowiak: If we're doing these such as, I mean let's just.
20
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Kind: Let's just, I'll give it a stab here. The applicant shall work with staff`to create more architectural
interest. And may incorporate the following architectural changes. And then go on with the list. And then
add a sentence, irregardless of budget.
Conrad: That's okay.
Peterson: Other than the fact that, just a point, irregardless is not a word.
Kind: Okay, what Ladd said.
Peterson: Regardless.
Burton: Perhaps say can change them but are not limited to these suggestions. They may come up with
something more creative.
Sacchet: Leave it open ended.
Peterson: And I'm not a proponent of going all the way around the building. We've already discussed that
the back is going to be well hidden.
Kind: Well screened, yeah.
Burton: I have a question. Kate, did you hear her, Deb's change to number 7 and was that adequate?
Because I was concemed that maybe it missed the screening from 5.
Aanenson: No. What she said is that you have to provide berming on the parking lot in front as per
ordinance. And then in the back was 100% again as per PUD.
Burton: Okay, I just wanted to make sure you were comfortable.
Aanenson: Yes, thank you.
Kind: Thank you.
Peterson: Any other discussion?
Kind: Anybody have a clue as to what number 9 says?
Peterson: I think we know the intent.
Kind: Okay, friendly amendments accepted.
Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#2000-11, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated August 18, 2000, 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.
21
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Site plan approval is contingent upon the final platting of the parcel into a lot and block
designation.
A maximum of 20 percent of the building may be used for showroom space.
Wall signage is only permitted on the north and south elevations of the building. A separate sign
permit shall be required for each sign.
Wall mounted unit lights must be directed downward so that there is no glare directed off site.
The developer must receive an easement from MnDot permitting them to provide landscaping
(including trees and shrubs) in depth within the TH 5 right-of-way.
The developer shall be required to provide berming to screen the parking and the loading dock
area. This may require the use of retaining walls. The applicant must provide 100% screening
for loading docks per the PUD agreement.
The applicant shall work with staff to revise the landscape plan to incorporate the required changes
and to specify the types and quantities of landscape materials.
The applicant shall work with staff to create more architectural interest to the building on the
Highway 5 elevation, regardless of budget.
The sidewalk to the west to connect to the trail adjacent to Bluff Creek needs to be realigned to
the south following the edge of the parking lot and east to the proposed retaining wall on the west
side of the property. The trail connection will then be made without the need for a stairway.
Additionally, a sidewalk system must be installed adjacent to the building to permit the employees
and customers to walk to the building entrances without having to walk in the parking lot and to
connect this site to the larger sidewalk and trail system.
Bicycle racks will be required on-site.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can
be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance
#9-1.
PIV valves are required. Please indicate locations for review and approval on utility plans.
Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of"No Parking Fire Lane Signs". Pursuant to Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #06-1991, and Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform
Fire Code.
The fire department sprinkler connection is required to be located adjacent to the main entrance of
the building. The fire sprinkler contractor must contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
location.
22
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise
identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-
1992.
In reviewing the preliminary utility plans, a number of hydrants have been properly located;
however, additional hydrants will be required and some of the proposed hydrants will need to be
re-located. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval of re-location and new
hydrants to be installed.
The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
Cleanouts are required on both sanitary sewer services at intervals not to exceed 100 feet.
Post indicator valves are required on the fire service lines.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff
materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be hauled off-site to
another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit
from the City.
The public street and utility improvements throughout the development will require detailed
construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard
specifications and detail plates. Final construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to
staff for review and City Council approval a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat
consideration. The private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes.
All silt fence adjacent to a wetland, creek, or pond shall be Type m.
The developer shall work with MnDot in coordinating site grading, drainage and street
improvements to be compatible with MnDot's upgrading of Trunk Highway 5 construction plans.
In addition, the developer shall coordinate the adjustment and/or relocation of the right-in, right-
out with MnDot to a location acceptable with the City.
Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements
within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
All areas disturbed as a result of 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 developer 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
23
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of
approval.
30. 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.
31. The applicant shall revise the storm sewer in the northerly parking lot to drain into the existing
storm sewer system and include an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the pond.
32. The applicant increase the drive aisle widths to a minimum of 26 feet wide. For the actual drive
aisle where there's no parking on either side, drop down to 24 feet.
33. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm
event prior to final plat approval.
34. Revise the utility plan to extend the public watermain to the easterly property line for future
looping purposes. Delete the proposed 12 inch watermain stub to the north.
35. Change the site plans to read Chanhassen instead of Eden Prairie on every page.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
APPROVAL OF SIGN MONUMENT, WEST VILLAGE CENTER PHASE II.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of Mr. Generous?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, Bob. I thought we were going to have a clock at that end of the street. What
happened to their clock tower?
Peterson: There's no time for it.
Generous: That was just one of the ideas that we were throwing out. Clock tower. A pavilion. Something
like that. We really wanted to create a public space there and we believe this does that.
Aanenson: I guess we felt with a bench it'd be more of a public space as opposed to, I guess you could
have incorporated the clock tower. We're trying to make it a little bit more of an informal space. If
you're waiting for the bus or waiting for someone to pick you up.
Blackowiak: So is there a bus stop there? I'm not even familiar with that.
Aanenson: Not yet.
Sacchet: Can you stop to pick somebody up there?
Aanenson: It has to be dedicated as an official bus stop.
24
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Kind: Quickly.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to make any comments? You came all this way so
you just as well.
Tony Oxborough: I did. Chair and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Tony Oxborough.
I'm with the TF James Company and our site plan was approved with the exception of the monument sign
and so staff`has worked with me real well to come up with this design. And I don't really have anything to
add. Just wanted to thank you for your time. If you have any questions as to how it came to be, you know
let me know and I'll try to answer them.
Peterson: Okay. Any questions? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Any thoughts from fellow commissioners?
Kind: Mr. Chair, I have a couple thoughts. I think it looks good. I called Bob to say, why doesn't the
bench say "Welcome to Chanhassen" and he said it was too hokey and I just want that to go on the record.
I think he's right. I said true, okay. And I do like the plan. The original plans that I saw kind of being
noodled around city hall had the sign and the bench together and I like this plan where they're just kind of
totally separate and I think this is a nice solution.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Any other comments?
Sacchet: I like it.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman. Since you brought this danm tower up.
Kind: Oh, you want the clock?
Conrad: Well, I don't need a clock but it is one end of the city. Do we have anything at that end of the
city Kate that says you are now entering the Golden City or whatever?
Aanenson: No.
Kind: Home of the Dinner Theater.
Aanenson: ... we have additional right-of-way from MnDot on the other side of what's now LeeAnn
Chin's and Perkin's. We have additional right-of-way that we've landscaped so it's pretty informal on the
other side.
Conrad: That's not a standard, the other side.
25
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Aanenson: And on the other end of town is the clock tower which is very subtle. We've talked about
something on the Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus site. There's been a lot of discussion about how do you...acre of
your downtown.
Conrad: But at this end of Chanhassen there's really nothing, right? So what's our vision to say you are,
welcome? We had the vision at the other end and I thought once upon a time we really had a, the second
side to Chan.
Aanenson: I'll give you a quick synopsis of where we've been with that. At one time we got into the
maple leaf design and it ended up being so large, do you remember that discussion? And the gold maple
leaf and, then we kind of took the comer and we decided to make it more informal and do trees because
we thought that was more what we were about. Make it more informal and just have the different species
at each intersection. And that plan was proposed in the Vision 2002. To this point that's something that's
still in the council's strategic plan to talk about. The entrance statements. Kind of the visual, what they
want but it's my understanding at this point, it's still an informal landscaping sort of thing instead of
something where we have at every intersection marked such as a dog may mark his comer, welcome to.
You know we're trying to make it more who we are and say you know, it should be subtle to say you're in
Chanhassen and that sort of thing and I guess that's the direction that we moved. You see some
communities.
Conrad: Staff`moved or council moved?
Aanenson: The council moved that way. Through the discussion I think that really came out of Bill
Morrish's leading the discussion on the Vision 2002.
Conrad: What's the difference between arriving and a major housing project where the sign says you're
now in Golden Acres and Welcome and coming into downtown Chanhassen from the west? Is there a
difference?
Aanenson: Well I guess you know, it's what you want to say. You're in Chanhassen back at 41. You
know now you're in the downtown. You're in the core and I guess what we want to say is that this is a
pedestrian, a people place where you can feel comfortable walking around. I guess that's kind of a more
subtle statement and we just felt if someone's getting an ice cream cone, whatever, you have a place to sit.
Just like, the informal space just like you have in front of Byerly's. Those sort of gathering places. Such
as the fountain...in front of Richfield Bank. Kind of street fumiture. That's what we were looking for that
kind of reflects what's happening. The movement. The traffic pattems in that area. I guess that's kind of
the direction that we were thinking. Something to look at but something more that's.
Conrad: Do we own, is there property that we own?
Aanenson: No, this is all their property.
Conrad: I don't really want to have, they're fine. I don't want to impose anything on them. I guess it just
brings up the issue on that end of town and so if we ever, if the City Council ever wants to sign something
at that end of town, are we locked out of it? Do we have property that we could put a sign? A monument.
Something. An entrance.
Aanenson: Well we do have additional property on, coming offofPowers off`of TH 5 but I believe MnDot
also has some of that. I'm not sure.
26
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Conrad: Well this is a very personal thing. It's just, what we do when we develop things and you know, I
really don't think I need to do this to the developer tonight. This is, you know, but it triggers the thought.
That's the end, that's all there is and I think this could drop off`the end of the world too ifI don't make a
point of it. So I'm making a point and I'm not sure how I want that carried forth. I don't need that here
but I certainly somehow want the City Council to recognize that they don't have anything at that end and I
guess I think it's appropriate. I think it's appropriate. Not to knock what you said Kate. I think the public
space, the trees, that's all good and fine. I buy that and I like that very much but on the other hand, to miss
the opportunity, we've got one downtown and we've got two ends to it and not to say welcome or thanks
for coming I think is kind of naive. So anyway, that would be my point and I'm not sure how I'm going to
make it to City Council. I don't perceive that they're going to react to my comments but I'll figure that
out.
Kind: So you do like the Welcome to Chanhassen that I asked Bob about?
Conrad: Not hokey. It was hokey, no. But the clock tower's rather nice. I don't need a clock. I think
something appropriate that says you are here and thanks for coming.
Peterson: Why don't we let the applicant go home.
Conrad: I think we should.
Peterson: I'll certainly entertain a motion.
Burton: I have one quick comment. Sorry. I didn't think much about the wording in the sign until Deb
spoke and I think it's fine and I could live with it just the way it is but the word Minnesota on there kind
of, I find kind of humorous. I can see people wondering like what community you're in but if you're
wondering what state you're in then I think you're, I don't know. It's fine the way it is but I probably
wouldn't have chosen the word Minnesota on there too. But I vote for it the way it is.
Aanenson: Weren't you here, Japan to visit Prince. You might not know.
Peterson: Alright, alright. I think we're getting a little out of control.
Sacchet: Do we have to put U.S. on it?
Peterson: A motion and a second please.
Sacchet: I move to approve the sign plaza and bench with the relocation of the cement pavers and the
inclusion of flowers at the north end of the plaza as proposed.
Blackowiak: Second.
Peterson: Any further discussion?
Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the sign,
plaza and bench with the relocation of the cement pavers and the inclusion of flowers at the north end
of the plaza. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS.
27
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Peterson: Any old business Kate?
Aanenson: We do have a meeting on the 3rd. Your next regular meeting. We do have a variance. It's a
wetland... We did notice some comp plan amendments. You'll be seeing those. And possibly the code
amendment on that night too. The one that we've been working on. Then the work session's scheduled for
the 17th. I'll put that in your next packet.., if you have additional suggestions. I have a list that I gave to
you before. Some things to talk about so hopefully we can get out early enough. Drive a little big and
then come back.
Kind: Are we going to have a bus?
Aanenson: I don't know if it requires a bus or two vans.
Burton: A limo.
Peterson: Any new business?
Aanenson: As long as I'm not driving. Ah no. You've got my ongoing items in the packet I believe.
Kind: One comment on that Kate. Can we get rid of the one that's done?
Aanenson: I thought I took most of those ofl~
Kind: I thought you were just like me. Putting things on your list that are already done.
Aanenson: No, I took 3 or 4 off`that were done. The other one that may not be on there is we have been
meeting with Presbyterian Homes on the Villages on the Pond so that we'd have some commercial on the
bottom and then ancillary uses for the nursing home. The congregate dining so it would be assisted living
and then... So that would give them additional parking at St. Hubert's so that would be a shared parking
situation. We've seen some architectural drawings. We're pretty pleased. I think you'll be pleased so that
will probably come in yet this fall.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman I'd sure like to attach, or have staff`talk to us one night about fertilizer ordinance.
Aanenson: We are working on that. Is that on there?
Kind: Maybe part of the lakeshore landscaping part.
Conrad: I'd like to make it separate.
Aanenson: I think it should be too.
Conrad: And I think it's one of those cases where you should talk to us. I think you need support from, 4
out of the 7 of us to go forward on that. So not that you've got to be.
Aanenson: Well we can talk about it at the work session. That'd be a good idea. Go out and get some
feedback.
Blackowiak: And I think didn't Shorewood just adopt?
28
Planning Commission Meeting September 19, 2000
Conrad: But they delayed it for a year.
Blackowiak: But then aren't they just restricting sales is pretty much what they're doing.
Kind: And is it city wide Alison or is it just lakeshore?
Conrad: It's city wide.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated September 5, 2000 as presented.
Peterson: Any other items?
Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
29