PC 1999 05 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
IlEGULAIl MEETING
MAY 19, 1999
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Matt
Burton and Ladd Conrad
MEMBEIlS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cynthia Kirchofl]
Planner I; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEAIIlNG:
IlEQUEST FOIl SITE PLAN IIEVIEW FOIl A 19,490 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAIIEHOUSE
BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS
CENTEIl 3RD ADDITION ON PIIOPEIITY ZONED lOP, INDUSTIIlAL OFFICE
PARI~ AND LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE WEST, DOVER BUILDING, D. GREG
SHEPHARD.
Public Present:
Name Address
Chris Radloff Architect
Bob Beduhn 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North
Kris Dahl 1774 Valley Ridge Trail North
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Where's the applicant at related to the berm versus the additional coverage? Do you
know where they're at or not by chance?
Kirchofl~ No, I'm not aware of that.
Peterson: Any other questions of staff'?
Kind: Are the dormer windows functional or are they just for looks?
Kirchoflk I believe that the applicant can answer that question.
Kind: Okay. And do you think that the trash shelter area could be moved so that it's not along
the residential side?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Kirchofl) They could move it in front of the building or to the north but they may have a problem
with the second phase going in. It would have to be redesigned to be on the north. If the Planning
Commission wishes that.
Kind: Do you think that the way it's designed is sufficient enough for the amount of trash that an
office building would generate? I'm thinking compared to like Abra where it seems like they
overflow their trash area.
Aanenson: Because it's not a warehouse, I think the office type use, it probably is. What we've
done in the past when there's two buildings like that, we've sometimes done combined and we
can maybe look at that possibility too. On anticipating a future expansion that we maybe put
something in place that would work for both buildings. We've looked at that before too.
Examined that.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a couple questions. First of all, we've got a hard surface coverage
of about 26% right now with the first building. If we put a second building in, can we assume that
it will be about 52% or is that simplistic? Where are we going to be at with the second building?
Kirchofl) We can make that assumption. They did provide a sketch of what the Phase II would
look like on the lot. It would probably be a little greater than that. You have an additional
parking area to the east of the second phase.
Blackowiak: It's still well within the 70%.
Kirchofl) It would have to be, yes.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Aanenson: Well, let me correct that. Actually in the PUD you can over on one lot as long as the
entire PUD balances. That's part of the reading of the PUD. Because the Weather Service and
some of those other users have additional green space. If this one goes over, we're just running a
balance on the entire piece.
Blackowiak: Second question. Interior parking. I seem to remember something with the post
office, the interior parking. If it was conditions that were placed on the Post Office and I don't
know if it was Fire Marshal conditions or whatever but I didn't see it addressed at all in this. Was
there something or can you help me with?
Aanenson: They have parking for the mail vehicles. Building code issues.
Blackowiak: Okay, so I mean do we need to address that or.
Aanenson: We can just double check and make sure he's looked at that.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Kirchofl5 The building official did review the plans and he didn't have any comments on the
interior parking. Except that they.
Blackowiak: Okay. Some reason I thought there was something about that and I couldn't
remember what it was. Okay, and then finally it talks about the mix of the building area, 20%
office, 25% industrial, 55% warehouse. Where are we now and what changes are we going to
have to make?
Kirchofl5 We're very limited in the additional space for office. There are two parcels left in this
PUD and when a second one, or when the next one comes in rather, we may have to amend the
PUD to shift, allocate space for manufacturing or warehouse to the office allocated space. But
this application is fine. They won't be affected by that amendment.
Blackowiak: So you're comfortable with making shifts in the future to meet any needs? Okay.
That's it, thanks.
Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee like to address the
commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
Charles Radlofl5 Good evening. My name is Charles Radlofl2 I'm the architect for this project.
One, I'd like to commend the staff2 We've had a very excellent working relationship and they've
been real straight forward to deal with in terms of what was necessary. When it was due and it
was quite clear and from that standpoint I would say that we agree with the staff report. We find
very little things to comment on. We have a couple minor items that we can discuss shortly but
first I guess I'd like to talk a little bit about how the project came to be. Greg Shephard is present
here and he has his own company. He's been on a search for several years to find a site or an
office building or an office for his company and has looked around and looked around and ended
up down this dead end road of an industrial park that is fairly typical industrial park and saw this
magnificent site and view and vista and said gee, I know this is an industrial lot and it could have
variety of occupancies but as an office building it would be just a wonderful place to have my
office. And he could see that his office would be located in this area. He had no idea at that point
what the building might look like but he knew that's where he wanted his office and he got in
contact with me through a mutual friend and we started talking about it and walking around the
site and spending some time there and thought that what would be most compatible with the
property, adjacent property, the trails and the uses was to try to build a large scale house.
Residential character is the way we worked at it. And this residential character would be an
attempt to be compatible with the neighbors and the people using the trail so that the obvious
solution whenever a client comes in and gives you an assignment, you always do an obvious
solution and that's to put offices up by the entrance of the drive and then put warehouses or docks
in the back and then you put up some screening to block the stuff from the, from whatever
adjacent property requirements you have. Industrial it's not a big deal but in this case here's this
magnificent parkland out there and it seemed to me that you'd just do it just the opposite. You
take your building and make it a part of the landform. And there was a large, I call it a stockpile
of dirt there that is about, the top of that pile is about where the eave of the new building would be
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
and then it'd have a pitched roof on top of that. We talked a lot about how we make a building
compatible with residential character and we don't want a bunch of rooftop units. Even if they're
screened they end up looking like boxes with boxes around them and so on and how do you do
that and still keep a pitched roof. So your question of the donners was a proposal that said in
some manner we need to vent the rooftop equipment in some manner. We're going to use a much
smaller scale furnace on the inside of the project. In the 16,000 square feet we're probably have
10 to 12 individual units which will then need to have some smoke stacks and some air vents and
things like that. So the idea would be that we started with some donners. We've been working
with the mechanical contractors in tenns of how you would actually pull this together. We think
that another solution might be to pull them altogether and put some fireplace type smoke stacks up
there with the intent is to keep a nice, clean low profile roof plan there. The building, as is
mentioned in the report, kind of takes the place of the benn as it gets down the way from the east
property line. We're preserving the benn on the east end of the site and the building then sits low
and takes the place of the benn as it wraps around. The planting that you see here is at this point
a dogwood hedge.., privacy and barrier from the pedestrians that go there, but not a sense of
visual screening to the village because this trail is quite low as it goes past the building so as you
look up you'll look into the dogwood and it will shield the building from, and the pedestrians
from the building at that point. We had a discussion with the neighborhood group in tenns of
visibility and how this project will impact the various houses. I had our surveyor go out and
locate these existing houses as they related to the site. The closest house here is 265 feet from the
building. I think the only, I think the impact of the neighborhood meeting, and I know we have
several neighbors here, was that they were concerned that my sketches showed a real, bright green
roof and we didn't have our material board with us and our intent is, it's a gray green. In fact we
were in a position where we said, you know when we get to pick that color we can get the
neighbors back together and make sure that we're all in a reasonable agreement over colors and
materials. Materials of the building will be an asphalt shingled roof. We've vacillated between a
standing seam metal roof, which implies a you know, we're looking for a Class A building and
that seemed like it was a solution but it didn't seem very residential to me. It seemed like it
would be shiny and have some glare and it wouldn't be a friendly neighbor. And so we thought a
high quality asphalt shingle. Below the building itself, ifI can get these two together here... The
building, this is a view from the entry and the parking lot side but what it says here is that on the
building we have a band of windows. Below the windows we have a decorative rock face block
but to accent that we put a stone sill in at the window. We have a dark green, not a shiny, bright
green but a dark, forest green window frame with the tinted green glass. Not a reflective... The
trim colors and the roof colors will be along these lines and it might be a little grayer in color as
we go so that the dimension from the ground to the bottom would be 8 feet. We've tried to keep
this whole thing just nestled in and tucked to the ground so that it has a feeling of being just part
of the site. And I go out there all the time. The other day, I was out there yesterday and I drove a
big stake in with a red flag and that stake and flag represents that comer of the building as you
come down to... walk around the trail and saw it, that's where the building starts and angles to the
west. One of the other benefits I guess from locating the building there other than from my owners
standpoint of picking this site for the same reason the neighbors picked their housing site there is
the fantastic vista. Is that it then provides a screen to anything that happens on the site from now
on. They asked us about a Phase II. We can show them how a Phase II could work but anything
that happens on a Phase II is now totally blocked and the edge of this site is now fixed in
4
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
relationship to the neighbors. And so if we can work out any problems that they might see in
terms of views or vistas, we'll have it solved and it will be done and there will be no open ended
Phase II that we have to renegotiate and stuff like that. This proposal will kind of put this edge of
the site to bed. I know that we have a neighbor here who expressed some concern over a view
and some areas and from where we're coming from, we're very willing to work with the people
who are adjacent to the properly to make sure that all the views and vistas and conditions are met.
It's an easy enough thing to move the trash container either farther forward or over or behind the
berm. The berm that exists is here. It will stay there. It's 8 feet high and our trash container is
like 6 foot 6 and I can move it and tuck the berm around behind it so that you'll just see dirt from
the back. That's not really too difficult and I think that staff and we could work that out. If they
felt they really wanted to move it over to the other side of the properly, that could be done also. I
have some, it's easier to access it here because on the other side is where I put the underground
parking so that those garage doors and stuff were as far and as shielded from the house as is
possible. To get to the underground parking you drive down this driveway here. The next phase
would come here. It would be stuck between them. Still not even.., from the trailway so I guess I
would argue that we wouldn't want to put it here because here's.., and I think we can shield it
very nicely on the side of the properly where it's at and put in a couple of more conifers and we'll
be in good shape. I think the other thing in terms of trying to communicate with the neighborhood
group and the planning commission to where we're coming from. We're building a Class A
office building here. My client is taking some risk in terms of putting a building at the end of a
cul-de-sac but he's convinced that when people see the site and the magnificent character and it's
relationship to trails, that they will come and be part of his project. The hours of operation for
example on this office building will be normal daytime. There'd be no night time operations here.
Maybe somebody stays late at night. If there's an architect in there, they might be around a little
bit later but. Weekends and, so again I think an office building is always to me then one of the
most compatible residential relationships in it's operating hours. It's low density. It's low traffic
volumes. And no trucks. I mean the only trucks we're going to get is when a guy moves in and
out and once a week the trash guy comes and everybody has that. The only other comment is that
we have one, this is a section through the site with this house being the last house on the sight line.
Down in the comer and a cross section from my surveyor and in terms of the contours and the
grade so that the back yard of this house is at 909 and the elevation of our building is like at 927
at the top of the berm. This grouping of trees exists there and provides most of the screening
between the houses and the building. Comment on, staff's comment in terms of adding a screen
hedge. I believe that, we call it sumac here but we upped the quality of the shrubbery to
dogwood. A plant that greens out earlier and... That gives us a nice screening effect from the
trail. It doesn't do much in terms of screening from this particular back yard and I do have a
picture of the worse condition that I guess I could imagine and it would be what you would see
from the back yard of this house in a January day of 5 below zero. But this is a kind of, if you
can zoom in on it. This is taken from the comer of the house. Superimposed over a graphic
image of the building and the colors are slightly off on both of them because it was such a dreary
day and then, but you get an impact of this is where the berm. This is the top of the berm right
along here. This is where the berm ends and that's right about.., so even on the worse possible
day when the screening is at it's minimal, there's certainly a considerable amount of texture and
screening that is provided by the existing trees. And we have pictures of what it looks like today
and it's just dense foliage. I went and stood where the building was and took a series of
5
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
photographs and I can show them to you but you know what they look, it's just solid green trees.
You can't see a house from this side so I guess that, I think that that pretty well, unless you want
to get farther into detail in terms of how the building is put together, is where we're at and where
we're coming from on this thing.
Peterson: Pass around the original talking board, the picture, the first one you laid down. I think
it'd be helpful to see the building in this color rendition. Just as an FYI, I think it'd be valuable as
you go to council, in their package to give them a color. Spend a dollar or $5.00 to give them a
color rendering. It brings dimension to it and a lot easier to look at.
Charles Radlofl5 Yeah, and I'm real proud of it...
Peterson: Any questions for the applicant while we're passing this around?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I guess I was thinking about, well I would like to compliment you on a
very good job of presenting the views and describing the building and how it impacts the
residential area. I was thinking it might be beneficial if you kind of show where your proposed
lighting is and how that is relative to the building height and what the neighbors might see.
Charles Radlofl5 Sure can. Whenever I approach one of these projects I contract my lighting
engineer to make sure we have a lumin plan. Some cities are insistent that the plan exists and it
just makes sense because there's almost always an ordinance.., and I believe this plan is in your
packet somewhere. But to explain it... What we did is we lit the parking lot with the three posts
with two lights of standard shoebox down light at 20 feet high. These light fixtures should be
from the trail, from the houses across the way, it shouldn't be visible at this point. Maybe from
the third story you might be able to see the light fixture but at that point you certainly won't see
any glare because they're turned down lights completely. We put in, and I know the ordinance
says it's got to have a 90 degree cut off but we also put in, we put in a couple of lights and these
may end up going to phase two. At this point we've.., some street lights for character and these
lights would be. These would be an architectural light that looks something like that and so that in
essence they don't send out a long distance light and they're more like a little walkway street
lamp and they'd be like 8 feet high. And again, because the berm is 8 feet high here, the top of
this light is lower... Now the owner is concerned about security and.., office building and how
you handle that kind of security so we have some, we're going to propose down lights in this
overhang. Down lights will be there and it will be activated by a security motion sensor so they
won't be on. We're not going to light the building up at night and make some sort of glowing
image out of this thing but we're going to have these lights under the soffit so that if somebody's
up and trying to, we can see back in here because it's back behind the trail and we can drive our
truck down the trail and.., these lights will all come on all around the building and down light.
And he tried to talk the neighbors into saying, if the lights go on, call 911. But I'm sure it would
be connected to a security system at that point. But that is in general the lights. We have one wall
pack type light and that's down below over the...
Peterson: Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second
please.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Burton moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Bob Beduhn: Hello. My name's Bob Beduhn. I live at 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North in
Chanhassen. I'm one of the neighbors adjacent to this project. And I'd like to just point out a
couple concerns in general. I'm not opposed to the project but I had a couple concerns and this
gentleman did address a couple but ifI could use one of these drawings. This is my house located
right here. And my concern is if you look at the sight line of the house, I point right into this
comer where one of the planning commission members talked about trash enclosed with a berm
and landscaping. My one concern is that this plan is not highly accurate with the pictures and the
landscaping. There's a gap in the trees right here and this gentleman did provide me a photo of
that document. That is the case and so my main level, my house sits level, approximately level
with the top of the berm. And so my main level of my home I look directly inside the building
and my concern is if there is no screening in this location, there's definite gaps, it's interesting to
hear about this ordinance that requires the berm to be there. I don't know that myself and my
neighbors, I wasn't aware that, I was always told that this was just a stockpile of dirt. Not that
there was a berm requirement.., and so that was very, that was interesting for me to know and I
guess my comments.., today with the owner was that, I'd like to see somehow that this berm
either can continue down or landscaping treatments be continued down so that I would have some
screening. Right now I have none.., this plan is laid out. And so that's my, I guess that's mine
and my wife's concern is the trash receptacle. Our elevation of our house looks at the site and
that.., from my personal residence. And so that's my main concern there. I don't have control of
the properly on top right here. This is one of my neighbors.., or anything like that. That's not my
properly there to do that with. The other concern I had is his comment about the post at the 20
foot elevation. I'm not sure what the elevation of the parking lot is. Again, with my house sitting
high and pointed right into the site, you know I know these downward lights don't project much
light but I am kind of concerned about how that ties in with my residence. The lower homes
probably wouldn't see those posts because they'll be blocked by the building. But those are really
my main two concerns as far as the site that I'd like to see addressed. So thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Kris Dahl: My name is Kris Dahl. I live probably way up here further from the development
area. I kind of look at the trail and I think it's designated a wildlife sanctuary trail. And with this
type of development being built, looking down on, you would kind of consider it a wildlife area.
You destroy any aesthetic value that the trail has in that area. That was number one. I'll agree
with Bob that his house would be starting at that comer of the developed area. The thing is that
the berm is probably set there for a reason and so that people that use the trail do not have a
building looking down upon them as they're biking or jogging. I'm pro development. I'm all for
it. I work for a CPA firm. I'm a CPA and if you look at the development that happened just
before it, you've got the wooded fence line that was supposedly supposed to be hidden by trees.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
The city was supposed to plant trees to prevent people from seeing this kind of eye sore there
going down. That's never been taken care of. Hopefully that someday someone will take care of
that issue. I can't, I think it's a very beautiful building. Where it's going to be built, that's the
only problem that I consider this a scenic area for future people to use and we should keep
residential separate from commercial but that is kind of residential and kind of wilderness. So all
I'd like to say is that I hope that the City of Chanhassen, the planning council values this natural
habitat and it's integral part of the city and will determine the best use of our scarce resource in
that area. They can only improve the value of houses within Chanhassen if we leave areas open
for people to use rather than keep building buildings on buildings. I moved out to this area. I
moved to this area to avoid the houses right next to each other and corporate America. So that's
the only issue I'd like to state. Oh, there was one other issue. Drainage. I don't know if the
developer knows but that's all clay there. And right now the water is drained through and into the
wildlife, kind of sanctuary park. I think State law requires that it should be drained into a holding
pond and I don't see any plans for where that drainage is going to go. I know that the post office
had problems with the clay and hopefully the developer knows about that. Everybody knows that
clay just holds water. It doesn't go away. And I think that's an issue that needs to be looked into.
Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, is there a motion and a second to close the public hearing?
Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Any thoughts? Comments? Additional questions?
Burton: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Engineering on the drainage issue. Can you... ?
Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman and commissioners. This property is located in a subdivision
that has prepared a comprehensive storm water management plan for all the lots of the
subdivision. Majority of the runoff from the sites will be conveyed through existing storm sewer
system in Lake Drive West which conveys the storm water runoff to a regional storm water pond
located north of Lake Drive West, just south of the railroad tracks. To pre-treat the runoff from
the parking lot, part of the building prior to discharging downstream into wetlands.
Peterson: Thank you. Kate, could you spend just a couple minutes regarding the residents
comments this evening on the foliage belween the house, his house and the building and what
really our buff'er regulation is and who it affects and how close you have to be, etc., etc.
Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to and if it's okay I'd like to also address the
issue regarding the wildlife and the EAW that was done on this project. Maybe I'll just start with
that and then move forward. When this project came in in the mid 1990's, the city did require an
environmental assessment document. As a part of that document the city purchased Outlot A.
The reason being, we felt that was an area that was a wildlife corridor that we felt was a good
connection with the ravine to tie into the railroad truss to make a connection. We also put the trail
in there specifically for the business park. It's very similar to what we have around Lake Susan
which is very popular with the residential on one side and Rosemount on the other. If you go
8
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
there on your lunch hour, a lot of the employees go out and walk which is a big benefit so it's
serving not only the people that are in that park but it's also serving the residents, which is a
wonderful experience for both parties. We did, as I indicated, and Dave also stated, put together
a master plan for this entire project. It was always intended that this be a buildable lot. We
accomplished preservation of open space with the Outlot A, which is that large area just
immediately to the west. As a part of this PUD we did require additional setbacks from Audubon
and from the neighbors to the south so there already is a 100 foot setback and that was kind of the
buff'er. It's been called a berm. It's been called a buff'er. There was some stockpiling done on
this site, but the intent is, there is a lot of difl'erent things that come in here. Could come into this
properly. We felt the office space and some of the other things that's happened along the south
side was really a good use. We had an architect that was willing to listen and do some interesting
and we think it's a very nice looking building. Fits in well. Residential in character so we felt it
was a win/win. We could move the trash. I think the applicant's recommendation or proposal to
landscape it is a good one. To screen that. We could move it. Cindy and I were just looking at it
between the two buildings where the garage doors are. I'm not sure, again you could bury it there
if there's room to back up and make the movements but we certainly will look at that. I'm sure
the applicant again could put some additional screening. Again, no matter what use goes in there,
we looked at this with the EA. We're going to have lighting as some of those issues but I'm
certain if there's a tree or two that we need to place in there, the first gentleman that spoke is a
significant ways away from the properly. Through his concern though, he can't put trees to block.
Maybe he could on the edge of his properly but he's, I'm assuming over 3, 4, maybe even 500
feet from the subject site. But we can certainly look and it sounds like he's willing to do that if
we leave the dumpster where it is to screen that. But we certainly can look at putting it between
the buildings at the end of where they mm into the underground parking and maybe do a
combined one there. Just to make sure we've got back-up would be an issue for the trash. The
other thing with this type of use as compared to an office, you have significant less amount of
pick up for, as they indicated, deliveries. There's not going to be as much trash being generated
so you're not having that same volume of delivery trucks and waste from the building. So again
that's another positive. I think that answers the questions.
Peterson: All right, other questions or comments?
Burton: Mr. Chairman I have one more question for staff2 I was looking through the PUD
standards and one of them was to have an interior recycling space and the finding is that they met
all the requirements and so does that mean there is that space in there?
Aanenson: Yeah, they have to provide, yes. Paper, cardboard, correct.
Kind: I have one other question. How was this area zoned when that residential neighborhood
was built?
Aanenson: It was always zoned industrial but when it came in we did the PUD for those specific
reasons. We wanted to balance the impervious surface and then put some other, the PUD also
provided for some additional architectural standards and then actually we went forward with the
trail and the acquisition of that park properly are some of the other reasons. We got a benefit by
9
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
getting the acquisition. Worked to negotiate a good price on that lot. Everybody, all the residents
and so we got something and the developer got something.
Kind: So when the residents bought their homes and did their due diligence and went up to the
city to check out what it was going to be zoned behind them, it was industrial?
Peterson: Anything else?
Conrad: Just a comment Mr. Chairman. I have nothing to add to the staff report. This is as good
as it gets. Compliment to the architect. It's good stuflk And there are some things that maybe
staff can look at but I wouldn't even include them in a motion. This is very good so ifI were a
neighbor, this is better than a house. That's all.
Peterson: I agree. It's an exceptional job of integrating the concerns of the neighborhood.
Interesting office building so is there a motion?
Burton: Well Mr. Chairman, to keep things moving here, I'll move that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve Site Plan #99-7 for the Dover Building as shown on the
plans dated received April 16, 1999 and subject to conditions 1 through 14.
Conrad: I second that.
Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends that the City
Council approve Site Plan #99-7 for the Dover Building as shown on the plans dated
received April 16, 1999, and subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall demonstrate that the eight foot decorative light fixtures meet the 90
degree cut-off as required by ordinance.
2. The lighting plan shall show all existing light fixtures that may impact the site.
3. The sign plan must be revised to delete the external illumination for the monument sign.
4. All roof and ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view.
Staff and the applicant shall work together in resolving the following storm sewer
modifications:
a. Extend a catch basin southerly along the west curb line to the northeasterly comer of the
parking lot.
b. Redesign the storm sewer system from the underground garage drive aisle to the west.
Include a 3 foot sump catch basin with catch basin No. 4.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
10.
11.
c. Erosion control fencing (Type I) will be required after the storm sewer has been installed
west of the building.
The applicant shall provide landscaping screening in lieu of the 6 to 8 foot high earth berm
along the southerly portion of the building to provide screening/buffering from the neighbors
in Bluff Creek Estates.
The applicant will need to supply the city with detailed storm sewer calculations for review
and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
The applicant will need to apply for and obtain a grading permit through the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. 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 grading activities in accordance with the City Best
Management Practice Handbook. All slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be restored with erosion
control blanket. The city's boulevard area along Lake Drive West shall be sodded.
The applicant shall escrow with the city $2,500 to guarantee boulevard restoration and
installation of the driveway apron.
Plumbing permits will be required by the City's Building Department for extension of the
utilities through the site.
The Building Official requires that with 74 parking spaces provided, 3 must be handicapped
accessible. One must be located in the parking garage.
12. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. The owner must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department Policy premise
identification. Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal. Contact the Fire Marshal for the exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to
be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1 Uniform Fire Code.
e. Submit size of address numbers to be included on monument sign to Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be
included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
Copy enclosed.
13. All signage shall require a separate permit. A monument sign shall be limited to eighty (80)
square feet in sign display area and eight (8) feet in height.
14. The applicant shall pay lwo-thirds of the park fees at the time of building permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Bob Beduhn: Can I ask a question? I'm not sure now. Did you say that, ask them to address that
trash thing.., make it a part of the motion.
Peterson: Staff will, again what our intent was is that staff will work with the applicant to create
either screening and/or move it as an option. That's our desire.
Bob Beduhn: Okay, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR TWO 19~632 SQ. FT. OFFICE/
WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2~ BLOCK
CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED
IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARI~ AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD~ EAST OF CO.
RD. 17~ SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO~ MILWAUKEE~ ST. PAUL~ PACIFIC RAILROAD
TRACKS ON LAKE DRIVE WEST~ MONK PROPERTIES BUILDING~ EDEN TRACE
CORPORATION.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of stafl~
Conrad: Sure. Page 7 Sharmin. Explain the needs for the Stockdale parcel to me. Show me if
you could what the easement would be...
Hempel: Here's Audubon Road. Proposed Lake Drive West. Subject parcel. The Stockdale
parcel is directly north. It currently has an existing.., at some future point it might have
development potential and.., minimize the curb cuts for the... I'm sorry, this location.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Conrad: So it's not, it's a primary access?
Hempel: Equally.
Conrad: You just need two to choose from. Based on what might come in.
Aanenson: Exactly, future options.
Conrad: Okay, thanks Dave. Sharmin I'm just, this is in general. On landscaping stufl~ As I
read the grid I get confused. I was confused on the first one but I came in late so I didn't ask any
questions on that. But now I'm here on time so when I see the grid on required and on proposed,
and I see 27 overstory required and 12 overstory proposed and 41 understory. How do you
balance those? Is it an absolute? And I didn't go back to the ordinance but if it's 27 overstory
and 12 proposed, does that obviously mean in your mind that they're deficient?
A1-Jafl2 We've often allowed the City Forester to work with the applicant on this issue as long as
the final numbers balance out.
Conrad: Okay. So we get 53 trees versus the required 27 and we're kind of just saying, you
guys know what you're doing in terms of.
Aanenson: This is the requirement for replacement and a certain amount of canopy coverage.
What the Forester does in looking at these plans and trying to give some balance to the site is to
say, instead of the 27 overstory. It may be too compact. It may not work. That to compensate
that you go with the understory or the smaller trees because if you put all the overstory, they're
going to over kill, okay. So what we're looking at is what's the best planting to give us what
we're trying to accomplish.
Conrad: So it's not an absolute. It's...
Aanenson: Right, because some sites, we had the discussion on the Northcott where the neighbors
wanted more intensity along that Lake Drive but we said if we put them that tight, they're not
going to survive. So it's the balance of what's the right species and the type and so that's what Jill
goes through. You're right, it does seem confusing the way we've laid it out.
Conrad: I've got it now. Or I understand. When it says in parens, shown 75% of total. What
does that mean? And it's on 3, what is it saying? In the grid on page 8 and it was in the previous
staff report I think. Audubon Road, buffer yard B. Shown, 75% of total. What does that mean?
Al-Jarl) You include the width of the buff'er yard. Then in addition to that, depending on... so
they need to provide 75% of the total required by ordinance which is 14 trees. 75% of 14. Does
that make sense?
Conrad: No, but I don't want to, because it comes, is that your call or is that the ordinance call?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
A1-Jaflk That's the ordinance call.
Aanenson: Remember what we did on the buff'er yard, just to refresh everybody's memory. We
went back and we said you can reduce the amount of landscaping if you increase the separation.
We came up with an A, B, C, D, E. That Chinese menu. And so you can have the B which says
within B now, depending on the width of that, you have certain number of trees. So we went
through and calculated are they meeting what's required under B?
Conrad: Okay. And the previous applicant in there, in the parking lot they needed a canopy
coverage of 2,708 feet and they came in exactly on that. Is that possible to come in exactly on
that?
Aanenson: Yeah. Some applicants it's easier depending on the type of use. To get the landscape
islands. And they've got a lot of buff'er already around them so it works.
Conrad: It's just an amazing number to hit it on the nose. That's it, thanks.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Well I've got a question I guess. I should have asked it maybe again with the last
too but one of the recommendations, one of the conditions of the previous applicant was 2/3 of the
park and trail fee at time of building permit. And that's the first time I've seen a specific like that.
I usually see full park and trail dedication fees as is written in this recommendation. What's the
difference?
Aanenson: I'll let Dave answer that.
Hempel: At time of final platting the city requires 1/3 of the park and trail fees be collected at that
time. So the remaining 2/3 ofthe fees wouldbe collected attime ofbuilding permit issuance.
Blackowiak: Okay, so then what, then tonight or for this item at the time this gets platted they put
a third down and you're just not writing that?
Hempel: That's goes with the final platting on the property. For a site plan review it'd be the 2/3
of the park and trail fees would be collected then.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks.
Peterson: You guys make it difficult don't you. Did you make that decision or who did?
Aanenson: The reason we did that is we used to defer it until we got building permit so
sometimes we incurred a lot of cost so what we did is we said at the time that the subdivision,
when you're subdividing the property we get it. And then when they pull the permit, we'll collect
the rest. It just covers a lot more cost that way.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Peterson: Got it. Other questions?
Kind: I have a question about the park that's on the, let's see it would be the southeast side along
the new Lake Drive. Will there be extra buffering at that park? Between the road and this
industrial park.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that one .... Lake Drive West public improvement
project, we will be planting some boulevard trees in the boulevard but no berming to speak of.
And the tree spacing is typically 20 to 30 feet...
Kind: The question obviously safety of children and I'm not a big fence person so, would you
address that a little bit? What do you think about that?
Hempel: There is a proposal for a parking lot, a small parking lot to service that park as well but.
Kind: It would be on that side so maybe be a buff'er.
Hempel: ... park plan for that area.
Kind: I just noticed looking at the site from Audubon because it's hard to, the park's way down
there. I realized that that will be on the road when that does go through. Right now it's kind of a
cozy little neighborhood park you access between houses or something. They're going to have a
little surprise when this all comes in.
Aanenson: But with the grade I don't believe you can access it. You won't be able to from Lake
Drive.
Hempel: There's going to be a trail.
Kind: Lake Drive will be off of that park quite a bit? Is that what you're saying?
Aanenson: ... with the grade though, it drops ofl~ What's the change in grade Dave?
Hempel: There's a 22 foot wide boulevard between the curb and the property line where the
parkland would start. Then I'm not sure where the park activities, how far that is from the
property line. Looking for a park plan...
Aanenson: I see an Arbor Day project.
Blackowiak: Our troop did that, excuse me. Our Girl Scout troop cleaned that park. It's actually
very far south.
Kind: But the road's not there yet.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Blackowiak: No, I know but it's very, the playground equipment itself is, the park kind of dips to
the south and the playground equipment is in kind of in that dip.
Kind: How do you know where the road's going to be Alison?
Blackowiak: Well...
Kind: Because it looks like it's dips to me.
Blackowiak: ... I don't think it will be that close.
Aanenson: No, it won't be that close. There is, I certainly can look at doing additional plantings.
The city can.
Burton: Mr. Chairman I have one more question. When I look at the grading, drainage and
erosion control plan on the front and right, it looks like they're talking about the edges of wetland
and wetland basin and I see wetland all over this, but I don't see any discussion of it in the report.
I'm just wondering, are there any wetland issues here that we should be concerned about? Or am
I missing them if they were address. I don't know.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I think that's all been addressed with the preliminary plat and then a final
plat which will be coming up shortly.
Peterson: Was it ever mitigated to increasing the one in the center and a couple other ones were
moving.
Burton: Right, I just.., this parcel I guess they're all tied together.
Aanenson: Right. One of the other lots does provide a wetland...
Burton: Okay.
Peterson: Seeing no more questions, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the
commission? If so, please come forward.
Mark Undestad: Hello. I'm Mark Undestad with Eden Trace. I really don't have a lot to add
here. If there's questions on what we're doing again here, I'd be happy to answer those.
Peterson: You guys move fast I'll give you that.
Mark Undestad: We try. The rain doesn't help but.
Peterson: Questions of the applicant?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. One of the conditions of approval,
recommendations is that the north parking is deleted from these buildings. Are you comfortable
with that?
Mark Undestad: Yes.
Blackowiak: So you're not going to come back next year or something and say you really, really
need more parking please?
Mark Undestad: No. We have more than enough parking on there now and that was just shown
as future if they needed a proof of parking but we're not adding onto the building. We're not
changing anything on there so we're fine with that.
Blackowiak: You're okay with that, good. Okay. That was my question.
Peterson: Okay. I guess I only have one comment. As you probably or may have heard me share
with the previous applicant. I think it's important to spend a little bit of extra time, particularly
going to council, I think if you colorize the renderings, it makes a huge difference. They get a
feel for the building and the textures and I'd highly recommend doing that. All right, thank you.
This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open and a second please?
Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward.
Stuart Brown: Well I'm here just to check out the process and I have absolutely, I'm just a
neighbor on the, I know exactly where the park is and I could answer all those questions. I just
think, I have generic, a couple generic questions. And I want to know.., but the other people you
know with the thing down by the post office there they talked about these meetings with the
neighbors. Have there been meetings with neighbors already? Are there going to be? Should
there be or you know, they talk about we addressed some of the neighbors concerns and etc. Is
this the place where the neighbors should be now tonight or is there some other meeting we should
be having with Eden Trace that, or... answer yes to all of that but. I don't have specific concerns.
I just happened to be, I love the little private park right now, but I've known since the day I
moved in 10 years ago that, how it was zoned so this is not like, oh my god, what's happening to
my park. So I can't, but it's just nice, that's why I'm here just to learn but I guess it sounds like
there's no berming. I always envisioned there'd be some little thing to the road but it sounds like
the park will just go right to the curb and maybe that's, if that's what ordinance says. If that's not
bad, or you know wrong, then that's just fine. And then park and the playground equipment is
pretty far from where I know the road's going to go. You know I mean there's a ballfield,
baseball field and I should probably be at the park plan meeting to answer some of these because I
don't know where cars are going to park to get to that baseball field back there. Right now it's
like your own private baseball field but you know left field and stuff will go up against this road
and I don't know what the plans for all that is but that's actually well beyond your concern now
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
because you're the first lot in and I'll save those comments I guess when you move further into
the development there. So I don't have any real specific questions other than is this the one and
only time for neighbors to come and ask questions? And if so, obviously not a lot ofpeopte...
Peterson: To answer your question I think, many times a developer will call a meeting prior to
coming to the commission meeting... I think they laid out the lots and how they were going to
position them and so there's an opportunity there for residents to share their respected opinions, as
is tonight. As is during the council session in a couple weeks. So there's a myriad of
opportunities. Quite often, unless you read the paper and look around, you do often miss
unfortunately.
Stuart Brown: This one I got a letter at home so it was right in my face but that was great. Okay,
I don't have any specific questions beyond that. I think this is off the trail and the first lot in and
I'm just teaming tonight.
Peterson: All right, good. Glad we could help.
Aanenson: Maybe I can just add to that too. What the stafl] neighborhood meetings are not
required. Generally when the subdivision comes in we kind of gauge the flavor. What issues are
out there and we kind of make that the project before. There's been some contentious issues out
there. We know those are areas that they need to meet with neighbors. I guess we gauged it,
based on when this came through the subdivision process, we always notify within 500 feet but it
didn't appear to be that there were was a lot of contentious issues out there. Certainly people
have the opportunity to come in and speak but that's kind of the stafl~s position on this.
Peterson: Okay. Seeing no other individuals, unless Dave, do you want to... the public hearing?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman I could maybe shed some light on where the proposed driveway access
for the parking lot would be for the park. If you like to know. Either that or Park and Rec
Commission I'm sure too. There is a master plan that we have upstairs that you're certainly
welcome to check out.
Peterson: Thank you. May I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing?
Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Comments.
Kind: I have a question for my fellow commissioners. I'm interested in your philosophy on
industrial buildings architecture and just the history of it, quickly. So I can team.
Peterson: I've already given her my respective comments so anyone else want to tackle that one?
Burton: I'm in the same boat as you I'm guessing. I'm teaming.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Kind: Specifically to high standards of architecture. Or not.
Conrad: Tough issue, and I personally stay away from it. I'd hate to be somebody that didn't,
builders, developers, architects deserve a standard and then they can hit it. If you don't have a
standard and we take pot shots at them, that's not fair. So you either have a standard or you let
stafl~ who is better than we are to review this. If they have that flexibility in a PUD, you let them
manipulate it. You pray for good developers. That's the bottom line. I tend to stay away from
architecture controls. I tend not to believe. I think we need some minimum standards and then
beyond that, it's up to the people bringing the project to us. I'm probably not one of many. I
think there are very few like me who, I think you'd like to control it. You'd like to improve the
standards but I have a problem with government doing that. Other than setting some minimum
standards. I think when we did some Highway 5 stufl~ I think that was relevant. I think that was,
and I think we have some debates on some of the things that we allowed. Especially out at 5 and
41. It's not what we thought we were going to get. But on the other hand, to lay out a guideline
to say it has to, you've got to be so savvy to set up a standard, that passes through time.
Economic conditions. Sometimes it's extremely unfair when you put some standards out there
and you hold the landowner hostage.
Peterson: And I can certainly echo both, all of Ladd's thoughts. In addition I think part of what
we struggle with is when we do deal with the architectural side of it, is it, does it integrate in with
it's neighbors. Whether it's an additional office, industrial or not. I mean what's appropriate
architecture from there. Have more responsibility on than.
Kind: To make sure it fits with the neighbors, yes?
Peterson: Exactly.
Kind: And this particular one fits in very well with the neighbors. I just see PUD requirements
that call for high architectural standards and I'm trying to figure out what that is. And for
industrial it seems to be a little bit different than for say the apartments, which were pulled from
tonight's agenda and projects like that so I was just curious.
Conrad: The best thing you can do, if you believe in architectural standards, is to put in an
architectural review committee and develop standards. But don't take pot shots of the architecture
individually here. We are not experts. They are. But if you want standards, then you should put
in the rules that do it. But don't let us do arbitrary things. We all have different opinions on what
is good. If you believe in it, tell these folks what it is. Turn it into an ordinance. Turn it into a
review committee. You'll scare a lot of people away. But that's how you do it. They manipulate
a lot of better design just by, not because they have total control but just by, through good
negotiations with people coming in.
Aanenson: IfI could just comment on that. I think the one thing that we do do in industrial
buildings that a lot of other communities do, is make sure that there are no large unadorned walls.
We work hard at trying to mix materials. It's hard when you've got one user doing a lot of
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
development because it kind of reflects a certain style of that developer, or user. Coming just
back from the National Conference in Seattle I can tell you Microsoft buildings all look the same.
That's Bill Gates' thumbprint so, I mean it does happen. We try to vary. Sometimes in the
varying it will look worse than trying to vary a little, we've had that discussion before, but I think
we work hard to make sure that the backs of buildings look as good as the front. Window
treatments.., materials, that sort of thing. But it is hard when it's an industrial building. That's it's
function. And form and function, you have to relate cost and competing in the marketplace so
again relating, I think Craig was right on. How's it work with the neighborhood and I think that's
kind of the first starting point. Does it need to be more residential in character?
Kind: Thank you.
Peterson: Other comments? Seeing none, may I have a motion.
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan
#99-4 for office warehouse buildings with an area of 19,632 square feet each to be located on
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7 Addition, as shown on the plans dated
April 16, 1999, subject to conditions 1 through 26.
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: All those in favor. It's been moved, this has been seconded. Any discussion?
Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan #99-4 for two office warehouse buildings with an area of 19,632 square feet each,
to be located on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, as
shown on the plans dated April 16, 1999, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall increase plantings for buff'er yard areas in order to meet ordinance
requirements.
The parking setback along Lake Drive West shall be increased to 30 feet. Within the 30 foot
setback, the applicant will be required to provide a 3 to 4 foot meandering berm. The berm
shall be extended along Audubon Road to maximize screening of the parking lot.
Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th
Addition in accordance with ordinance requirements.
One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not
exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall
be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total
area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square
feet. All signage must meet the following criteria:
2O
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be
subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages.
All signs require a separate permit.
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 of the site.
Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
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. A detailed
sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided
prior to requesting a building permit.
The applicant shall meet with the Building Department to discuss commercial building
permit requirements.
The applicant shall provide 5 accessible parking spaces. The location of these spaces must
be dispersed among all the accessible building entrances.
Fire Marshal conditions:
a)
Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact number and location.
b)
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c)
Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
d)
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing
to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
15.
e)
Install and indicate on plans the location of the PIV (Post Indicator Valve).
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes
to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed.
g)
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-
1992. Copy enclosed.
The applicant shall provide details on the decorative elements along the upper portion of
both buildings. Details shall include materials and application.
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as
required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted prior to city council
review. Street lights consistent with Lake Drive East and West will be at 200 feet
intervals, staggered from one side to the other.
The site plan fails to show the trash enclosure location. The dumpsters must be screened
by a wing-wall and doors with siding and trim to match the building. Current state statutes
require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling
space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC)
1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided
in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space
and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure.
Rooftop equipment and ground mounted mechanical equipment are not shown on the
plans. All equipment must be screened from views.
The 30 future parking spaces shown along the northern portion of the site shall be
eliminated.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
Final grading shall incorporate berming along Lake Drive West and Audubon Road
outside of the city's right-of-way.
The applicant shall work with staff in revising curb radii on the plans to accommodate fire
apparatus vehicles.
A cross-access agreement for parking and utilities purposes which also addresses
maintenance responsibilities and scheduling shall be prepared by the applicant and
recorded against the benefited lots (1, 2 and 3, Block 1). In addition, a cross-access
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
agreement for driveway purposes shall be granted to the parcel north of the site
(Stockdale) over Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to gain access to Lake Drive West.
16.
Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted
to the city for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
17.
Installation of the public utilities throughout the site will require building permits through
the City's Building Department.
18.
The proposed driveway access onto Lake Drive West shall incorporate an industrial
driveway apron and pedestrian ramps in accordance with the city details and pedestrian
ramps.
19.
The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee
installation of the driveway aprons, boulevard restoration, and erosion control measures.
Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow which will be returned
upon satisfactorily completing the project.
20.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans
within two weeks the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
21.
All utility street improvements shall be construction in accordance with the city's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The plans shall be revised to provide
individual sewer services to each lot from the property line and lower driveway grade at
entrance off Lake Drive West to 4.0% or less.
22.
All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7-ton per axle
design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118.
23.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency,
i.e. Watershed District.
24.
No berming is permitted within the city's right-of-way. Landscaping improvements may
be permitted subject to staff review and approval.
25.
Site plan approval shall be contingent upon final platting of Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park 7th Addition.
26.
The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet
above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 48~565 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 3~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN LAKES
BUSINESS PARK 7T}~ ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL
OFFICE PARI~ AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD~ EAST OF CO. RD. 17~ SOUTH OF
THE CHICAGO~ MILWAUKEE~ ST. PAUL~ PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS ON
LAKE DRIVE WEST~ CHANHASSEN LAKES PARTNERSHIP~ LLP~ EDEN TRACE
CORPORATION.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of stafl~
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Dave, you noted in the last report that the Lake
Drive West extension probably wouldn't be done until November. So then are these buildings,
Lot 3, Block 1 and one we'll be seeing here, Lot 4, are they going to be not started until after
November then? Am I correct with that?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I've had conversations with the developer. That jumped
out at his attention as well. What we discussed was interim access, separate road is you will that
they're willing to build to gain access while Lake Drive West is being constructed. The major
concern is from public safety to access the building and in this situation it's not a stick built, if you
will like residential homes. It's more metal and bricks so the risk of fire is much lower. So the
main concern is the Fire Marshals and that will be addressed with interim access road from
Audubon Road. Either paralleling or somewhere through the parking lots to gain construction
access to these building sites.
Blackowiak: So they will begin as soon as.
Hempel: Final plat has been recorded and the project authorized for Lake Drive West.
Blackowiak: Okay, and you're comfortable with an interim road and?
Hempel: I am engineering wise. It seemed like public safety was too.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks.
Peterson: Other questions?
Kind: I have one. This is the one that does get closer to the park, if I've got my bearings right.
I'm curious, which side of Lake Drive is the sidewalk on? Is it going to be on the north or south
side? North side? And so the business people will be able to use this sidewalk and if they want to
access the park, will there be a crosswalk at that point or intersection with the parking lot or?
24
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Hempel: Correct. A crosswalk at about I believe where the access for the parking lot for the park
is. On the radius of Lake Drive West there.
Kind: And do you know if there's a speed limit set for this new Lake Drive?
Hempel: The road is being designed for a 35 mph speed limit. Fairly typical for a collector road.
Kind: That's all.
Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so,
please come forward.
Mark Undestad: Again, the access is going to...
Peterson: How many businesses do you foresee in this unit, just out of curiosity?
Mark Undestad: In this building...
Peterson: Thanks. Any questions of the applicant?
Mark Undestad: ...pictures...
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant before he sits down.
Sidney: Mr. Chairman I guess, well Sharmin has the materials but could you describe the colors
and the materials again.
Mark Undestad: We're using, again we're trying to... These will be gray... Somewhat difficult
with the colored blocks with the painted building...
Peterson: May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing.
Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please. Kind of feel obligated, don't you?
Stuart Brown: Stuart Brown, 1420 Heron Drive in Chanhassen. I'm just curious of all these
trees, and I don't know which map I'm on now but.
Aanenson: You're on a different project.
Stuart Brown: ... many, many trees or little proposed trees. Is that part of the project or is this an
city envisioned plan? I guess this is what provides the barrier. You know the park's over here.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
And the ballpark's over here. This is our barrier to the road I guess. So this is not part of their
plan. Is that part of a city plan for these trees?
Aanenson: Correct.
Peterson: Dave, could you respond to that?
Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. That landscaping along the south of the road adjacent to the
park is going to be installed with the city's street project, Lake Drive West.
Stuart Brown: The things shown here, these are real...
Aanenson: The other side is pretty representative. It's 1 tree for every 30 feet so it's probably
pretty representative. He's just calling and showing what he's responsible for.
Stuart Brown: Gotch ya. And that's part of the Lake Drive, post November completion project.
Okay. Just curious with that one. Thank you.
Peterson: A motion and a second to close the public hearing.
Burton moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Okay. Hearing no other comments, is there?
Kind: I have one quick one.
Peterson: Certainly.
Kind: I just want to make sure that I'm clear on my architectural question. I was not inferring
that I wanted more color or more wildness. I like the plainness of that. I think when some of the
buildings get a little too carried away with color we're going to be able to tell that that was built in
1994 or whatever. Neutral is probably better in this case so I just wanted to make sure that you
understood where I was going.
Peterson: Okay. Is there a motion and a second please?
Conrad: Sure. I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#99-5 for a 48,565 square foot office warehouse building located on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen
Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on the plans dated April 16, 1999, subject to the
conditions of the staff report 1 through 27.
Burton: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
26
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Conrad moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
site plan 99-5 for a 48,565 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 3,
Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, as shown on the plans dated April
6, 1999, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall increase plantings for buff'er yard areas in order to meet ordinance
requirements.
The parking setback along Lake Drive West shall be increased to 30 feet. Within the 30
foot setback, the applicant will be required to provide a 3 to 4 foot meandering berm.
Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th
Addition in accordance with ordinance requirements.
One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not
exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business
shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the
total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90
square feet. All signage must meet the following criteria:
All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be
subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages.-
c. All signs require a separate permit.
The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
e. 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 of the site.
g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the
sign.
i. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site.
A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff
should be provided prior to requesting a building permit.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
10.
The applicant shall meet with the Building Department to discuss commercial building
permit requirements.
The applicant shall provide 5 handicapped accessible parking spaces. The location of
these spaces must be dispersed among all the accessible building entrances.
Fire Marshal conditions:
a)
Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact number and location.
b)
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c)
Submit radius mm dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
d)
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing
to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
e)
Install and indicate on plans the location of the PIV (Post Indicator Valve).
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes
to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed.
g)
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-
1992. Copy enclosed.
The walls along the east and west side of the loading area shall be built of the same
materials as the rest of the building and incorporate the decorative bands.
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as
required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted. Street lights
consistent with Lake Drive East and West will be at 200 feet intervals, staggered from one
side to the other.
The site plan fails to show the trash enclosure location. The dumpsters must be screened
by a wing-wall and doors with siding and trim to match the building. Current state statutes
require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling
space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC)
28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided
in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space
and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure.
Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment
must be screened from views.
The 34 future parking spaces shown along the northern portion of the site shall be
eliminated.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
Final grading shall incorporate berming along Lake Drive West outside of the City's right-
of-way. No berming is permitted within the City's right-of-way. Landscaping
improvements may be permitted subject to staff review and approval.
The applicant shall work with staff in revising curb radii on the plans to accommodate fire
apparatus vehicles.
A cross-access agreement for parking and utilities purposes which also addresses
maintenance responsibilities and scheduling shall be prepared by the applicant and
recorded against the benefited lots (1, 2 and 3, Block 1). In addition, a cross-access
agreement for driveway purposes shall be granted to the parcel north of the site
(Stockdale) over Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to gain access to Lake Drive West.
Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted
to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
Installation of the public utilities throughout the site will require building permits through
the City's Building Department.
All driveway access points along Lake Drive West shall incorporate an industrial driveway
apron and pedestrian ramps in accordance with the City details and pedestrian ramps.
The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee
installation of the driveway aprons, boulevard restoration, and erosion control measures.
Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow which will be returned
upon satisfactorily completing the project.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans
within two weeks the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
22.
All utility street improvements shall be construction in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The plans shall be revised to provide
individual sewer services to each lot from the property line and lower driveway grade at
entrance off Lake Drive West to 4.0% or less.
23.
All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7-ton per axle
design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118.
24.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency,
i.e. Watershed District.
25.
The final grading plan shall incorporate erosion control measures around the downstream
side of the grading limits and adjacent the pond.
26.
Site plan approval shall be contingent upon final platting of Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park 7th Addition.
27.
The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum oflwo feet
above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 18~388 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE
BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 4~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN LAKES
BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL
OFFICE PARI~ AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD~ EAST OF CO. RD. 17~ SOUTH OF
THE CHICAGO~ MILWAUKEE~ ST. PAUL~ PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS ON
LAKE DRIVE WEST~ CHANHASSEN LAKES PARTNERSHIP~ LLP~ EDEN TRACE
CORPORATION.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff'?
Kind: I do. On the landscaping plan there was a little note at the top that said design build. What
does that mean? Does that mean the landscaping can change or?
A1-Jafl2 No, what's proposed, when we find a landscape plan, that's what has to go in. The
applicant has the habit or providing more landscaping after the project is done than what was
approved on the plan.
Kind: More? That's a good thing, isn't it?
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Al-Jarl) Yes it is.
Kind: But what does the design build mean when that's on there? Does the applicant, do you
know what that means? On the landscaping plan it says design build at the top of it. Does that
mean you can freelance, once you meet the minimum you can add on?
Mark Undestad: ... put a tree in and it needs to be over 10 feet...
Kind: I just wanted to make sure that what we're seeing was roughly what we're getting at least.
Peterson: Any other questions? Any further comments by the applicant? Can I have a motion
and a second for a public hearing.
Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address, please come forward. Come on.
Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Peterson: Any comments?
Conrad: I just had a comment for staff here. I looked at all the conditions. There was a time in
our lives here on the Planning Commission where the fewer the conditions the better. Meant you
did your job. And iron things out before the commission but I really like seeing all the conditions.
It tells you what happened. What they've got to do and the staff reports are very good. It tells the
applicant what we're expecting and I think that's just, it's better than it had been years ago. Cool.
Peterson: Other comments?
Kind: I noticed there was an outdoor play area. Is that going to be child care happening there?
Al-Jarl) The applicant hasn't signed a lease yet but if that does become a daycare, then they will
have to come in with a conditional use permit.
Kind: That's the intent?
Aanenson: Flexibility, yeah.
Kind: Cool.
Peterson: Motion please.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Blackowiak: Well I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #99-
6 for an 18,388 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 4, Block 1,
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on the plans dated April 16, 1999, subject
to the following conditions and those would be 1 through 25.
Conrad: I second that.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval
of site plan 99-6 for an 18,388 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 4,
Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, as shown on the plans dated April
16, 1999, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall Increase plantings for buff'er yard areas in order to meet ordinance
requirements.
The parking setback along Lake Drive West shall be increased to 30 feet. Within the 30
foot setback, the applicant will be required to provide a 3 to 4 foot meandering berm.
Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th
Addition in accordance with ordinance requirements.
One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not
exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business
shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the
total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90
square feet. All signage must meet the following criteria:
All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be
subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages.-
c. All signs require a separate permit.
The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
e. 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 of the site.
g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the
sign.
i. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site.
A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff
should be provided prior to requesting a building permit.
The applicant shall meet with the Building Department to discuss commercial building
permit requirements.
The applicant shall revise the southern exterior elevation by adding windows or
landscaping to breakup the blank portions.
Fire Marshal conditions:
a)
Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact number and location.
b)
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, bushes, shrubs, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
c)
Submit radius mm dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to 902.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
d)
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing
to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
e)
Install and indicate on plans the location of the PIV (Post Indicator Valve).
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes
to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy 04-1991. Copy enclosed.
g)
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy//29-
1992. Copy enclosed.
h) If any trees are to be removed, they must be either chipped or hauled off
site. Due to close proximity of neighboring homes, no burning permits will be
issued.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the City. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as
required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted. Street lights
consistent with Lake Drive East and West will be at 200 feet intervals, staggered from one
side to the other.
The site plan fails to show the trash enclosure location. The dumpsters must be screened
by a wing-wall and doors with siding and trim to match the building. Current state statutes
require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling
space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC)
1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area will be provided
in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space
and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure.
Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment
must be screened from views.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
Final grading shall incorporate a three to four-foot high berm along Lake Drive West
outside of the City's right-of-way.
Construction activities adjacent to wetlands shall be protected with Type III erosion
control fence.
The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to construct a
parking lot and landscaping improvements within the City's drainage and utility easement.
Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted
to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
Installation of the public utilities throughout the site will require building permits through
the City's Building Department.
The proposed driveway access onto Lake Drive West shall incorporate an industrial
driveway apron and pedestrian ramps in accordance with the City details and pedestrian
ramps. The other access point at Marshland Circle shall also incorporate an industrial
driveway apron.
The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount f $5,000 to guarantee
installation of the driveway aprons, boulevard restoration, and erosion control measures.
Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow which will be returned
upon satisfactorily completing the project.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
19.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans
within two weeks the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
20.
All utility street improvements shall be construction in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
21.
All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7-ton per axle
design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118.
22.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency,
i.e. Watershed District.
23.
No berming is permitted within the City's right-of-way. Landscaping improvements may
be permitted subject to staff review and approval.
24.
Site plan approval shall be contingent upon final platting of Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park 7th Addition.
25.
The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet
above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: This issue came up maybe last week. Maybe it was Alison that brought it up
regarding if something gets pulled. And I know Matt and I have been talking via e-mail and I
think it'd be great if you do have e-mail, I'm going to pass this around. If you want to give me
your e-mail address and then I can keep you current. If something's been pulled, I can just plug
that in real quick. I always talk to Craig the day of or the day before the meeting to let him know
what's going on. If someone's not going to be there, etc. But as soon as I know something like
that, if I can just e-mail everybody in a group e-mail.
Peterson: Can we get all your e-mails too?
Aanenson: Yes. We'll take care of that. Actually what I think we can do, if you give that to me
now, we'll put that in the next packet and then everybody will have each others so I think that
would be great. Then we're not relying on people getting back on phone calls, etc. That's it. I
do have some ongoing or old, if you want to just continue, if that's okay. I put a note in your
packet, on Monday, June 7th, the City Council will be having work sessions. I'll be meeting with
all the groups. You got scheduled for 7:30 and they're allocating approximating 45 minutes. I
think the intent is just to talk about how things are going. I did include the goals that we had
35
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
talked about as part of the last item in your report .... relates to what the Planning Commission or
the planning department is doing. I didn't put the Environmental Surface Water. I think I
mentioned last time we were scheduled for a public hearing on May 13th before the Met Council.
Commissioner Mondale decided to table all hearings before the Met Council for the month of not
only April but May because of the new appointments. So we're tentatively scheduled for June.
The staff has recommended approval of our comprehensive plan so we're waiting to get that and
as soon as they get that done, then some of these other things are going to start in motion. The
rezonings and update of the PUD, etc. But we are working, we do have an intern in place that's
working with Phil and Jill, putting together our neighborhood meetings that we had talked about.
So we're excited about that. We're putting together a neat packet and we're targeting
neighborhoods where we do have a tree conservation and a wetland buff'er ordinance in place so if
anybody chooses for us to come to their neighborhood, let me know. But we'll be sharing that list
with you where we're going if you want to add any comments on that but we want to get that set
up for the end of June and July. We do have a lot of stuff coming in still. Continuing so we're
fully booked for the first meeting in June and the second meeting in June. Arboretum Business
Park has another industrial building. We're doing a lot of industrial. That will be coming in on
the June 2nd. Two variances. The Bike Shop I think I mentioned that to you. That was in the
Villages. Really nice looking building. Bob's worked hard on that one. One lot subdivision out
in the rural area. Pretty straight forward. Foss Swim School. I mentioned to Craig, we've been
meeting with them. We're going to have another meeting set up next Monday. We're trying to
keep them on board. Working through the architectural issues. That's a great use down there and
then we're meeting tomorrow with the apartment people. The reason they pulled it, they were
concerned about the number of conditions. Can they alter their building plans to meet those and
still make it work so some of it's technical. As far as some of the grading comments we had the
like so they should be back on in the next meeting. And I did receive comments about
notification. I want to make sure that we get that cleared up for the next meeting. The sign goes
up and that we notify everybody on the lake. Make sure that happens. I think that's it as far as
ongoing but we will have just as big a meeting the second one in June too. I might not be able to
give you the 4th week ofl~ You know I've done that in the past.
Peterson: Kate, can we make it a matter of practice that we request the applicants to do color
renderings?
Aanenson: Yes. I know the restaurant that we'll be seeing, Ruby Tuesdays which is in, that we
will see the second meeting. We did indicate to them to bring in, because it was on Villages that
they have full color renderings and they do. And Sharmin and I were just talking about that. We
certainly, that's a good comment. We'll do that.
Peterson: I mean it literally costs a dollar, if that, to go to Kinko's and get a color copy of it for
us just to get a sense.
Aanenson: ... It's hard when you read in the report, the colors. You're trying to understand.
Blackowiak: I want them in the packet too.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 19, 1999
Aanenson: We'll do that. We'll just make that standard practice, yeah. It's not a big deal. Good
comment.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ladd Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated May 5, 1999 as presented.
Burton moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. The Planning Commission
meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
37