The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1998 03 04CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 4, 1998 Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Joyce, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Alyson Brooks, Allison Blackowiak and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin A1-Jafl] Planner II; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT 39.5 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TWO 75,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND A 77,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5, WEST OF DELL ROAD AND SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, CHANHASSEN POINTE BUSINESS CENTER, WELSH CONSTRUCTION CORP. Public Present: Name Address Steve Anderson Michael Rock James Strapko Bill Kalz Larry Zieske Diane Thiel Jeanne Knutson Timm Adams Phil Becker John Kruse Mike Cleary Michael Flom Judy & Dan Bachicha MarT Jo Burgdorf Gail Swain Steve McCoy Mike & Laurie Campbell John Dietrich David Patten 18788 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 18832 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie Minneapolis, MN 11415 Valley View, Eden Prairie 18803 Magenta Bay, Eden Prairie 18401 Melissa Circle, Eden Prairie 18744 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 8010 Spruce Trail, Eden Prairie 8807 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 18854 Wynnfield Road. 18612 Wynnfield Road. 18656 Wynnfield Road. 18700 Wynnfield Road. 18584 Wynnfield Road. 18942 Wynnfield Road. Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie 19168 Poplar Circke, Eden Prairie 18556 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 6110 Blue Circle Drive 6110 Blue Circle Drive Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Ulrike Essex Lynn D. Slodt Greg Voss Gary Szalkiewicz Brad Erickson Tom Thornton Todd & Jennifer Witcrafl Jim Urlick Cathy Pinson Rick Cheeseman 18528 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 3517 92nd Avenue North, Brooklyn Park Shoreview, MN 18876 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie 18895 Wynnfield Road. 18920 Wynnfield Road. 18898 Wynnfield Road. 18986 Wynnfield Road. 18500 Wynnfield Road. 18500 Wynnfield Road. Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Thank you Sharmin. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Blackowiak: Sharmin, on page 8. It talks a little bit about the traffic study and I was wondering when you felt that a semaphore would be required on Dell Road and Lake Drive East, and what kind of numbers push that to require a stop light at that point? Al-Jarl5 I will defer this question to Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. The City did have a traffic study prepared with the previous development, the CSM Corporation, Chanhassen Business Center East. The study revealed that it's going to take a combination of development, possibly future extension of Dell Road down to 212 to actually trip the warrants for a traffic signal at that intersection. Traffic signal justification report has to be completed and submitted to MnDot in order to have a traffic signal installed there. It would be a joint effort between the two communities of Chanhassen and the City of Eden Prairie to petition basically for this report to occur. Preliminary estimates with the traffic study revealed that they felt through the year 2005, again this is all based on how development occurs in the industrial park. It probably would be a guess of when the traffic semaphores would be warranted. Blackowiak: I've got one more, and again I don't know if it's necessarily a question right now but maybe something we need to think about. Page 11. It talks about the development signs and I don't know if we necessarily want to get into it right now but I just wanted to mention or ask if our sign ordinance should reflect these signs... I don't know if that needs to be talked about right now but I'm sure we're going to hear about it tonight so. Sharmin, do you have any feel? I mean do you feel our current sign ordinance is sufficient or is this something we should be addressing or do we need to just look at it on a case by case basis? Al-Jarl5 We can see the merits when a planned unit development and for instance Chanhassen Business Center has a development sign. But they also have over, what is it, 12 industrial buildings within that complex. It's easy to justify a sign for that entire development. Three buildings only, staff is indifferent. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Joyce: Anybody else with questions for staff'? Conrad: The rendering we see in from of us from the applicant... Al-Jarl) Rather than two entrances... Conrad: So there's no loading docks and we've met all of the Chanhassen regulations for that determine how an industrial.., those regulations or we've met... What determines a 2 versus a 4 foot berm? ... what your comment was, we're going to add 2 to 4 feet to that berm. A1-Jafl) There's an existing berm. The existing berm meanders and overall.., added to the existing berm. In some areas this berm is non-existent... Overall, 2 to 4 feet will be added to the entire... If you ask me an average, I would say probably 8 foot average for the entire length. Conrad: Okay. Joyce: ... is that correct? Is that how we're... Does that have to be put into one of the conditions then as far as the... A1-Jafl5 They're proposing it. Joyce: They are proposing it? Okay. A1-Jafl5 Their proposal. They want to add to the height of the berm to protect, to provide additional screening for the neighbors. Joyce: That's above and beyond what needs to be done I guess in reading that right? Above and beyond the Chanhassen requirements. Okay. Sidney: I'm wondering if you can comment about the lighting plans and... A1-Jafl) Sure. Lighting fixtures that will be used are shielded light fixtures. They meet the ordinance requirements. They do not point to the neighbors. In fact they point down. They will be attached to the building and they will illuminate mainly entrances into the building. And immediate parking areas surrounding the building. Our ordinance requires a maximum of half foot candle at properly line. They're going to be below that so that's the lighting. We've also made a point to insure that there is no signage facing the neighbors. And you wanted me to comment about trash enclosures. Currently the applicant intends to put the trash inside.., it's picked up. And we realize that that was something that was brought up at the last planning... If they do need to locate it outside, they will be, there's a condition in the staff report that states matching materials to the.., building as far as trash enclosure and it would be located within the loading dock area. Does that answer the question? Thank you. Joyce: With that, if the applicant is here and would like to make a presentation of the Planning Commission, please step forward. State your name and address. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Greg Voss: Good evening. My name's Greg Voss. I live at 3316 West Awassa Boulevard in Shoreview. I'm the project manager for Welsh Construction and I'm here representing the ownership development group of this properly which will be a joint venture, a partnership between Welsh Companies and a pension management fund managed and advised by GE Investments, who are the current owners of the properly. I'm here to keep my presentation very short. I have David Patten and John Dietrich representing RLK-Kuusisto, who are our civil engineers and landscape architects and they'll address the site design, landscape issues, lighting issues, grading issues, etc. and Lynn Slodt who is the architect for Genesis Architecture, who is our retained architectural finn who will address the building components of some of the aesthetics and the material selections that we've used in the project. Any questions that are relative to the ownership group, development group, leasing management or construction, I'd be happy to address as needed. In the meantime I'd like to introduce John Dietrich with RLK who can address a number of the site plan issues. John Dietrich: Good evening commissioners. John Dietrich from RLK-Kuusisto. I will be addressing the site design, landscape buffering and composition of the site and then Lynn Slodt will be going into the issues of the architecture, materials, etc. The site design, as we've taken a look at this entire area. It's 39.4 acres, including the existing DataServ-Wang building that is out there. The proposed new subdivision is going to provide four lots. Three on the existing, excuse me. Three proposed for the new area that is essentially east of existing DataServ-Wang building. South of Lake Drive East. East of the Dell Road regional pond and then north of the Lundgren Bros residential development. The proposed acreage of the three new lots east of the existing parking lot totals 20.5 acres, and of that 20.5 acres, it's divided amongst the three lots. The first lot encompasses the stonn water drainage pond and faces Dell Road to the east. The middle building, Building No. 2, Lot No. 2, faces to the west with the office structure with the loading service facilities on an interior court so the buildings 1 and 2 have been designed together so that they may share the loading facilities. The loading facilities are 4 feet below finished floor elevation which adds in their ability to be screened from both Lake Drive East and also from the southern properly line. Building No. 3, as we move to the west of the proposed site, is up 10 more feet in height than Building No. 2. We have a 45 foot wide green buff'er area, or I guess landscape area that also provides screening, which is 4 feet higher than the loading dock elevation so that the benn as it would come up the hill is higher 4 feet than the loading dock so as you're line of sight would be looking at it from Lake Drive East, you will be seeing basically a green band around that entire Building 3. The site is zoned office industrial in the zoning ordinance and it is also guided for office industrial. This project as we've designed it, meets all of the ordinance requirements in tenns of setback, open space, green space, parking ratios, landscape planting units and buffering. The overall green space ratio for the site is 45% versus the required 30%. IfI look at just the proposed three lots, we are at 39% green versus 30% green per code. The site as we've taken a look at organizing it. We have three buildings, 75, 75 and 77,000 square feet. We anticipate approximately a 40% office mix within each one of the buildings. The parking ratios have been designed to accommodate a 40% office mix. The buildings themselves have been placed and designed to take full advantage of the site and also provide as much screening as possible. As you look at the buildings, we have set the buildings to the north of the site as far as possible. The buildings themselves are 30 feet south of the right-of-way of Lake Drive East. We 4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 have not put any parking between the buildings and the roadway so that we will have a continuous green band, 30 feet on our side and 12-14 feet of right-of-way. So it's going to be a continuous green band along the north side of each building. Building No. 3, as Lake Drive starts to bend to the north, will greatly increase in green space. In order to do that we were able to push the building north from the south properly line. The code allowed the building to go 50 feet off the properly line. Our buildings are 120 feet north of that properly line. So we've taken care to move our development north as far as we can and Buildings 1 and 2 by having a combined loading service area, we're able to have multiple screening layers from the south and also from the north. As we would look from the south we have a buff'er strip between the southern properly line and the loading area between Buildings 1 and 2. Again, that buff'er area, in terms of width, is 70 feet. We have increased that distance again from 50 feet that was required under the comp plan. 30 feet that's required under the Buff'er Yard D. Buff'er yard ordinance. We've put 70 feet in there. We've also looked at increasing that berm from 3 to 6 feet all the way along this entire stretch of the development to add additional screening. We realize it's a different use than the residential so we're trying to make this fit and we think we've exceeded the ordinance requirements by having a greater width, by planting the plant materials to a 100% code requirement. We have 144 trees on this site along the southern buff'er. That's what is quote, required by code. Code also says only 75% of those plant units need to be planted. 25% by adjoining properly owners. We said we don't want to do that. We're going to do 100% of the plant units. Get them in there. Do them. Irrigate them. Make this development full and complete so that we have the buffering and the landscape materials fully within our control and under our maintenance agreements. The height of the berm is at a minimum, 5 feet above the parking lot. In some areas it's 13 feet above the parking lot. The berm as we will go along is anywhere from 3 to 10 feet above the finished floor elevation. The buildings need to sit and step up as they would move from east to west. Lake Drive East in terms of elevation rises 16 feet from the eastern entrance up to the entrance closest to where Building No. 3 would be accessed so we need to balance stepping these buildings up and at the same time we're raising that berm up along the south properly line. In terms of the plant materials, we felt it was important that we look at as many conifer trees as we could. The plan that's being represented here tonight, and also that was handed out, does include the 36 additional trees which we were short in the code review. We have added those. We said we put them in and of those 36 trees we have put 90% of them into 6 foot conifers. We felt again it's important to have full time green screening for this buff'er yard area. The loading area between Buildings 1 and 2 are also screened from Lake Drive East. In terms of elevation, we're showing a height berm approximately 7 feet above the roadway elevation. On elevation EE, we're showing a roadway elevation, or a berm height of approximately 6 feet above the roadway elevation and we have also placed plant materials, landscaping on top of those berms. So we are cognizant of trying to screen this facility. It's a loading office/warehouse facility. It will have multiple tenants. It is not a distribution, high volume type facility. Mr. Voss could speak to that type of characteristic of how they are coordinating this type of development. And with that I would like to turn it over to Lynn Slodt for the architecture, unless there's some questions. Joyce: Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Dietrich? The only question I had, and just to review. You're saying that you're going to be solely responsible for all the plantings and the bermings that are placed on the south side of that? Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 John Dietrich: Yes. All of the plant materials are within quote, our properly dimensions and we feel it's, we're able to maintain the existing plant materials that are out there. Add berm height to those and then plant behind them. Joyce: The only other question I had, I'm just throwing this out. You're mentioning green bands around all the buildings and I can see that you've done that with the one exception. The west side of Lot 3. Between the Control Data. John Dietrich: There is a 10 foot yard between the two parking lots. In there. So in terms of green space, it will be a 10 foot width between the two parking lots. As we would move between. Joyce: I don't know what the requirements are for parking on that, on Control Data but when I was out there today, there sure was a lot of parking and it just seemed like that this green, one green band was an afterthought. While you had all these nice little segments of landscaping between the other sites, there's a little strip right there. John Dietrich: We have, I failed to mention, we are encroaching into the existing parking lot approximately 60 feet so we will be moving into that parking lot and taking David, 60? 90 feet into that parking lot so we will be consuming some of that additional parking stall space that's currently in hard surface area and so we are moving into the existing. Joyce: ... their lot smaller. John Dietrich: We're making their lot smaller. Joyce: Oh, that will help. John Dietrich: And we've looked at their code requirements and they will still, I think they need like per code, you know 395 and there will be like 400 stalls left. Joyce: That answered my question because it seemed like a lot of extra stalls, so that does answer my quesion. Okay. Thank you. John Dietrich: Any other questions? Brooks: How tall are the trees that you plan to put in? John Dietrich: The trees are, at initial planting, we're proposing that they'll be 6 foot conifers and 8 foot conifers along the south side and 2 1/2 inch to 3 inch deciduous trees. Overstory trees. Brooks: And you are taking responsibility if any of the trees don't make it, they're willing to replace them? A1-Jafl5 Ordinance requirement. They have to guarantee them. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 John Dietrich: And there will be an irrigation system. Brooks: I noticed also that some of the residents were concerned about snowplowing. And one of other really noisy things that happens in these areas are when you guys have the sweepers come in to do the parking lots at night. That gets really noisy. Have you worked out with the City yet any, or the neighborhood, the fact that you won't be doing this at 2:00 in the morning? John Dietrich: We have not worked that out. We'll have to make agreements. Brooks: ... going on in the parking lot at 2:00 a.m.., as well as snowplowing. John Dietrich: Lynn. Lynn Slodt: Good evening. My name is Lynn Slodt. I'm Vice President with Genesis Architecture. We are the project architects for this particular development and I'm here to address the building materials, the building design coloration and so on. This is basically the same rendering that you have before you. The task that was presented to us was to create an attractive building, to reduce the mass of a building of this size, and our original design pertaining to this was to create a step facade of the building. Of recessing the main entrances along the fronts. Basically the fronts of the building. Also, to vary the panel design, the panel texture to also break up the areas that would be in a single plane. This building, or all of the buildings are basically the same design. They are comprised of three distinct precast textures. The first one being, and I have samples of those here too but, the first texture that we have addressed is along the sides and interspersed between the long ends would be what we call a racked panel which is exposed aggregate. Within that accentuating the glass would be a smooth, flat explosed aggregate panel. I don't know if you can zero in on this but this is the exposed aggregate, racked panel which will create a lot of texture, shades and shadows and that is accentuated on the comers and... The main panel that we are using along the front of the building is this panel here which is very typical... attractive exposed aggregate panel that.., really has a smoothness that will really give us a real nice contrast between the panels. The third panel that we're proposing using at the entrances is a flat, smooth panel which almost has the appearance of a plaster, a plaster look that will be painted. The other panels are aggregate, like I said, but these will be painted and these will contain the coloration that I can address in a little bit and they will create a main focal point to the entrances. We have two major entrances that face the parking. The sides of the building that would face the road and the neighbors would be, we have.., because my artist put a tree in front of it unfortunately, but we have a pseudo entrance here that could be converted into an entrance, depending on how the property is leased. So we have no, there are.., along either, any of the sides of the building. We've demonstrated this.., windows. I guess that basically is the bulk of the building explanation. The coloration, which again might be a little bit difficult to see. We are proposing two colors for the buildings. What we call Building 1, which is the closest building to the east, and Building 3 which is the western building, would be in this brandy wine color. A burgundy color which would have burgundy accents at the entrances and the middle building would have a teal coloration with the teal accents at the entrance to give each building somewhat of an identity. We are proposing using a bronze frame with a bronze glass and in addition to the pre-cast at the main entrances, to give it more of a human scale. To bring the scale of the 7 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 buildings down, we are proposing using ribbons of rock face block. Different colors which create stripes along the front, or at those entrances. If you have any other questions? Joyce: There will be no entrances on the south side of this at all? Did I understand, you said looking at a possible entrance on the south side? Lynn Slodt: The only time that we would propose that is ifa tenant needed, let's say a tenant needed a fire exit. There would not be any major entrances off of that side, and of course there wouldn't be any to the north. But the design of the building will wrap those ends. Burton: Where are the truck docks actually located on these buildings? On the diagrams, and I was wondering, do you have any renderings or anything like that that show what they are like? Lynn Slodt: The actual, what we have done, and I don't have a floorplan here but the actual locations of the truck docks, as we are proposing one dock per bay of the building. The truck docks will be located along this side of Building No. 3 and this side Building 2. This side Building 1, which creates this common truck dock area. So in this condition, all the trucks are kept within this truck court... Basically it's one dock per bay. Burton: When you say bay, is that the whole side of the building is a bay? Lynn Slodt: A bay is 40 feet in width, as you would move along this building. Initially there's 12 dock doors planned per building. Burton: Oh I see, okay. Brooks: Has the applicant coordinated when the trucks.., we don't have any noise at night. Lynn Slodt: Well at this point in time we don't know. This is going to be a multi-tenant building. And we don't know who will be leasing space. But I would assume, ifI may, that it could be a condition of a lease. I'd like to think about that and the nature of this type of product doesn't warrant itself to a heavy distribution or heavy manufacturing type use, which is traditionally the type of user that you see with that type of truck activity. Structurally the building is not being designed with the floor slab to support that type of user. The mechanical system and the electrical system infrastructures are not being designed to support that type of user. And candidly, this location in Chanhassen is not ideal for those types of users. This is going to be a fairly expensive type of office/industrial building and quite honestly we will not be able to compete with the surrounding communities with that type of product for that type of user. So does the potential exist for that type of user to come in? Absolutely. Is it practical to assume they will? I don't think so. Brooks: No, but I'm jaded because I watched Pillsbury... trucks on the street and amazingly enough, they always appear on the street. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Lynn Slodt: I do respect that but I mean a number of the features that we're proposing for a facility are in direct opposition to the types of features that those type of users would want to see. Brooks: Comfort factor. We may want to consider that we think about putting something in the lease that spells out, there is no loading... 1% outside chance that you get a tenant that wants to load at 2:00 in the morning, those poor people that live right over here. It's not pleasant. Lynn Slodt: I can also I guess address your concerns relative to snowplowing and sweeping. The unfortunate reality of living in Minnesota is when it snows, you've got to move it. And as you contract with these people, they're not exclusive to Welsh. They're not exclusive to anybody. They solicit and sell their services to a number of difl'erent people and we'll do the best we can to manage them. We manage, I believe this is accurate, the greatest portfolio of commercial property in the Twin Cities. As far as number of square feet so we do have the opportunity and we will utilize that leverage with our vendor here to try to minimize that impact but if you do get a heavy snow, there's obligations and commitments they make and we're somewhat restricted. Brooks: you know I'll agree with you. There's also public safety consideration. You can't have employees walking in in the morning and hurting themselves. On the other hand, for the parking lot sweeping, I think that doesn't have to be done at 2:00 in the morning, and that's very often when it's done. I think you should really consider having that done on the weekends. Lynn Slodt: Well we can talk to our management company, which will be Welsh Companies, and I think that's a reasonable request. We can accommodate that without any difficulty. John Dietrich: With the, on the presentation here we basically have gone through the issues that we have addressed. We would like to just emphasize that we have taken care to try and design this site as compatibly as we possibly can. It has always been zoned office industrial. Guided for office industrial and we have tried to make the best situation as we possibly can with the berming, the landscaping, and by taking a look at what we can do to enhance that southern landscape berm and increase it wherever possible. In terms of the overall project, we have looked at all of the site review. Site conditions of approval, and the one area, the one condition that we do feel is excessive is the request for a sidewalk along the south side of Lake Drive East. There is an existing sidewalk on the north side of Lake Drive East and that this is not a, I'm going to say, a residential area. One sidewalk we feel will adequately handle the number of pedestrians who will be traversing this area. We would be glad to extend our sidewalks from our front doors and parking areas north up to the entrance to allow easy access to that northern sidewalk. With that we would ask for your approval of the site plan review, the preliminary plat and the vacation of the drainage and utility easements and we're available to answer any questions that you may have. Joyce: Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Burton: One last question. I had in my materials a preliminary landscape section that looked like this. It shows the sight lines from the south. John Dietrich: Yes. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Burton: Is that, what we have, is that what the current proposal is? Or has it been increased since then? John Dietrich: I'm trusting you have the most recent, okay. The most recent cross section where we basically added additional width to that Building No. 2 to increase it from 50 feet to 70 feet at the location of that loading dock. This cross section is the one that was put into the final package and shows the existing ground line and the proposed ground line and height of elevations at three locations along that berm. Burton: Okay, thank you. Joyce: I have a quick question Bob or Sharmin. We have something that Alyson brought up. We have ordinances as far as construction times and things like that. When they can have construction. Do we have anything involved with the time of business on the Highway 5 corridor or anything like that? A1-Jafl5 The only thing that we would have deals with the PCA requirements as far as noise levels. And these levels typically increase. The noise level increases when it's, PCA requires a lower level of noise when it's an industrial or a high intensity use next to a residential use. That's the only thing that we would have to go by. Joyce: So we'd have to have a noise level study or something done if there were some problems or complaints? A1-Jafl5 Correct. And what we have done in the past, we had a problem with the National Weather Service and what we did was we contacted Carver County Environmental Services. They did have an instrument that measures the level of noise and we based our recommendations or course of action based upon the numbers that we come up. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, ifI could just add to that please. I do believe there is an ordinance under Nuisance Ordinance as far as construction activities. And I believe snowplowing is exempt from that obviously because it has to be removed, but any other kind of outdoor activities, construction, those hours are governed by a Nuisance Ordinance. Joyce: So you're saying just during construction though, right? Any time? Hempel: Any time. Joyce: Okay. I'd like to open this for a public hearing. Can I have a motion and a second to do that? Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Joyce: It's open for a public hearing. If you'd like to address the Planning Commission, please come up. State your name and address. Diane Thiel: Good evening. My name's Diane Thiel. I'm currently the President of the Wynnfield Homeowners Association. The development you've been referring to this evening with the development, and I'll just take a brief moment because we've got another gentleman. We've got someone who's going to bring the major list of concerns but as you can see from our turnout there's a great deal of interest in our neighborhood about what's done to the north of us and with the, we're concerned again but for the quality of life and we've got a fabulous neighborhood. We did know when we moved in that this was zoned industrial. So we knew that something like this was going to be coming. I think the thing we're stressing is that we would like to work with you however we can throughout the process to mitigate the impact of the construction and the industrial to our single family homes as much as possible and whatever we can do as an association or as a neighborhood, we would be very happy to do that. So at this point, why don't I mm it over to Phil Becker and let him go through. Phil Becker: Hi, my name's Phil Becker and I live at 18722 Wynnfield Road in Eden Prairie. I'm one of the homes that is on the berm that's on the side of the industrial development. I want to thank the developers and the staff for the effort that they've put into it. It looks like a pretty impressive development. I guess the thing that I want to start out with is that, as part of our neighborhood, we almost view ourselves as much a part of Chanhassen as Eden Prairie. We work, worship and shop and dine with many of you in Chanhassen because that's the closest location to go for many of those things. Talking with the Chamber of Commerce, it was estimated that we spend probably half a million dollars a year from just our neighborhood, just this small neighborhood that we have in Chanhassen, and so we have much in common with Chanhassen and the developers in terms of the amount of time and effort and money we've spent on our properties. We all want to maximize the properties that we own, or govern. To provide an enjoyable work and living environment for all of us to live and work in. and we purchased the property knowing what types of neighbors we were going to have, and we want to be good neighbors and generally, like I said, we think the plan is a good plan. We appreciate the fact that the distance has been maximized from our home to the building. The exterior is attractive and the landscaping is attractive. I guess the thing that has become an issue in terms of the meetings that we've had with the homeowners is the screening along the boundary and to kind of give you a history, as I researched this project. Again we bought this knowing we were going to have an industrial park or office park behind us. The original grade of that land for the industrial office park was the same grade as the homes that are currently there, so the height of the berm in relationship to the buildings was much greater than it is now. Also originally there was a drainage pond at the western edge of that berm, which shielded the remaining residents at where the berm is lowest along here and along Lot 3. That was removed and replaced by the pond that you see along Dell Road so that eliminated another screening aspect that originally we originally thought was there. Talking to the City of Eden Prairie who advised the developer of our neighborhood, they had set the berm at the height assuming the grade that was reasonably close to where it was at when we originally purchased it, as well as no loading docks being exposed to the neighborhood. They assumed that would be some kind of U shaped development where all you would see is parking and office spaces along that. And so the berm is definitely not high enough to screen at 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 least from a standpoint of the expected use. Now that's changed significantly since the 6 years that berm has been put up. And really the way we look at it is, the berm is the only thing that provides screening. All the plantings are on the south side, or excuse me. On the north side of the berm. It only has, in terms of conifers, about 50% of what is needed for a year round screening. According to the University of Minnesota, Vision Landscape, a local company I contacted, asked about screening of residential and commercial properties and the City of Eden Prairie. I guess what we're looking for is some reasonable privacy. As they said that the average height of the berm is about 8 feet. If you look at the elevations that we have here, we unfortunately have.., as the three sights AA prime, B and C. Yet, those are the homes that are, don't have the walkout basements or the lookout basements where at least half the homes along that berm do have that so we're talking at least a 4 to 6 foot difference in height so we're taking away some of that height that was built in there. Assuming that all the homes had been you know with a normal, with a standard basement, without the lookout or the walkout. The sight lines would be pretty good but when you start putting in the fact that you're going to have a walkout basement, which has to be three stories in back, or a lookout basement which is you know, 2 1/2 stories. Now we're having sight lines which allow us to look, allow us and our neighbors to look into first floor windows in most of these elevations. And the second floor, we're fully visible from those properties. And so we're looking to have the berm, so like I said. We feel that because the berm is really the only screen that's there because once the overhanging trees, the seasonal trees lose their leaves, all we've got left is roughly 54 conifers along a 900 foot berm that only adds up to about 50% of the minimum that I was told when I contacted University of Minnesota and a couple landscaping firms so I realize that it meets the ordinance but when you look at what makes sense from a standpoint of practices elsewhere, it comes up short. And I guess we are concerned about trash collection, the noise, the snow removal, delivery trucks and with the berm not being significantly high in some of these places, the lights are going to, on some of the trucks, shine into the homes that are on the south side of the berm. We're glad that they're using lighting that is going to be shielded from us and we hope that that isn't going to a problem but again since all the plantings are on the north side, or most the plantings that are being put in are on the north side, they're not going to have much of a screening effect for the neighborhood. The other thing that we looked at is from a security standpoint. The barrier that's there is not a significant physical barrier in some of the areas. It gives additional access to our neighborhood that wasn't there before and we realize that was going to happen but what we'd like to see is an additional area because the berm over the last 5 or 6 years that we've lived there has become a play area for our children, and we realize as responsible parents we have to keep them away from there now that the construction's beginning to start and the buildings are going to go in, but it would be nice to have a little bit of help in terms of delineating that area a little bit better than just a hill that the kids have played on now for so long. I guess the solution that we're looking for is, either is a combination of an additional height to the berm, which we know that some is being added, we'd like to see more added because we know that that, from a long term standpoint, is the lowest cost over time in terms of installation and maintenance. We'd like to add a privacy fence because that, or add a privacy fence because that has the lowest initial cost. Additional conifers would also provide a more natural and visually pleasing screen from the neighborhood. I realize that we are going to get a combination of that and that solution has been used in other areas in Chanhassen, specifically the National Weather Service has a berm and a fence belween the neighbors there. The solution that Eden Prairie provide comments to the staff shows a similar type of arrangement that provides, 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 if it's types of things that Eden Prairie would do for Chanhassen residents in our situation. Again, we'd be delighted to work with the city stafl} the developers and come up with a solution that would help us. We think overall the plan is good. It's an attractive building. All we're looking for is some reasonable privacy, some reasonable security, and a chance to participate in the solution. I want to thank you for your time. Joyce: Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission at this time? Jim Urlick: My name's Jim Urlick and I live at 18986 Wynnfield Road, which is basically west of the property I think that's being developed. My visual line of sight outside of my home is DataServ's loading docks and DataServ's lights. So there is a very valid concern here. I bought the home after DataServ went up and there was nobody here apparently representing the property that I now own when DataServ was built. There's no berm. There's no trees or anything like that so I'm most interested in seeing that my neighbors are happy and fun to be around, which they are for the most part. I'm also interested on the west side in how this berm plays out. Does it just fade away? Does it extend down? And I'm interested in this absorption of the DataServ parking lot that was mentioned on the west side. So I was wondering ifI could get those two areas addressed. Joyce: Mr. Dietrich, would you mind addressing those two areas? John Dietrich: If you don't mind me rolling out some plans here. The existing DataServ parking lot... We are proposing that.., move over approximately 80... so we'd be occupying basically the western, I'm going to say 80 to 90 feet. We have an area south of the parking lot and also in this area of Lot 3. Now ifI go to the grading plan. I realize they're lines on a paper but in this area of the property.., and build up the berming in this southwest comer of the development. We're proposing that the height of this berm.., top of berm is approximately 7 1/2 feet above the door of this building. Approximately 8 feet above any parking lot down in this comer. In order to put this berm in here, we're proposing that we pick up the drainage that comes out of the pond, that currently comes into our site without any drainage and utility easements. We're proposing we would.., and provide that berm and screening... Joyce: Things got better for you. No, I understand. Dan Blomquist: I'm Dan Blomquist with Welsh Development Company. We do not represent that property per se. There's common ownership with the development parcel but we are not here representing the owner on that particular aspect of the project. Blackowiak: I do have a question Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dietrich, you were just talking about the parking lot. If you could stand up please. Maybe you could point out on the map, observing the parking lot approximately 80 feet, you were saying from Lot 3 into what is now DataServ parking. Where does that put the edge of DataServ parking as compared with the lot line between Lots 3 and 4? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 John Dietrich: That would put the edge of the properly down the middle of the proposed.., green band. So currently this is all one. Blackowiak: Right, right. I understand. I'm saying let's say that there's still parking on where it says Lot 4. Is that a correct assumption on my part? John Dietrich: Correct. Blackowiak: There will still be parking. How close to that lot line will the parking be because you're not showing any physical parking. Any stalls delineated on Lot 4, whereas you are on Lot 3. John Dietrich: Correct. This was proposed to be a drive lane into their truck loading area facility. And so... not to be any parking along this area. Staff had requested that this driveway that currently goes out be closed. I believe we can make that work. We may look at extending the parking over here. Currently the proposal is that the properly line would be 5 feet off of the curb line on Lot 4 and Lot 3. Down the center of... does that answer your question? Blackowiak: That does, and that brings up another one. Sharmin, what is the setback requirement? A1-Jafl2 Between parking lots there is none. Blackowiak: There is none. Okay, thank you. Joyce: Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission at this point? Seeing none, could I have a motion to close the public hearing? Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Commissioners, can I have your input please? Ladd. Conrad: Well I think it's a good plan and I appreciate all the neighbors coming here and just assure them that it doesn't matter if they're in Chanhassen or Eden Prairie, I think as you can tell the comments would represent you if you were a Chanhassen resident. We have a lot of these things happening. Probably in Eden Prairie too. We don't know what's happening in Eden Prairie, but we do know what's happening in Chanhassen. We put in ordinances. That's really what governs what happens. The buff'er yard ordinance is, makes transitions and we put that in last year.., so I don't want to lecture or talk but that's why it's in the code. To not be arbitrary. In general it looks like a pretty good plan to me. I like the designs. A couple things that I'd want to make sure of, and that would be the berm and the height of the berm and Sharmin, that's the one thing as these folks follow this through City Council. I'd really like to, in our, in the staff report we didn't talk about the height of the berm. In the stafl} in our recommendations that we have here. It was in the staff report but I think from a resident's standpoint, I think they'd like to see 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 what it really is. Now it could be buried in some landscape plans and stuff like that, but I think it should be a little bit more obvious, at least to the neighbors that they get a comfort level that it's just not talk and there is an actual, like we put in so many trees. They should be condensed. That we are screening the cars. That we are screening the headlights from, that's real important. I'm not a real advocate of fencing. I think it's, I think you said you'd like to have a fence there. I won't even address thatissue but...really ofl'ensive. I thinkbut...that's notin our ordinance so somebody else up here would have to be real convinced that that's important to buff'er you. I don't believe so. Question for staff2 We have residents in Chanhassen down the road a bit, between McDonald's and the neighborhood. Do we have specific roles in terms of noise and lighting? Primarily noise Sharmin. Do we have any special thing for them that govern when deliveries could be made, that you know? When sweeping could be done? My recollection is we don't but we really try to protect them in many, many ways and I think the same roles should be applied to this neighborhood. So if it works down the block, it should be applied here. I think we should, we owe that to them. That doesn't help you at all, and I realize that but you know, follow that through and see what the City Council says. Take a look at it. The tree issue. I don't know. I think we could plant more trees. Really if the trees go on a berm, they'll die. Well, I don't know. Staff is a little bit more competant in talking about some of these things so. I think the height of the berm is probably the major thing for the neighbors and I think we have a barrier there to make the berm decent. So Mr. Chairman, bottom line for me is, I'd really like to see when this gets up to the City, some kind of an additional document that could be... how that berm looks and this is how it would screen the residents, and here's the height after it settles. And therefore I think the neighbors might be a little bit more comfortable. That's really my, those are my issues. The issue of making sure that the, any restrictions we have down the block can apply to this property and also that that berm becomes a major part and it's documented so they have something to go back against and say, developer, you promised this and you didn't do that and I want it in our recommendations. That's all. Joyce: Thank you. Allyson. Brooks: I'm also concerned about the height of the berm. One of the things, one of the reasons I'm concerned is, a little bit like I told the example. I was talking earlier about the comer of Trunk Highway 5 and Dell Road. That berm there I believe was supposed to be taller. And it didn't make it for whatever reason and now we see the parking lot and sometimes we say it's going to be so high and.., no guarantees and this is a situation that with the berm lower on Trunk Highway 5 and Dell Road, it's not a big issue but here it is a big issue so I really am concerned about the height and what it's going to end up looking like. I am very concerned about the noise. I know the developer says it's unlikely they will get anybody in there that's loading and unloading in the middle of the night, but if there's one likely person that shows up, it's very noisey and not much fun for the people who have to live right there. With the headlights and everything else. I would like to see, I don't know what we can do about the noise. It's something you have to let me know if we can somehow control that or make them put that in their lease. A1-Jafl2 We don't have anything in an ordinance that says no deliveries may be made at a certain, or they... But again.., standards would come in. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Brooks: I know we have these standards, it just that sometimes we see in some of these areas we mn into trouble anyway. So I'm just, it's a big concern of mine. I guess those are my two major, oh. And to disagree with Ladd, which I love to do. Even though a fence may be ugly, the safety issue involved for children is not worth dealing with the aesthetics. I think.., ifa fence was going to be put up, I would have absolutely no objection to it. Joyce: And I forgot that, Ladd I'll ask you. What about the sidewalk situation with our development? Brooks: I think the sidewalk should be kept. Joyce: Ladd? Conrad: ... Blackowiak: I'll start off with that. Three for the sidewalk, yes. It will hook up. If you take, if there's a south sidewalk, then you can turn right and go south on Dell Road and go down back to the neighborhood to access the trail and I really think that that's important. I mean we've talked about being pedestrian friendly and I think this is a good opportunity for us to continue that tact so let's keep the sidewalk in there. I'd like to see it. Issues. Mr. Becker talked about reasonable privacy. Reasonable security. I agree totally. I don't know what to say about the height to the berm. It's hard for me to take a position between a fence or to choose trees or whatever. I would suggest, and I don't know ifI need to say that we should delay a vote but I would like the developer and the neighbors to get together and to come sort of a consensus before this goes onto City Council. Now whether that means it comes back before the Planning Commission for a final review, I don't know and I will be, you know, persuaded either way. But I would strongly suggest that the developer meet with the neighbors and resolve some of these concerns before it goes onto Council because I don't really feel that I can support anything that didn't have a real strong feeling of consensus between the neighbors and the developers. Mr. Becker also made a good point about the sight lines. AA prime, BB prime, etc. We're showing it with the two level homes and I'd like to see something with three level homes shown because I think that there will be a significant difference and that could affect the argument to add a privacy fence or larger trees or whatever that's, whatever's going to happen on the berm. And again I don't have the answer for that. I think it's between the neighbors and the developers to determine what's going to be effective and look good, but there are lots of three level homes over there and I think that taking a look at those sight lines with three level homes would be very interesting. Noise. I agree it's going to be, could be potentially a problem. I would like to make a suggestion about the traffic. The dock bays. Between Lots 1 and 2, I didn't think of it when we were initially talking about it but I would hope that the semi's would enter in that common drive and exit that same way and not be looping around the buildings. Going closer to the neighbors and the same thing with Lot 3. Not make a big circle around the entire building but enter and exit from the same driveway. And I would certainly like to see that and not have the semi's just driving, making a big U shape around the buildngs because I think that would be fairly offensive as well. Sidewalk, yes. And I think that's about it. Again, I don't know if we need to see it back again but I would like some people to do some talking before it goes to Council. For sure. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Sidney: Four for the sidewalk. I'll put my vote in for the sidewalk on the south side. That road to the north of the properly. A couple things that concern me. First of all were the materials. However the seeing the materials I feel more comfortable with the design of the buildings. I would comment, I thought maybe it was a slight step down from other Welsch Construction buildings that you show in your packet. I guess personally I like cut faced block.., would be acceptable in this scenario. I'm very concerned that.., the berm and the shielding of the neighborhood to the south. And I would like to see some scenario outlined in the case of having a fence or no fence. What the sight lines would be. And I do believe, like Ladd said, that.., we're just not getting the clustering and the density to provide adequate shielding to the south. And I think for the benefit of the neighbors, one thing that might help to go to City Council is to provide them with some examples of what you would like. In the form of a photo or drawing or something like that. Also I would like to see like Allison, second Allison said, more dialogue between the neighbors. I do think the berm can be... attractive and there can be more plans and possibly a fence. That would help out a lot. I think Eden Prairie's letter in the packet talks about screening and some of the issues and mentioned the fence and I think it's a possibility. I disagree with Ladd because I guess that's what we're doing tonight. Those are my comments. Conrad: You shouldn't have started that. Just a quick note. I'll guarantee you our transition areas are more restrictive than Eden Prairie. That's just, we, I think we have it together. I'm not sure what their zoning, or their transition areas are about but it's easy to put a note in there saying do this. That it really counts when you put it in an ordinance and that's what we've got. That's what protects you. That's your guarantee. It's there. They've exceeded it by quite a bit so, sorry. I shouldn't do that. Joyce: Matt. Burton: I basically agree with all the comments, and I'd like to see a sidewalk also but the big issue would be the berms and the trees and just screening altogether. And I think that whatever it takes should be done to make the neighbors happy. I think the developers have done a good job and put some, a lot of thought and consideration into it and I think the neighbors are approaching it very reasonably. It would seem to me that if, if there was a way to get them together, that they probably could reach some type of an agreement and a consensus of that. How to set this up. I don't know if it's not, if we have the ability to require it but it would seem that perhaps if it went before with the Council they could have either like a town or neighborhood type meeting and then they could see if they could come to some type of resolution to present to the Council. And I think that both the developer and the neighbors could be happy if they tried something like that so I, again I agree with everything. I think that the issues are pretty well defined going forward. Joyce: Basically I echo what the other commissioners have said. I'd like to compliment the neighborhood. You seem very well organized and I do suggest and urge you to follow this through to City Council. I think you have some valid points. A couple of notes here. You know obviously this, the development itself I happen to like and it certainly, the design and everything follows our requirements of the comprehensive plan and.., ordinances and as Ladd said, we have a very strict buff'er ordinance. I think the developer has exceeded this. It certainly has exceeded 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 that buff'er ordinance, and one note as far as a, from a monetary standpoint. The developer's willing to do 100% of the financing. I believe in our butter ordinance we require the residents to take a portion of that financing as far as, 25%. So I think if you do happen to want to negotiate with the developer, I'm sure he'd be willing to negotiate. If the consensus is that you do want a fence, maybe they'd be interested in that but right now he's paying for 100% of this buffering and that he is not required to do. So I think that's an issue that you should be aware of. I think, I once again do agree with Ladd. I'd like to see a condition in the report laying out the comprehensiveness of the buffering so that the neighbors will know what they are offering. I know it was in our notes. I'd like to see it laid out that this is exactly what we're going to do with the buffering, so you know what's being offered before you decide to do something else. I'm going to agree with Ladd. I don't, I think fences are, I think the buffering, you might find you'd like the buffering more. Maybe with just a little bit of tweaking on the buffering you could really make a nice screening so I'd have to agree with Ladd on that. The developer, the sidewalk is a must. I mean that's just, you're not, I know the way the City Council feels about sidewalks and pedestrians so I certainly think you're going to have to put a sidewalk in and it looks like you want to address the. John Dietrich: Sorry. Joyce: No, that's alright. John Dietrich: Thank you commissioner. I would like to say, we would be happy to meet with the residents and talk about the berming issue. We'll put together the comprehensive document that shows what this berming is. We would like to ask for approval tonight but we will meet with the residents and try and work out this agreement prior to City Council. Joyce: If there was some consensus on fencing, would that, could you entertain that thought? John Dietrich: I guess we'll entertain the issue. Everything's a cost. I mean a sidewalk is a huge cost issue that's not part of the proforma right now so, I can't, I'm not going to be able to stand here and say yes, yes, yes. We need to look at it. I think we can come to an agreement and have a quality development for all parties. Joyce: As well organized as the neighborhood is, I think you can get some dialogue together. I think we could pass this off to City Council. I feel comfortable passing it off to City Council but I suggest you get some dialogue together with the developer and put something together. But I do want to see some information on the conditions on what you are offering as a berm and that's all we ask I think... A1-Jattk I think we heard the Planning Commission's direction as well as... the neighbors and we will make sure that all of those issues are taken care of before we appear before the City Council. Joyce: So with that said, could I get a motion please? Conrad: You sure can. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Joyce: You know I think, do we need three motions? A1-Jafl5 Yes. Conrad: I'll make one. I'd make a motion Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #98-2 as shown on the site plan received February 24, 1998 subject to the conditions in the staff report, 1 through 28. With the following addition. 29. A berm plan will be presented to the City Council detailing the height of that berm and the plantings throughout the entire length of the property line. Condition number 30. That any restrictions imposed on other industrial commercial residents down Lake Drive East to the west be applied, or at least researched, be applied to this particular project. Condition 31. The truck entrance that the trucks will enter and exit off Lake Drive East. Condition 32. The developer/applicant will meet with the neighborhood prior to this reaching City Council to review the alternatives subject to the berming between the subject site and the surrounding neighborhood. Joyce: Any questions? Brooks: I'll second that. Joyce: I'm sorry, I need a second. Thank you very much. Okay, any discussion on that? Conrad moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #98-2 as shown on the site plan received February 24, 1998, subject to the following conditions: If the trash dumbsters were located outdoors, the materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building, and that the trash enclosure be located within the loading dock area. 2. Signage criteria: All businesses within a single building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. Wall signs for Building 1 will be permitted along the north and east elevations. Building 2 will be permitted signs along the north and west elevations, and 3 will be permitted wall signage along the north and west elevations only. Signs will be located within the sign bands located above the entrances and windows. c. All signs require a separate permit. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 10. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. 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. h. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height and logos shall not exceed 30 inches in height and consistent with the standards for the signage. i. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. No back lit signage shall be viewed from the residential neighborhood to the south. Thirty six trees should be made up in increased landscaping along the southern berm and around the parking areas. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Building Official conditions: a. Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss commercial building permit requirements. b. Revise the parking on the preliminary site plan to comply with the building code. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for Chanhassen Pointe Business Center with Hennepin County. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates or State Plumbing Codes. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted in conjunction with final plat approval for staff review and City Council approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's 20 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage maps for 10- year and 100-year storm events for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide depending on pipe depth. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. Landscape materials shall not be placed within drainage swales or over utility lines. The applicant may place landscape materials within the drainage and utility easement conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. Security or other acceptable means to guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic signal for the entire development will be required. If importing or exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencing. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). Cross access and maintenance agreements shall 21 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. be prepared for Lots 1 and 2. The City shall be included in the use for accessing the regional storm water pond. DataServ's existing driveway access onto Lake Drive East in the northeast comer of Lot 4 should be abandoned. The common driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 should be relocated to avoid conflict to the existing street light on Lake Drive East. The developer shall be responsible to obtain a temporary construction easement from the property/properties for the storm sewer construction south of Lot 3 in the City of Eden Prairie. The rock construction entrances shall be maintained by the developer until the parking lots are paved with bituminous. All catch basin inlets shall be protected with silt fence, rock filter dikes or hay bales as well. A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the south side of Lake Drive East within the entire plat. The proposed sidewalks from the building shall be extended out to meet the proposed sidewalk along Lake Drive East. The grading plan shall be revised to include reconstruction of Dataserv's parking lot and a temporary sediment basin to collect sediment before it reaches the regional pond. The developer shall review the site conditions prior to construction for existing erosion control problems or damaged streets and utility improvements. Once construction activities commence the developer assumes full responsibility for site conditions and any corrections prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Fire Marshal conditions: a) One additional fire hydrant will be required at the north entrance to the lot 3 parking lot on the east side of the building. b) Post Indicator Valves (PIV) will be required for all fire service lines coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of the PIVs. c) No parking fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. d) Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. e) The new 8 inch BIP water main should be a loop system coming in off of the water main off of Lake Drive East. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 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 pre-fire plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 07-1991. h) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992. Note: Due to the size of these buildings, additional signs will be required both at the north end and at the south end of the buildings. i) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/City of Chanhassen policy regarding water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy # 34-1993. (Copy enclosed.) J) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic fire sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 36-1994. k) Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding fire hydrant installation. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 47-1998. (Copy enclosed.) 29. A berm plan will be presented to the City Council detailing the height of that berm and the plantings throughout the entire length of the property line. 30. That any restrictions imposed on other industrial commercial residents down Lake Drive East to the west be applied, or at least researched, be applied to this particular project. 31. The truck entrance that the trucks will enter and exit off Lake Drive East. 32. The developer/applicant will meet with the neighborhood prior to this reaching City Council to review the alternatives subject to the berming between the subject site and the surrounding neighborhood. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Joyce: Okay, then we need a motion on the subdivision. Burton: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #98-2 for Chanhassen Pointe Business Center as shown on the plat received February 24, 1998, with the following conditions and it would be conditions 1 through 13. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Joyce: Thank you. May I have a second please? Blackowiak: Second. Joyce: Discussion. Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #98-2 for Chanhassen Pointe Business Center as shown on the plat received February 24, 1998 with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. The applicant shall dedicate cross-access easements into Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage maps for 10- year and 100-year storm events for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide over the trunk storm sewer line. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 10. The proposed Industrial development of 39.39 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $93,957 and a water quantity fee of $88,421. The applicant will be eligible for credit to the water quantity fee based on oversizing the design of the trunk storm sewer system. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 11. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 12. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible for a share the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. Security or other acceptable means to guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic signal for the entire development will be required. 13. If exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval." All voted in favor and the motion carried. Joyce: We've got one more motion on this. Burton: I move that the City Council approves Vacation #96-2 of the utility and drainage easement over Lots 1 and 2, subject to the conditions, well actually the one condition that's in our packet. Joyce: Is there a second to that please? Sidney: Second. Joyce: Discussion? Burton moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Vacation 96-2 of the utility and drainage easement over Lots 1 and 2, subject to the following condition: The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of the easement proposed to be vacated. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (LuAnn Sidney removed herself from the Planning Commission for the following Public Hearing.) 25 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 9~582 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE FACILITY ON AN 1.8 ACRE PARCEL - LOT 3~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2r~D ADDITION~ FOR A MATERIALS EVALUATION AND ENGINEERING FACILITY~ K & S INVESTMENTS~ LLC. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Questions for stafl~ Burton: I have one question. Item 8 of the recommendation was revise parking on the site improvement plan to comply with the Building Code. And on item 4, I just don't understand how item 4 and 8 work together I guess. Generous: The item 8 is a handicap space. It doesn't comply with Code. It needs an 8 foot aisle. And 4 just says that we're going to create a site plan agreement between the City and the property owner and so we need to say, add additional parking. They'll have to do that and we'll have a contract that says that. Burton: Okay, I guess I got lost in the terminology. So item 8 is just to provide the handicap space? That's what the Building Code requires? Is that? Generous: Yes. Burton: Right. Joyce: Anything else? Blackowiak: Yes, I've got a couple of quick things. Page 7. H, Bob. Lighting. Number 1. It talks about the plans not providing for street lighting. It is not a condition. Should it be? So is it. Generous: It would be a developer required improvement. Blackowiak: Okay. Is that something we don't address here then? Generous: It wouldn't be the responsibility of this lot. Blackowiak: Okay. Takes care of that one. Okay, and I think one more. Oh, building materials. Page 5, E(2). It talks about color block and not painted block. One of my problems with this is that the northwest area of the building is plain and I went over into Stone Creek today to take a look at how looking across it would appear. Could we make an exception for the northwest side of the building if they were to paint a color band or continue the color around the building or something or is that something we don't even want to get into? 26 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Generous: Well we're looking for when they do that expansion, that they will continue. Blackowiak: Correct. With block of some sort. But in the interim, would that, and again I guess I have a question for the applicant too is when is this expansion? I mean if we're talking a year down the road, fine. You know I can live with it for a year but if we're talking 5 to 10 years then maybe it's something we need to consider and would staff be able to make an exception or would it. Generous:... Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thanks. That's it. Joyce: Great... address the Planning Commission. Jim Strapko: I'm Jim Strapko. I'm the applicant. I'm an architect. I live and work in Minneapolis. I'd like to introduce the owner of the building who also will be the occupant, Bill Kalz. Bill Kalz: Good evening, hi. My name is Bill Kalz and as Jim said, I'll be representing Kalz Analytical which will be the occupant. It's a testing facility, as well as the owner of the building. And I really don't have any statements to make other than, are there any questions for me regarding building or future... Blackowiak: I'm all for green space, don't get me wrong but do you feel that you're going to have adequate parking? Bill Kalz: More than enough. Right now we're really a facility that is extremely high tech and computer intensive, which means that our labor requirements are minimal. Right now we have 8 full time. We envision adding probably another 1 to 2 people, although we'll be adding several testing systems. So we add instrumentation and capability without adding a lot of staff so yeah, I would say right now the parking is going to be more than sufficient. Blackowiak: You're comfortable with what you've shown us? Bill Kalz: Right, yeah. Feel very comfortable with that. Blackowiak: Okay. Those are my questions, thank you. Bill Kalz: Anyone else? I've prepared some packets about our laboratories. Is that of interest to anyone? Would you like to take a look at some of the equipment or techniques? Conrad: Sure. Bill Kalz: ... but it does give you an idea of the types of things.., about myself and some of the equipment we use. To give you an idea of what it is we're doing. Basically it's electronic testing 27 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 which is done with computer controlled equipment. It's extremely pristine. We don't get into a lot of chemicals or dirty type of work so it looks like a very, very high tech environment, both inside and out. It's extremely stringent as far as cleanliness and testing. Things of that nature. Blackowiak: So who are your clients? Bill Ka~z: Clients from the Twin Cities. Blackowiak: I don't really understand all this. Bill Ka~z: Basically what our laboratory does very simply is, we provide analytical information about a material. For example, if you're a Medtronic and you have a new implant or... we want you to understand.., we would provide them with that information. If they say I have a... that's the type of information we would provide. So our customer base is really.., a lot of biomedical. SciMed. Medtronic... so there's a lot of mid to large capitalization... Joyce: Interesting. We have a real eclectic group of businesses down there in that area. Next to Chuck's Grinding. Bill Ka~z: Yeah, it really is but the one thing that we really enjoy. Chanhassen was always our number one location for a lot of reasons. I live in Eden Prairie. Most of our staff lives in the southwest and I think the whole southwest environment I think is very high tech. Meetings like this tend to environment, it's the way it looks around us. Very upbeat. Professional. And for our customer base, that's extremely important. The hourly rates that we charge are not.., and we have to have an environment so ifa FDA comes in, we have an environment around us... Joyce: ... those are expensive I'm sure. Bill Ka~z: No, take them. Joyce: Are you sure? Bill Ka~z: Yeah, absolutely. Joyce: Thank you. Bill Ka~z: Are there any other questions I can answer? Conrad: Yeah. I've got to go back to your building. Maybe you don't want to, yeah. And it's probably a combo between staff and. Screening of rooftop. What's our standard on that Bob and then maybe the applicant, how they met that. I see that we're painting the mechanical. Generous: They're actually proposing to put in a metal screen wall, similar to the roof... 28 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Jim Strapko: ... it looked like a better option, a more viable option for people who would be looking at this.., and that screening would be a design similar to the canopy, the metal... Conrad: Okay, that's good. That's far better than. Jim Strapko: I'm prepared to go through the design. Joyce: Sure. Jim Strapko: Quickly .... take some photographs. Bill and I walked the site and looked at the neighborhood. We saw, as we approached the T in the road where Commerce Drive is... and at the T in the road with Commerce... Then as we get closer to the site, our neighbor to the west is... Park Systems which is another building similar. And both of these buildings are higher and lighter... The building that our's comes closest to is the color... We collected our colors from these cues. We oriented the building.., oriented the building to face this T at Commerce Drive. ... our building orients towards that entrance with a metal canopy that shuts off the comer of the building.., would come in the front door so this is a very low intensity use dock here. And we face the dock.., the docks which are facing us and our neighbor to the west. And we face the front of the building to the east and the south where it's visible from this T in the road. In terms of orientation, we've oriented the parking around the two sides of the building which are more or less the front of the building. And I don't have the grading plan here but we created landforms so we maintained existing landforms which are natural berms on the north side of the site and we will planting conifers, a minimum of 6 feet height on the top of... landforms which form a saddle. Which actually screens.., and maintain a similar kind of berming around the perimeter of this area.., match the berming that's on the other side of the building and this side.., landforms and orient the building in a way which is... The materials that we chose are in the same, they're also materials that.., for a client that might occupy the building sometime in the future. These are chosen by some architect for a client that might occupy the building sometime in the future. These are chosen by the owner to meet their requirements for their image and they've gone through a long process of tying in... so this isn't designed with some kind of... and that ends my presentation. Are there any questions about the design of the building? Joyce: Thank you very much. Nice presentation. A pretty contained group here. I don't know if we even... Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: ... I'm going to bring it back to the Commission. Matt? Burton: I don't have any problems with the proposal. I think it's just fine. Blackowiak: Yes, the building looks good. My only comment would be about potentially continuing the band around the back, just with some paint or something and I don't know if how everybody else feels. I'm kind of throwing that out Ladd, to you. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Jim Strapko: We wouldn't want to paint.., and we are providing the screening. Blackowiak: Okay the screening. It seemed to me, as I looked, the conifers were both on the northwest and northeast comers. In other words, where the comers of the proposed addition would be and not so much along the north wall itself. Jim Strapko: The landforms that we've got back there. Blackowiak: ... can you help me. Jim Strapko: We're looking at the grading plan. And we have revised this site by raising.., this berm here.., after talking to Bob, create a saddle here and we will plant additional conifers at the tops of these rises.., plus the 6 feet of conifer. Blackowiak: Okay, yeah. That would satisfy me. It wasn't on the initial plan so that's what I was concerned about from, just looking from the northwest anyway. Jim Strapko: We tried to respond to all of the suggestions... Blackowiak: Okay, well I'd be happy with that as long as any addition would have the colored band through it. Then I'm satisfied. Brooks: I have no comments. I just want to say I like the idea of putting the fewer parking spaces in... Jim Strapko: ... employees and we're at that.., moving into a larger space, we're at the same ratio so we're not skewing it... Conrad: Let me ask Bob a question Mr. Chairman. There's obviously no guarantee of expansion and this is our only chance to get the building built that we want so the trade-off here, what staff is saying, or what we're thinking is that the landscaping and berming will compensate for not having that north elevation the way we want it. Generous: Correct. Conrad: Okay. Are we guaranteed that landscaping that is continuous Bob? Somehow I have to be assured that the landscaping does not change. That the berming, it's easy to level something. It's easy to add parking space, whatever happens. I don't want, this is the trade-off and I'm not sure if it's a good one. I can't tell. So if it's, we're going to do it, I've got to guarantee that a condition of the approval is that that berming's there forever like the stripe would be. Jim Strapko: We're bonded... 30 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Generous: Just for the landscaping portion. We don't have a specific condition on that, no. The approval is based on what the site plan agreement will say is, the site plan, the grading plan, the erosion control plan... Conrad: So what would be an effective condition that we should put in there that will guarantee that landscaping compensates for the lack of the accent stripe? Generous: We would have to expand on number 20 for the berming. State that the berming to the north of the building shall be incorporated in the grading plan with additional coniferous trees be installed in a random pattern in such berms. Conrad: Nann, are you writing that down? Okay. That's all. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, just a question for the applicant I guess. We talked about the back of the building and the berm with the saddle. Would that berm still remain with your future expansion to the north? Jim Strapko: We would try to. If you look at the grading plan, what you'll see is that the expansion of the building can go up to a drainage easement.., that will take out a portion of the berming...the northeast portion of the site.., so it would be that symmetry ofberming. There's berming over here on this site. About the same general massiveness ofberming. And there's berming here and there's a rise over here so the character of the land.., wouldn't be leveling the site making a parking lot out of it when we expand the building. We'd do exactly the same thing we're doing now. Expand the parking slightly on one side only. We'd maintain the berm as much as possible.., the accent stripe... Hempel: I just wanted the Planning Commissioners to recognize that the north side of this building, or the north side of the properly does fall away and as you expand that building to the north, you will lose some of the berming abilities on that side of the building. There may be a possibility to resolve that by partially having the building built actually into the berm where you won't see as much height of the building, similar to what Waytek did I think it is on... Jim Strapko: ... less export of soil off the site. There's no need for the owner, from the owner's perspective to have any.., testing rooms are rooms that need to be... south and the east sides of the building so we could... Then not a whole lot would change, except for what happens during construction. Things get torn up... Joyce: ... add that onto a condition. Someone. Blackowiak: I think it's a good idea. I mean. Joyce: Why don't we put it in there so we have it there. Okay, thank you. As far as the project itself, I'm in favor of that. I think that was a good comment about the berming so I think we have that resolved. One point I did want to make was that I thought it was nice.., docking facility. I 31 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 think that's something we can learn by in Chanhassen... So I'm okay with the project. Can I get a motion then please? Conrad: Oh I don't know. Anybody else want to make this? I'd make the motion Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #98-1 for a 9,582 square foot building on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, site plan prepared by, dated 1/30/98, subject to the conditions in the staff report with the addition and point number 20 that Nann took good notes on but I'll kind of paraphrase it. The berm to the north of the building should be incorporated into the grading plan with the addition of coniferous plantings. Points number 20, and then I'll add a point 22 that the new plan, a new plan be presented with the revised mechanical screening. I don't know Bob if we really need that in as a condition. It will happen. I just want to make sure it's going to happen. And then, I'm going to end it there. If somebody wants to add to my motion with what was just discussed about the future berming. I'm not sure how to make that motion. The extent of my motion just adds a point 22 and addition to point 20. Blackowiak: I think it's a good idea. Do we need to include it? I'm not sure I guess. Conrad: You'd better get a second to my motion first. Joyce: Can I get a second?... Burton: Second. Blackowiak: Okay then I'll make a friendly amendment then to add a condition that future expansion shall, I don't know how to word this. Incorporate the berm or, thank you very much. You put it much better than I did. Maintain the existing landform and be set into the berm. I think we all know what we mean, so something to that effect. Joyce: Thank you. That was well put. Second? Do I need a second on this? Brooks: Second. Joyce: Okay. Any other questions? Conrad moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission reconnnends approval of site plan #98-1 for a 9,582 square foot building on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2~a Addition, site plan prepared by Strapko, Pahl & Associates, LTD, dated 1/30/98 and subject tot the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary security as required by the agreement. A separate sign permit application must be submitted and approved by the city prior to the installation of any signs. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 The development must comply wifli file Design Standards established for Chmfliassen Business Center. The city may require the installation of the additional parking spaces whenever a need arises (section 20-1124 (1) e.) upon written notification of the developer and/or property owner. Existing trees shall be protected by tree fencing during construction. The applicant shall work with staff to incorporate native vegetation in the rear 70 feet of the lot. 7. Fire Marshal's conditions: a. An additional fire hydrant will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. b. Post indicator valve (PIV) will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 04-1991. (Copy enclosed.) d. No parking fire lane signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 06- 1991. (Copy enclosed.) e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding pre-fire plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy # 07-1991. (Copy enclosed.) f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. (Copy enclosed.) g. Contractor must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. (Copy enclosed.) h. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water service on a combination domestic fire sprinkler service line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #36-1994. (Copy enclosed.) 33 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 i. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding fire hydrant installation. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #47- 1998. (Copy enclosed.) 8. Revise the parking on the Site Improvement Plan to comply with the building code. 9. Meet with the Inspections Division plan reviewer as soon as possible after approval to begin the building code plan review process. 10. First floor elevation for the building shall not exceed 943.0. 11. The applicant will need to supply the City with the traffic signage plan, haul route, and location where the material is to be deposited for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. If the materials are to be exported somewhere else within the City of Chanhassen, that property owner must receive a grading permit through the City. 12. The applicant shall work with the City in resolving the existing drainage problem along the easterly property line prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Grading plan shall be revised to include erosion control measures such as silt fence encompassing the grading construction limits and addition of a rock construction entrance off of Commerce Drive. In addition, the proposed catch basins will need to be protected with silt fence, hay bales, and/or rock filter dike until the parking lot has been paved with a bituminous surface. 14. The storm sewer connection points should be revised and relocated to the City's existing storm sewer manhole. The applicant has the option to construct their own storm sewer manholes or relocate connection points to existing manhole locations. 15. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage maps for a 10- and 100-year storm event (24-hour duration) for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. Drive aisles shall be revised to be in conformance with City Code Section 20-1101 and Section 20-1118. This will require increased drive aisle widths throughout the site. 17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within city right-of-way. Landscape materials may not be placed within drainage swales or over utility lines. The applicant may place landscape material within the City's drainage and utility easement conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. 18. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. The utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 19. The developer and/or his assignee shall review the site conditions prior to construction commencing for existing problems to utilities or streets and notify the City accordingly. Once construction activities commence on the site, the developer will assume all responsibility of damage to public utilities and streets as a result of construction activities. 20. The applicant shall work with city staff to determine the exact locations, shapes and permitted heights of any berming on site. The berming to the north of the building shah be incorporated in the grading plan with additional coniferous trees be installed in a random pattern on such berms. 21. The proposed development shall pay park and trail fees pursuant to City Ordinance. 22. A new plan be presented with the revised mechanical screening. 23. The future expansion of the building shah maintain the existing landform and be set into the berm. AH voted in favor, except LuAnn Sidney who did not vote, and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO SECTION 18-57(g) & 0)~ DRIVEWAYS ON COLLECTOR ROADS. Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: I have a question Mr. Chairman. Dave, would this determination by the City Engineer be instead of review by the Planning Commission and City Council? Hempel: You would still have an opportunity. Blackowiak: Could it be potentially? Hempel: In some case by case instances where there is an existing lot of record, the City Engineer would then have the authority to grant an access to that lot. Most the time it occurs though with the subdivision that comes before Planning Commission and City Council to also have the ability to review access points. So yes it would be true in both instances. You would have ability in most cases to still review the access points. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Any other discussion? Ladd? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Conrad: No, none. Joyce: Alyson? Brooks: None. Blackowiak: I don't know, I kind of like the review. I don't, I guess if nobody else has any objection to it, maybe I've just been up too long today but. I suppose there are other instances that the City Engineer just makes unilateral decisions and it doesn't go before anybody anyway so. Hempel: Correct. Blackowiak: Another one of those so. Hempel: Most of the instances though, you still will have the opportunity to review. It's very few and random that we do get a request for a driveway access on a collector street. You may get somebody who wants to have a farmfield access or something to that effect or nature. Where right now the city code ordinance says no. It's prohibited. Blackowiak: But still they're just being granted just on a variance basis? Or a conditional basis. Hempel: They would have to be brought before the City Council for approval of a variance to the code. Blackowiak: And you're comfortable with it just being decided? Hempel: Yes. Just because of past practices. All of the driveways in the last year or two have been brought before the Planning Commission and City Council for approval with the site plans or with the subdivision proposals. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Conrad: Just a general comment. I think they would be more rigid... My impression is they uphold the ordinance more than we would. Engineering department follows what's good practice safety standards are. It's not like they're giving away... Blackowiak: Oh no, I don't disagree with that. I'm just thinking about the process of the review. That was my only, kind of the only thing that jumped out at me is do we need to keep this in step by step or do we just say, fine. There are certain instances when it is just more expediant to have the Engineering Department decide that and let it go. I could be persuaded to go either way. I'm feeling better, thanks. Brooks: ... approve an ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code, Subdivision Ordinance concerning streets. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Joyce: Second? Sidney: Second. Brooks moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code Subdivision Ordinance concerning streets, Section 18-58(g) & (1) prepared by the City Attorney's office. All voted in favor and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS: Generous: Not really new business. I'll tell you what Council did. They approved the first reading of the Bluff Creek ordinance. However they're holding off on the second reading to give staff time to look at all the property the city owns or has an interest in... And they denied the Powers Circle subdivision. The Rossavik. Blackowiak: Off Powers Boulevard? Generous: It was a large lot, it was a land use amendment rezoning from A2 to RSF and then the subdivision... Planning Commission recommended denial. Conrad: Well way to go. Joyce: They followed our lead. Generous: We'll be bringing the infrastructure elements for review. That includes sewer, water.., parks and recreation and natural resources so, for discussion at the next meeting. Joyce: Does that cover old business too? Generous: I believe so. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 18, 1998 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Joyce: Any ongoing items? Bob? Generous: We have Woodridge Heights 3rd Addition. Remember Woodridge Heights but they're creating five lots out of four on the... At Galpin and Lake Lucy Road. Blackowiak: North or south of Lake Lucy? Generous: South. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 1998 Blackowiak: Is that by, what's his name? Joyce: That's the Centex, across the street from the Centex Homes. Generous: It is the Centex Homes. So they're just creating five lots out of four. Blackowiak: There's a landscaper or something on the southeast comer... Generous: Yeah, across the street from that. Blackowiak: Oh, it's on the west side, okay. Generous: Yeah, but the new subdivision. And I believe the last addition for Brendon Ponds is coming in. The connection will be made and... Joyce: Any other discussion? Vice Chairman Joyce adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 38