The URL can be used to link to this page

1i Banta Direct MarketingCITY OF P.C. DATE: March 4, 2003 C.C. DATE: March 10, 2003 REVIE~FF D~LINE: Apri_l 4, 2003 CASE: 03-1 Site Plan BY: Al-Jaff STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Site Plan Review For A 45,200 Square Foot Office Warehouse Addition With A Hard Surface Coverage Variance North of Hwy. 5, West of Dell Road and South of 77'h Street, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One Third Addition Opus Northwest LLC. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 (952) 656 444~. Banta Direct Marketing 18780 West 78~ Street Chanhassen, ~ 55317 (952) 937-3908 Industxial Office Park 2020 LAND USE PLAN: OfficeJln~al ACREAGE: 13.36 Acres SUMMARY OF REQU~T: Site Plan Review for a 45~00 square foot office warehouse addition with a hard surface coverage variance. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decisi~ The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. E Highway 5 ~_ake El Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND On June 19, 1978, the City Council approved a Planned Industrial Developmem Plan//'/8-5 PUD, which included a subdivision that resulted in dividing 701,656 square feet into Lot 1, Block 1, Park One (44~.,734 square feet), and Ot~ot B (256,922 square feet). Lot 1 became the site for the Press Building which was approved as a ixa'mitted use in the Planned Industrial Development Plan concurrently with the subdivision. On July 11, 1994, the City Council approved the final plat to replat Lot 1, Block 1, and Ot~ot B, Park One 2nd Addition into Lots 1, 2, and 3, Park One Third Addition. The City Council also approved Site Plan Review g94-1 for a 38,059 square foot expansion for Banta on Lot 1, Block 1, Park One 'Ilxird Addition (Lot 1 has an area of 11.89 acres). The existing surface coverage on the site (prior to the expansion) was 79.5%. After the addition, the hard surface coverage was reduced to 76.5%. The ordinance permits a maximum of 70% hard surface coverage how ever, since the applicant reduced a non-conforming situation, a variance was not required. On October 22, 2001, the City Council approved Site Plan Review//01-12 for a 20,785 square foot office building, Dell Professional Building (Health Partners), on 2.12 acres. On November 26, 2001, Health Partners requested to reduce the size of the building to 15,852 square feet on 1.75 acres. Staff responded "This change is considered minor and can be accommodated/approved administratively with the understanding that the materials, architectural design and integrity of the building must be ~ Also, all site plan t~roval conditions and ordinance requirements pertaining to hard surface coverage, setbacks, etc., must be met." Health Partners purchased 1.75 acres only. Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 3 PROPOSAIJS~Y The applicant is proposing to expand a wareho~ room for Banta Direct Marketing. The site is bordered by 77th Street West along the north, Hwy. 5 to the south, 187th Avenue West to the west, and Dell Road to the east. Banta is in ownership of both Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One Third Addition. The total site area for both lots is 13.36 acres. The ~ is zoned Industrial Office Park District. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and has full access from 77th Street West and 187th Avenue West. ~s along Dell Road is restricted to right-in/right-om only and will be constructed when Health Partners construct their building. The site plan is well developed and cxmsistent with how the city anticipated the site to develop. The expansion will utilize scaxed concrete panels, an identical material to that used on the existing building. The faqade of the building addition incorpom~ windows, pronounced entrances, and architectural treatment that allows the addition to blend in with the existing building. One of the advantages of this addition is the fact that it will reduce the number of parking spaces visible from Highway 5, and move it to the northeast eomer of the site. Parking for vehicles is located on the east, west, and north side of the building. Vehicles will be screened by berms and landscaping materials from Dell Road where the parking is proposed to be relocated. As part of this application, the applicant is requesting a hard surface coverage variance. The current hard surface coverage on Lot 1 is 76.5%. The applicant is a~dding Lot 2 to the overall site. Lot 2 will house parking spaces. The overall hard surface coverage for both Lots 1 and 2 is 75.8%. The total number of parking spaces required for the site is 281 spaces (this number includes the major manufacturing shift and overlap between shifts). The applicant is proposing a total of 306 parking spaces. If the applicant eliminates the most easterly mw of parking, the most easterly drive aisle will no longer be needed. This will reduce the overall hard surface coverage for the site to 74.1%. The actual hard surface coverage on Lot 2 with 306 parking spaces is 68%. This coverage is reduced to 52% when the total number of parking spaces is reduced to 281 spaces. The need for the hard surface coverage variance stems from the fact that staff is reqtfiring the applicant to combine Lot 2 with Lot 1 under a single Parcel Identification Num~. If the applicant built the parking lot on LOt 2 without combining it with Lot 1 (Off-premises parking lots are a permitted use in the IOP district), the variance would not be reqtfired. It is staff's condition that is creating the hardship; therefore, we are recording approval of the variance. Staff regards the project as a ~asonable use of the land. The overall design will reduce the amount of parking facing Highway 5. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with a hard surface coverage variance, with conditions. Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 4 GENERAL SITE PLAN/AR~ The existing Banta building is si_mot_od parallel to and north of Hwy. 5. The site is bordered by 77th Street West along the north, Hwy. 5 to the south, 187th Avenue West to the west, and Dell Road to the east. Access to the Banta building is gained off of 77th Street West and 187th Avenue West. The proposed expansion of 45,200 square feet will be located to the southeast of the existing building. Parking will be located to the east, west and south of the building. The ~ addition will be built over an existing parking lot. The parking lot will be relocated to the northeast corner of the site. Existing trees along the east portion of the building will be relocated to the area along Dell Road to screen the parking lot with mature trees. There are no direct views of the existing loading docks since it is screened by the existing building from Highway 5 and Dell Road, and berm with landscaping from West 77"' Street. The majority of the parking lot is currently visible from Hwy. 5. The proposed addition will relocate the parking lot to the northeast comer of the site and provide screening from Hwy. 5. The applicant is incorporating a berm with landscaping along Dell Road to fully screen the parking lot. Banta building, including the proposed addition, is located 30 feet from the north, 100 feet from the east, 120 from the south, and 275 feet from the east property line. Materials used on the Banta addition will be identical to the existing building's scored concrete panels with textured smcc, o to match the existing building. They include windows, pronounced entranees, and architectural relief. Staff worked closely with the applicant on this issue. The intent was to incorporate the current design standards while allowing the _addition to blend in with the existing building. This has been achieved. There are no changes intended for the trash enclosure, loading docks, or signage. Any roof top equipment should be screened. This development falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay and must comply with the district's design standards in addition to the Industrial Office Park Standards and the city's new design standards. The purpose of the overlay district is to promote high-quality architectural and site design through improved development standards with the corridor. The design standards should create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. The building meets all the requirements of the design standards, which include: 1. A defined entrance accentuated by a projecting canopy. 2. The building provides articulation through the use of staggered canopies, parapets on the roof, different materials and colors, landscaping, windows, and columns. 3. All materials used on the building are durable and permitted. 4. The colors on the building are harmonious. 5. All elevations that can be viewed by the public have been designed to include windows and/or doors to minimize expanses of blank walls. Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 5 6. An outdoor seating area for employees is located along the west portion of the site. 7. Trash enclosure is screened from views. 8. The majority of the parking lot is being moved to the northeast comer of the site; with will further screen the parking lot. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official mad mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and general community; b. The mount and location of open space and landscaping; Co Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 6 (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the Ci~s Highway 5 corridor design requirements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements with the incorporation of staff's conditions and approval of the hard surface coverage variance. The site design is compatible with the sunx)unding development. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. There are no wetlands on the site. GRADING~ DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL Minimal grading will be required for this project to elevate the proposed building addition pad to 930 and parking lot. A maximum slope of 3:1 is allowed on the berms along the north and east sides of the proposed parking lot. The plans do not propose erosion control fencing around the perimeter of the site. Type H silt fence must be used and extended along the east and north side of the proposed parking lot. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. The plans show the building area draining towards the existing catch basin in the parking area along the east side of the building. The new parking lot drains toward the northeast comer to a proposed catch basin. All of the storm water from the proposed addition will flow to an existing pond north of the site at the southwest comer of Quattro Drive and Dell Road. This pond is sized sufficiently to accommodate the additional drainage. The applicant will need to submit storm sewer design calculations. The plans for the new building addition show a proposed water service connecting to an existing water service on the neighboring Dell Professional Building ~. Currently, the Dell property has not been developed and, as such, no utility improvements have been installed. Furthermore, the water line on the Dell property is meant to be a private water service. If the applicant intends to use the water line, then the line will be considered a public watermain since it serves more than one lot. Public watermains are City owned and maintained and are required to be placed within a 20-foot wide public easement. Detailed plans and specifications will be required for the public watermain. The applicant will also be required to supply a financial security to guarantee the installation of the public watennain. In order to construct the public Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 7 watermain, the applicant can either petition the City to do the work as part of a public improvement project or the applicant can consmmt the project themselves. The nearest sanitary sewer line is located north of the site in West 77th Street. There is an existing 33-foot drainage and utility easement on the west side of Lot 2 for the sanitary service to Lot 3. The City will coordinate with the applicant to extend the sanitary service to Lot 3 prior to the paving of Lot 2. The applicant is proposing to connect to the 6-inch sewer service which is planned to be a private service for the Dell Building on LOt 3 only. Since two separate lots cannot use the same service, the applicant will need to extend their own service. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2003 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. Any public watermain will require a Minnesota Department of Health permit. STREETS/ACCF_3S/PARKING The plans propose utilizing the existing drive aisle along the east side of LOt 2 that has full access onto West 77~ Street. This access will be shared with Lot 3 to the south and will require a cross-access easement agreement. The minimum drive aisle width permitted by ordinance in an office district is 26 feet. The plans show a 24-foot drive aisle. The drive aisle width must be revised to meet ordinance requirements. The applicant needs to show a sidewalk to the new door at the southeast comer. To facilitate parking during construction, the new parking area on Lot 2 should be installed prior to the new building addition being started. Staff realizes that the applicant intends to be~n construction in winter. Paving the parking during the winter months is not an option. Therefore, we recommend the subsurface improvements i.e. sand, gravel, crushed rock be installed at a minimum, as a temporary improvement. Asphalt must be installed before a ~cate of Occupancy will be issued. The parking ordinance for manufacturing requires one par_king space per employee on the major shift (160 spaces which includes overlap parking spaces during shift change) and 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space (the building contains 27,000 square feet of office space which translates to 121 spaces). The total number of packing spaces required is 281 spaces. The applicant is providing 306. Staff is recording the total number of parking spaces be reduced to 281. This action will mdtme the hard surface coverage on the site. Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 8 LANDSCAPING Minimum requirements for landscaping include 7,644 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, 31 trees for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along the north, south and east property lines. The applicant's proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Vehicular use landscape area Trees/vehicular use area Hwy. 5 buffer yard C- 170' 15' width East property line buffer yard C- 250' and buffer yard B - 385' North property line 1 tree per 30' Required 7,~..~. sq. ft, 31 canopy trees 5 canopy trees 10 understory trees 12 shrubs 11 canopy tree 22 understory trees 32 shrubs 8 canopy trees 35 canopy 5 canopy 12 understory 27 shrubs 10 canopy trees 21 understory 59 shrubs 8 canopy trees The applicant meets minimum requirements for all plantings except the buffer yard requirements along the east property line. LIGHTING Lighting locations have been illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtm'es are allowed with a maximum height of 30 feet. The ordinance requires no more than ~6 foot candles of light at the property line. The Photometric Plan shows that the proposed lighting complies with this requirement with the exception of the south portion of Lot 2. This area contain~ a shared access with the property located to the south of the subject site, and should be illuminated for safety SIGNAGE None proposed. Signage must comply with the sign ordinance. Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 9 COMPI.IANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Building Height 4 stories 1 story (29 feeO Building Setback Parking stalls N-30' E-30' N-30' E-315' S-30' W-30' S-155' W-75' 281 stalls 306 stalls Parking Setback N-25' E-25' N-28' E-28' S-25' W-25' S-25' W-30' Hard surface 70% 74.1% Coverage Lot Area 1 acre 13.36 acres As part of this application, the applicant is requesting a hard surface coverage variance. The current hard surface coverage on Lot 1 is 76.5%. The applicant is adding Lot 2 to the overall site. Lot 2 will house parking spaces. The overall hard surface coverage for both Lots 1 and 2 is 75.8%. The total number of parking spaces required for the site is 281 spaces (this number includes the major manufacturing shift and overlap between shifts). The applicant is proposing a total of 306 parking spaces. If the applicant eliminates the most easterly row of parking, the most easterly drive aisle will no longer be needed. This will reduce the overall hard surface coveanige for the site to 74.1%. The actual hard surface coverage on Lot 2 with 306 parking spaces is 68%. This coverage is reduced to 52% when the total number of parking spaces is reduced to 281 spaces. The ordinance allows a maximum of 70% hard surface coverage. The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance tmless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhoocL Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards Without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The need for the hard surface coverage variance stems from the fact that staff is requiting the applicant to combine Lot 2 with Lot 1 under a single Parcel Identification Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 10 Number. If the applicant built the parking lot on Lot 2 without combining it with Lot 1 (Off-premises parking lots are a permitted'use in the IOP district), the variance would not be required. It is staff's condition that is creating the hardship. The condition to combine the lots under a single PID # is to ensure it is not sold separately. bi The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to properties in the IOP zoning district The p~ of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed variation will imp~ve a nonconforming hard surface coverage and allow it to become more in compliance with staff's recx)mmendatiom d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-cteatted hardship. Finding: The applicant submitted an application that meets ordinance requirements. Staff is requiring the applicant to combine the lots which is creating an overall nonconforming hard surface coverage. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is locatted. FiIIding: Approval of the variances as recommended by staff will improve a nonconforming situation. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair ~ values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially in~ the congestion of the public streem with staff's recommendation. Based upon these findings, staff is recommending approval of this variance with conditions. Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 11 PLANNING COMMigSION UPADATE On lVlarch 4, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application with minor revisions. These revisions included: The applicant requested the driveway from West 77~ Street maintain a width of 24 feet. The planning commission agreed that this was an existing driveway. There is no parking on either side of the drive aisle (there are no cars backing into the drive aisle). As such, the commission su~ the driveway from West 77~h Street maintain a width of 24 feet. The applicant requested the sanitary sewer line be considered a public line. Staff had a condition relative to the applicant providing their own sanitary sewer line. The applicant wishes to tie into an existing line that is proposed to serve Lot 3. If a line serves more than one property owner, it would need to be a public utility. The condition of approval was mended to allow for the line to become a public utility line. The applicant req~ the city consider some flexibility in dealing with off street parking during construction. Banta currently has verbal agreements with two adjacent property owners to provide temporary parking during construction. The property directly to the north across 77t~ Street is currently vacant except for a small portion of it which Banta leases from them, and Banta has had discussions and has a verbal agreement to utilize their parking during construction. The Planning Commission mended the conditions of approval to incorporate the applicant's request. Some members of the Planning Commission questioned the use of tilt up concrete as an exterior material. Staff explained that it will be covered with stucco and staff wanted to ensure that this addition blends in with the rest of the building. Further more, the area viewed from Highway 5 is in compliance with ordinance requirements. STAFF RECOMMI*~NDATION ..... e ........... ~ Council adopt the following motion: ........................ ~ ...... approves Site Plan Review gO3-1 with a variance to allow a 74.1% hard surface coverage, as shown on the site plan dated received February 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall increase landscape plantings in east buffer yard to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. 2. Fire Marshal conditions: Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 12 a. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the new tenant water service coming in to the building. b. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted. c. Submit radius mm dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. . Building Official Conditions: a. The addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. It is evident that the proposed addition will create exiting and high pile storage issues in the existing building that must be examined. d. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedtnes. 4. The applicant shall combine Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One Third Addition, under a single Parcel Identification Number. 5. Submit storm sewer sizing design calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. 7. A cross-access easement agreement is required over the shared portion of the driveway access. 8. Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002, 1004, 2101, 2109, 2202, 2203, 3101, 5203, 5215, 5301 and 5300. 9. Show a minimum rock construction entrance of 75 feet in length per City Detail Plate No. 5301. 10. Show the proposed watermain and sewer pipe, class, slope, and length. 11. A Type II silt fence must be used and removed when construction is completed. 12. Any off-site grading will require temporary easements. 13. Grades shall not exceed 3:1. 14. Add a benchmark to the plans and a legend. Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 13 15. On the sanitary and water plan, revise the existing watermaln to proposed. 16. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District and Minnesota DepmrUnent of Health permits for the site. 18. Show all existing and proposed easements. 19. Add a storm sewer schedule. 20. Add a note "Any connection to existing sanitary and storm sewer manholes shall be core drilled." 21. The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2003 mink utility hookup charges are $1,440 per mt for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. Any public watermain will require a Minnesota Department of Health permit. 22. In the storm sewer plan, revise the proposed manhole no. 2 invert elevation to match the flow direction. 23. The applicant needs to show the sidewalk to the new entrance door at the southeast comer. If the applicant intends to use the water line, then the line will be considered a public watermain since it serves more than one lot. Public watermains are City owned and maintained and are required to be placed within a 20-foot wide public easement. Detailed plans and specifications will be required for the public watermain. The applicant will also be required to supply a financial security to guarantee the installation of the public watermain. 25. The applicant needs to extend their own sanitary service. If they decide not to extend their own service and instead want to combine it, then it must be adequately sized and centered within the easement as a public line. 26. Show proposed grading around the building addition. 27. The City will coordinate with the applicant to extend the sanitary service to Lot 3 prior to the paving of Lot 2. Staff is directed to work with the applicant to ensure that the sanitary sewer line is centered within the existing easement. '")~ "1",-, g',.~,.,.;1;*,.~+ .... !,,.4...,,,,. A,,.,.;.,,,-,,,,-,,..,,.+.,-,,,.,+..'^.,~ .1-1,, ......... 1.,..i ....... T ^+ pric. rte *~ ...... ~..:~:-..~:.~- ~.~:... ~..-.~ Provide adequate off street parking Banta Direct Marketing March 10, 2003 Page 14 during construction. Paving the parking during the winter months is not an option. · · Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. 29. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 30. All roof top equipment on the new addition shall be screened from views. 31. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarani. These guanmtecs must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 32. The most easterly row of parking and aisle shall be removed." ATTACHMENTS lo 2. 3. 4. 5. Application, nanafive, ~ public hearing notice. Memo from Mak Sweidan, dated February 26, 2003. Memo from Mark Littfin, dated February 13, 2003. Planning Commission minutes datext March 4, 2003. Plans dat~ February 3, 2003. C1TY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION APPLICANT: ADDRESS: Opus Northwest L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka. MN 55343 TELEPHONE (Daytime) (952) 656-4444 OWNER: Banta Direct Marketing ADDRESS: 18780 W. 78th Street ChanhasSen. MN 3~317 TELEPHONE: (952) 937-3908 NOTE - __ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Intedm Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning __ Sign Permits X Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Subdivision* __ Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Ordinance Amendment ~ ~on Sign __ Escrow for Filing Fees/Altorney Cost** ($50 CU P/SP PJVAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property ownem within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submlttmJ, Including an 8~" X 11" reduced copy of tmrmperency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other appllcalJons through the development confl'act When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each applicatkxt. PROJECT NAME Banta Direct Marketing LOCATION 18780 W. 78th Street, Chanhaasen, MN 55317 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1 & 2, Block 1~ Park One Second Addition TOTAL ACREAGE 13.36 WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING ] C/BCO YES x NO c/ co PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FORTHISREQUEST Addition to an exieting facility This application must be completed in full and be typewrit~n or clearly pdnted and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of T'dJe, Abstract of T~le or purchase agreement), or I am the au~orized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of matedal and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc~ with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted am b'ue and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public headng requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions am approved by the applicant. s'n ture ' S 'i natu e' of i 10) Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Frlclay prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. OPUS. THP. OPUS GROUP ARCHITECTS CONTRACTORS DEVELOPERS OPUS NORTHW-BST, L.L.C. Y~n~nberofTheOtntsC, ro~ 10350 Bren Road W~ ~inn~, ~ 55~ Phone 952~5~ F~ 952~5~529 ~.op~.~m January 27, 2003 Sharmin A1-Jaff Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: BANTA DIRECT MARK'ETING GROUP 18780 W. 78Ta STREET Dear Sharmin: Enclosed, please find a completed development review application for site plan approval for an addition of approximately 45,200 sq. ft. to the existing Banta Direct Marketing Group facility. As you know, Banta has been a long-standing corporate citizen of the City of Chanhassen. During the site plan review process for the last addition in 1994, The City of Chanhassen approved plans which indicated a future press room addition of approximately 14,760 sq. ft. and an impervious surface ratio of 76.8%. Tn order to meet Banta's needs, the plant must be expanded to accomm~ two additional presses and associated bindery equipment. This necessitates the now proposed addition of 45,200 sq. ft. Banta has requested Opus design and construct this facility on a fast-track basis in order to have all equipment operational by August 15, 2003. Therefore, we would appreciate your help in obtaining city approvals at the earliest possible date. Attached, please find a spreadsheet prepared by Banta's human resources department which indicates a total employee count for the expanded facility of approximately 408 over 3 shifts. The maximum number of employees anticipated at any one time is approximately 224 during the afternoon shift change. Based on this information, we have provided 306 parking spaces in our site planning. Please note that technological advances have reduced the employee count since the approval in 1994. OPUS. F C E V! ~ 0 LUTI 0 N $ 1053-2003 THE OPUS GROUP: Allentown · Atlanta · Austin · Chicago · Columbus · Dallas · Dez~ver · Detroit · Fort Lauderdale · Houston · Indianapolis · g~nnan City · Los Angeles · Milwaukee Minneapolis · Orange County · Orlando · Pensacola · Philadelphia · Phoenix · PortLand · Sacramtmto · San pranotsco · San Jose · Seattle · St. Louis · Tampa · Washing'toll, D.C. The proposed site plan indicates a 76% impervious surface ratio that is slightly less than the previously approved ratio of 76.8%. This is possible due to the fact that Banta did not sell the entire easterly parcel that was shown on the 1994 approval. The exterior elevations indicate a design consistent with the existing facility. The south Hwy. 5 frontage has been designed to look like office space despite its manufacturing use. The east elevation utili~ precast concrete with accents to match the existing along with an employee entrance to break up the faevade. Significant landscaping has been included along with relocating a number of large existing trees. Rooftop equipment will be located 50 feet behind a two-foot high parapet. Banta would like to continue its operations on the present site. We believe the proposed addition will be an asset to both Banta and the City of Chanhassen. Thank you for your consideration in reviewing this project. If you have any questions or require any further information, please contact me at (952) 656-4457. Sincerely, OPUS NORTHWEST L.L.C. David F. Bangasser Senior Project Manager Xc~ Mark J effson - Banta Direct Marketing John Olin - Banta Direct Marketing Chuck Weber- Banta Direct Marketing City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd., P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 Date: February 5, 2003 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Depamnent By:. Sharmeen Al-Jarl', Senior Planner Subject: Request for Site Plan approval for a 45,200 sq. ft. addition with variances on ~ zoned lOP, Industrial Office Park and located at northwest cornex of Dell Road and Hwy. 5, Opus Northwest 1J 12, Banta Direct Marketing Group. Planning Case: 2003-1 Site Plan The above described application for agtm3val of a land development ~ was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Depamrent on February 3, 2003. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commigsion and City Cmmcil review, we would appreciate your cmmne~ts and reco~ons concexning the i~ of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and tim need for ~ public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. ~ specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can rrmloe a reconm~'ndation to tim Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consi~on by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhasson City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no latex than February ~4. You may also appe~ at the Planning Commission meeting if you so ~ Your coopewafion and assistance is greatly appreciated. ity Depamnents City Engineer b. City Attorney .~City Park Director ,"~ Building Official )Forester 8. Telephone Oanpany (us West or smint) 9. Electric Company (NSP ~r MN Valley) 10. Mediacom Cable System Watershed District Engineer 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 3. Soil Conservation Sexvice 4. MN Depc of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 12. Other City of Eden Prairie 7. MN Dept of Natural Resources NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for an Addition APPLICANT: Opus Northwest LLC LOCATION: 18400 West 77th Street NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public heating about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Opus Northwest LLC, is requesting Site Plan approval for a 45,200 sq. f. addition with variances on property zoned lOP, Industrial Office Park and located at northwest comer of Dell Road and Hwy. 5, Banta Direct Marketing Group. What Happens at the Meating: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public heating through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments am received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office houm, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmean at 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public heating has been published In the Chanhassen Villager on February 20, 2003. ~ Highway 5 Smooth Feed Sheets T~ Use template for 5~ Hall Properties International 5559 Bristol I. ame Mirmetonka, MN 55343 Elftmann Family 7600 Quattro Drive Chanhassen, 'MN 55317 Waytek P. O. Box 690 Chanhassen, M2q 55317 CSM Investors 2575 University Ave. W, #150 St. Paul, MN 55114 Lyman Lumber P. O. Box 40 Excelsior, MN 55331 Group Health Plan Attn: Deb Lawrence P. O. Box 1309 Bloomington, MN 55425 Carmen Crespo 18399 Cattail Ct Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Vincent Huxnvitz 18245 Coneflower Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Patrieia Wagner 18250 Coneflower I. am¢ Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Dmra Benson 18397 Cattail Ct · Eden Prairie, ~ 553346 Nancy Olm~tead 18395 Cattail Ct Eden Prairie, MN 55346' Julie Mi11~ 18393 Cattail Ct Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Karen Zanter 18400 Cattail Ct. Eden Prairie, lvIN 553346 P J & M K Long 18398 Cattail Ct. Eden Prairie, MN 553346 Alice Ehresman 18396 Cattail Ct. Eden Prairie, MN 553346 R L & C A Boothy 18387 Cattail Ct. Eden Prairie, MN 553346 Frances Jensen c/o Gordon Jensen 7400 Bush Lake Drive Bloomington, MN 55438 Linda Martignetfi 18388 Cattail Ct. F_xten Prairie, MN 553346 Address Labels CTrYOF CHAN SE PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Mak Sweidan, Engineer~ February 26, 2003 Site Plan Review for Banta Direct Marketing Group Building Expansion Land Use Review File No. 03-02 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952..227.1190 Upon review of the plans prcp~d by OPUS Architects & Engineers, Inc. dated Februaxy 3, 2003, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING~ DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax:. 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952_..227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resoums Phone: 952227.1130 Fax:. 952.227.1110 Minimal grading will be required for th/s project to elevate the proposed building addition pad to 930 and parking lot. A maximum slope of 3:l is allowed on the berms along the north and east sides of the proposed parking lot. The plans do not propose erosion control fencing around the perimeter of the site. Type 1I silt fence must be used and extended along the east and north side of the proposed parking lot. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. The plans show the building area draining towards the existing catch basin in the parking area along the east side of the building. The new parking lot drains toward the northeast comer to a proposed catch basin. All of the storm water from the proposed ~_ddition w/il flow to an existing pond north of the site at the southwest comer of Quattro Drive and Dell Road. This pond is sized' sufficiently to accommodate the additional drainage. The applicant will need to submit storm sewer design calculations. UTILITIES Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax:. 952.227.1110 Web Site w, ww. ci.ct'mnhessen.mn.us The plans for the new building addition show a proposed water s~rvice connecting to an existing water service on the neighboring Dell Professional Building property. Ctaxently, the Dell property has not been developed and, as such, no utility improvements have been instaUed. Furthermore, the water line on the Dell property is meant to be a private water service. If the applicant intends to use the water line, then the line will be considered a public watermain since it serves more than one lot. Public watermains Ere City owned and maintained and Ere required to be placed within a 20- foot wide public easement. Detailed plans and specifications will be required for the public watermain. The applicant will also be required to supply a financial security to guarantee the installation of the public watermain. In order to construct the public watermain, the applicant can either petition the City to do the work as part of a public improvement project or the applicant cam eonsmaet the project themselves. The nearest sanitary sewer line is located north of the site in West 77e" Street. There is an existing 33-foot drainage and utility easement on the west side of Lot 2 for the sanitary service to Lot 3. The City will coordinate with the applicant to extend the sanitary service to Lot 3 prior to the paving of Lot 2. The applicant is proposing to connect to the 6-inch sewer service which is planned to be a private service for the Dell The Clly of Chanhannen · ^ growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gmat place to INe, work, and play. Shameen A1-Jaff February 26, 2003 Page 2 Building on Lot 3 only. Since two separate lots carmot use the same service, the applicant will need to ex~d their own service. Installation of the private uti~ties for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2003 trtmk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1~.75 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the building pemait issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. Any public watermain will require a Minnesota Department of Health permit. STREETS The plans propose on utilizing the existing drive aisle in the east side of Lot 2 that has full access onto West 77~ Street. This access will be shared with LOt 3 to the south and will require a cross-access easement agreement. The mJnimtma drive aisle width permitted by ordinance in an off'ce district is 26 feel The plans show a 24-foot drive aisle. The drive aisle width must be revised to meet ordinance requirements. The applicant needs to show a sidewalk to the new door at the southeast corner. To facilitate parking during construction, the new parking area on Lot 2 should be installed prior to the new building addition being started. RECO~ED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Submit storm sewer sizing design for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event~ 2. Increase the minimum drive aisle width to 26 feet. 3. A cross-access easement agreement is requLred over the shared portion of the driveway access. 4. Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002, 1004, 2101, 2109, 2202, 2203, 3101, 5203, 5215, 5301 and 5300. 5. Show a minimum rock construction entrance of 75 feet in length per City Detail Plate No. 5301. 6. Show the proposed watermain and sewer pipe, class, slope, and length. 7. Silt fence type II must be used and removed when construction is completecL 8. Any off-site grading will require temporary easements. 9. Maximum grading side slope of 3:1 is required. 10. Add a benchmark to the plans and a legend. 11. On the sanita~ and water plan, revise the existing watermain to proposed. Shameen A1-Jaff February 26, 2003 Page 3 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Health permits for the site. Submit storm sewer sizing calculations. Show all cxisting and proposed easements. Add a storm sewer schedule. Add a note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be core drilled". The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2003 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanita~ sewer and $1,876 per trait for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1~275 per unit, These charges are collected prior to the building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. Any public watermain will require a Minnesota Department of Health permit. In the storm sewer plan, revise the proposed manhole no. 2 invert elevation to match the flow direction. The applicant needs to show the sidewalk to the new door at the southeast If the applicant intends to use the water line, then the line will be considered a public watermain since it serves more than one lot. Public watermains are City owned and maintained and are required to be placed within a 20-foot wide public casement. Detailed plans and specifications will be required for the public watermain. The applicant will also be required to supply a financial security to guarantee the installation of thc public watermain, The applicant needs to extend their own sauitavy service. Show proposed grading around the build/ng addition. The City w/Il coordinate with the applicant to extend the sanitary service to Lot 3 prior to the paving of Lot 2. To facilitate parking during construction, the new parking area on Lot 2 should be installed prior to the new building addition being started. jlTIS C: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer 8;~-ug~oroj~m~uil~g ~pansio~ plan r~wiew, doc CITYOF CHANHA EN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Clmhass~ MN 55317 Administration Ptt~: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phmm: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952..227.1190 Engineering Pflooe: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Fiec4'ealJon Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard ~: 9,52.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 95,?..~7.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www. ci.chanl'~.mn.us TO: Sharmin A1 Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Li _ttfin; Fi.re Marshal DATE: February 13, 2003 Request for site plan approval for a 45,200 square foot addition with variances on property zoned lOP, Industrial Office Park, and located at the northwest comer of Dell Road and Highway 5, Opus Northwest LLC, Banta Direct Marketing Group. Planning Case: 2003-1 Site Plan I have reviewed the site plan for the above project In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the new tenant water service coming in to the building. 2. Fire lane si~s and yellow curbing will be require& Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exam location of signs and curbs to be painted. 3. Submit radius mm dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. gSs~l~lrevbanta The City of Chanhassen · A growing communily with clean lakes, qualily schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gmat place to live, work, and play. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING VERBATIM MINUTES Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBER~ PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, Alison Blackowiak, LuP, nn Sidney, U-Ii Sacchet, and Craig Claybaugh ~TAFF PRF~ENT: Kate Aanenson, Comm~ity Development Director, Sharmeen A14aff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC P~ FQR ALL ITEM~; ~anet Paulsen Rob Fuglie 7305 l_zredo Drive 9370 Foxford Road PUBLIC ItFARING: ~0N~mi~.R ~ REQUF.~T FOR-~ P~ ~0V~ ~R A ~~ ~QU~ ~T ADDmQN ~ V~~ ON PROP~~ ~~ IOP~ ~V~ O~CE P~K ~ ~CA~ AT ~ NQRTHW~ ~~ OF D~ RQ~ Public Present: Name Address Chuck Weber Charles Dine Mark Jeffson Kathy Standing Dave Bangasser 3911 Glendale Drive 113597 Blaekhawk Road, Pine River, WI 5604 Bimini Drive, Minn~ Heailth Parmers, 8100-34~ Avenue, Mpls Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this Ran. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff at this point? LuAnn? Sidney: I can start. I'm still having a hard time I guess with tilt up concrete panels. How can we state, I guess maybe what I would like to see in the staff rqx~ is more of a justification for that based on how it compares to the design standards as they currently read. Because we're talking about ribbed concrete flit up panels. Al-Jaff'. The portion that faces traghway 5 will be covered with stucco. Sidney: No, I guess I don't see that on the elevations. Is that, am I missing something? So you're saying that on the south elevation that above the windows, I can see that's marked textured stucco. And then above that. AI-Jaff: And then here it is textured stucco on the concrete block. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Sidney: It is? Now that's the portion just above the windows? Al4aff: Correct. As well as here. Sidney: I guess, could you point aga~ I'm looking at the. Al4aff: How about if I highlight it Sidney: That might be better because I'm looking at what we have here and it shows concrete panels to match existing. Stucco, but above that, that's ~ panels. Al4aff: And that is set back. This is it. So what will be visible from Highway 5 is the stucco. Sidney: Well I guess I would argue that I still see that pre-east concrete. But I guess where I'm having trouble is in our design standard in 20-1065, you know it does talk about the following may not be used in any visible exterior application, except where speeifi~y permitted by the city in areas with limited public view or accent areas. So I guess something to that effect saying that rationalizing that it is limited in view would be good. What I see here, you know it does stand out very clearly to me. Al4aff: It's a combination of the fact that it's set back 50 feet. There is landscaping that will be added to break up that wall, so it's a combination of those things that will minimiTe the appearance of that wall. Sidney: I hope so. And I guess I would look for some more lang~mge in the staff report addressing that, because I guess that was my biggest concern with this application. I have no problem with hard surface coverage variance as it is explained. And you're talking about removing a mw of parking? Aldaff: Correct. Sidney: Yes, okay. And how much of the parking would you remove? I guess I wasn't paying attention. A14aff: We would go from 306 parking spaces proposed by the applicant, down to 281 spaces, which basically would take out this row of parking, Sidney: Oh, oh, oh, okay. Al4aff: And if you remove this row of parking, then there is no need for this drive aisle Sidney: And that helps out, okay. And then when you're up them, sorry. hl4aff: That's okay. Sidney: Just one more thing. The buffer yards where they need to add more plantings in the easterly portion, where is that please? Al4aff: It is right within this areal. This buffer yard. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Sidney: Okay, and that would include then the area that you're now turning into green space. Al-~aff: That's correct Sidney; Okay. Okay, that's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions of sta~ Feik: Sure. Back to that l~rking. Would you show me where in the stuff recommena~tions you covered that removal of those parking stalls? I didn't see it. Number 32, thank you. Access to Lot, I guess it's 3, will be primarily from Dell Road? Al-Jaff: No. That access is right-in/right-om only. Feik: Right, correct. And the access for the north side as well then? AI-Jaff: It will be off of West T7m Street. Feilc Okay. I'm maybe a little ahead of myseff but in the specific recommendations on n~ 7 1 would want to specifically add the cross easement to Lot 3. A1-Jaff: There is one in place. Feilc Oh, there is existing easement in place? AI-Jaff: As part of, I want to say it was about a year ago. Feik: It was when we looked at the last one? AI-Jaff: The Planning Commission approved a site plan agreement for Health Pamaem. Feilc Okay. So there is adequate access to. AI-Jaff: Correct. Feilc Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Rich? Slagle: I just had a couple questions. One is on the parking again Sharmeem Just to confirm the applicant is okay with the reduction? AI-Jaff: Yes he is. Slagle: Okay. Because usually we don't hear that. It's usually the other way arouncL I just want to confirm on the landscape plan, on the eastern wall if you will of the.building them will be a green space running parallel with that easterly wall, is that correct? Not just tree plantings but sod and so forth. AI-Jaff: Yes. If you look at the landscape plan, all of this is intended to be landscape area. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Slag/e: Okay. And then the last thing, touching upon that eastern buffer. In the staff notes and conditions it, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted and above that you suggest meeting minimum requirements. I would just ask if we could to the applicant, anything they can do above minimum may be, for those neighbors on the other side of Dell would be appreciated. That's all. Lillehaug: I want to touch on the parking also. I counted, so plus or minus, it looks like they're deleting 140 spaces. That's what I counted on the i ,reprint of the building. They deleted about 140 spaces. It appears that we're only adding, with your proposal of 72 spaces back. In my mind they're adding floor space so possibly ~dding employees, but reducing the amount of parking that's currently them. If it meets city standards and if the applicant is comfortable with that, I guess that's what we'll go with but I just want to reconfirm that that is the plato And then I want to touch on the right-in and right-out only. You've indicated that this will be planned in the future with the addition of Lot 3, or the devel~ of Lot 3. Al4aff: That's correct. Lillehaug: Can you maybe give just a quick little bac~und on this right-in/right-out only. Is it, and is this a requirement of MnDot and it will be strictly adhered to and limited to this? Al4aff: That's correct. When this application came in for the medical building for Health Partners, one of the requests was a flow curb cut, including an opening within the median. However that did not happen. It was restricted to a right-in/right-out and that evolved through discussions with MnDot, as well as the City of Eden Prairie. It is a condition of approval for this building. That it be limited to a right-in/right-out only. Lillehaug: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? I just have one question Sharmeen. We're talking about roof top equipment being screened. Condition number 30. Is that for only the new? What about existing roof top? Is there any potential for trade-off here if we're going to go ahead and authorize some type of a tilt-up concrete to get some more screening? Al4aff: One of the things that's happening with this application is the fact that the applicant is adding a parapet, so the walls will be just a little bit higher, which will help screen some of this roof top equipment. Blackowiak: Okay. I guess I'm more worried about the existing too and I guess the condition wasn't specific in terms of whether it was new roof top equipment or existing ~aeause it says all roof top equipment shall be screened from views. AIJaff: And the staff report was intended to address the new addition. Blackowiak: Only? So Fmjust, I guess my question to you is, can we get just a little bit more? Aanenson: I would ask them that. Feik: Can you get all? Blackowiak: Or all, yeah. There we go. Okay, and I guess we can ask the applicant when we come to that point. But I guess it wasn't spelled out so might as well ask, Alright, would the Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 appl/cant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Dave Bangassec. Hi, I'm Dave Bangasser. Fm a project manager with Opus. Banta has hired Opus to design and construct this addition. We've worked with Banta on a number of projects over the last 20 years so we're very familiar with their needs. I also have with me three representatives of Bahia. Chuck Weber, Charles Dine and Mark leffson. They're available for any questions that we might have that dealing with the operations. I think the staff's covered things pretty well with their report so I really don't intend to make a presentation other than to perhaps address a few of the comments that we just ~ard, and make a comment about a couple of the staff recommendations. And I'll kind of deal with them in the reverse order of what the comments were raised. The last one was roofl~ units. Screening new and existing. The new addition is, is that showing up? Oh sorry. The new addition is higher than the existing facility, and by it's nature it's going to block a lot of that rooftop equipment from the east So as you drive along Highway 5 out towards Chanhassen, I believe that we're going to get a fair amount of screening of that existing rooftop unit just by the nature of the fact that these walls are higher. Relative to the new rooftop screening, we did drop the height of the struc~ inside. The clear height of our structure inside so that we could provide the screening of roo/k)p equitnnent with a parapet wall on the pre-cast wall there. Screening rooftop equipment, I guess I'm not sure how we could do screening of the existing rooftop equipment without making it stand out. I think the proper way to screen rooftop equipment is the way we're doing it with the new addition, which is to provide a parapet wall to kind of make it look like part of the overall facili~. That's at least one man's opinion. Relative to the parking reduction, over time technology has reduced the number of employees within the facility as the presses have gotten larger and faster. Computers have taken a lot of manual tasks away from the pre-press operati~ and reduce those work loads so Banta is comfortable with the parking reductions. Mark has, from the be~nnin§, indicated that there is an excess of parking and over the last 2 weeks he's been out taking digital photographs from the roof that we'd be happy to share if you'd like, but it shows a sig~ificaut under utilization of the parking so yes, the applicant is comfortable with the reduced parking. I think we have a minor deviation on the count. When we eliminate those 22 stalls to the east, I think that gets us to 288. I think the 281 number is the required number of stalls so I think even with the e 'hminafion of the east parking we're at 288 versus the 281 and again, the applicant is comfortable with that number. We believe that we are increasing the green space overall, both on the existing Lot 1. The green space that we've got along the east hc~ is, the green space along the east is approximately 3 ½ feet wider than the existing green space thai exists in this area right here. And the green space down here is appm~ly 11 to 12 feet wider than the existing green space down there so we have made s___ttempts to do what we can to provide additional green space, particularly green space that would be viewed from Highway 5. Relative to the concern about the buffer on the east, we are intending to relocate existing trees that would be significantly larger than we'd be requir~ to plant otherwise. If we were importing new trees, they would be 2 ½ caliper inch or there about's and the trees, many of the trees that we're relocating are significantly larger than thai so we think that in fact we are going to be providing more buffer than the code would require. Relative to the tilt up, I guess I believe that we have made an attempt to meet the new design standards that have come in place since the last addition was done there. The original plan when Banta first approached us about this ~_ddition was that this is, this was all to be production space. So the original plan was to have that pre-cast wall right out on that south facade where you currently see stucco. In the original plan if it was all just production space, there'd be no windows. It was just pre-cast. As we got into the new ordinances and found out what the requirements were, we worked with Banta to come up with a facade that we felt met the intent of the ordinance while still keeping the integrity of the existing design to make it look like it fi~s in as opposed to make it look like an addition with foreign matefiah. The only other Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 comments I've got is there are 3 conditions. We're in agreement I believe with staff on their report and generally in agreement with their conditions of approval I would comment on 3 items. Item number, or condition number 6. hcrease the minimum drive aisle width to 26 feec I believe that the aisle that is being discussed is this commnn drive aisle fight here that currently exists, and that drive aisle was part of the 1994 site plan approval process. At that time the Lot number 3 was intended to be sold, I think Kindercam was looking at that property, and the, that drive was approved at 24 feet and it's currently in place at thig time. So I would ask your consideration on, since that is an existing condition, part of a prior approval, that we be allowed to keep the 24 foot width. Another factor that I think may be worth noting is that that drive aisle has no parking on either side of it so there aren't cars that are backing up into that drive aisle. The staff has a note relative to providing our own sanitary sewer line. In the staff report it notes that there is, that the City will be extending a sanitary sewer line adjacent to that common drive, fight through this area right here. There is an easexmot in place over the Banta property for installing that sanitary sewer. We would like to tie into that sanitary sewer. It seems for us not to tie into that, and I understand it has something to do with if we tie into it, now you've got 2 different property owners tying into the same pipe and therefore it would need to be, couldn't be a private pipe. It would need to be a public utility. We'd like to ask that the City consider making that a public utility. If we are to comply with this requirement we'd basically end up laying another pipe right along side of it and I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense, but we'd like to ask you to at least consider allowing us to tie into that and if that means making it a public utility, then so be it. Blackowiak: So, can I just clarify? That's condition 24 as I read it. Dave Bangassen Oh, I'm son'y, 25. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm sorry. 25. Okay I guess, and I'll ask staffthis in a moment but I need know what the difference is between 24 and 25. Does it change anything? But we'll let the applicant finish but hold that thought. I'm sony. So that's number 25. Dave Bangasser: I think 24 is relative to a water line. Blackowiak: Just to the water, okay. Dave Bangasser:. Right, and 25 is the sewer. There is currently I believe the easement mentioned in condition 24 is in place I believe. Blackowiak: And does that comprise also... Dave Bangasser....currently an easement for that sanitary sewer. Blackowiak: Okay. Dave Bangasser. Relative to condition number 28, we agree I think with the intent of that condition which is to provide adequate off street parking during construction. We would like to ask your consideration to give us some flexibility in how we deal with that. We cmrenfly have verbal agreements with two adjacent property owners to provide garking, ~ parking during construction. The ~ directly to the north across 77 Street is currently vacant except for a small portion of it which Banta leases from them, and Banta has had discussions and has a verbal agreement to utilize their parking during construction, so we'd like to ask your Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 consideration in modifying that to indicate that we'll provide ~dequate parking, off street parking during construction. That's the last of my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Start down, Rich down on your end. Slagle: Not fight now. Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: Sure I do. Condition number 4. You indicated that there is an in-place watermain easement. Is that what you indicated? Dave Bangasser: Yes, I believe that's true. Lillehaug: Does staff agree with that? AI-Jaff: There is a utility agreement. Sweidan: There's a 33 foot easement...offWest 77th Street. Lillehaug: So it is an adequate easement for a watermain there? Sweidan: Yes. Lillehaug: No further watermain easement is required then? Sweidan: Well not for the watermahx For the watermain there is no easement fight now. Yeah, but I'm talking about the easement that's coming off 77~ Street for the sanitary sewer. Lillehaug: Okay, and I guess I'd be specifically talking about the easement coming off from Dell Road for the watermain. Sweidan: There's no easement. Lillehaug: Would there be along that propexty line, would the~ be a 10 foot easement on each side of that property line? Dave Bangasser: I've got the, if we can pull this up here. I do believe that there is an easement in place from Dell Road. It says fight here drainage and utility easement per Park One 4~ Addition, and I'm not, it looks like it is a 10 foot wide easemenL Fm guessing. Sweidan: It's 5 feet each side. Dave Bangassec Yeah. So there is both an easement for drainage and utility that seems to be, the drainage and utility easement is 10 feet wide. There's a driveway easement that's 33 feet I think. 26 feet, I'm sorry. Lillehaug: So would you agree that staff's recommendation is indicating they would like to see a 20 foot wide public easement so I would assume 10 foot on each side of the property line. That there is an additional requirement needed there. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Dave Bangasser: That's acceptable. Lillehaug: Okay. I think that would be all I have at this time too, ~ you. Blackowiak: Okay. Anything? Feilc Nothing for the applicant, thank you. Blackowiak: LuAnn. Sidney: I guess the question for Bantm What is the nature of the work that will be going on in the warehouse and press room? Is that going to have exhaust equi~t or anything that would create noise? What I' m thinking about is concerns for the neighbors off of Dell Road. So I guess what's going on? Mark Jeffson: I-Ii. I'm Mark Jeffson. I'm the plant engineer for the Banta facility. In that new addition we're going to be installing some press equipment and some binding equipment. It will be similar to the equipment that is already in the building. The same models and manufacturers of that equipment. There' s an identical press to it just on the other side of the existing wall that's there now. Sidney: So nothing you need that's going to be creating-a lot of noise or whatev~? Mark Jeffson: No. Sidney: Okay, exhaust. Mark leffson: No. And the tie in's for that equipment will go into the existing ductwork that's already them. Sidney: Okay, that makes sense. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any more questions? Uli? Sacchet: I just want to confirm this alternative parking that you were talking about on the next door parcel. Is that about the same amount of parking spots that would be in the new parking that's being created or can you quantify that a little bit. Mark Jeffson: There again, the building across the street from us is the VerSa-TH building that's vacant right now and they have aborn 150 parking spaces available to us if we needed that many, which we won't. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, any questions? Claybaugh: Yeah. Let's see here. It has to do with the roof scheme. I'm just looking at the elevations on A-3 here. What is the parapet wall height? It doesn't necessarily call it out. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Dave Bangasser: The parapet height varies fi'om 5 feet along the east. It varies because of the roof slope. Claybaugh: Right. Dave Bangasser: It varies from 5 feet along the east to approximately 3 ½ feet on the fitr western edge of the addition. And then our rooftop equi~t is set back from that so we've got the angle of cut-off there. Claybaugh: With respect to the roof~p mechanical, what are some of the larger components that are going up there with respect to height? Dave Bangasser: I think the biggest traits are 7 feet, and those would be the ones that condition for the press itself, so they will be the furthest back from that parapet wall. Claybaugh: And then the comment was made relative to condition 28. That the building to the north is currently vacant. Do they anticipate that remaining vacant through the construction phase? Okay. That's all the questions I have. Blackowiak: Thank you. Rich, do you have one? Go ahead. Slagle: I have one dealing with the parking on the northeast side. And even to an extent to the east of the building. Is there going to be sidewalks, and I'm looking at site plan, I'm looking at the landscaping plan. How would, if you're an employee that parked up in that far northeastern or halfway down that aisle, how would you get to your door? Would you cross over this landscaped island? Or would you go all the way to the south or to the north and go around it? I guess I'm just curious. Dave Bangasser: We are introducing a new employee entrance at this location, and we do have a sidewalk that connects to new islands that we're placing in this area. And we've extended that sidewalk along here for people to get to the parking. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you. Before we open the public hearing I just have one question of engineering I believe. Mak. Can you talk to me a little bit about this sanitary sewer, what changes if indeed there's a public sanitary sewer installed. How does that affect what we're seeing? Sweidan: What those plans last year for the proposal of Lot 3, is to extend the sewer service, which is a 6 inch diameter, with a stub existing fxom West 77~ Street. Now he's proposing and connecting with that which means two lots with one sewer service, which is not adequate. Technically. Blackowiak: Okay. Sweidan: And that's why when we said that you have to provide your own service. Now if we need to look for it as a public sewer which can serve the two lots, it has to be a public sewer and that's either, you petition the city to extend that, or he could also like a plan or a propose for it but he has to submit plans and specifications for thaL Blackowiak: Okay. So is the size any differem? Is the easement any different? Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Sweidan: Yes. Well the easement is sufficient. 33 foot because we always require 20 fooC 20 feet minimum so the 33 foot is good enough for the easement, but the size of the sewer of course is going to change from 6, at least to 8 inches. Blackowiak: Okay. And what ha~ to the existing drive aisle? I mean you've got a drive aisle right now that's at 24 feet. Is the sewer going right beside~ it7 Right on, where is it going to go7 I'm kind of, what I'm leading to is, is that going to change any potential construction of the drive aisle7 Are they going to have to do any digging, trel~hing be~de it ~ could they add on at that time? Sweidan: Mainly the under sewer line has to be in the center of the easement, so whatever is the drive aisle is going to be, it has to be in the center. Blackowiak: Okay. Kate, does my question make sense to you? Either you or Sharmeen. Aanenson: Engineering had recommended changing it. Planning staff felt comfortable with 24. It was...that way. Is that adequate to cover the easement7 I think what Mak's saying is it is. It just needs to be a wider pipe so the easement's not the issue. The driveway still can stay 24 if you're comfortable with that. Blackowiak: Okay, I was just wondering if there's going to be consmmfion in that area, if it would make sense at that point. If people felt strongly about 26, do you do construction and add 2 feet? A1-Jaff: One of the things that we tried to achieve was minimize hard sm-face coverage. Blackowiak: So you're comfortable with the 24 feet? Al4aff: Because there's no backing into that area. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, that's, thank you very much. Oh, do you have another? Claybaugh: Additional question for staff. Blackowialc Sure. Claybaugh: Coming back to condition 28. That was actually kind of a two part condition, l:ru'st part that the applicant requested was a little leniency with respect to how they handle that, and we heard him comment on that. The second part states that the asphalt must be installed before the Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. I just wanted to hear the staff connnent on that and possibly if there's any contradiction with condition of the applicant... Sweidan: Usually if there's any proposed parking, it has to be installed before occupancy. And we cannot license occupancy approval before the parking has been done. In this situation that's why we condition that it has to be done. Now, we...if they want to make a temporary parking while doing construction to help the cars to be away from the street, they can do like gravel or sand and rocks parking temporary while they construct the building but later on they cannot have an occupancy certificate before the parking's been paved. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Claybaugh: Well specifically just because the requirement was mentioned as part of condition 28, and they're asking for that relief. I just wanted to make sure that the applicant was prepared to obviously put in parking lot prior to getting the CO. That's aH I have. B lackowiak: Alright. This item is open for a public heating, so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the recxmt. Kathy Standing: My name is Kathy Standing. I'm with Health Parmers. I'm the Senior Director of Facility Development and Space Planning. And we just recently learned of the project and we haven't had a chance to learn everything about it so I just have a few questions. The elevations that we saw I believe of both the building and the landscaping was primarily a view from Highway 5. I'd be interested in seeing a little bit more about the east side or the Dell Road side. And in particular the landscape that is between, well it's this fight here. If you could ~ to that. What that looks like. Aanenson: I think it pretty much mirrors what was approved with your's. Kathy Standing: Okay. So then my question goes back to the building, the elevation of the building. What will we actually be viewing? I think the view that we saw was the window view from Highway 5. So Fd be interested in just understanding, does that wrap around on the east side as well? Okay. And then the access off of Dell Road, is that particular road that is not yet developed, will be developed when our property is developed, is that correct? Al4aff: That's correct. Kathy Standing: Okay. And then the proposed time line once there's approval from the time of construction and the length of the construction. Fd be interested in learning about that. Aanenson: We could maybe ask Mr. Bangasser that. Blackowiak: Yeah, I guess Mr. Bangasser, could you come up to the microphone again. Ms. Standing was asking about the time line for consmmfion. If you could speak to that. Dave Bangasser. If we could start next week, we would. Blackowialc What is your ultimate you know move in date? Dave Bangasser: By the end of the summer, say September 1" we intend to be complete. We'd have things paved and...to be complete where our goal is to be imtaHing a press in the new addition by the end of June, which is why if we started next week it'd be just fine, but I know that won't happen. Blackowiak: Okay. Docs that answer your question? Kathy Standing: Okay. Alright, thank you. Blackowiak: Is ~ anybody else who'd like to speak on this issue7 Okay seeing no one I'll close the public hearing. Comments on the issue. Rich. Slagle: I can start. Mine is simple. I think any time the City of Chanhassen can have one of it's businesses expand, that's great news so we're glad to hear that and it's good for aH. I think they've heard our concerns with respect to buffer and some aesthetics so I think it's fine. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: I'd like to make a few comments. And if I could, I would like to reflect what Rich said. And then I would like to get specific on a few of these conditions so the applica~ g~ aa understanding of what the staff and we're trying to portray here. I think we could combine a couple conditions here. One would be combining 17 with number 5. I think they're redundanL One other thing is per condition number 20, I would like that to reflect existing sanitary and storm sewer manholes. And then to be clear to the applicant, I would like, if possible, for staff to explain number 22. I should have hit on that earlier. I'm not totally clear what that is so I want to ensure that the applicant is clear on that also. And you can go ahead if you want Mak and then I'll continue. Sweidan: The storm sewer plan is proposing manhole number 2 with the invert elevation of 915.5. The existing, the previous manhole existing, the lowest invert elevation is 914.5 which means the flow direction, if it is going from previous manhole to a new proposed manhole has to be high and not lower, so he has to revise that new proposed elevation. Lillehaug: So you haven't figured out how to get water to flow uphill then. Sweidan: Well it's got to be a fast flow you know. Lillehaug: Okay, that's good enough. Then I'd like to go onto elaborate a little on conditions number 25 and 27. Myself looking at the sanitary plan, it appears that that sanitary line is approximately, I'm not scaling it but it's huther than plus or minus, it's further than that 33 foot easement, or it's right on the edge of that easement so I think I'd like to direct staff to work with the applicant to ensure that that sanitary line is more centered on that existing easement And then I agree with staff that extending that sanitary line across Lot 2 should go forward as stated in condition number 27, and that the city, that the applicant and the city should coordinate that And as far as number 25 goes, my assumption is that staff is recommending extending that from the southerly portion of Lot 2. Would that be correct? Sweidan: Yes. Lillehaug: And I agree with that also. That end my comments, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Feilc It's nice to see one of our corporate residents expanding. I have no problem with the tilt-up that we're going to see a sliver of on the south side above the lower portion of roof. I certainly understand the existing conditions that are there. Of the existing building and I agree with staff I think to do something dramatically would be maybe more of an eyesore than tip up. As for the 24 foot drive lane, which goes between Lot 1 and Lot 2, I have no problems there at all. And my other comments were already addressed. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn. Sidney: Yeah, I'm generally in favor of the application. I made my comments known. I guess I still feel as though more comment about the use of tilt up concrete panels needs to be addressed in the staff report. Also, we heard that Health Partners would like a view from Dell Road as part of the package too. I think that would be a really good thing to include. I agree with staff's analysis 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 and their variance findings. Here's one case where we have an administrative hardship being created so I think the findings are well laid out and make sense to me. Also, I guess I would be in favor of deleting condition 6 based on our discussion, so whoever makes the motion I'd suggest that. And then I would encourage maybe condition 28 to be modified to be less specific, and I guess the applicant has suggested we might have language like adequate off street parking will be provided by the applicant during construction and leave it to staff and the applicant to work out what that means. And I assume that they understaM that they must have the parking lot completed before any Certificate of Occupancy would be issued. So maybe cut the v~ down on that. So I think those are my comments. Blackowiak: Thank you. Uli. Sacchet: I don't have too much new to add. I basically agree pretty much with everything that's been said. It's great to see business grow. I don't have an issue with the drive width. Drive aisle width. It seems like that's pretty much a straight forw~ thing. The thing about the sanitary sewer, I think that's a work with staff situation. I would recommend that it gets worked out before it goes to council, what exactly ha~ with that. I don't see a major issue from our side, and if there is alternate parking, I think that's wonderful. Should definitely use it. That's my comme, nts. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig. Claybaugh: Like my fellow commissioners I'd like to congratulate Banta on their expansion. I agree with Commissioner Feik that to deviate from existing consmaction with respect to the panelization would probably be more damaging than to let it move forward. I guess I would like staff, if possible, to comment on condition 25 when appropriate. I'm still a little fi~7~, on what the applicant is asking and where that sits with making a motion on this. That's all the comments that I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I agree with my fellow commissioners. I like the plan. It makes sense to me. The variance is fully understandable and it's one of those things where tying Lot 2 to Lot I under single PID is the only way to go because we wouldn't want to create a situation in which a large office industrial user would have virtually no parking, so we've got it tied together to make it work out and this is I guess the smartest way to do it in my view. I do agree with LuAnn a little bit about this tilt up concrete. I understand the need to be consistent. However, I think there might be some room for trade-off' s there so maybe when it goes to City Council, they could look at maybe getting a little more screening on the rooftop or something. I think they can work it out. Parking, sounds good. If there's no reason to add the extra parking fight away then, on LOt 2, then I would say go ahead and use Ver-Sa-Til, if that works out with them- The buffet seems satisfactory. The drive aisle. I would be okay with 24 feet if staff can support that as well I guess ultimately the council will have to decide whether it's 24 versus 26, but I would support in going ahead with the 24 foot as currently is located on the protxn~. And sanitary sewer, just work it out before you go to council I'm sure. It shouldn't be a problem- Rich, do you have anything to add? Slagle: Just a poim of clarification. I believe I heard from staff that 24 feet was okay. Aanenson: Yes, that's what she said. Slagle: So maybe it just needs to be deleted and not even be an issue for the council. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Blac/cowiak: But the 26 is, isn't 26 currently our code? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Right. Aanenson: But it's an existing so. Blackowiaka Right, so I'm saying ff council wants to go with currant code you know, that would be, that's up to them. I can support 24 is I guess whe~ I'm coming from and I'm hearing that everyone else... Uli, do you have another comment? Sacchex: Yeah, I have another point of clarification. If you look at condition number 30, all rooRop equipment shall be screened from views. So what sta/r was implying is on new. Al-$aff: On new addition. Sacchet: New addition. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: And what would happen if I would understand this as new and existing? Aanenson: They're not agreeable to that condition. Sacchex: They're not agreeable to that? Aanenson: Right. Sacchex: There's enough rooRop equipment up there that's creating a hardship for them to deal with that or? Aanenson: That was their interpretation of that. Based on the design of the building. Sacchex: Okay. Aanenson: So, you can... Blackowiak: That's why I said that maybe council could look at it and, they have a little more wiggle room on that than we do. So anyway, we'll leave it at that and I'll need a motion. There will have to be a couple of deletions and changes here so who's up to it? Steve? Lillehaug: Sure. Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commi.~sion recommends approval of Site Plan Review #03-1 with the variance to allow a 74.1% hard surface coverage as shown on the site plan dated February 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions 1 through 32. Delete number 6. Revise number 5 to indicate design and calculations, therefore deleting number 17. So I'm combining 17 and 5. On number 20, add existing sanitary and storm sewer manholes. And 28, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 revise as such to say provide adequate off street parlcing during consmmfion- Paving the parking during the winter months is not an option. Asphalt must be installed before Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. And on number 30, add on the new a_ddition to be screen~. And on number 27, work with staff to ensure that the sanitary sewer is centered within the easement. Blackowiak: Can I have a little help here to get these. C_m.t through theae. Lillehaug: If there's any more? Aanenson: Yeah. On number 25, just I think what we want to say is that if it does, if they don't extend their own service, which is a condition. If they do want to combine that it has to be a public line and adequately sized. I think that's, our condition says they have to do their own. They want the ability to do a public one, which would be fine if it's adequately sized and within the easement, centered. Lillehaug: And I would agree with that and I would like to add that to 25. Blackowialc Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: Second. Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commi~fion recommeauts approval of Site Plan Review #03-1 with a variance to allow a 74.1% hard surface coverage as shown on the site plan dated Received February 3, 200~, subject to the following conditions: Applicant shall incream~ landscape plantings in east buffer yard to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. 1 Fire Marshal conditions: a. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be requhed on the new tenant water service coming in to the building. b. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be requirecL Contact Chanhassen trite Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted. c. Submit radius turn dimensions to City En~neer and Chanha,ssen trn-e Marshal for review and approval. , Building Official Conditions: a. The additional is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system- b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the Stal~ of Minnesota. c. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. It is evident that the proposed addition will create exiting and high pile storage issues in the existing building that must be examined. d. The owner and/or their represent~ve shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. The applicant shall combine Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One Third Addition under a single Parcel Identification Number. 5. Submit storm sewer sizing design calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 6. Deleted. 1 , , 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. A cross access easement agreement is required over the shared portion of the driveway Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002, 1004, 2101, 2109, 2202, 2203, 3101, 5203, 5215, 5301, and 5300. Show a minimum rock construction entrance of 75 feet in length per City Detail Plate No. 5301. Show the proposed watermain and sewer pipe, class, slope and lengttc A Type fl silt fence must be used and removed when construction is completecL Any off site grading will require temporary easements. Grades shall not exceed 3:1. Add a benchmark to the plans and a legend. On the sanitary and water plan, revise the existing watermain to proposed. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District and Minnesota Depot of Health permits for the site. Combined with condition ~6. Show all existing and proposed easements. Add a storm sewer schedule. Add a note, "Any connection to existing sanitary and storm sewer manhole~ shall be core drilled." The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hoolmp charges. The 2003 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. Any public watermain will require a Minnesota Department of Health permit. In the storm sewer plan, revise the proposed manhole No. 2 invert elevation to match the flow direction. The applicant needs to show the sidewalk to the new entrance door at the southeast corner. If the applicant intends to use the water line, then the line will be considered a public watermain since it serves more than one lot. Public watermaim are city owned and maintained and are required to be placed within a 20 foot wide public easement. Detailed 16 Planning Commission M~.ting - March 4, 2003 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. plans and specifications will be required for the public watermain. The applicant will also be required to supply a financial secm~ to guman~ the installation of the public watermain. The applicant needs to extend their own sanitary service. If they deehte not to extend their own service and instead want to combine it, then it must be adequately sized and centered within the easement as a public iine~ Show proposed grading around the building addition. The City will coordinate with the applicant to extend the sanitary service to Lot 3 prior to the paving of Lot 2. Staff is directed to work with the applicant to ensure that the 8~nitary sewer line is cente~ within the existing easement. Provide adequate off sq~'eet parking during eonsmmtiom Paving the parking during the winter months is not an option. Asphalt must be installed before Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. All rooftop equipment on the new addition shall be screened from views. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial securities. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 32. The most easterly row of parking and aisle shall be removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Blackowialc Motion carries 7-0. It goes to City Council on March 24~. APPROVAL QF MINUTES: Rich Slagle noted the Minu~ of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 18, 2003 as presented. Blackowiak: Before I adjourn there are two items of open discussion that will take place after adjournment. First will be to interview a Planning Commission applicant Approgirrmtely 8:00 p.m. Can you believe it? I know. I know. Since I am also going to be an applicant for the open position I will recuse myself. You guys can go at it by yourselves. And then we'll do city code amendments after the applicant interview. Aanenson: And then if I could just add one other thing. I will be emailing you questions for our joint meeting. We can talk about that but if you want to work on that as part of your open discussion. I'll leave you to work on that. Maybe get one person to kind of pull that together. We'll distribute those and those will be the topics for the joint meeting. Blackowiak: Okay. And do we have a time yet for that joint meeting? Aanenson: Yes we do. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Blackowiak: And it is? Aanenson: Sorry, you're last. But the ~ood news is you can take as long as you want. 8:00. Blackowialc 8:00, Monday, March 17~. . Slagle: Oh, so it's not just us. It's all commissions? Aanenson: All commissions. Blackowiak: So our request to be first absolutely carried no weight. Aanenson: The Senior Commission is going first. They have, they want to go out to dinner. Blackowialc Okay. Feilc Can they do that? Aanenson: They don't have the same statutory. You have statutory reqtdrements. Sun.~hine laws. They don't have sunshine laws as far as meeting so, along with the Environmental Commission. Blackowiak: With that I will adjourn the meeting. Chairwoman Blaekowiak adjourned the Planning Commi~don meeting at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 18