1.h. Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1996'
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g �' ,
Russell Frederick: I'm Russell Frederick. I live at 540 Lyman Boulevard and with this
development I see no problem with Lots 1, 2 and 5. 3 and 4 I think are not suitable ground
to build on, number one. And number two, I think it's not considering the rest of the
' neighborhood. It's not blending with the rest of the neighborhood. This is my only real
objection is those two points. Other than that, three houses on that 2 acres I think blends
with the neighborhood real good and I don't see a problem.
' Mancino: We do have a city ordinance which does allow the landowner to subdivide and
make it denser than the 3 lots. So that is in our city code. Our city ordinance that legally the
' applicant can.
Russell Frederick: Is there also ... 5 development units?
' Mancino: Yes.
' Russell Frederick: For the sewer going in. Meaning the trunk line.
Mancino: Is that correct Dave?
, Hempel: It would be in the future as the parcel subdivides. They would be responsible for
hook -up and connection charges.
' Russell Frederick: But not the trunk line?
' Hempel: That would include the trunk line. That's a hook -up charge.
Russell Frederick: Okay.
Mancino: An other questions? Anyone else wishing Y Q y s ng to address the Planning Commission?
Tom Uppman: I'm Tom Uppman. I live at 532 Lyman Boulevard, just adjacent to this
property and I guess I don't have a problem with developing in the city. It's their property.
' they can do what they choose. I was privileged to have a copy of the drawings that spelled
out in much detail the discussion of the trunk watermain, the sewer, storm sewer and that and
one of the notations on the drawing state that this will be supplied by others. I'm not a
developer but I've purchased property from a developer before and all of those things were in
and available to me when I tried to buy a lot and I just paid the hook -up charge for my house
to the street. Being a neighbor there, I'm on a well and septic right now. I would be very
strongly opposed to subsidizing any development in there for water and sewer. I agree with
Mr. Frederick that there are two lots, they're Lots 3 and 4 that really need to be looked at and
Tom Uppman: Another notation I noticed on the drawings for the pond there. They had a ,
catch basin that would drain into the storm sewer, the city storm sewer. And I'm new in that
area. I've only been there a couple years but it's my understanding that that pond was
considered wetlands and there was drainage that drained into wetlands. I don't think a '
wetlands should... city sewer system.
Mancino: Dave, do you want to describe how that? '
Hempel: Certainly. We did review the previous wetland history there, and according to the
National Wetlands Inventory Map there was a small wetland on the property some time ago.
It's our understanding that the applicant has excavated it to increase the size of it over the
years. I also understand that there is an agricultural drain tile that does drain that
periodically. It's my understanding from the property owner that there's water in it pretty '
much year round except during the summer drought. The water will dry down. What's
proposed with this development is a storm sewer system that will maintain a water level '
hopefully throughout the year. To maintain the water level to create vegetation and habitat
and essentially restore that wetland. Hopefully the wetland will act as a water quality pond as
well as a water quantity pond to maintain flood control on it and so forth. The pond does '
require an outlet structure because of the agricultural tile that's in there right now. It
'
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
studied. I don't believe that they're sound property to put a house on ... I maintained and I
mowed that area and it's constantly wet all the time.
'
Mancino: So you're talking about the soils?
'
Tom U man: I'm afraid that someone will put a house in there that will sink out of sight.
pp p g
Mancino: Well one of the conditions of our report is that the soils do have to be looked at
'
and who was it, I don't know what department comes and checks the soils.
Hempel: The building department's responsibility. They require a soils report from a
,
professional soils engineer. Soils have to be, if they're poor soils, they have to be replaced
with a granular back fill and capable of supporting.
'
Mancino: So that means they're taking out, the poor soils are taken out and new soils are put
in if they don't meet the test. The soils test.
'
Hempel: That's right.
1
Mancino: Okay.
Tom Uppman: Another notation I noticed on the drawings for the pond there. They had a ,
catch basin that would drain into the storm sewer, the city storm sewer. And I'm new in that
area. I've only been there a couple years but it's my understanding that that pond was
considered wetlands and there was drainage that drained into wetlands. I don't think a '
wetlands should... city sewer system.
Mancino: Dave, do you want to describe how that? '
Hempel: Certainly. We did review the previous wetland history there, and according to the
National Wetlands Inventory Map there was a small wetland on the property some time ago.
It's our understanding that the applicant has excavated it to increase the size of it over the
years. I also understand that there is an agricultural drain tile that does drain that
periodically. It's my understanding from the property owner that there's water in it pretty '
much year round except during the summer drought. The water will dry down. What's
proposed with this development is a storm sewer system that will maintain a water level '
hopefully throughout the year. To maintain the water level to create vegetation and habitat
and essentially restore that wetland. Hopefully the wetland will act as a water quality pond as
well as a water quantity pond to maintain flood control on it and so forth. The pond does '
require an outlet structure because of the agricultural tile that's in there right now. It
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g S I S' ,
' meanders through many properties downstream. Typically those do get abandoned as
development occurs. This wetland, storm pond will be then tied into the city's overall storm
sewer system in Lyman Boulevard and will re- connect.
Mancino: Will it go to a regional pond?
' Hempel: It will go down to the wetland that's down by Lake Riley there on the north side of
Lyman where it supposedly goes right now through a drain tile.
I
Tom Uppman: There's no drainage tile.
Hempel: There is some drain tiles underneath.
Tom Uppman: There might be drain tile under it but it doesn't drain. Like I say, I maintain
that and last summer during the rain season, water was all the way up to Quinn Road. That
whole area was swamp. You couldn't even drive a lawnmower there. The drainage is not
working.
Hempel: That's one of the reasons why the storm sewer system will be put in to maintain
that level so you don't have that flooding problem.
Mancino: And the soils will be looked at too, so.
Tom Uppman: I guess, you know the utility aspect of it ... subsidize so.
Mancino: I understand that. Dave. Are those people that live on the east side of Quinn
Road, when this is developed, do they, they are required to hook up to city sewer when it is
available?
Hempel: With Phase II it would be required for the sanitary sewer and water lines be
extended adjacent to those properties and the street upgraded. The city ordinance does
require those properties that are adjacent to a sewer line be connected up within 12 months
after a system becomes operational. They do not have to hook up to city water unless their
well fails.
Mancino: Okay. And they can at any time get a cost estimate from the city, how much it
costs to hook up to the city sewer?
Hempel: Certainly. We can get some figures.
5
Mancino: But we are approving the preliminary plat with those conditions? I
Aanenson: Correct. '
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Sherry Benson: My name is Sherry Benson. I live at 530 Lyman Boulevard. I have '
concerns about the size of the lots. First of all they're not even half the size ... half the size of
one of the smallest lots which is ... area so that does take off the balance then ... it would wreck '
the balance... I also have concerns about the price of the homes that will be placed in this
6 1
'
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
'
Russell Frederick: Can I ask one more question?
Mancino: Certainly.
Russell Frederick: This wetland, I thought I heard something stated that it was...enlarged
where the pond is. The reason this bothers me is this wetland is almost to the roadway. The
'
platted roadway coming in and that is filled with anywhere from 18 inches to probably 2,
maybe 2 1/2 feet of fill. This is why I mentioned before that Lots 3 and 4 are not suitable
building ground. They would have to be excavated. I don't know how deep. I never did...
,
but there's a lot of muck in there. So that is not suitable building ground ... and considerable
fill before you dare put a house in.
Mancino: Well the city will investigate.
'
Hempel: Madam Chair. One of the conditions of approval tonight is the applicant shall hire
a wetland expert to delineate the edge of the wetland as a part of this project as well, so we'll
know more from that investigation.
,
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
'
Aanenson: Maybe I can just make a little more clarification on that. Again we're just
approving the first two lots. We agree that those other lots may be marginal and that's why
we spelled out that there is an additional condition that they do investigate those. We want to
'
make sure before we plat those lots that they are suitable, have a suitable building site so
again we're just approving the first two lots and 3, 4, and 5 are for a future date. We had the
concerns, the same concerns that have been addressed tonight about the soils and the
'
wetlands.
Mancino: But we are approving the preliminary plat with those conditions? I
Aanenson: Correct. '
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Sherry Benson: My name is Sherry Benson. I live at 530 Lyman Boulevard. I have '
concerns about the size of the lots. First of all they're not even half the size ... half the size of
one of the smallest lots which is ... area so that does take off the balance then ... it would wreck '
the balance... I also have concerns about the price of the homes that will be placed in this
6 1
71
L
�.J
0
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
area ... third of an acre. I don't understand how you can put very large houses in there. Is
there a ... value of the homes surrounding that area. That's about it.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, .may I have a motion to close the
public hearing?
Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. The public healing was
closed.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Questions or comments that you would like to
make on the report on the conditions. Craig.
Peterson: I think it's pretty well straight forward as far as the development goes. I really
don't have anything to offer other than the fact that I wish they were all this easy.
Mancino: Bob. I mean Mike, sorry.
Meyer: Nothing.
Mancino: Bob.
' Skubic: I don't have any comments other than it appears that the soil concern is well covered
with the recommendations that the staff has made...
' Mancino: Don.
Mehl: I also think it's pretty simple and straight forward, you know subject to the conditions
and so on. I assume that the lot sizes are within the guide lines for the area. But other than
that, I really don't have anything additional to say.
' Mancino: Thank you. Jeff.
' Farmakes: My only comment on this is, I'll touch on briefly, is to elaborate what you
mentioned for the people who have questions in regards to minimum lot size. The city
defines what the minimum lot size is for the zone and there may be adjacent properties who
' choose to build fewer dwellings on more land. That's their prerogative but that still does not
change the minimum zone that minimum lot size is. And so you're going to have, as the city
grows, you're going to have some large areas, larger lots I think someone mentioned an
' adjacent lot was 3/4 of an acre. There are very few homes now being built on an acre or 3/4
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996 ,
g g rY ,
of an acre and the average price of the home in Chanhassen, which I think is like up to
$140,000.00 some. '
Mancino: $160,000.00.
Farmakes: Is it $160,000.00 now? As it keeps continuing to go up and up and up you're
going to see the demand for smaller and smaller minimum lot sizes. Chanhassen actually has ,
one of the larger minimum lot sizes in the metro area. And anywhere, that just brings you up
to date on that. It might be helpful for some of the people who are upset about this. Other
than that I have no further comments. ,
Mancino: Okay, thank you. I have a couple, just a couple questions. I think it was Dave in
your comments about dwelling type you had put down in the report that a split entry home ,
would be the only dwelling type that you felt would work on this, in these lots. I mean I
know we haven't had for 3, 4 and 5, we haven't had the soils testing done. However, I didn't
see that in the conditions of approval and I also saw on this preliminary plat that most of the ,
houses, the dwelling types that I see are walkouts. So is that something that should be a
condition?
Hempel: I believe condition number 2. ,
Mancino: Does that say it? I
Hempel: It says revise the grading plan to show location of the lowest floor, garage floor
elevation and the type of dwelling. That was a condition that we placed on the applicant to ,
show on the grading development plan, what those elevations of the homes are and we've
indicated to him, based on the 100 year flood elevation of the pond, that those homes will ,
most likely be a split entry type home, or even a slab on grade home. You will not have a
full basement because of the water level.
Mancino: Because of the water level, okay. I just wanted to make sure that the applicant ,
was aware of that and it was part of the conditions. Bob, can you tell me a little bit about
Lyman Boulevard. Is that a collector? Is that what we would, is it a collector? '
Aanenson: To my knowledge it is.
Mancino: Do we need to do some landscaping or some sort of berming when we have homes '
that face onto a collector, according to our city code?
Generous: Based on ordinance, yes. There should be landscaping. '
a 1
II
L
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Mancino: Okay. Is there any in this plan for buffering of those homes on the collector?
Generous: Just the requirement on Lot 2 that they provide 4 trees. It didn't go beyond that.
' And on Lot 1, it's mostly wooded so if they stick to a building area, they wouldn't be able to
save the trees.
' Mancino: Are they going to be able to save most of those very nice older trees on Lot 1?
Generous: They should be. We've required an easement over the rear and the western
' portion but not on the front.
Mancino: Okay. When the final landscaping plan is developed, I'd like to make sure that we
' do have some sort of buffering there on the collector per our city ordinance. Did the Park
and Rec Commission get a chance to look at that, and I didn't see anything about fees.
' Generous: I'm sorry. I must have, or Todd or I either missed it. Yes, they did review it.
They're requiring the fees instead of the dedication of land and it's based on city ordinance in
effect when they final plat.
' Mancino: Okay. So that we do need to add a condition that full P ark and trail fees shall be
paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of the building
' permit application. Okay. Those are all my comments and questions. Is there a motion?
Meyer: I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
' that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Oakwood Estates First Addition,
prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc., dated December 28, 1995 for five lots
' subject to the following conditions 1 through 20 with an additional of number 21. Review
the plat to ensure landscaping is up to the city ordinance, and that'd be.
f
Li
Mancino: Along the collector road.
Meyer: Along the collector road. And I'll let you go ahead with 22.
Mancino: Okay. And 22 says, full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building
permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building application. Is there a second
to the motion?
Mehl: I'll make the second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
9
1
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21, 1996 ,
g g n'
Meyer moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City '
Council approve the preliminary plat of Oakwood Estates Fiist Addition, prepared by William
R Engelhardt Associates, Inc., dated December 28, 1995 for five lots subject to the following
conditions:
n h it '
1. Submit an evaluation of the soils the proposed house pads. This shall be done prior
to issuance of any building permits. ,
2. Revise the grading plan to show the location, lowest floor and garage floor elevations
and type of dwelling using the city's standard designations prior to final plat approval.
the lowest floor elevations of all dwellings shall be constructed a minimum of two (2)
feet above the 100 year flood elevation of the pond. The lowest opening or walkout of
each dwelling shall be a minimum of one (1) foot above the emergency overflow swale ,
elevation.
3. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until I
the street has been paved with bituminous surface.
4.
The applicant shall be responsible for water quality and quantity connection charges in
,
accordance with the City Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). Credits will be
reviewed and applied to these charges upon final plat consideration based on the
applicant's contribution for meeting the City's SWMP requirements.
'
5.
The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a drainage and ponding easement over the
pond up to the 100 year flood elevation and a 20 foot drainage and utility easement
'
centered upon the common lot line of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 for the emergency overflow
swale.
'
6.
The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising street grades along Quinn
pP t1' g g g
Road to provide for an emergency overflow from the pond out to Quinn Road.
_
'
7.
Individual radin drainage, tree reservation and erosion control plans will be required
g g, a g, P P q
for Lots 1, 2 and 5, Block 1 at the time of building permit application for the city to
review and approve. Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 shall be graded in conjunction with Phase II
,
site improvements.
8.
The public street and utility system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
'
the city's latest edition of street and utility standards. Detailed construction plans and
specifications shall be submitted for Phase II for city staff review and formal approval
by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval for Phase II. The plans and
,
10 1
1
' Planning Commission Meeting February 21 1996
g �' ,
specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the city's
' Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
' with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the city's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
10. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
' storm event providing ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the
City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre- developed and post- developed stormwater
' calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if
sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
' 11. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
' contract.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of
' approval.
13. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
14. The applicant has the option to install the storm drainage improvements from the pond
to Lyman Boulevard at their own expense. If the applicant petitions the city to install
these drainage improvements under the Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction/Lake Riley
1 Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32B, the applicant shall accept the
special assessment for the cost of extending the storm drainage improvements from
Lyman Boulevard to the pond. The cost of these storm drainage improvements will be
assessed on a per lot basis over Lots 1 through 5, inclusive. The applicant and /or
property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the
special assessments associated with city public improvement Project No. 93 -32B
11
1
17. A conservation easement or tree removal limit shall be placed over the following lot I
areas:
,
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g �' ,
b. The western 60 feet of Lot 2.
including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment
exceeds the benefit to the property.
c. The westerly 60 feet of the southerly 30 feet of Lot 3.
15. Quinn Road shall be extended and upgraded to a city standard urban road in the future.
The applicant shall provide a temporary turn around with Phase II improvements that
'
meets city standards with a barricade and signage stating that it is a temporary cul -de-
Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees and wooded areas that are to
sac and this road will be extended in the future.
,
16. Applicant is required to plant 10 trees as replacements for canopy lost. These trees shall
be 2 1/2 inches in diameter and from the primary species in the Approved Tree List.
excavations or other site improvements on or adjacent to the lots.
Three trees shall be planted on each of Lots 3 and 4, and four on Lot 2.
'
17. A conservation easement or tree removal limit shall be placed over the following lot I
areas:
12 1
a. The northern 145 feet and western 20 feet of Lot 1.
b. The western 60 feet of Lot 2.
c. The westerly 60 feet of the southerly 30 feet of Lot 3.
d. The northern 35 feet of Lot 5.
'
18.
Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees and wooded areas that are to
be preserved on the site. Such fencing shall be installed prior to commencing grading,
excavations or other site improvements on or adjacent to the lots.
19.
Entry monumentation for the development shall require a separate sign permit and must
comply with city code.
20.
The applicant shall hire a wetland expert to delineate the edge of the wetland due to the
'
marginal soil conditions in the area. Based on this delineation, Lots 3, 4 and 5 may not
be developable or a Wetland Alteration Permit may be required.
'
21.
Review the plat to ensure that the landscaping along the collector street meets city
ordinance.
,
22.
Full park and hail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the
amount in force at the time of final plat.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
12 1
1
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g ry ,
PUBLIC HEARING:
' PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.22 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 8508 GREAT PLAINS BLVD, TED SLATHAR, SLATHAR
' ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Pam B. 8508 Great Plains Blvd.
Don Slathar 8508 Great Plains Blvd.
Brad Willmsen 8510 Great Plains Blvd.
George Gilman 8506 Great Plains Blvd.
Ted & Tris Slathar 4425 Chatsworth, Shoreview
Wayne Hultman 8524 Great Plains Blvd.
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Norm Grant 9021 Lake Riley Blvd.
John Rask presented the staff repoit on this item.
Mancino: This sounds as if there's three lots right now, that if it goes, if the applicant is not
going with two lots, that we may want to see that back and how the lots are split up and what
can be done with the private road at that time. Is the applicant here? Do you wish to, thank
' you.
Ted Slathar: My name is Ted Slathar and we're willing to comply with staffs
recommendations. We'd like to, our main concern is to save as many trees and I think
everybody's concern is that, to save as many trees as we can so we'd like to divide it to where
the lot closest to the lakeshore and the parcel and lot... So we'd go with staffs
' recommendation on...
Mancino: On what?
Ted Slathar: On this.
Mancino: On that specific division, okay. Any other comments on the staff report?
' Ted Slathar: No. I think that John did a lot better job of presenting this than I could. He
handled everything, covered everything and we're willing to comply with everything...
1 13
1
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996 '
g r1'
Mancino: And I take it the property has been in your family for some time.
Ted Slathar: Yes, for over 30 Y ears.
Mancino: Thank you. Any commissioners have any questions for the applicant at this time?
S
Thank you very much. May I have a motion to open this, and a second, for a public hearing
please.
Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was
opened.
'
Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do.
Please state your name and address.
George Gilman: I'm George Gilman, 8506 Great Plains Blvd. Right next to the Slathar
development, or proposed development. My main concern is, if this driveway is put in 20
feet wide starting down ... is about 5 -6 mature pine trees. They're 30 -40 feet high. If the
Slathar's agree to go back to 2 lots, which I think they're giving up a lot. Personally I hate
seeing anything develop but I didn't make the laws and I got to go along with it. I would
suggest that the driveway be left alone, the way it is right now... I measured it out last night.
There's 25 feet from my property coming over to the center of the trunk of the trees. The
trees could be trimmed up a little bit. The branches and leave the driveway the way it is...
blacktop it. Raised it on my side that would keep the water on their side and drain it out
towards TH 101. What also could be looked at, if I were to develop in the future, which I
don't have any plans for it right now but if development proceeds, sooner or later I'm going to
be forced to do it or sell it to somebody that's going to do it. My land, or the new driveway
for my development could be pushed against that driveway and if more houses were built in
there, I mean there'd be a wider driveway. I know there's concerns for fire trucks getting in
'
there. If somebody had to get in, if they had a fire truck, knock down my fence if they have
to. That really doesn't stop a fire truck from getting where they are. It's hard to get up and
talk on this because I'm not developing right now and if I were doing a development I'd want
,
three lots on there. The lot on the lake is worth the money. The way I look at development
costs, you throw away one lot to pay for what the city wants in there. I like to be fair to my
neighbors also and state that here. I could be standing here 3 years from now begging for
three lots and I don't like ... but it's going to happen. And I didn't buy with that intention. But
I would suggest not cutting those trees. I won't object to the driveway coming up against my
driveway. It's that way right now and one more house in there, it's not going to bother me. I
,
don't want to see more trees come out of there than what have to. That's about it.
I I
14 1
1
t Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
1
Mancino: Okay. Thank you for your comments and your letter also. Anyone else wishing to
' address the Planning Commission?
Brad Willmsen: My name is Brad Willmsen. I live at 8510 Great Plains Boulevard, adjacent
to the proposed development. I'd just like to ask if the survey that was used for this
development is recent or current. I understand there's some disagreements as to where the
property lines, where they are along the lake and ... how current that survey is.
Mancino: Bob, what does the city, John. Thank you. I mean how do we know that it's a
legitimate survey?
Rask: Well in this case, we were aware that there has been some disputes. I '
p es. don't know if
there is on this particular lot or not. The survey was prepared by a registered surveyor in the
' State. What happens is it becomes more of a civil matter between the two. The city's in no
position to settle a dispute amongst property owners in this situation. If it doesn't line up,
they may have problems recording the plat in each case. If it changes significantly, it could
have to come back through.
Mancino: Then it comes back and goes through.
Rask: If it's a few inches here or there, I don't think we'd have to go through the preliminary
plat. Maybe just do an administrative subdivision to settle it so it is something though that
the property owners would have to work out amongst themselves.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second
to close the public hearing please.
I Meyer moved, Fmmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hewing was
closed.
Mancino: Before we start with commissioners, well I'll wait. Don.
Mehl: I support the two lot concept. The one that was just shown up there on the overhead.
It just looks like it's balanced better. And I support whichever one will result in the fewest
trees being removed. I understand that that is the one that will take the fewest trees or am I
wrong?
Mancino: Will that take less trees? It certainly won't on the way coming into the driveway.
Y g . Y
1
15
11
1
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21, 1996
g g rY
Rask: Yeah, you'll lose some more from the driveway. It's kind of hard to tell at this point.
You would lose a lot of the, if it's a 20 foot driveway, you would lose all of these pines ,
pretty much. You're going to lose a few for the placement of the house pad and the grading
of the house pad. If you move the property line back to here to try to put a house in here,
you're going to lose almost all the pines and I believe there are some oaks there so it's hard to
say. You're going to lose them either way. It's dust which trees have to go. This one you do
preserve that buffer along TH 101, which is kind of a nice amenity right now. With this one,
because of the bluff, the setback requirement from the top of the bluff, in our current
ordinances they would not be allowed to remove vegetation in that area so those trees would
be preserved along the shoreline there. So it's hard to say which one's worst but they both
have pros and cons.
Mancino: And we can certainly off the suggestion of a variance for the driveway being 20 I
feet also. I mean there are different options, and just have two houses.
Mehl: Yeah, I would support that concept. I like the buffer of TH 101 being maintained if
we can.
Mancino: Jeff. ,
Farmakes: No further comments. I'm for the staffs recommendation.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I have a question of John. If we approve the two lot plat here, would the applicant '
still be able to divide the, further subdivide in the future?
Rask: Yeah. They would still be over on that impervious surface requirement so, I wouldn't
say no. If they went in a combined development with one of the adjoining neighbors where
they shared access or something, it could be possible that in the future they would get one
more lot. But at this time, no. They would not be able to further subdivide.
Skubic: Unless they got a variance.
Aanenson: Unless they got some relief from the ordinance, correct.
Skubic: Thank you. I have nothing further to add. '
Mancino: Mike. Craig. I
16 1
1
LI
1
t
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Peterson: John, if you could put up the slide again. I guess I'm a little confused as to where
the, if we do two lots, where the pads...
Rask: Yeah. On this one the house pad would remain as shown on the lake lot. On the
riparian lot there and then this is the existing home so the home, these two lots would be
combined so the home would sit on this larger lot here. The other option here, again these
are all, we're trying to preserve the existing home. This would be a lot. You could possibly
shift this house pad further to the north to make it fit in there better but we're still pretty
limited because of the setback, as far as where they could go and then the existing house
would sit on Lot 2 here which would be all of this so there would be nothing additional
between the house and the lake. So you just move this one up slightly.
Peterson: Are you recommending the first or are you recommending the change?
Rask: I guess staff really didn't have a preference. They both meet ordinance requirements.
I think the applicant has indicated his preference would be the additional lake lot. As far as
we're concerned, they both meet ordinance requirements. The impact as far as tree removal
are similar.
Peterson: I guess if I had to approve one or the other, I guess I would have a tendency to
approve the first one that the rest of the commissioners spoke of so no further questions.
Mancino: Okay. I'd actually like to see this come back. I'd like to see it come back with
some of the details worked out and that would be the two lots and I also concur with the
applicant, with the Lots 1 and 2. With the front lot, the first lot be the one that has the
existing building and the existing home and the second one be the one on the lakeshore. I'd
like to see something worked out so we can save the trees. Not only on TH 101 but on the
driveway because there's about 120 feet of mature coniferous trees there that add greatly to
that lot and I'd like to see some way that we could keep the driveway existing and not make
it wider. And if we do, I don't know what the width of the driveway is. I think it's
approximately 10 feet and go 10 or 12 feet but we have given other variances to existing
driveways in areas like this and there's only two homes off of it so I'd like to see staff work
with the applicant and with Public Safety so we can work something out. And whether that
even has to work with the property owner on the east, Mr. Gilman so that if there is an
emergency, that something can be worked out to go over that private driveway too. So I'd
like to see that come back. I'd also like to know where, if we have the two lots, where the
driveway for that second lot will go. Whether it will go next to Gilman's. Whether it will
cut and go a little west and enter that second lot. I'd like to see it pulled away from the
Gilman property if possible and save those trees there. I have a question that Mr. Gilman
wrote in his letter to us and one of it was having to do with the sewer line that's coming up
17
1
George Gilman: How deep? I
Hempel: Well it probably would be in the range of 8 to 10 feet deep at that point. There's
construction techniques such as a box to use to try and shorten or keep the width of that ,
trench as narrow as possible, could be one technique. Compaction though would be, usually
they use a mechanical vibrating hamper through there that will send some foundations through
a foundation and so forth of adjacent structures so. 1
Mancino: So what precautions does the city normally use?
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g rY >
Hempel: Well, I don't know if the city uses any in this instance here but the contractor doing
from Lot 2 that will come up. And he had a question about when you go to dig the sewer
line, the compaction of the soils, will that be next to his property line because his home is 18
inches on the east side of the property line. Will there be any repercussions from that? From
you know, to his foundation of his home, etc.
'
Hempel: That's a good question. The sewer line would go along the north property line,
probably 8 to 10 feet off the north property line.
Mancino: To the east or the west?
r
Hempel: Well I would prefer to the east I guess.
George Gilman: How deep? I
Hempel: Well it probably would be in the range of 8 to 10 feet deep at that point. There's
construction techniques such as a box to use to try and shorten or keep the width of that ,
trench as narrow as possible, could be one technique. Compaction though would be, usually
they use a mechanical vibrating hamper through there that will send some foundations through
a foundation and so forth of adjacent structures so. 1
Mancino: So what precautions does the city normally use?
Hempel: Well, I don't know if the city uses any in this instance here but the contractor doing
the particular work should be aware of the situation. I guess I would advise the homeowner
adjacent to the property to document the foundation condition of their home with pictures or
videotape to show that there has been damage caused if.
Mancino: And at that time, can't the city kind of facilitate a meeting between the, whoever's
putting the sewer in and the homeowner on the east.
Hempel: Sure we could explain.
r
Mancino: To make sure they know what's going on and when it's going to happen and how
it's going to be. I think that'd be a good idea. Anyway, those are my comments. I'd kind of
like to see it come back and see what's really going to happen there once the two lots are
created and where the driveway is and what trees will be saved and if we can make sure that
the driveway is paved for the length that it needs to be but it stays the same width. The
existing width that it is now. May I have a motion?
I
I
18
1�
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Meyer: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends tabling the preliminary
' plat for Subdivision #96 -3, Slathar Addition.
Mancino: And do we need to state or articulate any reasons for the tabling?
Rask: No. I think it's ttY re clear.
p
Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion of the motion?
Meyer moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission table the preliminary plat for
Subdivision #96 -3, Slathar Addition for further review. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SIGN VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SECOND WALL MOUNTED SIGN LOCATED ON
PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF
HWY 5, EAST OF MARKET BLVD ON WEST 79TH STREET, TIRES PLUS GROUPE,
INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jim Dimond
Ron Fiscus
1
8609 Lyndale Avenue So., Bloomington
Yaggy, Colby Associates, Rochester, MN
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Thank you John. Is the applicant here?
Ron Fiscus: It's been a while. A bit of history on this. Originally Tires Plus had an option
on the parcel of property across... recommended Tires Plus. Tires Plus originally... piece of
property across West 79th Street from this site where we're currently going and elected to
move to another site on the encouragement of the city administrative staff. A couple of
reasons for that. One was that they, the site that the HRA owned in this location had a
portion of wetlands on it. The site that Tires Plus had optioned had wetlands on it but had
19
k
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21, 1996
g g rY
some doable space. So as the HRA was looking at trying to put their development together
here, they thought this would be an excellent opportunity to swap wetland for non - wetland.
A wetland mitigation site so on that, insistence from the HRA, Tires Plus said okay. This
seems like a reasonable approach so they gave up that site on the south side of 79th Street,
which interestingly enough has 2 or 3 street frontages, and in that process it would have been
,
nice to be able to transfer those rights for signage on local frontages that come with all those
street frontages they would have had to this new site, but that wasn't possible. So we're faced
with trying to find a way to fit into the downtown commercial district and the frankly
aggressive signage that is going on in many places in downtown and even very close to this
site. And as we talked with John about signage within the community we've found that there
have been numerous other conditions where signs on multiple building faces have been
approved by one form or another. One of the facts that we're faced with here is that this is a
bit of an unusual configuration for a site. We're backing back into the site. The angular
streets in this location provide some interesting visual access to this. For example, Pauly runs
to the north of the site. It winds up along through and as you look at, the sense you have for
this property from Pauly Drive, it feels a lot like a double frontage lot. Not unlike the
situation you have at Festival Foods where they have Highway 5 on one side, across the
railroad tracks but it feels very much like they have highway frontage and then have frontage
on Market Square so they have signs on two of their faces. Even though they only have one
actual street frontage off of the Festival Foods property. The building feels a lot like a
planned unit development. It's kind of functioning that way. It has a street in here. By
virtue of an access that's being installed to connect the Americana Bank with this
development, it's going to feel very much like a PUD that has kind of a corner situation. And
this looks and feels a lot like several other projects with Boston Market... with Premiere Video
where some private internal streets that provide access to internal lots are, from all
appearances, dealt with as public streets and people are allowed to count those as frontages so
for example, with Premiere Video you have signage on two of those building faces even
though they only have ... one public street. In this case, and in other cases ... John, apparently
the ... Boston Market and Perkins was dealt with as a planned unit development. And as that
was approved, building multiple signs on multiple building faces were approved as a part of
that PUD. In this case, the public entity that is doing this development didn't provide that
opportunity as a part of the up front request of the Planning Commission and City Council
and the HRA as we were going through the subdivision process. So at this point we're forced
to come back through a variance process to try and get that same approval that has been
granted to other developments in the downtown area. An interesting angle with 79th Street.
As you gain access to this property you have an opportunity for visual access through here,
through here and then on Highway 5 as you look at the face of the building. As was said,
there were several building faces, signs on several of the building faces proposed initially
with the site development proposal. The owner, Tires Plus, would have preferred to have
some ... pylon sign but recognize that that just wouldn't fit with the other sorts of things you're
20 1
Ll
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
doing in this area of the downtown area. So they elected instead to do the sign on the
building face and the peak that you had seen previously. It's a fixed sign. It doesn't provide
the opportunity to address some of the angular, visual access you have to the site as your... So
in this case it's felt that the angles, if we were able to put a sign on this face, which is the
second sign that's proposed, it would provide the opportunity to make use of those angular
vistas to the site and provide a better opportunity for building identification from those angles.
Interestingly enough, the building has a showroom out in front of it so it has actually three
faces on the showroom, not unlike Century Bank. Century Bank was allowed to put letters,
identification letters on the three faces of that turret ... front of their building. I have a couple
boards here ... I'll pass them around that show some of the other circumstances in the
community where signs on multiple building faces have been approved. Century Bank being
one of those. So we elected not to try to do it on the three faces of the showroom. We
elected instead to attempt to only get one additional sign face on the west end of the service
area. As you look at the staff report, there's several of the findings that I can agree with.
There were several that I want to take a bit of issue with. The first one has to do with undue
hardship and under hardship can mean that you are eliminated from making any reasonable
use of the property... But another aspect of undue hardship has to do with whether or not this
property is being treated similar to other properties within close proximity. And as we look
at that 500 foot radius around the Tires Plus property, there are certainly other uses, Wendy's
for example, within about that 500 foot range that have signs on more than one building face,
yet they only have one street frontage. The second aspect of the staff report findings talks
about the conditions that are applicable to other properties within the same zoning
classification. Well, that gets right back to those issues we just talked about where other
signs on multiple faces of buildings have been approved in the same zoning classification and
in very similar settings that we're talking about here. The third item has to do with self
created hardship. In this case by agreeing to operate by those encouragements from the city
administrative staff, the planning staff, about trying to make things work with the larger
developments, where the city in effect has forced us into a position of...The other two items
in the staff report have to do with not being detrimental to public safety. Staff has found that
this isn't detrimental. We agree with that and that it will not impair adequate ... or create
congestion in the street and we agree that this is ... two conditions. So bottom line is we're
asking that we be treated the same as other businesses in similar settings within the
community that have been allowed to do multiple faced signs. If this had been a private
PUD, the developer might have addressed that up front. In this case ... variance approach.
And yet we are in a project that looks and feels and smells very much like the same sorts of
PUD's that you've allowed that type of signage for. I think we are in a unique situation.
We're on the back end of a project property. We don't have any direct adjacency to a street
so we're trying to provide some reasonable means of identification for the building in a way
that's going to be able to communicate to the public with these ... vistas the fact that this is a
i Tires Plus building and just do a reasonable means of providing that identification. And we
1
21
HJ
1
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21, 1996
g g rY
think we're being reasonable, we'd like to think we're being reasonable with the request. It's
not as though we're asking for an 8 x 12 sign on a 60 foot pylon pole that's going to ... neon
Tires Plus. This is intended to be very tasteful. Small, 30 inch high letters in addition to the
basic sign of this building that it will be far less intrusive than a number of the other similar
requests that have been approved recently. We are going to look and feel with this proposal
very much like a lot of the other commercial businesses in the downtown area that are ,lust
trying to...
Mancino: Any questions at this time for the applicant? Okay, thank you. This is a public
hearing. May I have a motion to open it for a public hearing and second please.
Farmakes: I believe Kate wanted to...
Aanenson: I just wanted to shed some other light on some of the things that were said
tonight. I think we need to clarify a couple of issues. First of all, it could have been
addressed under a PUD. There's certainly another approach, and that is during site plan
review, it's very common during site plan review to ask for variances such as Applebee's did
last week. If Tires Plus wanted a variance on the sign when they came in for site plan
review, it would have been very appropriate at that time to ask for one. So you don't have to
only do it during a PUD. There was certainly another mechanism, if they felt strongly, that
they needed a variance to make this happen. They could have approached it at that time. I
just want to make sure that's clear. Their hands weren't tied. They could have asked for it at
,
that time. Secondly, some of the other frontage, double frontage signs are under the old sign
ordinance and as far as the pylon sign, that wouldn't have been permitted anyway so.
Mancino: Market Square, most of the pictures of Market Square, that was a PUD that was
approved in 1989, prior to our current sign ordinance.
Aanenson: Correct.
Mancino: So was Americana Bank was approved prior to our current sign ordinance. In fact
our current sign ordinance, we worked on many, many hours with, just for the commissioners
to know. I know that Jeff was in on this and we worked with the Chamber. We sat down
and had three 2 hour meetings with the business community as a planning commission and sat
with 3 or 4 members of the Chamber and went through our sign ordinance line by line and
talked about it and came to agreement on it and passed the sign ordinance then onto the City
Council. And that was approximately a year ago?
Rask: Yeah, January of '95 so. I
22 1
t
I Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Mancino: '95 so it is just newly, it has just newly been passed but, and it doesn't mean that
any ordinance is 100 %. You don't change it at all but it is a fairly current ordinance and I
think had the participation of the business community. Downtown business community at
that time of Chanhassen so, I'd just like to pass that on.
Aanenson: I just want to make that clear that while the city did do the PUD, there certainly
was an opportunity when they came in for site plan approval to ask for that at that time. I
mean you can certainly ask for a variance at any time but we felt like...
Mancino: Sure, it's a reasonable request and that's fine. May I have a motion to open the
public hearing please. And a second.
Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hewing. The public healing was
opened.
Mancino: Anyone else wishing to, or not, is anyone else wishing to address the sign
ordinance variance, excuse me, for Tires Plus? Seeing one, may I have a motion to close the
public hearing.
t
r
Ron Fiscus: We'd just like to offer one additional comment. At the time we applied for the
site plan approval, and the city's HRA was going through the subdivision platting process, as
was said, we did show multiple building signs on most of the building faces with signs on
them. At that time staff advised us that that was not an appropriate action to be included
within the PUD approval process or the site plan approval process. That we had to go
through a separate process, which is why we're back at this point... directions on what we
perceived to be the appropriate time.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the
public hearing and a second.
Farmakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hewing. The public hewing was closed.
Mancino: Comments. Questions from commissioners. Jeff.
Farmakes: Well we knew this was coming. I don't understand, I haven't understood this
development at all really. I mean the issue of putting Tires Plus in the middle of isolated
area. An automotive retail sort of isolated in the middle of nowhere surrounded by banking,
retail and restaurant and so on. As an industry, typically how they advertise and project
themselves usually is just a little more low brow. It usually doesn't fit in with some of the
other, i.e. Rapid Oil Change and some of the other automotive areas. We try to sort of keep
23
t
J
Plannin g Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
the automotive grouped together. I'm not sure, some of you may not have been here when
Goodyear was done and Abra or 10,000 Auto Parts and so on, on the other end of town down
there by the McDonalds. The way I look at this thing is, what's the practical advantage here
of placing Tires Plus on the area that faces the drive -thru and the parking lot of American
Bank. And if you're looking for a site right from Market Boulevard, signage of that size, and
'
length from Market Boulevard to the building from, looking from west to east, is very little.
It's cut off by the bank where it's going down. Going to the north down at Market Boulevard.
By the time you get to the railroad tracks, you're not going to be turning around to look at the
sign. And if you're looking at the function of Market Boulevard and Highway 5 ... the front
sign just as much as you would ... the side sign. So in looking at like a Byerly's, we were
dealing with this with Byerly's saying, when you're talking about the side signs. It's the same
situation. It's just a matter of 5 degrees this way or 5 degrees that way. You're going to see
both of the same signs and the issue that we dealt with on the signage and the reason that we
came up with this restriction in the first place is, to reduce needless duplication of signage
and often when you're in retail, the more signs the better. You can't have too many. And
when we were dealing with issues of reasonable access to the public to identify your business,
it should be reasonable. There should be reasonable access. I don't see where in looking at a
variance here that making an exception to the rule on this issue is going to serve any real
purpose. And visibility from that junction and that store from the front signage, I don't know
how many people come through on TH 5 but it must be 50,000 a day at least and at that stop
light, I always seem to hit it. So you're going to see these stores. The argument that's made
that every signage application in Chanhassen in the last 20 years, that any new applicant
should be allowed equal access to that type of display, obviously doesn't hold water because
you're going to have rules change as the years go by. If Chan Theaters was done at a
different time in the development of the city then, another example Wendy's. But Wendy's
has thru streets going through it and parking areas so you do have, it's not just parking areas.
There's a thru street going through. And again, if it's a PUD and so on, as to how they
handled these issues and when they bring them up, there may be something about a lot that
lends itself to ... like it does a residential house or anything else. Where somebody's severely
restricted and you use common sense. I don't see that here. I don't see where putting that
sign on the sides is going to make or break that development. The other issue, as I
understand it on the issue, I think you referred to it as product advertisement. Where does
that stand? We really don't address the issue. That's this low warehouse prices, fast world
class service.
Rask: Yeah, they are allowed 15 % of the sign area can be in product advertisement and it's
provided for in the ordinance. And when we calculated the square foot, they were allowed
30, I believe 33 square feet and this actually breaks down to 32 so they are working within
the sign ordinance for that first part. If you recall, when it originally came in they had
Goodyear, BF Goodrich and all of those and they were told they'd have to drop that because
24 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996.
they were exceeding that 15 %. So they have worked within the sign ordinance on the south
elevation of the building.
Farmakes: The issue of where the building goes, if it was supposed to go in another location
at a different time, obviously that's not an argument either to change our ordinance. I don't
see a compelling reason that again the sign facing to the west is going to make or break the
identity of that building and I would recommend or go with the staffs recommendation on it.
Mancino: Thank Y ou. Don.
Mehl: Yeah, I think the location of the building set back the way it is, is just going to offer
the broadest angle of viewing on the front of that building. You're going to see it from all of
79th Street and a large distance along Highway 5. I guess I support the staffs
recommendation also.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I support staffs recommendation.
Mancino: Mike.
Meyer: Nothing additional.
Mancino: Craig.
Peterson: Nothing additional.
Mancino: I really don't have anything additional either. I do know that we have had some
sign variances come up in front of the Planning Commission lately and I just believe that we
treat every business owner fairly and according to the ordinance. And so I would deny this
variance. I don't see the hardship. And we have done that in the last 2 or 3 months and I
want to make sure that it's a level playing field and that we apply the ordinances fairly to
everyone. With that, do I have a motion?
W Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council deny the request for Sign Permit Variance #96 -1 based on the findings presented in
the staff report and the following 1 through 5 in the report dated February 21, 1996.
Mancino: Is there a second?
1 25
1
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g rY ,
Meyer: I'll second that.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
j
Council deny the request for Sign Permit Variance 996 -1 based on the findings presented in
Mike Cleary
the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a
18744 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
variance.
Phil Becker
2. Tires Plus has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with the wall
sign and monument sign.
18788 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
3. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance.
26
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mancino: When does this go in front of the City Council?
Aanenson: March 11th.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT 39.17 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS. SITE
PLAN APPROVAL FOR TWO 74,077 SO. FT. AND A 92,770 SO. FT. OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND A VACATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON
PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF DELL ROAD AND SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, FIRST
INDUSTRIAL, L.P., FIRST INDUSTRIAL CHANHASSEN POINTE BUSINESS CENTRE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Greg Palmer
18766 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
Mike Cleary
18612 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
Scott Knutson
18744 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
Phil Becker
18722 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
Steve Anderson
18788 Wynnfield Road, Eden Prairie
26
Ell
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Duane Lund 7615 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie
Todd Geller 7615 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie
John Diedrich RLK Associates
Steve Schwanke RLK Associates
Rick Wesling EOS/TSP
Shanmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions of staff at this oint? Sharmin I just have one to iv m
P ) give e context.
If you can leave that up for a minute and show me. Where is the berm that's at the back of
the residential complex to the south of this? I mean how many feet away or maybe the
applicant can deal with that. Would you rather have the applicant?
Al -Jaff: It doesn't matter. Either or. I can address it or.
Mancino: Okay. So there are two berms. One that is berming the south of the parking lot
and then when I went out to the site today, there is an existing berm that is at the back
property line of the single family homes. Correct? So are there going to be two berms?
Al -Jaff: Actually there will be one berm that we're just adding to. This is the existing
building.
1
t
Mancino: Okay.
Al -Jaff: This is where the existing berm is.
Mancino: And that's at the back of the single family lots?
Al -Jaff: Correct. A portion of it is located on the industrial office site and not on the
residential homes property.
Mancino: Okay. So the top of the berm is the dividing and there are trees planted on it, etc?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: So that berm will remain?
Al -Jaff: Pardon?
Mancino: So that berm will remain?
27
1
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g ry ,
Al -Jaffa Yes. It will remain. Along Lake Drive there will be a berm only that berm is going
to be between 2 and 4 feet in height. It's not going to be as high as the berm to the south.
Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Does the applicant wish to, or
their designee wish to make a presentation?
Duane Lund: My name is Duane Lund. I'm one of the owners of First Industrial. First
Industrial is the developer of the project and what I'd like to do, before I turn it over to my
team, is just give you a quick introduction of First Industrial so you know who we are and
what we do and make you more familiar with our organization. First of all just to tell you
that my team has informed me that to date ... with the city has been very enjoyable and also
very productive so for that we're very appreciative. First Industrial's a publically traded real
estate company. I have some information here which you can look at which gives you further
information about the company but we're publically traded on the New York Stock Exchange
and we are the largest industrial landlord in the United States. We do business in 13 states.
We own about 25 million square feet of industrial space and here in the Twin Cities we own
42 buildings, 3.8 million square feet and we're scattered throughout the Twin Cities but we're
not in Chanhassen. We have a large concentration in Eden Prairie. A large concentration in
Bloomington and our tenants are moving west so that's why we're interested in this project
here. If you look at our portfolio, we're 98% occupied in the Twin Cities. The reason we're
98% occupied, the tenants are happy and our properties are meticulously maintained and we
think this project here in Chanhassen will set a nice precedent for future development in
Chanhassen and I think you'll be very pleased with First Industrial as a landlord because of
our financial strengths and also our portfolio here locally. So with that I'm just going to turn
it over to the project. John Diedrich is going to talk about the specifics of the project and
answer any questions you may have. I'll be around to answer any questions you have
regarding the ownership side of First Industrial.
Mancino: Thank you.
John Diedrich: Thank you Duane. Members of the team tonight also are Rick Wesling from
TSP/EOS Architect and he will be discussing the architectural components. My job tonight
will be to discuss the landscape architecture, site plan and site engineering aspect of First
Industrial properties and I hope to be able to run through the different elements so that I can
point out the items that we have looked at in dealing with staff and some of the concerns of
why the buildings are sized the way they are and why the site has developed in the manner it
has. For the overall development, the site plans that were submitted to you, to the city on
January 19, 1996 identified three buildings with a total square footage of approximately
240,000 square feet. And with that the buildings from First Industrial have gone through the
planning process and that's how we have designed the site. What I would like to just bring
28 1
17,
I Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
up for a point of discussion tonight is over the last few days there has been a request by First
Industrial to reduce the western most building by approximately 20,000 square feet so I'd like
to just put up a site plan. In terms of this site plan and the change in this presentation is this
building in Building No. 3 has basically been reduced by about 40 feet width. Going down
from 94,000 square feet to 74,000 square feet. And the change was made due to their leasing
and agreements as they're going through and marketing the buildings. But it also allows the
existing DataSery property, parking lot to remain intact. So the plans that you have in front
of you identify a reconstruction of the eastern half of the DataSery parking lot. That will not
occur, nor will the grading that we had talked about on the south side of the DataSery parking
lot be occurring. Other than reducing the width of Building No. 3 and the three properties of
Lots 1,2 and 3 going down from 19.3 acres to approximately 18.5 acres, all of the other
elements in terms of berming, screening, landscaping, site engineering will remain the same.
With the site development that we have worked with staff and the city, with a lot of the
elements that we looked at were how to develop this site so that there would be a number of
elements that would be consistent with the overall zoning codes, setbacks, and the Highway 5
overlay district. The building design was predicated on trying to maintain view sheds, north
and south through that property versus putting walls up along Lake Drive East. The regional
ponds that was a part of the city's storm water management plan identified a 12 acre pond be
placed at the eastern most corner of this site along Dell Road. This development is going to
remove the existing pond that is currently on the east side of the DataSery parking lot and
combine that into one pond on the east side of this site. We have discussed this with staff to
look at one or two pond alternatives and it was determined from a maintenance and water
quality standpoint, that it would be in the best interest to put it into one pond. It's also, it's
referenced from the developer so that we would have an opportunity to concentrate on one
pond for the storm water and use the remaining property for areas of build out. We have
looked at the setbacks from Lake Drive East and we are 30 feet and beyond and along the
south property line there is a 50 foot landscape easement completely on the First Industrial
property which contains the existing landscaped berm and plant materials wholly within the
First Industrial property. According to codes, we can go right up to that line with the
building. We have another buildings further north by approximately another 50 feet. So in
total the buildings are 100 feet from the southern property line and that existing landscape
berm will be maintained in it's entirety and in some areas, especially behind ... for Lot number
1, building number 1, that will be increased with additional plantings. And then the
landscape plan does come back and add additional plantings along that berm, especially in the
truck loading areas or have it screened. The and to the east is also going to be art f L
p g g p o of
1. The reason that is in that configuration is we wish to extend essentially the front yard of
building number 1 out and around the pond and over to Dell Road. There is a drainage and
utility easement over that pond that will allow the city to maintain the water quality and the
water improvements in that area but it's our intent to maintain the edges of that pond in a
manicured state so that it will be more of an amenity and a feature to help set off the building
29
1
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996 1
g g ry ,
and the architecture. Especially as you come into this development from East Lake Drive and
also Dell Road. Dell Road will also be improved as this CSM development, which is north
of this site and the First Industrial development proceeds. That is one of the conditions of
approval and that will be one of the development... M
(There was a tape change at this point in John Diedrich's presentation.)
John Diedrich: ...we would be in this 65 % -66% impervious ratio. The elements of the
landscape plan have been placed, utilizing the city's preferred planting list and we want to
concentrate those at the areas of the entrances. A strong statement of boulevard along Dell
Road and East Lake Drive and inbetween the buildings so that there would be a clustering
effect between massive plantings of landscape materials and the building architecture. The
landscape plans significantly exceed the standard codes from the city's perspective but the
developer, First Industrial wanted to make a statement and they've taken this section of
Chanhassen and realize it is your front door and want to present that as a grand an entry as
possible. As part of the development we have also looked at a view perspective in order to
show how this type is going to look and I have a couple of overhead views ... that I'd like to
run through and I also have, I apologize for not having enough color copies for everyone but
I have three sets that I'd like to pass around as I would walk through the different view
presentations. View number one would be looking basically southwest from the intersection
of Lake Drive, or excuse me, East Lake Drive and Dell Road. So we would be looking
across the pond towards Lot number 1. The intent is to show how that corner will work. We
will have a site development sign at the intersection corner announcing Chanhassen Pointe
Business Center and the building architecture will begin to sprout up amongst the trees at
their initial planting. However, as the trees would begin to mature, they would over take the
elements of the architecture because we're looking at strong boulevard plantings and some
ornamental behind the signage.
Mancino: John, is that a berm there? The front?
John Diedrich: Along?
Mancino: Along Lake Drive East on the, in front of the building. In front of Lot 1.
John Diedrich: There is a berm where the parking is. It's about a 2 foot berm with plant
materials on top of that.
Mancino: So that is on the west side of the pond? I'm sorry. Right here there is a berm?
John Diedrich: On the west side? I
30 '
r
C
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Mancino: North /south on the west side of the pond.
John Diedrich: On the west side of the pond, we do not have a berm between the pond and
the parking lot. We are looked at, utilizing plant materials with a slope coming down from
the parking lot area.
Mancino: So the parking lot is actually higher than the pond.
John Diedrich: The parking lot is higher than the pond. The pond is at an approximately
elevation, high water. I'd have to refer to my engineering plans. I believe about a 910, 912
elevation. The building elevation is at 918 and we would be sloping away so we'd be about a
916 at the edge of the parking lots. So we'd be up probably 4 to 6 feet above the pond edge.
I should also say the buildings do step up in terms of floor elevation. Building number 1 is
at 918. Building number 2 at 919. Building number 3 at 929. And for reference, the
existing DataSery building is at about a 934 -935 building elevation so if you look at the
existing DataServ, 935, 29, 19, 18. Those are steps to follow the contours of the site as this
berm also steps up from a 918 level up to a 930 level along the south side of the site. View
number two is taken essentially directly south from the southeast corner of Lot 1 looking
north. In terms of the elevation, these shots were taken approximately 70 feet south of the
existing property lines which is at the building or the house plane of the development in Eden
Prairie. If you are standing on the ground at that house, at that location, you would be, the
ground level is 904. Your viewing height, assuming a 5 foot 5 inch height would be 909.5
and the top of the berm is 922. So you're looking up at this location approximately 12 feet.
That's why you see most of the building covered up. Building elevation is at a 919 floor
elevation.
Mancino: And the vegetation is, that's a 6 foot tall?
John Diedrich: No. The vegetation is probably a 5 year maturity. I would say this is in the
range of a 10 foot conifer. Assuming it was planted at 6 foot. There is existing plant
material out here. I'm only focusing on the new plant material at this time. So there is more
plant material but I did not want to create a solid screen. View number three is directly south
of building number 2. And the ground elevation begins to step up. The ground elevation is
at a 916. The viewing height would be at approximately 921. The top of the berm is at a
924. So there's about a 3 foot difference, 2 1/2 foot difference. The top of the berm, 924.
Building elevation 919. So there's a 5 foot difference between the top of berm and bottom of
building floor elevation. And view number three is looking almost directly south of Lot
number 3. Excuse me, view number four from the residential side. At this location there is a
drainage swale that is pulling a lot of the water from Eden Prairie onto the First Industrial
DataSery site so we need to keep the drainage swale open so that we're not flooding the rear
31
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g rY >
yards here. At this location the ground elevation at the rear of the building is 924. Viewing
height elevation is at 929.5. Top of the berm is at 930. So there's not a lot of screening on
this one. We are restricted with that drainage flow coming across building elevations from
plane at 929. I do feel we do have a little bit of flexibility to puff up that berm 1 or 2 feet in
this location if we're careful about some of the drainage. But we cannot have a constant berm
'
across here like we've had on the other two. The landscape plans shown here utilizes the
revised site plan that is being proposed with the narrower building on Lot 3, so this site plan
is the plan we would be proposing to move forward with in terms of the final plat and with
'
hopefully your approvals tonight on towards City Council. We will submit to re- drawing the
entire plan package so that all of the plan sheets will fit this site plan. In terms of the overall
development, we feel we've made a number of elements to keep open the site lines. Orient
the building so that we have screening of the loading dock between the building utilization of
strong architecture and a significant planting of landscape plant materials in order to provide
,
screening. One element we will do is plant larger conifers at the ends of the loading docks so
instead of 6 foot conifers as we had proposed, we would put, we would be happy to put in 8
foot conifers in those locations in order to start that screening immediately. Light standards
that would be placed on the site would be of a shoe box, down cast type fixture similar to
some of the lights that are out there today. We anticipate the height of those lights to be 25
foot in height and they would be along the perimeter of the parking lot areas. Essentially
around the site. And any lighting that would be on the south side of the parking lot would
have a...so that the lights would be reflected so that there would be no glare reflected north.
But all the lights would be the shoebox fixture with the concealed... We would anticipate wall
packs of wall mounted lights within the loading dock area between them. With that I've
basically completed my presentation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Otherwise I would like to turn it over to Rick Wesling ... architecture.
Mancino: Any questions for the applicant at this point? Thank you. ,
Rick Wesling: Good evening. As John shared, my name is Rick Wesling. I'm with the
architect and engineering firm of TSP/EOS. Share with you very quickly about the process
we went through in terms of picking the family and the trails to use on this building. Trying
to measure against all the contextual elements in terms of planning a facility this size and in
this location. One we all recognize as a commercial facility and it has commercial neighbors
to the north. But equally as important, if not more important is the fact that it has residential
neighbors to the south. A building that is approximately 480 feet long and 160 feet deep.
Clear day height of 24 feet can become a very imposing structure unless you are careful to
keep your selection of materials and how you articulate the envelope of that building in both
plan and the elevation of that building as it meets the ground and meets the sky. We have
chosen, because of the building's use and because of the height necessary to make it a viable '
commercial entity, to use a pre -cast panel for the structure of the building. The envelope of
32 ,
I Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
the building with very carefully placed materials, brick, burnished concrete masonry and not
clear glass but some glass that brings some color to the building as well as bringing some
color into the coping. The specific materials we have chosen, and I'll begin with the pre -cast
because I know that is a material that I'll be quite honest with you, can scare a lot of people.
' We're all familiar with the pre -cast that we've seen back in the 70's when in fact that industry
was probably in it's infancy but it is quite impressive what the manufacturers are able to do
with the material today. With the colorations in the concrete, the very careful selection of
' aggregates and how they finish the concrete. They can get a panel of very great detail and a
very great variety in terms of the surface textures. The bulk of our panel, the lighter color
' you see here would be the color that we're looking at right here, which is a plain color
concrete. All colored interval with a very slight acid wash on it which takes off some of the
paste. It removes that shiny, fresh out of the form feel and gives it more of a stone like
' appearance. The darker colors which we had used to articulate both the recessed symbols or
decoration if you will, for lack of a better word, on the face as well as articulate the rhythm
of the building marching along. We're proposing to use an exposed aggregate. Exposed
' aggregate in the pre -cast concrete. The aggregate is integral all the way through the concrete.
A retarder is spread on the pre -cast panel. Once it's pulled from the form, they actually wash
the paste off the top of the panel exposing the aggregate in the interior panel. That begins to
' form the framework from which we begin to articulate the building further. To further
articulate the building we have established a rhythm which both marks the corners of the
building. In other words, the framing these two buildings together if you will. Making this
' building a part of the family of all three of these buildings as well as articulated a change in
materials in the center so we have a rhythm. The building doesn't appear to be one big long
mass. It appears to be an articulated building. Each one of the, at each one of these faces,
' the building steps back approximately 7 feet. So it's not like it's this artificial skin that's
placed on it. There is enough movement in the plan so it looks like it makes sense and
indeed we're working with a much larger group. In terms of the remaining materials, I'll
' focus on the areas which we use face brick and CMU. As a base to the building, something
to anchor the building to the ground, we're proposing a burnished CMU. It has a very stone
like appearance. It's actually physically ground and the aggregate and the stone shines
' through and it has a sealer on it. In addition to that, between each of the CMU base elements
if you will, we've used the modular brick. Now typical brick of the same scale of brick in
this room. And the brick that surrounds each of the glazed areas would be a brick of this
' color but it was lighter and more of your scale. And that's again to make sure the scale of
the materials we use in the building are appropriate to the scale of the overall building. In
addition, capping off the brick, we're proposing using a roof edge of this blue color. Capping
off the spaces ... these elements where the building meets the sky, the green. Carrying that
vocabulary forward using a green tinted glass. This is a sample of the span row panels.
' More difficult to show you what an actual insulated panel you see through would look like.
In a dark.... finish for the window.mulients within these glazed areas. We've chosen to
33
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21, 1996
g g rY
strategically place these... areas so when they softened the building against the neighbors to the
south, and present a very sophisticated if you will, appearance to the main commercial '
thoroughfare. That, in a nutshell is how we address the public area. And again in the interest
of economy, and I'm not going to hold this one up very long. On this truck apron portions of '
the building. The portions of the building that are not generally viewed by the public using a,
what's called a raised panel where the aggregate again receives a series of grooves. Very
small and becomes a very fine texture versus the heavy ribbed texture you're probably '
familiar with in older pre -cast buildings, and then again some of the aggregate is exposed in
this panel again to make sure that the color is within the family of all the other materials that
have been chosen for the building. I'd be happy to entertain any questions. That was a very
quick over view but I'd be happy to entertain any questions. '
Mancino: Any questions? Nothing at this time. I
Rick Wesling: Okay. At this point I'll turn it over to Steve Schwanke to discuss some of the
details of approval. Conditions of approval. I
Steve Schwanke: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Steve Schwanke with
RLK Associates. We have just a couple of comments and I guess Madam Chair, we'd defer
'
to city conditions. We could go over these right now, if that's the pleasure of the
commission. Otherwise we'd be happy to defer and listen to the discussion of the commission
and the public hearing.
'
Mancino: How many points do you have tonight?
'
Steve Schwanke: We have four points.
Mancino: Why don't we do that now.
'
Steve Schwanke: I'd be happy to do that now. Now I'm going to actually come around here
and use this exhibit as much as I can. We have four points, and actually a couple of them are
,
just relative to clarification and what we are asking for commission consideration. The first
one is regarding signage and specifically the condition that's found on page 14, number 2(b)
of the staff report and I'll just take a minute to summarize that. That'd be page 14, item 2(b)
'
regarding wall signs for buildings and reads specifically, will be permitted along the north and
east elevations of Building 1. So in effect on the north side and on the east side of Building
1, and then it goes on to say that only for, they'll only be permitted on the north elevations
'
for lots, or buildings 2 and 3. It's our understanding that that condition comes from Section
20 -1304 of the code which basically says that one wall sign will be permitted. Wall business
sign will be permitted per street frontage. What's happened here in effect then is, again if we
'
34 1
' Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
understand this correctly, is because there's frontage here and frontage here, then in effect the
' wall signs would be allowed here and here. Given the design of this, again if you go back to
John Diedrich's comments, the design of this has been to allow for the view sheds here and to
ease the impact on the neighborhood in this area... effect that that has though, is because the
' buildings do not necessarily front on this road here, where those signs would normally occur,
are being restricted in these areas here and not being allowed in this area here, which is really
where the businesses are. Which is where the signs are required. Our reading of the code
doesn't necessarily preclude this from occurring. Though we could see how one might
interpret it that way. So again we ask in effect for the commission's consideration regarding
' that and we'd be happy to abide by it. Second one relates to the Dell Road improvements.
That's on page 17, number 5 of the staff report. The commission may recall that this item
also came up a couple of months ago with respect to the CSM development up in this area
' here. Madam Chair I'll just summarize very quickly. The commission may recall that Dell
Road in approximately this area here has not been fully improved, particularly on the
Chanhassen side. Given the CSM development up here and /or the First Industrial
' development down here, there's a logical opportunity now to improve Dell Road. CSM
currently, our understanding is, has committed to the improvement of Dell Road in this area
here. Their concern all along has been how though, if they improve this road, Dell Road in
' this area here, will be compensated for that work. We understand that CSM now has in effect
reached a verbal agreement with the city as to how that will occur. Our client here, in this
case First Industrial, while being held to the same condition, hasn't been privy to that
conversation. So their only point this evening is, they don't have a problem with this
condition and actually would support the improvement of Dell Road. They just want it to be
on the public record that they need to get the details yet as to how that reimbursement or how
' they would be compensated when and if they did happen to improve Dell Road in this area
here. The third item is on page 18. Condition number 16. This is related to the potential for
the need and installation of a traffic signal in this area here. Again the commission may
recall that a traffic study was required by the city as a part of the CSM development to the
north where the traffic study in effect indicated that possibly at some future point, a traffic
signage may be needed here and the indication was basically about the only time this traffic
' signal would be needed is when and if Dell Road, at some future point, was eventually
connected with the construction, or potential construction of Trunk Highway 212. Our
concern is, again First Industrial has no problems with contributing to this traffic light, when
' and if it occurs. We're not so sure anybody wants to actually take a bet though as to whether
that traffic light's going to be needed. So we're asking that again, First Industrial is happy to
contribute financially to that traffic light but that the money be escrowed when the warrants
' are actually met ... likely to be installed. So it's more of a timing issue here than whether the
light is actually needed or not. And then finally the last item is really a clarification on page
' 9 of the staff report. As Mr. Diedrich indicated, page 9 of the staff report, the second to the
last paragraph, or it's actually that very large paragraph. Let me see if I can just explain it
IF
35
FJ
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g rY >
very quickly. As Mr. Diedrich indicated, the regional pond in this area here, this lot, this '
pond is actually part of Lot 1. This property here will be owned, or continue to be owned by
First Industrial. Will continue to be part of Lot 1. So in effect the ponding itself will be
continued to be owned by First Industrial. Obviously a drainage and utility easement will be '
placed on it so the city's able to go in there and maintain it. But the actual ownership of it
will be maintained by First Industrial. The staff report indicates the bottom of that last
paragraph there on page 9 that these, it states that these improvements will become owned '
and maintained by the city. These improvements here, as was referenced in the staff report,
relates to pond and a trunk storm water system that will be in this area here and obviously
related to the trunk storm water system, that will be owned by the city. We just want to ,
clarify that the regional pond in this area here will actually be owned by First Industrial.
Madam Chair, unless there's any questions by the commission, that concludes my comments.
Mancino: Thank you. Any questions at this time? The four points that Steve just brought
up, I'll be asking different staff members to respond to, if you'd like to or if you would like
to, you need more information... applicant after we have the public hearing. And it is in the '
ownership of the regional pond on page 9. And his concern about wall signs on page 14,
because I would also like to hear staffs opinion on it. And number 5, the details of the
compensation. And on condition 16, the timing of the money that's escrowed for the light. I
So we will do that when the public hearing is over, thank you.
Steve Schwanke: Thank you. I
Mancino: Is there any other member of the team that is going to be approaching the Planning
Commission at this time? '
Steve Schwanke: That concludes our presentation.
Mancino: Thank ou. May I have a motion to open for public hearing lease and a '
Y Y p p gp >
second.
Fatmakes moved Meyer seconded open the public h in The public hearing '
y to pe pub c eai g. a pub c can g was
opened. '
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission at this time. I
Scott Knutson: Hi. I'm Scott Knutson. I live at 18744 Wynnfield Road in Eden Prairie. I
don't know if you still have that last slide. It's your last color slide. '
36 '
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Mancino: The view boards?
Scott Knutson: That would be the one. That's my back yard. I'm assuming at least. And I
guess the fact that there's that pond there right now... something this high above the berm...
Hopefully the berm can be built up a little bit more or possibly more evergreens...
Mancino: And hopefully you did know, when you bought your property, that is was zoned
industrial south of you and at some point that would be developing.
Scott Knutson: I did know that. I did not know that the wetlands would be removed.
Mancino: Thank you. We'll take your comments about, and I think it was talked when Mr.
Diedrich talked about increasing the height of that berm as much as they possibly could but
they also need to make sure that they route the drainage towards the regional pond on the east
so it may go up a foot or two, was my understanding, but not too much more than that. And
have you seen the plans? The landscaping plans at City Hall?
Scott Knutson: Yes. A couple other things. During the transition phase, I know in Eden
' Prairie at least they have some rules and regulations as far as berming and screening during
that transition process. Is that a rule and regulation in the city?
' Mancino: What do we have in effect Dave that happens during the construction? Hours.
Hempel: Not really anything is screened during construction. Construction hours are 7:00
' a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No work on
legal holidays or Sundays.
' Mancino: But there is nothing that we have in our ordinance that makes them do, makes the
developer develop or put up any screening while construction's going on?
I Hempel: No.
Mike Cleary: My name is Mike Cleary. I live at 18612 Wynnfield Road. View 2 I guess on
the screen ... I just have a couple questions. Who will be, after the landscaping is done on the
berm, who will be responsible for maintaining that? It's a question because we're in an
association on Wind Pond, the Lundgren site or...
Mancino: I believe that that's First Industrial's and they do have an irrigation system in that
will be in place and obviously they take meticulous care of properties, if I can so speak for
them.
37
11
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 '
Mike Cleary: Another question I had is, the improvement of Dell Road, where it's not
finished. Is that, you know under CSM, is that the lake property up, who's, where does that '
stand? I thought that was made apart of the conditions list. Could that be further explained?
Mancino: Mr. Hempel can. '
Hempel: Madam Chair, thank you. The previous site plan that was in oh, maybe a month '
ago on the CSM Corporation, which is the site directly to the north of Lake Drive, and west
of Dell Road. As a part of their site improvements, they were required, or are being required
to install the remaining portion of Dell Road with their improvements. It's my understanding '
that the schedule right now, it's hoped to be completed by November of '96.
Mancino: Now Dave, is that improved prior to the start of construction? I mean what's the I
timing? Is it parallel to construction?
Hempel: It would be parallel to construction of their site, right. I
Mancino: So you're going to hear it all at one time. I mean you're going to hear the
construction of that property plus the construction of Dell Road. I
Mike Cleary: And the final question I had was regarding the traffic situation. A point of
going through to 212 ... to us that will be a big influx of the First Industrial building along with '
the new CSM building trucks coming in and out ... into Dell Road and I'm just curious if that's,
you know to me that may be a condition before 212 comes into play.
Mancino: It maybe. '
Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can touch on that too a little bit. As this area develops and '
traffic increases there, the most likely warrants will be met for, most likely a 4 way stop sign
at that intersection. That usually happens first before you get semaphore and traffic signals
installed. I would envision as the service level increase in there, you should see 4 way stops. ,
Mancino: And the city will be doing traffic studies inbetween to determine when a light is ,
needed?
Hempel: We can periodically monitor that, as well as Eden Prairie. I
Mancino: Anyone else wishing?
38 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Phil Becker: Phil Becker, 18722 Wynnfield Road in Eden Prairie. I guess my concern is the
' removal of the pond behind my property. That's currently that's tied with in a couple other
ponds that are on the other side of the berm for overflow control and I guess that wasn't clear
from the plans whether that was taken into account when the pond behind my property was
' removed and the concern is, because there's an overflow basin uphill from my lot, that tends
to fill up when it gets a lot of rain and it doesn't fill up as fast because it goes into the other
pond on the other side of the berm. Is there something that takes that into account? Or is
' there another connection to the pond down on the east side of that property then or how is
that going to be handled now because now that will fill up much more rapidly and in some of
' the cases, in some of my neighbors yards, it takes up almost most of the yard when it
overflows so, I guess there's a concern there that if we don't have that extra capacity there,
we're going to end up with a lot more water in the back yard.
Mancino: Well the new regional pond I know is 3 acres and it takes, it accounts for 60
acres?
' Hempel: That's correct. With the relocation of the pond on the DataServ, that DataSery pond
does take drainage from the Eden Prairie residents. That, one of the conditions that we
' placed in the report was that that drainage pattern be maintained so we didn't impede or flood
out properties in Eden Prairie as a result of relocation so there is a storm sewer system that's
being extended to pick up that drainage runoff where the DataSery pond is today.
' Mancino: So should those residents have less water in their back yards because of this than
they do have now? Will it make any difference?
Hempel: It should not make a bit of difference.
' Mancino: So they'll still have the same?
Hempel: Right.
' Phil Becker: So there'd be a storm drainage that's going to run, that storm drainage is going
g g g
to run down all the way down to the other pond?
' Hempel: That's correct.
' Phil Becker: Okay. I guess the only other concern is maybe view number, was it 4 or 2,
whatever. Since I live right next to Scott ... the only other concern is the fact that at the height
that it's going to be at, those houses are going to be looked into the first floors of all the
' houses so the question is, is screening going to be good enough so I don't have to worry
1 39
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21, 1996 ,
g g rY
about a privacy issue? From a standpoint of being able to look, you know from those
windows into the home. I mean farther down they're so low as comparison, it might be the '
second floor, is what it looks like from here ... looking into the first floor of the homes at this
point.
Mancino: John do Y ou want to answer that?
John Diedrich: Sure. Do you have the landscape plan? In looking at view number 4 here. '
In terms of Lot 3, we have looked at placing plant materials where the storm sewer system
would continue to come through. These is existing plant materials here. We could take a ,
look at relocating some of the plant materials on and within this area to help screen these
areas a little bit more. I think that would help your concerns. However, the building is 100
feet north of the property line and at this location, view 4, your home or the back yard, the '
back facade of your home is approximately 85 to 95 feet away from the property line so
there's really a distance of about 195 feet between the office building and where your house
would sit. So there is still quite a good distance away. ,
Phil Becker: Yeah a distance but they're still, I mean they're almost on the same height from
the standpoint of the elevations. '
John Diedrich: There would be a comparable elevation of 925.
Phil Becker: Right. '
John Diedrich: Or 929 to your first floor elevation of approximately 924. '
Mancino: You probably won't get 100% screening to begin with. As trees mature.
Phil Becker: No, I understand that ... fairly small that will be put in. I guess the only other '
question I was, is that per chance is there a requirement when there's development this close
to a residential area, that there'd be any meetings with the residents before plans are presented ,
or is that just, you have to show up at the planning meetings to find out what's going to
happen? '
Mancino: A lot of times developers do have neighborhood meetings. It is not something that
the city requires. ,
John Diedrich: I would like to add, as part of the development, they're proposing this
additional 50 foot extension from the existing landscape easement that comes into '
approximately this location. That a 50 foot landscape easement be part of the plat so that it
40 1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
would be a perpetual easement of landscaping for that 50 feet for this entire proposed
development.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Seeing
none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. and a second?
Fmmakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Discussions. Questions. Comments. Craig.
Peterson: I think the residents, there might be some legitimate concerns but I think that
seemingly the developers have taken a proactive step in addressing some of those and I think
that my sense is that they are even willing to go farther I think in any ability they can to
mitigate the concerns the residents have on the residential side of it should be done, can
whatever possible. As I look at the materials presented in the plans, I think it will be a nice
first view of Chanhassen of sorts from what has been presented and I would certainly vote to
approve without any hesitation. I would like to hear from staff regarding the four issues that
RLK did bring up before making a final recommendation. I wonder if that's appropriate for
staff to do that now.
Mancino: It's a good time. Good idea. Let's, looking at 1, I think Dave, the first one would
go to you about the Lot 1. The regional pond being in the ownership of the First Industrial.
Hempel: Sure. That is correct. The property will remain a Lot 1. The city is simply going
to have a drainage utility easement over that area to maintain the storm water pond and storm
sewer pipes. The pond will be technically First Industrial's. Maybe I can touch on the next
point. Item 16, on page 18 regarding traffic signals. That was a tough one to be honest, for
me to put in knowing the 212 situation. I guess, I don't know if this would be an acceptable
compromise to the applicant. If they. would agree to waive their rights in the future for an
assessment for the traffic signal based on traffic trip generations from their site. Maybe
there's some language we can put in the development contract that would suffice both parties.
Mancino: And maybe we can—say that you and the developer will work through number 16
to what's agreeable to both parties.
Hempel: That'd be acceptable, sure.
Mancino: And what about number 5?
41
`l
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21, 1996 '
g g ry
Hempel: The Dell Road upgrade? Sure. We do believe CSM Corporation will continue on
their path for final plat approval. However, stranger things have happened where things fall
apart at the last minute and with this development, First Industrial, the amount of traffic
generating and as with any other improvement, they're normally responsible for upgrading the
streets and infrastructures that border the property or benefit the properties.
Mancino: So you would want to keep it as it is? '
Hempel: I would want to keep it as it is.
Aanenson: Otherwise they tie it back ... coming back into the prematurity. We believe that it ,
would be a premature subdivision at this time if we didn't have the street upgraded. We'd
want to re- evaluate that so we just want to make sure that that's understood. That they need
to both track together.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. And Sharmin. Looking at the buildings and how they're going '
to be on the side. Not street frontage yet every business will need to have some sort of a
wall sign.
Al -Jaff: This is not a commercial building. It is an office /industrial building so when we '
look at it, we don't really see a need for the signage along the east elevation. The only thing
that we need to point out is, should you recommend approval of providing signage along the '
east elevation or west elevation of Buildings 2 and 3, we need to add to this condition that no
back lit signs shall be viewed from the residential neighborhood to the south of this
development. '
Mancino: Okay. And otherwise they can have the signs in that area? Okay, thank you.
Actually it might be helpful if you could kind of word something like that as we're talking to '
change that condition. Thank you.
Peterson: My feelings are the same as the plan as presented would be approved. '
Mancino: Mike.
Meyer: Just a question of staff. Are you comfortable with the change that you made?
Al -Jaff: Yes. '
Meyer: That's all.
42 ,
1
' Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I think it's a quality, well thought out plan. The ... that struck me was the orientation
of the building... residential neighborhood. And this is a difficult transition between office
' industrial to the residential and I think the applicant did a real nice job on this. I have one
question for staff regarding noise. I don't know that anything can be done about that but do
we have any regulations... trucks will be loading and unloading in this area.
' Al -Jaffa We do have a nuisance ordinance that w would ould require the applicant to abide by.
t Aanenson: There are performance standards that they have to meet if there's complaint about
noise, and that's one of the reasons why the industrial, that we do require... because you're
right, there might be some loading at certain hours. That's part of the reason with the
landscaping for noise ... but that's certainly something, if there's complaints on...
I Mancino: And what are the hours that you can unload and load?
Aanenson: It just has to meet a noise level. There isn't really hours of operation. It just has
to do with the noise level. The performance standards themselves. Just like lighting.
Mancino: So once the building is built and the residents start hearing noises in the middle of
the night because you know, somebody's working all through the night. Has 3 or 4 shifts, we
can as a city limit when they can be loading and unloading if the noise level is past a certain.
' Aanenson: Correct.
Skubic: I support the signs along the eastern and western side of the buildings 2 and 3. It
seems to me there will probably be offices along those areas that will need to be identified.
Aanenson: Right, it will be a multi -tenant building which we understand but we want to
' make sure that, the word commercial came up. It's not commercial. It's zoned industrial and
it will be office industrial.
' Skubic: Thank you.
Mancino: Jeff.
' Farmakes: The materials on the building
g a e very nice. They should go well with the other
facade. Other than the fact of, we were talking to you about modifying some of the screening
43
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 '
on the windows going into the other houses on the south elevation, hopefully they'll... material.
So that it does provide screening later on. I don't have much else to add to this. '
Mancino: Okay. Don.
Mehl: Yeah I think it's a well done ro'ect. It will look great. I agree with the other '
P J g g
comments that have been made here and really don't have anything additional. '
Mancino: Thank you. I have Just a few more questions and comments. Sharmin, what about
the roof equipment. Will the parapet wall be high enough so that we won't see any roof '
equipment and there won't be any ... from the residential homes from the south.
Al -Jaffa We asked the applicant to prepare cross sections showing the parapet wall. I believe
they're right there behind this.
Rick Wesling: Behind the elevation here we have prepared a cross section which places the
vehicle... along Dell Road and cuts the section directly through the first building. Buildings 2
and 3 are close enough to a public way, given their height, it would have to be a monumental
size piece of mechanical equipment before you can see anything without a parapet. Yet we
cut a section through Building 1 because perhaps that's the building that would have the
greatest opportunity to ever see any mechanical equipment. Sitting in the vehicle, assuming a
48 inch elevation of the occupant eye level, looking out over the top of the parapet, which
'
were on over this portion of the building, at the center of the building and repeats themselves
again at this corner of the building. Placing a mechanical unit roughly 40 feet back from this
front edge, assuming a height of 4 feet off the roof, and in our section we have not taken into
'
account the fact that we intend to provide internal drains on the building, i.e. the roof will
slope towards the center of the building. So we're gaining a foot but for purposes, or
greatest... conversations we've ignored that. The parapet over these portions of the building
'
should screen that mechanical unit from cars passing by. Now finally when we've had ... we'll
have to measure that parapet height again in terms of does it adequately meet those needs.
But we've thought that through to what level we're able to with the information we have
'
given at hand.
Mancino: And if those change, will the parapet become taller to address?
'
Rick Wesling: We'll need to make that decision very quickly and as the construction building
team moves a little bit further forward and some of those further building parameters are
'
decided. In other words, what number of units will we serve the multiple tenant situation
with. What is a likely location to place those units and being able to run mechanicals up to
serve all those areas and we'll have to look at those again. And if that means raising this
44 1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
parapet height a little bit more, we'll have to seriously take a look at that and I would implore
' the commission to leave that in the hands of staff so—certainly that issue is not lost. That's a
very important issue.
Ij
Mancino: I would also like to see the issue addressed from the residential side too. If you
could do views from that side for the City Council meeting, that would be helpful. Unless
you already have.
Rick Wesling: Well this is the beginning of that discussion. I think the views from the
residential area from the residents standing on the ground at the rear of their house. Again if
we place our units a reasonable distance back from the edge of the building particularly, a
typical 4 foot high unit should not be able to be seen. Now we can either look at what
happens from the second story window but obviously the higher the resident gets in their own
house, the more difficult it's going to be, and in fact the impact of screening those units may
be more of a detriment to the residents than recognizing the fact that it's.
Mancino: No, I understand. I hear a lot of should's and I guess what I'd like to make sure is
by the time it gets to City Council, that there's not so much should's but they're definites.
Rick Wesling: Within the level of what we can do to represent two dimensionally to the
plan, I agree with you. But obviously I'm...
Mancino: Thank you. Has it been decided Sharmin where the trash enclosures are going?
Al -Jaffa It was one of the questions that we posed to the applicant and the answer was, as of
this time the intention is to have them inside the building. However, if they were placed
outside, it would be within the loading dock area and they would have winged walls to screen
the trash enclosure and I believe the applicant would like to add something.
John Diedrich: May I address that? In terms of the trash enclosure, we've taken a look at
how to address that so that they would be properly screened and we were concerned about
locating physical features within the truck loading area and there would be conflicts with the
turning movements of the truck. So we've looked at, we do have berming that's occurring
along Lake Drive East at these three locations and possibly bringing in that landscape a little
further south into the loading dock area and extending out a section of that wall and bringing
that berm right up to the back of that enclosure so that we could limit the amount of brick
that would need to be placed for that enclosure. And we would probably do the same at
these three locations. So we're going to have to re -work this corner down here and these two
locations so we're looking at essentially two locations for each building at either end.
45
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21, 1996
g g ry
Mancino: The north and south end. '
John Diedrich: Of the loading dock areas.
Mancino: Thank you. John, can you answer another question for me and that has to do with, '
again concern from the residential area to the south. A lot of times at warehouses there are
trailers that are just left overnight in parking lots or dock areas. Will that happen here? I '
mean I would not like to see trailers left in the south parking lot at all. Would they only
have access of the big trucks into the loading dock area?
John Diedrich: The truck movements would be coming in in these two locations. This really
would not allow a semi - trailer to turn and go around the building. It's more circulation of
smaller vans. Of car vehicles. Those type of elements. So there would not be any parking
of semi - trailers along this southern portion of the site. Secondly this is not a, how should I
'
say, a McGlynn's type regional, massive distribution center in terms of the number of trucks
that are going to be out here. It is more of a service oriented office warehouse where the
number of units, number of trucking do not even come close to that type of facility so the
loading docks have been looked at that they would handle any of those truck movements
essentially...
'
Mancino: And if they were to be in there overnight, they would stay in that area?
'
John Diedrich: They would be in the truck loading area.
Mancino: I would like to see that as part of the conditions. Some way that there aren't
1
trucks, there aren't trailers out in that southern parking lot area between the building and the
south boundary line. South property line. I have no other comments. I think this is a
wonderful development. I think that the amount of detail that you have put into the
t
landscaping is, and the amenity of the pond, I think it will be a great asset to Chanhassen in
this area. My overall landscaping would be, principle would be to just make sure that we do
have really good adequate buffering in those open areas in the south where you can look
through into the docks. If anything, I would put your coniferous trees there and I certainly do
understand and want to thank you for changing some of those heights to 8 foot high trees
because I think that that will help immensely. But to really take a good view at those areas
'
on the south where you can see into those dock areas for the residents. And I know that the
other commissioner who didn't make it tonight, Ladd Conrad was also concerned about that
and called me and expressed that concern, to make a special phone call. With that, do I have
'
a motion?
46 1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Farmakes: Could we take time to go through the several options here that we have?
Modifications which I believe tally up to nine. Eight or nine I believe.
Mancino: Okay. Let's start with the option of, I would like to, boy I can't even. One of the
options that's, and I'm looking at page 14. I'm starting from the very beginning. If everybody
would like to understand where I'm starting from. Staff recommendation, page 14, site plan
review. Number 1. One of my recommendations, and I would like to make this a
' recommendation, is that we add to sentence number 1. Materials used to screen the trash
enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building, and that the trash enclosures
' be located within the loading dock area. Also on that same page, under signage criteria.
Number 2. Sharmin, have you had time to wordsmith (b)?
Al -Jaff: Sure.
Mancino: So that we can all hear it.
' Al -Jaff: Okay. Wall signs for Building 1 will be permitted along the north and east
elevation. Building 2, along the north and west elevation. Building 3 along the north and
' west elevation. So 2 and 3 along the north and west elevations, I'm sorry. Signs will be
located within the sign bands shown on sheets 10, 12 and 14 of the plans dated, that portion
remains the same. February 13, 1996. Signage, I'm sorry. No back lit signage shall be
' viewed from the residential neighborhood to the south.
Mancino: Now are we going to add that as (j)?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Mancino: And would you state that one more time please.
Al -Jaff: No back lit signs shall be viewed from the residential neighborhood to the south.
Mancino: And number 3, which the neighbors brought up was that the applicant must add
evergreens to the proposed plantings of the summit ash at the western end of the existing
' berm. Just so the neighbors know that.
Al -Jaff: I'm sorry, I didn't.
' Mancino: Number 3 reads the same but I just want '
� wanted to make sure that we're adding
' evergreens in that location.
47
Farmakes: No clarification of 5. '
Mancino: Concurrent with the building permit. A detailed lighting plan meeting city
standards shall be submitted. That was fine, correct? I
Duane Lund: Yes.
Mancino: 5 on the subdivision. Do we insert in this area, in the site review Sharmin, the
addition of 8 foot coniferous trees around the dock entrances? So number 16 would be the
replacement of the 6. The applicant shall replace the 6 foot coniferous trees with 8 foot trees. '
And added to that, that the applicant and staff will make sure that that is 90% to 100%
screening... Number 2 is subdivision and the applicant wanted clarification for number 5 which
I believe Dave gave, he really did not want to change. So it is as is. Actually I'm going to '
do a number 17 under site review plan and that is that the applicant requests that the 50 foot
buffer be a conservation easement. Number 16, under subdivision will stay the same with a
sentence that says that the applicant and the city will come to. ,
Hempel: Develop language to provide for future installation if necessary.
Mancino: That meets both parties. Okay. Were there, from the staff or commissioners, was
there anything else that needs to be added to the conditions?
Meyer: Nancy? The modification that you made just before this one. What was that '
Y Y Y J
number? You lost me on that one. '
Mancino: 17 under site review. The 50 foot buffer be a conservation easement. Thank you
for getting the motion ready. Would someone, may I have a motion please. '
Skubic: I'll make a motion.
Mancino: And let's do one at a time. '
48 1
'
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Al -Jaffa Okay, good.
'
Mancino: Are there an other changes on e 15?
Y a g page
Farmakes: Yes...ask for a clarification on 5.
'
Mancino: That's not on this particular page. The applicant did not ask for verification on
number 5, did you?
,
Farmakes: No clarification of 5. '
Mancino: Concurrent with the building permit. A detailed lighting plan meeting city
standards shall be submitted. That was fine, correct? I
Duane Lund: Yes.
Mancino: 5 on the subdivision. Do we insert in this area, in the site review Sharmin, the
addition of 8 foot coniferous trees around the dock entrances? So number 16 would be the
replacement of the 6. The applicant shall replace the 6 foot coniferous trees with 8 foot trees. '
And added to that, that the applicant and staff will make sure that that is 90% to 100%
screening... Number 2 is subdivision and the applicant wanted clarification for number 5 which
I believe Dave gave, he really did not want to change. So it is as is. Actually I'm going to '
do a number 17 under site review plan and that is that the applicant requests that the 50 foot
buffer be a conservation easement. Number 16, under subdivision will stay the same with a
sentence that says that the applicant and the city will come to. ,
Hempel: Develop language to provide for future installation if necessary.
Mancino: That meets both parties. Okay. Were there, from the staff or commissioners, was
there anything else that needs to be added to the conditions?
Meyer: Nancy? The modification that you made just before this one. What was that '
Y Y Y J
number? You lost me on that one. '
Mancino: 17 under site review. The 50 foot buffer be a conservation easement. Thank you
for getting the motion ready. Would someone, may I have a motion please. '
Skubic: I'll make a motion.
Mancino: And let's do one at a time. '
48 1
' Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Skubic: Yes I've accepted the clarifications along the way too. I'll make a motion that the
' Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #96 -1 as shown on the site
plan received January 19, 1996, subject to the following conditions 1 through 15 with the
following alterations. Item number 1 shall read, the material used to screen the trash
enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the buildings and that the trash enclosures
be located within the loading dock area. Item 2(b) is to read, wall signs for Building 1 shall
be permitted along the north and east elevations. Wall signs for Buildings 2 and 3 will be
' permitted along the north and west elevations, and I'd like to add.
Mancino: And then continue that last sentence? Signs shall be located.
Skubic: Signs will be located within the sign band shown on Sheets 10, 12 and 14 of the
' plans dated February 13, 1996. And then I would like to add item 0) shall read, no back lit
signage shall be viewable from the residential neighborhood to the south. And I'd like to add
item 16. That the applicant must replace 6 foot trees around the loading docks with 8 foot
trees and staff and the applicant will ensure screening of dock areas is 90% to 100 %.
Mancino: Would you accept a friendly amendment?
' Skubic: Certainly.
' Mancino: The friendly amendment would be to add number 17. That the 50 foot buffer area
be a conservation easement.
Skubic: Your amendment is accepted.
Mancino: Thank you. Is there a second to the motion?
' Farmakes: I second the motion.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Skubic moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
' Site Plan Review 496 -1 as shown on the site plan received January 19, 1996, subject to the
following conditions:
' 1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on
the building, and that the trash enclosure be located within the loading dock area.
' 2. Signage criteria:
EVE
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
a. All businesses within a single building shall share one monument sign. Monument
. signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
b. Wall signs for Building 1 will be permitted along the north and east elevations.
Buildings 2 and 3 will be permitted wall signage along the north and west
elevations. Signs will be located within the sign bands shown on Sheets 10, 12 and
14 of the plans dated February 13, 1996.
c. All signs require a separate permit.
d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an
architectural accent to the building.
e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential
section south of the site.
g. Back lit individual letter signs are permitted.
h. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height and logos shall not exceed 30
inches in height and consistent with the standards for the signage.
i. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the
sign.
j. No back lit signage shall be viewable from the residential neighborhood to the south.
3. Applicant must add evergreens to the proposed plantings of summit ash at the western
end of the existing berm.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
5. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall
be submitted.
6. Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss
commercial building permit requirements.
50
L�
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
7. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
' 8. The parking area for Lot 3 shall show a proof of parking for an additional 3 spaces. If
the need arises for these additional parking spaces, the city will require that they be
' added.
9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
' with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The erosion control fencing and
' rock construction entrance shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior
to final plat approval. The plan shall be submitted to the city for review and formal
approval.
10. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
' completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
' 11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way. Landscape
materials shall not be placed within drainage swales or over utility easement conditioned
upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the city.
12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
' Engineer.
13. If exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan
shall be submitted to the city for review and approval.
14. The drive aisles and parking stalls shall be redesigned in accordance to city ordinances.
' the drive aisles for the truck parking /loading areas shall be 28 feet wide. All driveway
accesses onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the city's industrial driveway apron
(Detail Plate No. 5207). Cross access and maintenance agreements shall be prepared for
' Lots 1 and 2.
15. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for
' Chanhassen East Business Center with Hennepin County prior to final plat approval of
Chanhassen Pointe Business Centre.
51
F_
L
F 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
16. That the applicant must replace 6 foot trees around the loading docks with 8 foot trees
and staff and the applicant will ensure screening of dock areas is 90% to 100 ° / ,
17. The 50 foot buffer area shall be a conservation easement.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
,
Y
Mancino: On the subdivision, may I have a motion please. '
Skubic: I'll continue my motion. The Planning Commission recommend approval of a '
preliminary plat for Subdivision #96 -1 for Chanhassen Pointe Business Centre as shown on
the plat received January 19, 1996 with the following conditions 1 through 19 with the
following alterations and additions. Item number 16 should read, the installation of traffic
signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The
developer shall be responsible or share the local cost participation of this signal on a
percentage basis based upon traffic generation for full development of this site in relationship '
to the total traffic of Dell Road. And I'd like to delete the next sentence. Security to
guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic signal for the entire development
(Phase I and II) will be required and change that to read, that staff and applicant will work I
out an agreeable solution for the security.
Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? ,
Farmakes: Second it.
Mancino: Any discussion on the motion? ,
Skubic moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Subdivision #96 -1 for Chanhassen Pointe Business Centre as shown
on the plat received January 19, 1996, subject to the following conditions:
'
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected er city ordinance.
p n'
2. The applicant shall dedicate cross - access easements into Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
'
3. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
'
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The erosion control fencing and
rock construction entrance shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior
'
52 1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
to final plat approval. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal
approval.
4. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
' 5. The applicant shall u rade /extend Dell pP upgrade/extend Road south of Lake Drive East to the south City
limits as well as install a storm drainage system from Lake Drive East to the regional
pond site. All public utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance
with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City
Council approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building
Department. The applicant and /or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the
' necessary permits from the City.
6. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
' storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with
the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve
prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post-
' developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
' determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
7. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
' 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain ermits from the appropriate re ulato
P regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
' Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and Minnesota Department
of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
' 9. The appropriate drains a and utility g ut ty easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
53
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996 '
g g �' ,
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for '
maintenance of the ponding areas.
10. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be
a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level. '
11.
A regional water quality and water quantity pond shall be provided by the applicant on
site to pre -treat stormwater runoff prior to discharging under Dell Road into the Eden
,
Prairie wetland. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the
first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout
for safety purposes. The stormwater pond shall be designed to 60% to 75% phosphorus
'
removal efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally
blend into the landscape is recommended.
12.
Existing wells and /or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in
accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations.
'
13.
The proposed industrial development of 19.38 developable acres is responsible for a
water quality connection charge of $48,585.00 and water quantity charge of $84,497.00.
'
These fees are payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. The water
quality fees will be waived if the applicant provides for on -site stormwater treatment.
Credits will also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees based on oversizing costs for
,
the pond and trunk storm sewer system. Credits will be determined upon review of the
final construction plans.
,
14.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
15.
The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the Dell Road street easement as right -of-
way.
,
16.
The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is
expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost
participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full
development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. Staff and
the applicant will work out an agreeable solution for all regarding the security to
'
guarantee payment for the developers share of the traffic signal installation.
54 1
'
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g �' ,
17. The final grading plan shall maintain the existing drainage pattern from Eden Prairie,
south of DataServ.
18. If exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan
shall be submitted to the city for review and approval.
' 19. Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for
Chanhassen East Business Center with Hennepin County prior to final plat approval of
Chanhassen Pointe Business Centre.
' All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
' Mancino: May I have a motion on the vacation please.
Aanenson: Madam Chair. Only the Council acts on the vacation. We just put that in for
' your edification but formally you don't make a recommendation on that.
Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. When does this go in front of the City Council?
Al -Jaff: March 11 th.
1 Mancino: March 11th. Thank you.
' PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF A RETAIL BUILDING OF 8,321. SQ. FT. AND
A PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND
LOCATED ON LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, MARKET SQUARE, MARKET SQUARE 3
PARTNERS, INC., AMCON CORPORATION
' Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions of staff at this point? Would the applicant like to present at this
time?
Vernelle Clayton: My name's Vernelle Clayton. -I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle here in
Chanhassen. This project will be developed by the same owners and owned by the same
folks that own Market Square I. They're also essentially the same ... own Market Square II.
These will be the exact same folks and will be re- acquiring the Lots 2 and 3 from the HRA...
hopefully as soon as possible... We refer to Lots 2 and 3 and we have assumed for some time
55
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 '
that these two lots would be combined as one and so there will be one property of one lot and
as the staff report indicates, there will be... I will be relatively brief once again in my
'
presentation due to the hour and just tell you that a couple of things. We have designed the
building very deliberately to be, not only compatible with Market Square I and the terms of
the PUD. The covenants in the PUD state but to be ... similar to Market Square I. We missed
an opportunity to some extent with Market Square II. We have a nice building on main
street. We don't really have something that fits really terribly well with Market Square. We
missed an opportunity... but we want the opportunity to bring Market Square I up to West 78th
'
Street... anywhere looking at Market Square, it's going to look like one large building. That
will be to the benefit of those folks that work and make their livelihood in both buildings.
You have... We also think that it will be the benefit of the ... West 78th Street. We already
have in that immediate area two quite small, uniquely designed brick buildings. We think by
making this ... one larger building we will, not only make the streetscape more interesting but it
will avoid kind of the business that you get on the building here ... appear kind of cluttered
architecturally. Therefore we are very pleased with the design of the building we've come up
with. At the same time I think he was able to articulate a bit of upscale elements which will
be important to our tenants. I think very important to one of the tenant's representatives is
'
here tonight. Dale Almquist sitting in the first row here is with Redmond Products and they
are the folks who will be the lead tenant in that building. They'll be doing a salon of..and
'
they're quick to tell me, well no, not really. Our's is going to be more of.. They have bought
into the entertainment shopping center experience by way of..coffee bar and even a shampoo
bar where they'll mix some of their client's shampoos and so forth on the site. At this point
then I guess give the time ... and then I'll be back to talk a little bit more.
Mancino: Thank you.
Bill Brisley: As Vernelle mentioned.
Mancino: Would you please state your name and address. '
Bill Brisley: I'm sorry. My name's Bill Brisley. I'm an architect with Amcon Construction '
Company and ... Market Square Partners. As Vernelle told you, we're upscaling this building a
little bit with some curves and some up's and down's along the roof edge but really it is just
an extension of... Exact same materials with the same base and the same stucco... exactly what '
we're going to do ... Redmond and some of the others had ideas... turning the canopies
downward... above the larger windows. You can see the repeat there. They're about 2 feet by '
2 feet. That gives it a little more quality look than what is done at Market Square I, which
was dust plain... So little things like that I think are what we mean by upscaling it slightly.
But the other ... very, very similar to the center. The materials themselves, as I said, they are I
56 1
Ll
t
Ci
I
it
J
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
the same as the center. The gray rock face block for a base. Would you like me to pass
these up there?
Mancino: I don't need to. Does anyone want it right here? I think we're fine, thank you.
Bill Brisley: Okay. Green metal will match something like this. Kind of a, it's called a, now
I've forgotten. Kind of a teal or, it's not even a teal. It's a darker green than that ... dark green
and we will match these... Canvas burgundy. Burgundy canvas canopy with silvery steel
standards to hold them. All the windows are the same steel... clean anodized window material.
The majority of the building is stucco. Again we'll match the original building... that does
show, as does on Market Square I there are medallions and light fixtures that are on every
single pier and they will be identical to what's down there, except for a possible upgrade from
a tenant to a more design tile to fit into those medallion areas but that would be from any
distance, it would be the same colors... Screening of the mechanical units is like Sharmin told
you. It's all handled with the parapets. The minimum point above the roof where the
maximum depth of the mechanical piece of equipment would be in this ... and then it grows
from that and the roof goes down. So like it's goes up almost 8 feet with no screen so the
majority of them are in the 5 foot area. So they're, and that's taking it right directly from,
looking at straight at the building... so really from the sidewalk it would seem higher than
that... The entries are... The main entry would be here. Coming in off of this parking lot for...
that's the salon. And really the only two sidewalk areas are, this would be the main one for
the largest tenant and they are like ... and then we're looking at another coffee shop ... that would
go here and there is a little space for a small tables on the sidewalk. That also would happen
down here. We have a stairway that comes down. This side is very, very steep ... I have a
stairway here coming down from West 78th and then it's really quite a drop. About 5 feet so
in fact where the video is sitting right now, you could see what that retaining wall would be
like because the building has to be set down into...
Mancino: Bill, what's the material for the retaining wall?
Bill Brisley: Concrete. Same as the sidewalk and any of that material...
Mancino: Just plain concrete.
Bill Brisley: Yeah, that would be my choice... Coming down from 78th, there's a stairway
there and that's what's happening right here. It turns in behind ... and then along this side is
a...this would be the front of the other tenant. Then there's a stairway that, because of staffs
comments, can be moved down directly, it's going to come down off this sidewalk and go
directly over in front of Subway and then of course we're taking... We started absolutely flat
sidewalk here but the time we get down here, it's 2 feet over the drop so it's a very, very
57
i
I
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
difficult site... Trash at this point is down here. Right where we're coming around the corner
to Kerber. The reason it's at this angle is to get a nice long straight shot. I think we're
probably going to be widening that a little bit. Our current trash... suggest we bring it up to
the building...
Mancino: Any questions at this time?
Bill Brisley: I could at this point...
Mancino: and where would the signage go?
Bill Brisley: Signage is on, basically over the canopies. Wherever there's a canopy, there's a
sign...
Mancino: And Bill a question about recessing. What's the amount of recess?
Bill Brisley: In the wall ... ?Each one of those center sections. So on either side of the high
section...
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners?
Mehl: Yeah I've got one. How tall is that retaining wall on the north end of the parking lot?
Bill Brisley: It's about 5, the parking lot part?
Mehl: Well from the parking lot surface up to the top of the retaining wall.
Bill Brisley: About 3 1/2 feet. The one behind the building.
Mancino: There are two retaining walls.
Mehl: Okay. You say there were two retaining walls?
Mancino: Yeah, aren't there two different ones? There's one on 78th.
Bill Brisley: There's one along the back of the building... and then there's one in the parking
lot...
Mehl: Right. How tall is that one?
58
[l
n
1
1
n
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Bill Brisley: That's the one that's...
Mehl: I'm looking at a drawing here, SB -2 and I'm trying to get some elevations comparisons
here.
Bill Brisley: I'm sorry, it's 5 feet. It's the same as the other one. They're both 5 feet.
Mehl: Okay. I was just curious, I look at the drawings and it looks like about 974 1/2 upper
elevation and about a 967 1/2 parking lot elevation. That's a difference of 7 feet.
Bill Brisley: Well we have a small area of sod there which would kind of slope down and
then there's a 6 inch drop of the curb and then the parking lot, as we know is about 5 %. So
it will be between 3% and 5 %.
Mehl: Was that elevation at the north end of the parking lot based on the 5% slope in the
parking lot? So staff is recommending 3 1/2% which over that distance will add about
another foot and a half to the height of that wall.
Bill Brisley: Which is one of our objections to that solution.
Hempel: Madam Chair, if I could interject at this point. We met, Vernelle and I discussed
one condition, item number 12 about the parking lot grades being the 3 1/2 %. After looking
at it a little bit closer, they're actually probably in the range of 4% and with that, it's similar
to Wendy's parking lot grade. Side slopes. It's desirable to have less than 4 %, or 3 1/2%
from an access.
Mancino: So you want to keep 12?
Hempel: We could actually delete 12.
Mancino: Does that answer your question Don?
Mehl: Yeah. It eliminates the difference between the 5 and the 3 1/2. So the height of that
wall is what now back there? I came up with a difference of about 7 feet here.
Bill Brisley: 974 pretty much at the highest part and then the sod right down to the low end,
on the low side is 969. About 5 feet ... It's difficult.
Mehl: Okay. One other question here. I've got a couple more. I'm looking at drawing SB -2
which is a grading plan drawing that shows the configuration of the parking lot and so on and
59
[I
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996 ,
then I look at drawing SB -5 and it looks, they're different. The islands are shown different.
The parking lot configuration on the north side is different. You've got some great insets into
the ... Which one's correct? I know they're dated a day apart.
Bill Brisley: This is a landscape plan done by our consultant. He took the background...
Mehl: Okay.
i
Mancino: Any other questions at this point of the applicant.
Mehl: Can I ask one more? '
Mancino: Sure. '
Mehl: On the north side of the building you've got what looks like a, kind of a tunnel like
walkway. It looks like it's maybe 5 or 5 1/2 feet wide. Then you've got the building on the
one side which of course goes up and then you've got a 5 or 6 foot retaining wall on the
other side. And that goes down the north side of the building to an emergency exit door
which is on the east end of the walkway. Is there any concern about that tunnel walkway
getting filled with snow? What happens when it snows 4 or 5 inches with a good wind?
You know is it going to level off. You're going to have to be able to get that door open.
What do you do with the snow? You know who's going to throw it up that high?
Bill Brisley: It's going to have to be maintained.
Mehl: Yeah, it's going to have to be. The door has to be easily opened all the time.
Bill Brisley and Vernelle Clayton made comments from the audience which were not picked
up by the tape.
Mehl: That's the last one. ,
Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone else presenting Vernelle? '
Vernelle Clayton continued her presentation, but it was not picked up on the tape.
Mancino: I just have a couple suggestions and that would be that in the retaining wall, the 5 '
foot retaining wall where that kind of tunnel area is, that there be some lights nestled in the
retaining wall. I
60 1
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g �' ,
Bill Brisley: Every corner has two and every recess has one. Those large ones that we have
on Market Square I so the building's going to be well lit...
Mancino: Within that kind of 5 foot emergency, kind of tunnel area where you have the,
there might need to be some lighting. At least that retaining wall down below so when
people are walking through, that they have some lighting on that side that kind of tells them
where the retaining wall starts. And also, maybe not just concrete retaining wall but
something that has an aesthetic texture to it. To add to it.
1
1
1
Mancino: Some sort of texture of concrete.
Vernelle Clayton made a comment.
Vernelle Clayton: I wanted to make a couple more comments... I guess I would like to
suggest that we add to that, or as approved by staffs subsequent review of the plan and... At
number 9. The width of the existing drive aisle along the south side of the development shall
be increased to a minimum of 26 feet wide, fact to face. We talked about that...
Mancino: Vernelle tell me again, which number are you on? On 9?
Vernelle Clayton: ...we just thought we'd like to clarify that...
Bill Brisley: ...very, very flat area at this end and this road naturally right now goes downhill
very fast and ends up being...
Vernelle Clayton: ...those are the only questions that were... except for item number 2. We
have a very unique situation here in that we have covenants of record that state exactly what
staff had recommended. We were able to live with them on Market Square II. We have a
different situation here in that there are two elements that... One is we have a very ... to 36
inches in that area and 30 inches in the other area. The other thing we want... we're asking for
is...precedence in Market Square and that there be signs allowed on three sides. We have...
signs to the entire building. We really need to be able to put signs on West 78th. The end
tenant on the other end, the east end will need a sign on West 78th Street... The problem
therefore, we need to have signs, if we're choosing two sides, we need to choose north - and
south. The problem arises in that Redmond, and I think it's a good idea ... but their front door
is facing west. And they would... sign above the front door. So that's the dilemma and we
don't argue with staff recommending. Their role is to interpret... What we're asking for...
Dale Almquist: Good evening. Dale Almquist. I represent Redmond Products, 28930 West
78th Street. We are very excited about this project. It's kind of a new venture for Redmond
61
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
to open a salon and retail outlet. It's not going to have the Redmond name on it. It's going
to be independent and the beginning of bigger and better things. It's going to be called
Capelli's which is Italian for hair ... but after looking around the Twin Cities they decided they
really wanted to stay right here in Chanhassen, so the site became very important. And
Vernelle stated it very well. The two sided sign ordinance, it leaves one plane exposed and... '
can't have that. In marketing, you can't get enough... This is a unique building in that it
doesn't have a back side. It's completely three or four front sides. Each side faces an
important direction but we certainly want a sign facing West 78th Street and a sign facing the
parking lot of the Market Square. And also ... but this is the entrance to the building and we
definitely want a sign ... and we are asking for an exception. An exception is always a hard
thing to ask for but we think it's well warranted.
Vernelle Clayton: ...with Subway, they have signage on all three sides of the building...
Mancino: Now Wendy's has signs on two sides and so does the Edina Realty building.
Vernelle Clayton: Right.
Mancino: Okay. I
Farmakes: All of these buildings were completed at different times in our ordinance's history.
Vernelle Clayton: Right. I don't have anything else but I appreciate your time and I'd be
happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mancino: Vernelle I have a question for you. On condition 14. Where it says the trash '
enclosure may be relocated to the northeasterly corner of the parking lot. I'm assuming the
way that that is worded, you are still working on that with staff or?
Vernelle Clayton: I will talk about that ... talked about the elevation here and if you walk
along the street, whether you walk down the sidewalk...
Mancino: You'd see the trash.
Vernelle Clayton: ...this is all going to be under the same ownership and we will be really
Y g g p � Y
this...
Mancino: I h h
have another question for you. Let me ask Sharmm and Dave, does that work
for you two? About keeping the trash enclosure in that or is that something you still want to '
work out with the applicant?
62 1
C
1
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Al -Jaffa No, we understand the circumstances so.
Mancino: Okay. From the report I read, that there was one extra parking space.
Vernelle Clayton: Yes. We should address that. It shows, this is a difficult area right in
here ... and we really did not want to give up the sidewalk...
Mancino: Okay. So we're down to the minimum number. Because I was going to say, if
there was another place where I think we could give up the parking space, would be right in
front of the entry to the Redmond. I mean you know, when you go to places, it's so nice if
you have an area where you are to walk in and nobody can park and you don't have to go
between cars.
Vernelle Clayton: ...handicapped kind of serves that purpose...
Mancino: Any other questions for the applicant at this time?
Mehl: What is the physical size of that trash container or area?
Vernelle Clayton: This one is probably about ... We need to widened it just a little bit.
Mehl: What were those numbers?
Vernelle Clayton: Probably about 14 by 10.
Mehl: 14 by 10. By how high?
Vernelle Clayton: 14 wide and ... it will be exactly the same as all the others along Market
Square.
Mehl: Which is what?
Vernelle Clayton: ...8.
Farmakes: The gray stucco that is currently showing as white on the computer rendering. Is
that the same color gray as the building currently...? So that's a darker gray.
Vernelle Clayton: Same color as the stucco would be compatible...
Mancino: You should have wood.
M
n February Planning Commission Meeting - eb uary 21 , 1996
Farmakes: Okay. Do you have a sample here of that coloration or the materials that you
both held up. I believe it's concrete. You have, the building appears to be in the rendering
much lighter than what I would envision Market Square...
Bill Brisley: Well one thing, this is video and video has definite color shifts. It's darker. It's
lighter than that shadow and lighter than the bright sunlight areas but ... what I'm saying is that
we will match that exactly with a subcontractor. He'll go out and match that...
Farmakes: So this is the texture of the material but not the color? The color is.
Bill Brisley: Very, very close.
Farmakes: Is a cooler, grayer material. I
Mancino: And I have one last question Vernelle. You are requesting wall signage on three
sides. The west side, the north side and the south side, correct. Okay. And you're all done
presenting?
Vernelle Clayton: Yes I am .... walk away from you.
Mancino: Not sure if we should start the public hearing or not.
Vernelle Clayton: I'll be happy to answer questions...
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing. '
Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened. I
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing.
Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Mancino: Comments, questions from commissioners. Don. And obviously one of the big
questions is signage. Allowing signage on three walls, which was within the PUD covenants
in 1989. And then addressing the conditions and just the overall site review.
64 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
IJ
Mehl: The little drive there going around the north and west end of Subway. I guess it
wasn't clear in my mind and the discussions here as to, understanding it's going to be widened
to 26 feet on the north end but for some reason it couldn't be widened out to that going
around the west end of Subway.
Mancino: Dave, could you address that?
Hempel: Kerber Boulevard along the west here. The new curb line that with the staff report
is proposing would be the red line here to widened the drive aisle out to 26 foot wide in this
area. As a result this is the trash enclosure location just shifts approximately 3 to 4 feet over.
It would maintain that 26 foot aisle until you get into this proximity and would match the
existing curb alignment that's in place and that I believe is 25.4 feet wide in this location
here. Feel it was warranted to remove the whole curb line...
Mancino: You're sure it's 25.4?
Hempel: That's what I'm being told.
Mancino: I'm just kidding.
Meyer: Dave can I ask you? Do you think there's a safety issue having, that's a bad corner
as it is. Having that garbage location there. -
Hempel: Typically the garbage pick -ups are off peak hours. They're not during the noon
rush hour...
Aanenson: I just had a comment on that. Staff looked at that option. Actually that's
probably what we spent a lot of time discussing. And all three of us had a different opinion
but when it came down to it and looking at, you're impeding other sidewalk movement and
what it does to the physical look of the building. As they indicated, putting it next to West
78th. You don't want people looking over the top of it. My preference was to put it on the
other side of the building and again, that impedes the sidewalk for people coming down off of
West 78th and around. So really it was compromised. It's not the ideal location but really
it's probably, well it's the most efficient.
Meyer: ...is that a possibility? The entrance to the garage ... back in from the parking lot
somehow?
Aanenson: Oh. Behind one of the islands?
M
11
Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996 1
g g r1' ,
Meyer: Instead of being on the main drag there. I don't know.
Aanenson: There was another dumpster further down on, yeah. Right where approximately
Dave's pointing now there's another dumpster located back there. I guess that's kind of what
we were looking at. As far as visibility, if you're coming down West 78th, your sight line's
blocked by the bank so I guess we were looking at it from that perspective. It kind of, that
sight line is not what the building is blocking. It's probably the most screened. But we all
concurred, that was our problem with this. Trying to find the best spot for that.
Hempel: There's some exposure from Subway. I believe Subway has a window or two back
in this area...
Mancino: Go ahead Don.
Mehl: Well I guess I'm still confused. Can you turn that back on Dave? Did you say that
now that we can in fact go to the 26 feet?
Hempel: That's what we're recommending, yes. In this area here, rather than need a new
curb line proposed.
Mehl: Right.
Mancino: But once you get past that turn, you're back to 25.4.
Mehl: Right. Yeah, I agree that that corner around the end of Subway is a tough one. ,
People come off of Kerber and make a left hand turn and come around there and they're
going too fast you know and you wonder if you're going to get nailed.
Hempel: We also looked at a thru street. Trying to straighten that out.
p rY g g
Mehl: Yeah, I understand. I
Hempel: And the grade difference plus the stacking of vehicles here for the intersection was
of great importance.
Aanenson: Plus we also felt it might encourage more speed because you have a straight shot.
So actually this main, because right now there's no hinderance for you to slow down. So
actually, even though it is a little bit wider, you have to slow down for the sight lines because
there's other movement there. Right now there's nothing else to really slow you down. You
don't have to worry about someone else except for when you get closer to that intersection.
66
r
1
1
1
1
1
n
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Mehl: Well is there any way that you could put in a couple of big speed bumps on that? I
mean to force people to slow down. Like one right in the entrance as you come off of
Kerber. Make them go over a big speed bump right around, just as they enter and then one
about midway in the driveway.
Mancino: Well if there's anyone else in the driveway, you slow down anyway because you
can hardly get two cars passing each other.
Hempel: It's very congested the way it is. This should open it up a little bit...
Mancino: Is that even workable to think about speed bumps?
Hempel: Some shopping lots, or parking lot areas do have speed bumps. I guess I'm not a
proponent of them. They probably do more damage to snowplows than anything.
Mancino: I'll just talk from, my driveway has them. And I mean, it's a problem. Taking
different equipment up and down the driveway. The tractors and plows and everything else.
Farmakes: You should slow down.
Mancino: Going about 60 mph down that road.
Mehl: Yeah, other than that drive around there. Again which I'm uncomfortable with you
know the speeds and the close quarters. People making the tight turns. Expanding that out to
26 feet is in effect going to, as you're exiting that drive, your person exiting actually has to
make even a tighter turning radius to get out onto Kerber because the whole curb is moved
over 4 feet and tightening the whole bend.
Mancino: This isn't going to make it great. I mean it's not going to solve everything. It's
going to make it better.
Mehl: I'm a little uncomfortable with that retaining wall. I don't know how tall it's really
going to end up you know. It could be 5 -6 feet. I don't know if it's a safety issue. We kind
of talked about those here a month ago or so. And again I'm a little concerned with that.
That exit door, that emergency door. Ice build -up and so on. It could be a problem but it
has to be maintained. As far as the signage goes, I think we have to follow the new sign
ordinances. Go with two sides of the building. Whether it be on the, you know maybe it's
on the west and the north, you know I don't know. But other than that I think I support
staffs recommendation.
67
L
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: I'm going to back up a little bit farther back. Sometimes we encounter and talk
'—
about these projects that take place over a period of years or bump up against changes in the
ordinance and so on. Some things that I like about this and some things that I don't so. The
shape of the building and what the architect's trying to do, I think he's tried to implement
what the client's asking for but the problem, backing up before that is what the client's asking
for. The continuation of Market Square, the large section of Market Square along. Bringing
it up into the main street area is sort of counter productive of what we discussed in previous
buildings, which is quasi i.e. office retail, which is primarily retail. But it's with the brick
building here on the corner and the discussion that we talked about there is bringing higher
end materials, higher grade building. It's adjacent to a civic area and so on and what the city
plans to do and try to bring up the scale of that property. On one hand we're running into
conflict on how they're marketing the larger percentage of square footage involved in the
development. Obviously from a marketing standpoint they feel they've made their case as to
why they would like to see that direction encountered. The problem with that is that from a
civic point of view, you look at it and you look at main street and you see that building and
what do you have. You have a gray stucco building that is basically a medium grade retail
building. There's nothing special about it. There's nothing extraordinary and it was the same
argument that we were making and I did not, I was a dissenter on the other Market II
buildings. I didn't think that, the city's losing an opportunity I feel to ask for more. It's
always a problem with retail when you ask for more because it's not profitable. It's simply
not as profitable and we've had this argument over and over again because as we sit here with
our wish list, we would like pie in the sky. We would like to see important architecture done
and so on for our community and what we run up against of course is that, well we're not
making any money on it so we're not going to do that. Somewhere in the middle maybe lies
the difference but in this particular spot, this is an important spot. This isn't just a typical
retail spot again. I would like to see something ... we relooked at the building as far as the
architecture. And it's not looking at this computer drawing. It's looking at, do we buy into
the argument that it should be a continuation of what is basically a typical retail type
structure. Market I. So I would like to see something more and what bothers me about this
is when I look at the materials, I see nicer materials going into a warehouse building that we
were presented here than what we're seeing here. And I'd like to see ... given to me. It seems
to me, based on where it is in our community, that we should be seeing more.
Mancino: So you would like to see something different in design and in quality of materials?
Farmakes: Well I feel that the design is probably not outside of what we ask for, although a
2 foot ... now that's the bare minimum that we're looking at. I don't feel that, you know again
there are a lot of possibilities out there but if you're going to define that you want an
68 11
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
extension. You want an extension of the existing structure. Well you're defining that.
You're closing in the architecture. You're telling them that too far away from that is not what
you want. So again we're coming back to a marketing idea versus something of civic interest.
Again we're talking about gray stucco. You can't get much more neutral or boring than gray
stucco and even the retaining walls. Poured concrete so if you have concrete, they're gray
concrete and gray stucco and again, I go back to I think we could do more with that or ask
for more. In talking about issues of signage, it's a very low impact signage area. There's
very little competition for the eye. The.car has to drive virtually next to the building. I don't
see any case for a 36 inch sign versus 30. There's a stop light close by. Cars are going to be
interrupted. You couldn't help but see whatever's on that building. If we make exceptions, I
think from any signs, we will be here with every applicant giving that. Already today we've
treaded on this issue more than once in asking for exceptions on signage. But again, perhaps
there's something that needs to be rethought out, either with the monument sign or however
that's traded. To alleviate the problem of how they want to divide up... But I do think that
the basic problem that we need to discuss here is, do we buy into that fact. That that should
be a continuation of Market Square I because we're defining how that building looks then if
that's true and in that case, do we feel it's in the best interest of the city.
`j Mancino: And in the last two years, with the addition of the Wendy's and the Edina Realty,
it seems as if the city were looking for something not of the same thing.
Farmakes: I don't see that as any different. The premise for that and I certainly think that
the Wendy's is successful. The other building I think was a compromise of sorts but again, I
don't think that the adjacent property would be any more important to the city than where that
chunk is adjacent to us. So it's an important part. So I've talked enough.
Mancino: Bob.
1
1
Skubic: Well it seems to be a difficult site because of the grade there and I'm not too crazy
about the retaining wall ... in front of the building on the north side. I don't know what can be
done about that. Perhaps that could be a split entry building. I've driven by that site prior to
seeing this and I've often wondered how that site could be utilized and very, not very easily I
guess is the answer. But that's all. That's my only comment.
Mancino: Any comments on architectural or the main question that Jeff has brought up about
extending Market Square.
Skubic: Until Jeff brought up that point, it made a lot of sense to me to have those
compliment Market Square. I appreciate the different view point on this. I don't know.
WE
1
Planning ommission Meeti - Febru 21 1996 1
g g �' >
Mancino: Mike.
Meyer: That is exactly what I was just thinking too. I hadn't thought of it in that way That
Y Y J g g Y
being such a focal point. I had already thought that I didn't like a 5 foot high retaining wall
of just concrete. I tend to agree with Jeff on his points as far as maybe going with some
higher quality materials for the siding for the structure. I'd also like to see some kind of other
solution for having signs on three sides. Maybe they can do something with a monument
sign or something of that sort. I don't have the answer but I'd like to see something just with
two sides. That's it.
Mancino: Craig.
Peterson: I was struggling with this one for the last week. My first reaction was as they
described the stucco and the gray again and I looked at the sheer amount of retaining wall
that was going to augment that building. Augment or detract from the building in my eyes. I
starting thinking in the same realm that Jeff was thinking also. Is that I don't feel as though
it's, it is somewhat of a step up just because of the architectural lines of the building from
Market I but I agree that with the plane, at a minimum I would like to see the retaining wall
done something different than straight concrete because I think it does detract from the
building. But I concur. I think that we will have a lost opportunity if we don't do something
different than the stucco. So I would be in favor of, the building itself doesn't bother me. If
we could do something other than stucco, other than the concrete retaining wall to take the
harshness and coldness away from that building. I think it would be very advantageous to the
city. And the signage, I think we went on record tonight and numerous nights before that
there isn't that compelling reason to change from the sign ordinance. I don't think it's been
presented here tonight so I couldn't support that either.
Mancino: And for commissioners to know it's not so much, I mean we do have the sign
ordinance but it is in their PUD contract, correct. That it's the two sides. And yet I
understand very much how I would want to have a sign, no question on the north side, the
west side and the south side too. I mean you want people who come in on the south side that t
are, you know when you get into the center, to look around and to see that it's there. And as
I'm coming west too. Is there, I mean I would like this worked out with staff and the
applicant to see if there's something that could be done to the monument sign or, are there
any other alternatives?
Al -Jaffa There is an existing sign. Monument sign along the north.
Mancino: And doesn't it have, what does it say on that signage? I
70 11
1 Planning Commission Meeting - Februa ry 21, 1996
Al -Jaff: Right here?
Mancino: Yeah. It says Market Square but then doesn't it list everything that's.
q rY g
Al -Jaff: Well, they have the option of advertising.
Mancino: So they could put the name of the tenants on this building, on that sign and make
it, hold on Vernelle until we're done. Okay, thank you. They could have the option of
putting the tenants of this particular building on that sign. And there is also, well just a
minute because you can... because there is also another monument sign on the corner. They
have two monument signs on 78th.
It Al -Jaff: The corner of 78th and Market.
Mancino: We have two monument signs on 78th. One on the corner of Market and 78th and
one on 78th and then we also have another one on Market. So there are three monument
signs strategically placed for that square. And I'll wait to hear why we cannot but I would, I
understand the need. I would like to see it resolved in a way that we use the monument sign
and then two wall signs that stay with the covenants of the PUD. I must admit I was
concerned a little, as Jeff was, on the building. I like the architecture, the simplicity and the
cleanness of the design of the building. I don't feel that it has the same quality of feel with
the other buildings that are on 78th Street now. So I guess that I'm saying, is your question,
do we want to see Market Square continued up to 78th. And I guess I'm saying, no. I would
like to see something else.
Farmakes: My question, to clarify that as Market Square I architecturally.
Mancino: Yes, thank you. And I just don't think it meets the city's standards or the city's
character right now in that area and what we've seen put in in the last 3 years that I've been
on the Planning Commission as far as architecture and a lot of detail and the type of material.
So I would like to see this come back in. Any other discussion on this from, would anyone
else like to add at this point?
Peterson: I agree.
Mancino: Vernelle.
Vernelle Clayton: Technically the monument signs belong to Market Square I and they're...
and it can't be used by Market Square III.
71
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Mancino: Not at all?
Vernelle Clayton: No.
Mancino: Okay. Aren't they owned by one and same owner?
Vernelle Clayton: They are owned by the same one but the leases the tenants have, we have
promised those tenants ... and they don't have to be owned by the same owner. They can't
really make promises. Just because they're owned ... and then tomorrow they sell the property
to two different people.
Mancino: Do you have different tenants on each monument sign?
Vernelle Clayton: No, the same ones are on each one. There are two monument signs for
Market Square I and one for Market Square II. The two for Market Square I have the same
tenants on it.
Mancino: Gotch you. On Market and on 78th?
Vernelle Clayton: Right.
Mancino: And the one that's on the corner is Market Square II.
Vernelle Clayton: Right.
Mancino: Well we haven't solved that one yet.
Peterson: Well staff, is there room for another monument sign anywhere that you can see?
Aanenson: I think at this point, if you're going to table, I think that's something that we
would be willing to look at. If that's the direction you're leaning.
Mancino: Do I have a motion?
Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table the site plan for Market
Square III, #95 -22 SPR, that's dated February 7, 1996 on the staff report dated February 21,
1996. I'd request that the applicant options be worked out with staff in regards to looking at
the structure, the permanent structure as far as materials go. I'm looking for some creativity
here. Options. Looking at the issue or looking at alternative issues or working out your
signage options with your tenants that fit within the city ordinances. And looking at creative
n
�
r
' Planning Commission Meeting - Februa ry 21, 1996
ways for architecturally ... looking at the retaining wall situation. Structure of the building
itself or the shape of the building I don't think is a major issue of contention. The quality of
the materials, perhaps the color scheme or dealing with the continuation of Market I
architecture. Does that seem to clarify what I'm trying?
Mancino: c o: Well yeah. I mean I think this is very compatible with, and I would still like to
1 stay in that compatibility range of Market Square I but add to it as far as architectural details
and architectural quality of materials. Anyone else who would like to make it even more
clear.
Al -Jaffa Do you want the comparison between compatibility with Market Square II versus I?
Farmakes: I think that's certainly, that's an option. Again, we got into the same argument. I
made a motion so I don't know, maybe we should deal with that before we discuss...
Mancino: I just want to make sure the staff has clear enough direction. So we will go ahead
with the motion and we will make sure that it is clear. Is there a second to the motion?
Mehl: I'll second it.
Mancino: Any discussion? During this discussion time, does staff need clear, definite
' guidance?
y Aanenson: Can I just respond back to you what I believe the issues are?
' Mancino: Yes.
Aanenson: That you want us to look at the materials. There seems to be some consensus
that the design of the building is okay but you want to review the materials so we'll take
several approaches to do that. Secondly, you want us to look at the sign options and we've
got the direction that you want us to look within the ordinance to see if there's some other
alternative there. And finally look at the retaining wall materials.
Mancino: Thank you.
Farmakes moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Site Plan
for Market Square III ( #95 -22 SPR) for further review. All voted in favor and the motion
carved unanimously.
Mancino: So we will see this again when it's ready.
1
73
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated February 7, 1996 as presented. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Chairwoman Mancino closed the video portion of the Planning Commission meeting. There
was open discussion to consider amending IOP, Industrial Office Paris District to include auto
sales. The public portion of the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
74