Loading...
Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING VERBATIM MINUTES MARCH 4, 2003 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRF~ENT: Rich Slagle, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, and Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Rob Fuglie 7305 Laredo Drive 9370 Foxford Road PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 45,200 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DELL ROAD AND HWY 5~ OPUS NORTHWEST LLC~ BANTA DIRECT MARKETING GROUP. Public Present: Name Address Chuck Weber Charles Dine Mark Jeffson Kathy Standing Dave Bangasser 3911 Glendale Drive 113597 Blackhawk Road, Pine River, WI 5604 Bimini Drive, Minnetonka Health Partners, 8100-34th Avenue, Mpls Opus Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff at this point? LuAnn? Sidney: I can start. I'm still having a hard time I guess with tilt up concrete panels. How can we state, I guess maybe what I would like to see in the staff report is more of a justification for that based on how it compares to the design standards as they currently read. Because we're talking about ribbed concrete tilt up panels. A1-Jaff: The portion that faces Highway 5 will be covered with stucco. Sidney: No, I guess I don't see that on the elevations. Is that, am I missing something? So you're saying that on the south elevation that above the windows, I can see that's marked textured stucco. And then above that. A1-Jaff: And then here it is textured stucco on the concrete block. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Sidney: It is? Now that's the portion just above the windows? A1-Jaff: Correct. As well as here. Sidney: I guess, could you point again. I'm looking at the. A1-Jaff: How about if I highlight it. Sidney: That might be better because I'm looking at what we have here and it shows pre-cast concrete panels to match existing. Stucco, but above that, that's pre-cast panels. A1-Jaff: And that is set back. This is it. So what will be visible from Highway 5 is the stucco. Sidney: Well I guess I would argue that I still see that pre-cast concrete. But I guess where I'm having trouble is in our design standard in 20-1065, you know it does talk about the following may not be used in any visible exterior application, except where specifically permitted by the city in areas with limited public view or accent areas. So I guess something to that effect saying that rationalizing that it is limited in view would be good. What I see here, you know it does stand out very clearly to me. A1-Jaff: It's a combination of the fact that it's set back 50 feet. There is landscaping that will be added to break up that wall, so it's a combination of those things that will minimize the appearance of that wall. Sidney: I hope so. And I guess I would look for some more language in the staff report addressing that, because I guess that was my biggest concern with this application. I have no problem with hard surface coverage variance as it is explained. And you're talking about removing a row of parking? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sidney: Yes, okay. And how much of the parking would you remove? I guess I wasn't paying attention. AI-Jaff: We would go from 306 parking spaces proposed by the applicant, down to 281 spaces, which basically would take out this row of parking. Sidney: Oh, oh, oh, okay. A1-Jaff: And if you remove this row of parking, then there is no need for this drive aisle anymore. Sidney: And that helps out, okay. And then when you're up there, sorry. AI-Jaff: That's okay. Sidney: Just one more thing. The buffer yards where they need to add more plantings in the easterly portion, where is that please? A1-Jaff: It is right within this area. This buffer yard. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Sidney: Okay, and that would include then the area that you're now turning into green space. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sidney; Okay. Okay, that's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions of staff? Feik: Sure. Back to that parking. Would you show me where in the staff recommendations you covered that removal of those parking stalls? I didn't see it. Number 32, thank you. Access to Lot, I guess it's 3, will be primarily from Dell Road? A1-Jaff: No. That access is right-in/right-out only. Feik: Right, correct. And the access for the north side as well then? A1-Jaff: It will be off of West 77th Street. Feik: Okay. I'm maybe a little ahead of myself but in the specific recommendations on number 7 1 would want to specifically add the cross easement to Lot 3. A1-Jaff: There is one in place. Feik: Oh, there is existing easement in place? AI-Jaff: As part of, I want to say it was about a year ago. Feik: It was when we looked at the last one? A1-Jaff: The Planning Commission approved a site plan agreement for Health Partners. Feik: Okay. So there is adequate access to. A1-Jaff: Correct. Feik: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Rich? Slagle: I just had a couple questions. One is on the parking again Sharmeen. Just to confirm the applicant is okay with the reduction? A1-Jaff: Yes he is. Slagle: Okay. Because usually we don't hear that. It's usually the other way around. I just want to confirm on the landscape plan, on the eastern wall if you will of the building there will be a green space running parallel with that easterly wall, is that correct? Not just tree plantings but sod and so forth. AI-Jaff: Yes. If you look at the landscape plan, all of this is intended to be landscape area. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Slagle: Okay. And then the last thing, touching upon that eastern buffer. In the staff notes and conditions it, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted and above that you suggest meeting minimum requirements. I would just ask if we could to the applicant, anything they can do above minimum may be, for those neighbors on the other side of Dell would be appreciated. That's all. Lillehaug: I want to touch on the parking also. I counted, so plus or minus, it looks like they're deleting 140 spaces. That's what I counted on the imprint of the building. They deleted about 140 spaces. It appears that we're only adding, with your proposal of 72 spaces back. In my mind they're adding floor space so possibly adding employees, but reducing the amount of parking that's currently there. If it meets city standards and if the applicant is comfortable with that, I guess that's what we'll go with but I just want to reconfirm that that is the plan. And then I want to touch on the right-in and right-out only. You've indicated that this will be planned in the future with the addition of Lot 3, or the development of Lot 3. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Lillehaug: Can you maybe give just a quick little background on this right-in/right-out only. Is it, and is this a requirement of MnDot and it will be strictly adhered to and limited to this? AI-Jaff: That's correct. When this application came in for the medical building for Health Partners, one of the requests was a flow curb cut, including an opening within the median. However that did not happen. It was restricted to a right-in/right-out and that evolved through discussions with MnDot, as well as the City of Eden Prairie. It is a condition of approval for this building. That it be limited to a right-in/right-out only. Lillehaug: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? I just have one question Sharmeen. We're talking about roof top equipment being screened. Condition number 30. Is that for only the new? What about existing roof top? Is there any potential for trade-off here if we're going to go ahead and authorize some type of a tilt-up concrete to get some more screening? A1-Jaff: One of the things that's happening with this application is the fact that the applicant is adding a parapet, so the walls will be just a little bit higher, which will help screen some of this roof top equipment. Blackowiak: Okay. I guess I'm more worded about the existing too and I guess the condition wasn't specific in terms of whether it was new roof top equipment or existing because it says all roof top equipment shall be screened from views. A1-Jaff: And the staff report was intended to address the new addition. Blackowiak: Only? So I'm just, I guess my question to you is, can we get just a little bit more? Aanenson: I would ask them that. Feik: Can you get all? Blackowiak: Or all, yeah. There we go. Okay, and I guess we can ask the applicant when we come to that point. But I guess it wasn't spelled out so might as well ask. Alright, would the 4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Dave Bangasser: Hi, I'm Dave Bangasser. I'm a project manager with Opus. Banta has hired Opus to design and construct this addition. We've worked with Banta on a number of projects over the last 20 years so we're very familiar with their needs. I also have with me three representatives of Banta. Chuck Weber, Charles Dine and Mark Jeffson. They're available for any questions that we might have that dealing with the operations. I think the staff's covered things pretty well with their report so I really don't intend to make a presentation other than to perhaps address a few of the comments that we just heard, and make a comment about a couple of the staff recommendations. And I'll kind of deal with them in the reverse order of what the comments were raised. The last one was rooftop units. Screening new and existing. The new addition is, is that showing up9. Oh sorry. The new addition is higher than the existing facility, and by it's nature it's going to block a lot of that rooftop equipment from the east. So as you drive along Highway 5 out towards Chanhassen, I believe that we're going to get a fair amount of screening of that existing rooftop unit just by the nature of the fact that these walls are higher. Relative to the new rooftop screening, we did drop the height of the structure inside. The clear height of our structure inside so that we could provide the screening of rooftop equipment with a parapet wall on the pre-cast wall there. Screening rooftop equipment, I guess I'm not sure how we could do screening of the existing rooftop equipment without making it stand out. I think the proper way to screen rooftop equipment is the way we're doing it with the new addition, which is to provide a parapet wall to kind of make it look like part of the overall facility. That's at least one man's opinion. Relative to the parking reduction, over time technology has reduced the number of employees within the facility as the presses have gotten larger and faster. Computers have taken a lot of manual tasks away from the pre-press operations and reduce those work loads so Banta is comfortable with the parking reductions. Mark has, from the beginning, indicated that there is an excess of parking and over the last 2 weeks he's been out taking digital photographs from the roof that we'd be happy to share if you'd like, but it shows a significant under utilization of the parking so yes, the applicant is comfortable with the reduced parking. I think we have a minor deviation on the count. When we eliminate those 22 stalls to the east, I think that gets us to 288. I think the 281 number is the required number of stalls so I think even with the elimination of the east parking we're at 288 versus the 281 and again, the applicant is comfortable with that number. We believe that we are increasing the green space overall, both on the existing Lot 1. The green space that we've got along the east here is, the green space along the east is approximately 3 V2 feet wider than the existing green space that exists in this area right here. And the green space down here is approximately 11 to 12 feet wider than the existing green space down there so we have made attempts to do what we can to provide additional green space, particularly green space that would be viewed from Highway 5. Relative to the concern about the buffer on the east, we are intending to relocate existing trees that would be significantly larger than we'd be required to plant otherwise. If we were importing new trees, they would be 2 V2 caliper inch or there about's and the trees, many of the trees that we're relocating are significantly larger than that so we think that in fact we are going to be providing more buffer than the code would require. Relative to the tilt up, I guess I believe that we have made an attempt to meet the new design standards that have come in place since the last addition was done there. The original plan when Banta first approached us about this addition was that this is, this was all to be production space. So the original plan was to have that pre-cast wall right out on that south facade where you currently see stucco. In the original plan if it was all just production space, there'd be no windows. It was just pre-cast. As we got into the new ordinances and found out what the requirements were, we worked with Banta to come up with a facade that we felt met the intent of the ordinance while still keeping the integrity of the existing design to make it look like it fits in as opposed to make it look like an addition with foreign materials. The only other Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 comments I've got is there are 3 conditions. We're in agreement I believe with staff on their report and generally in agreement with their conditions of approval. I would comment on 3 items. Item number, or condition number 6. Increase the minimum drive aisle width to 26 feet. I believe that the aisle that is being discussed is this common drive aisle right here that currently exists, and that drive aisle was part of the 1994 site plan approval process. At that time the Lot number 3 was intended to be sold, I think Kindercare was looking at that property, and the, that drive was approved at 24 feet and it's currently in place at this time. So I would ask your consideration on, since that is an existing condition, part of a prior approval, that we be allowed to keep the 24 foot width. Another factor that I think may be worth noting is that that drive aisle has no parking on either side of it so there aren't cars that are backing up into that drive aisle. The staff has a note relative to providing our own sanitary sewer line. In the staff report it notes that there is, that the City will be extending a sanitary sewer line adjacent to that common drive, right through this area right here. There is an easement in place over the Banta property for installing that sanitary sewer. We would like to tie into that sanitary sewer. It seems for us not to tie into that, and I understand it has something to do with if we tie into it, now you've got 2 different property owners tying into the same pipe and therefore it would need to be, couldn't be a private pipe. It would need to be a public utility. We'd like to ask that the City consider making that a public utility. If we are to comply with this requirement we'd basically end up laying another pipe right along side of it and I'm not sure if that makes a lot of sense, but we'd like to ask you to at least consider allowing us to tie into that and if that means making it a public utility, then so be it. Blackowiak: So, can I just clarify? That's condition 24 as I read it. Dave Bangasser: Oh, I'm sorry, 25. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm sorry. 25. Okay I guess, and I'll ask staffthis in a moment but I need to know what the difference is between 24 and 25. Does it change anything? But we'll let the applicant finish but hold that thought. I'm sorry. So that's number 25. Dave Bangasser: I think 24 is relative to a water line. Blackowiak: Just to the water, okay. Dave Bangasser: Right, and 25 is the sewer. There is currently I believe the easement mentioned in condition 24 is in place I believe. Blackowiak: And does that comprise also... Dave Bangasser: ...currently an easement for that sanitary sewer. Blackowiak: Okay. Dave Bangasser: Relative to condition number 28, we agree I think with the intent of that condition which is to provide adequate off street parking during construction. We would like to ask your consideration to give us some flexibility in how we deal with that. We currently have verbal agreements with two adjacent property owners to provide parking, temporary parking during construction. The property directly to the north across 77th Street is currently vacant except for a small portion of it which Banta leases from them, and Banta has had discussions and has a verbal agreement to utilize their parking during construction, so we'd like to ask your Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 consideration in modifying that to indicate that we'll provide adequate parking, off street parking during construction. That's the last of my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Start down, Rich down on your end. Slagle: Not right now. Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: Sure I do. Condition number 4. You indicated that there is an in-place watermain easement. Is that what you indicated? Dave Bangasser: Yes, I believe that's true. Lillehaug: Does staff agree with that? A1-Jaff: There is a utility agreement. Sweidan: There's a 33 foot easement...off West 77th Street. Lillehaug: So it is an adequate easement for a watermain there? Sweidan: Yes. Lillehaug: No further watermain easement is required then? Sweidan: Well not for the watermain. For the watermain there is no easement fight now. Yeah, but I'm talking about the easement that's coming off 77th Street for the sanitary sewer. Lillehaug: Okay, and I guess I'd be specifically talking about the easement coming off from Dell Road for the watermain. Sweidan: There's no easement. Lillehaug: Would there be along that property line, would there be a 10 foot easement on each side of that property line? Dave Bangasser: I've got the, if we can pull this up here. I do believe that there is an easement in place from Dell Road. It says right here drainage and utility easement per Park One 4th Addition, and I'm not, it looks like it is a 10 foot wide easement. I'm guessing. Sweidan: It's 5 feet each side. Dave Bangasser: Yeah. So there is both an easement for drainage and utility that seems to be, the drainage and utility easement is 10 feet wide. There's a driveway easement that's 33 feet I think. 26 feet, I'm sorry. Lillehaug: So would you agree that staff's recommendation is indicating they would like to see a 20 foot wide public easement so I would assume 10 foot on each side of the property line. That there is an additional requirement needed there. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Dave Bangasser: That's acceptable. Lillehaug: Okay. I think that would be all I have at this time too, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Anything? Feik: Nothing for the applicant, thank you. Blackowiak: LuAnn. Sidney: I guess the question for Banta. What is the nature of the work that will be going on in the warehouse and press room? Is that going to have exhaust equipment or anything that would create noise? What I' m thinking about is concerns for the neighbors off of Dell Road. So I guess what's going on? Mark Jeffson: Hi. I'm Mark Jeffson. I'm the plant engineer for the Banta facility. In that new addition we're going to be installing some press equipment and some binding equipment. It will be similar to the equipment that is already in the building. The same models and manufacturers of that equipment. There' s an identical press to it just on the other side of the existing wall that' s there now. Sidney: So nothing you need that's going to be creating a lot of noise or whatever? Mark Jeffson: No. Sidney: Okay, exhaust. Mark Jeffson: No. And the tie in's for that equipment will go into the existing ductwork that's already there. Sidney: Okay, that makes sense. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any more questions? Uli? Sacchet: I just want to confirm this alternative parking that you were talking about on the next door parcel. Is that about the same amount of parking spots that would be in the new parking that's being created or can you quantify that a little bit. Mark Jeffson: There again, the building across the street from us is the Ver-Sa-Til building that's vacant right now and they have about 150 parking spaces available to us if we needed that many, which we won't. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, any questions? Claybaugh: Yeah. Let's see here. It has to do with the roof scheme. I'm just looking at the elevations on A-3 here. What is the parapet wall height? It doesn't necessarily call it out. Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Dave Bangasser: The parapet height varies from 5 feet along the east. It varies because of the roof slope. Claybaugh: Right. Dave Bangasser: It varies from 5 feet along the east to approximately 3 V2 feet on the far'western edge of the addition. And then our rooftop equipment is set back from that so we've got the angle of cut-off there. Claybaugh: With respect to the rooftop mechanical, what are some of the larger components that are going up there with respect to height? Dave Bangasser: I think the biggest units are 7 feet, and those would be the ones that condition for the press itself, so they will be the furthest back from that parapet wall. Claybaugh: And then the comment was made relative to condition 28. That the building to the north is currently vacant. Do they anticipate that remaining vacant through the construction phase? Okay. That's all the questions I have. Blackowiak: Thank you. Rich, do you have one? Go ahead. Slagle: I have one dealing with the parking on the northeast side. And even to an extent to the east of the building. Is there going to be sidewalks, and I'm looking at site plan, I'm looking at the landscaping plan. How would, if you're an employee that parked up in that far northeastern or halfway down that aisle, how would you get to your door? Would you cross over this landscaped island? Or would you go all the way to the south or to the north and go around it? I guess I'm just curious. Dave Bangasser: We are introducing a new employee entrance at this location, and we do have a sidewalk that connects to new islands that we're placing in this area. And we've extended that sidewalk along here for people to get to the parking. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you. Before we open the public hearing I just have one question of engineering I believe. Mak. Can you talk to me a little bit about this sanitary sewer, what changes if indeed there's a public sanitary sewer installed. How does that affect what we're seeing? Sweidan: What those plans last year for the proposal of Lot 3, is to extend the sewer service, which is a 6 inch diameter, with a stub existing from West 77t~ Street. Now he's proposing and connecting with that which means two lots with one sewer service, which is not adequate. Technically. Blackowiak: Okay. Sweidan: And that's why when we said that you have to provide your own service. Now if we need to look for it as a public sewer which can serve the two lots, it has to be a public sewer and that's either, you petition the city to extend that, or he could also like a plan or a propose for it but he has to submit plans and specifications for that. Blackowiak: Okay. So is the size any different? Is the easement any different? Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Sweidan: Yes. Well the easement is sufficient. 33 foot because we always require 20 foot. 20 feet minimum so the 33 foot is good enough for the easement, but the size of the sewer of course is going to change from 6, at least to 8 inches. Blackowiak: Okay. And what happens to the existing drive aisle? I mean you've got a drive aisle right now that's at 24 feet. Is the sewer going right besides it? Right on, where is it going to go? I'm kind of, what I'm leading to is, is that going to change any potential construction of the drive aisle? Are they going to have to do any digging, trenching beside it and could they add on at that time? Sweidan: Mainly the under sewer line has to be in the center of the easement, so whatever is the drive aisle is going to be, it has to be in the center. Blackowiak: Okay. Kate, does my question make sense to you? Either you or Sharmeen. Aanenson: Engineering had recommended changing it. Planning staff felt comfortable with 24. It was...that way. Is that adequate to cover the easement? I think what Mak's saying is it is. It just needs to be a wider pipe so the easement's not the issue. The driveway still can stay 24 if you're comfortable with that. Blackowiak: Okay, I was just wondering if there's going to be construction in that area, if it would make sense at that point. If people felt strongly about 26, do you do construction and add 2 feet? A1-Jaff: One of the things that we tried to achieve was minimize hard surface coverage. Blackowiak: So you're comfortable with the 24 feet? A1-Jaff: Because there's no backing into that area. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, that's, thank you very much. Oh, do you have another? Claybaugh: Additional question for staff. Blackowiak: Sure. Claybaugh: Coming back to condition 28. That was actually kind of a two part condition. First part that the applicant requested was a little leniency with respect to how they handle that, and we heard him comment on that. The second part states that the asphalt must be installed before the Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. I just wanted to hear the staff comment on that and possibly if there's any contradiction with condition of the applicant... Sweidan: Usually if there's any proposed parking, it has to be installed before occupancy. And we cannot license occupancy approval before the parking has been done. In this situation that's why we condition that it has to be done. Now, we...if they want to make a temporary parking while doing construction to help the cars to be away from the street, they can do like gravel or sand and rocks parking temporary while they construct the building but later on they cannot have an occupancy certificate before the parking's been paved. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Claybaugh: Well specifically just because the requirement was mentioned as part of condition 28, and they're asking for that relief. I just wanted to make sure that the applicant was prepared to obviously put in parking lot prior to getting the CO. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Alright. This item is open for a public hearing, so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Kathy Standing: My name is Kathy Standing. I'm with Health Partners. I'm the Senior Director of Facility Development and Space Planning. And we just recently learned of the project and we haven't had a chance to learn everything about it so I just have a few questions. The elevations that we saw I believe of both the building and the landscaping was primarily a view from Highway 5. I'd be interested in seeing a little bit more about the east side or the Dell Road side. And in particular the landscape that is between, well it's this right here. If you could speak to that. What that looks like. Aanenson: I think it pretty much mirrors what was approved with your' s. Kathy Standing: Okay. So then my question goes back to the building, the elevation of the building. What will we actually be viewing? I think the view that we saw was the window view from Highway 5. So I'd be interested in just understanding, does that wrap around on the east side as well? Okay. And then the access off of Dell Road, is that particular road that is not yet developed, will be developed when our property is developed, is that correct? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Kathy Standing: Okay. And then the proposed time line once there's approval from the time of construction and the length of the construction. I'd be interested in learning about that. Aanenson: We could maybe ask Mr. Bangasser that. Blackowiak: Yeah, I guess Mr. Bangasser, could you come up to the microphone again. Ms. Standing was asking about the time line for construction. If you could speak to that. Dave Bangasser: If we could start next week, we would. Blackowiak: What is your ultimate you know move in date? Dave Bangasser: By the end of the summer, say September 1st we intend to be complete. We'd have things paved and...to be complete where our goal is to be installing a press in the new addition by the end of June, which is why if we started next week it'd be just f'me, but I know that won't happen. Blackowiak: Okay. Does that answer your question? Kathy Standing: Okay. Alright, thank you. Blackowiak: Is there anybody else who'd like to speak on this issue? Okay seeing no one I'll close the public hearing. Comments on the issue. Rich. Slagle: I can start. Mine is simple. I think any time the City of Chanhassen can have one of it's businesses expand, that's great news so we're glad to hear that and it's good for all. I think they've heard our concerns with respect to buffer and some aesthetics so I think it's fine. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: I'd like to make a few comments. And if I could, I would like to reflect what Rich said. And then I would like to get specific on a few of these conditions so the applicant gets an understanding of what the staff and we're trying to portray here. I think we could combine a couple conditions here. One would be combining 17 with number 5. I think they're redundant. One other thing is per condition number 20, I would like that to reflect existing sanitary and storm sewer manholes. And then to be clear to the applicant, I would like, if possible, for staff to explain number 22. I should have hit on that earlier. I'm not totally clear what that is so I want to ensure that the applicant is clear on that also. And you can go ahead if you want Mak and then I' 11 continue. Sweidan: The storm sewer plan is proposing manhole number 2 with the invert elevation of 915.5. The existing, the previous manhole existing, the lowest invert elevation is 914.5 which means the flow direction, if it is going from previous manhole to a new proposed manhole has to be high and not lower, so he has to revise that new proposed elevation. Lillehaug: So you haven't figured out how to get water to flow uphill then. Sweidan: Well it's got to be a fast flow you know. Lillehaug: Okay, that's good enough. Then I'd like to go onto elaborate a little on conditions number 25 and 27. Myself looking at the sanitary plan, it appears that that sanitary line is approximately, I'm not scaling it but it's further than plus or minus, it's further than that 33 foot easement, or it's right on the edge of that easement so I think I'd like to direct staff to work with the applicant to ensure that that sanitary line is more centered on that existing easement. And then I agree with staff that extending that sanitary line across Lot 2 should go forward as stated in condition number 27, and that the city, that the applicant and the city should coordinate that. And as far as number 25 goes, my assumption is that staff is recommending extending that from the southerly portion of Lot 2. Would that be correct? Sweidan: Yes. Lillehaug: And I agree with that also. That end my comments, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Feik: It' s nice to see one of our corporate residents expanding. I have no problem with the tilt-up that we're going to see a sliver of on the south side above the lower portion of roof. I certainly understand the existing conditions that are there. Of the existing building and I agree with staff I think to do something dramatically would be maybe more of an eyesore than tip up. As for the 24 foot drive lane, which goes between Lot 1 and Lot 2, I have no problems there at all. And my other comments were already addressed. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn. Sidney: Yeah, I'm generally in favor of the application. I made my comments known. I guess I still feel as though more comment about the use of tilt up concrete panels needs to be addressed in the staff report. Also, we heard that Health Partners would like a view from Dell Road as part of the package too. I think that would be a really good thing to include. I agree with staff's analysis 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 and their variance findings. Here's one case where we have an administrative hardship being created so I think the findings are well laid out and make sense to me. Also, I guess I would be in favor of deleting condition 6 based on our discussion, so whoever makes the motion I'd suggest that. And then I would encourage maybe condition 28 to be modified to be less specific, and I guess the applicant has suggested we might have language like adequate off street parking will be provided by the applicant during construction and leave it to staff and the applicant to work out what that means. And I assume that they understand that they must have the parking lot completed before any Certificate of Occupancy would be issued. So maybe cut the verbiage down on that. So I think those are my comments. Blackowiak: Thank you. Uli. Sacchet: I don't have too much new to add. I basically agree pretty much with everything that's been said. It's great to see business grow. I don't have an issue with the drive width. Drive aisle width. It seems like that's pretty much a straight forward thing. The thing about the sanitary sewer, I think that's a work with staff situation. I would recommend that it gets worked out before it goes to council, what exactly happens with that. I don't see a major issue from our side, and if there is alternate parking, I think that's wonderful. Should definitely use it. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig. Claybaugh: Like my fellow commissioners I'd like to congratulate Banta on their expansion. I agree with Commissioner Feik that to deviate from existing construction with respect to the panelization would probably be more damaging than to let it move forward. I guess I would like staff, if possible, to comment on condition 25 when appropriate. I'm still a little fuzzy on what the applicant is asking and where that sits with making a motion on this. That's all the comments that I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I agree with my fellow commissioners. I like the plan. It makes sense to me. The variance is fully understandable and it's one of those things where tying Lot 2 to Lot 1 under single PID is the only way to go because we wouldn't want to create a situation in which a large office industrial user would have virtually no parking, so we've got it tied together to make it work out and this is I guess the smartest way to do it in my view. I do agree with LuAnn a little bit about this tilt up concrete. I understand the need to be consistent. However, I think there might be some room for trade-offs there so maybe when it goes to City Council, they could look at maybe getting a little more screening on the rooftop or something. I think they can work it out. Parking, sounds good. If there's no reason to add the extra parking right away then, on Lot 2, then I would say go ahead and use Ver-Sa-Til, if that works out with them. The buffer seems satisfactory. The drive aisle. I would be okay with 24 feet if staff can support that as well. I guess ultimately the council will have to decide whether it's 24 versus 26, but I would support in going ahead with the 24 foot as currently is located on the property. And sanitary sewer, just work it out before you go to council I'm sure. It shouldn't be a problem. Rich, do you have anything to add? Slagle: Just a point of clarification. I believe I heard from staff that 24 feet was okay. Aanenson: Yes, that's what she said. Slagle: So maybe it just needs to be deleted and not even be an issue for the council. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Blackowiak: But the 26 is, isn't 26 currently our code? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Right. Aanenson: But it's an existing so. Blackowiak: Right, so I'm saying if council wants to go with current code you know, that would be, that's up to them. I can support 24 is I guess where I'm coming from and I'm heating that everyone else... Uli, do you have another comment? Sacchet: Yeah, I have another point of clarification. If you look at condition number 30, all rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. So what staff was implying is on new. AI-Jaff: On new addition. Sacchet: New addition. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: And what would happen if I would understand this as new and existing? Aanenson: They're not agreeable to that condition. Sacchet: They're not agreeable to that? Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: There's enough rooftop equipment up there that's creating a hardship for them to deal with that or? Aanenson: That was their interpretation of that. Based on the design of the building. Sacchet: Okay. Aanenson: So, you can... Blackowiak: That's why I said that maybe council could look at it and, they have a little more wiggle room on that than we do. So anyway, we'll leave it at that and I'll need a motion. There will have to be a couple of deletions and changes here so who' s up to it? Steve? Lillehaug: Sure. Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review//03-1 with the variance to allow a 74.1% hard surface coverage as shown on the site plan dated February 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions 1 through 32. Delete number 6. Revise number 5 to indicate design and calculations, therefore deleting number 17. So I'm combining 17 and 5. On number 20, add existing sanitary and storm sewer manholes. And 28, 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 revise as such to say provide adequate off street parking during construction. Paving the parking during the winter months is not an option. Asphalt must be installed before Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. And on number 30, add on the new addition to be screened. And on number 27, work with staff to ensure that the sanitary sewer is centered within the easement. Blackowiak: Can I have a little help here to get these. Get through these. Lillehaug: If there' s any more? Aanenson: Yeah. On number 25, just I think what we want to say is that if it does, if they don't extend their own service, which is a condition. If they do want to combine that it has to be a public line and adequately sized. I think that's, our condition says they have to do their own. They want the ability to do a public one, which would be fine if it's adequately sized and within the easement, centered. Lillehaug: And I would agree with that and I would like to add that to 25. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: Second. Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review g03-1 with a variance to allow a 74.1% hard surface coverage as shown on the site plan dated Received February 3, 2003, subject to the following conditions: Applicant shall increase landscape plantings in east buffer yard to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the new tenant water service coming in to the building. b. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbs to be painted. c. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Building Official Conditions: a. The additional is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. It is evident that the proposed addition will create exiting and high pile storage issues in the existing building that must be examined. d. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. . The applicant shall combine Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Park One Third Addition under a single Parcel Identification Number. 5. Submit storm sewer sizing design calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 o o , o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Deleted. A cross access easement agreement is required over the shared portion of the driveway access. Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002, 1004, 2101, 2109, 2202, 2203, 3101, 5203, 5215, 5301, and 5300. Show a minimum rock construction entrance of 75 feet in length per City Detail Plate No. 5301. Show the proposed watermain and sewer pipe, class, slope and length. A Type II silt fence must be used and removed when construction is completed. Any off site grading will require temporary easements. Grades shall not exceed 3:1. Add a benchmark to the plans and a legend. On the sanitary and water plan, revise the existing watermain to proposed. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District and Minnesota Department of Health permits for the site. Combined with condition #5. Show all existing and proposed easements. Add a storm sewer schedule. Add a note, "Any connection to existing sanitary and storm sewer manholes shall be core drilled." The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2003 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. Any public watermain will require a Minnesota Department of Health permit. In the storm sewer plan, revise the proposed manhole No. 2 invert elevation to match the flow direction. The applicant needs to show the sidewalk to the new entrance door at the southeast corner. If the applicant intends to use the water line, then the line will be considered a public watermain since it serves more than one lot. Public watermains are city owned and maintained and are required to be placed within a 20 foot wide public easement. Detailed 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 plans and specifications will be required for the public watermain. The applicant will also be required to supply a financial security to guarantee the installation of the public watermain. 25. The applicant needs to extend their own sanitary service. If they decide not to extend their own service and instead want to combine it, then it must be adequately sized and centered within the easement as a public line. 26. Show proposed grading around the building addition. 27. The City will coordinate with the applicant to extend the sanitary service to Lot 3 prior to the paving of Lot 2. Staff is directed to work with the applicant to ensure that the sanitary sewer line is centered within the existing easement. 28. Provide adequate off street parking during construction. Paving the parking during the winter months is not an option. Asphalt must be installed before Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. 29. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 30. All rooftop equipment on the new addition shall be screened from views. 31. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial securities. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 32. The most easterly row of parking and aisle shall be removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Blackowiak: Motion carries 7-0. It goes to City Council on March 24th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Rich Slagle noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 18, 2003 as presented. Blackowiak: Before I adjourn there are two items of open discussion that will take place after adjournment. First will be to interview a Planning Commission applicant. Approximately 8:00 p.m. Can you believe it? I know. I know. Since I am also going to be an applicant for the open position I will recuse myself. You guys can go at it by yourselves. And then we'll do city code amendments after the applicant interview. Aanenson: And then if I could just add one other thing. I will be emailing you questions for our joint meeting. We can talk about that but if you want to work on that as part of your open discussion. I'll leave you to work on that. Maybe get one person to kind of pull that together. We' 11 distribute those and those will be the topics for the joint meeting. Blackowiak: Okay. And do we have a time yet for that joint meeting? Aanenson: Yes we do. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 4, 2003 Blackowiak: And it is? Aanenson: Sorry, you're last. But the good news is you can take as long as you want. 8:00. Blackowiak: 8:00, Monday, March 17th. Slagle: Oh, so it's not just us. It's all commissions? Aanenson: All commissions. Blackowiak: So our request to be first absolutely carded no weight. Aanenson: The Senior Commission is going first. They have, they want to go out to dinner. Blackowiak: Okay. Feik: Can they do that? Aanenson: They don't have the same statutory. You have statutory requirements. Sunshine laws. They don't have sunshine laws as far as meeting so, along with the Environmental Commission. Blackowiak: With that I will adjourn the meeting. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 18