4b & c. Rosemount, Setland Permit & Site Plan reivew 1 4.6."e
CITY QF
sk ; CHANHASSEN
b' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
1 DATE: November 22 , 1988
SUBJ: Rosemount Wetland Alteration Permit and Site Plan Review
Attached is the original staff report with Planning Commission
and staff updates on Pages 5A through 5D and Pages 10 through 13 .
_/g ?
11_/2„/ - -
1
1
1
1
1
I
C I TY P.C. DATE: Nov. . 2 , 1.988 • '
Q
\� 1 CHANHASSEN C.C. ::E:88::.W: 1988 II
CASE
�
� .. 88-12 Site Plan
•
Prepared by: Olsen/v II
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: 1 ) Wetland Alteration Permit for Alteration to a Class 311
Wetland and Development Within 200 Feet of a Class A
Wetland
2 2 ) Site Plan Review for a 330,000 Square Foot Office/Z Warehouse and Manufacturing Facility - Rosemount IQ y
() LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1 , Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd II
C...1 Addition
.
liC .. APPLICANT: Opus Corporation Rosemount, Inc.
Q Attn: Bob Worthington Attn: Jeffrey Schmitt
P .O. Box 150 12001 West 78th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55440 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 '
, 1
PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park
ACREAGE: 55 .8 acres I
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING II
AND LAND USE: N- IOP; vacant
S- Lake Susan II
QE- IOP; vacant
W- IOP; vacant II
WATER AND SEWER: The property has sewer and water available. II
W
L_ PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a Class A & B wetland anc
U—� is heavily vegetated area around Lake Susar . '
) The remainder is natural open space.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial I
■
II
mmi
Lit cill 111111111ftilit IIIIMPIt 11111111/1"1111.111111i 11.4;
il a
1 R 1 2.
. .
IIIHIr. MOW NOW meg r"" A
,.m.ianiinit INft, smr4 inga mai--• .'i j./G arAlLt
MI ' - ' 4
,.ini.,v-, ..p,gia....lingli ir.14,,nr,
:ii.............„!61aggirin.... .....gt-.kwi.a.IN. ' '"r " '
9w. F-will
lizzi . .•— -
--11., ...
I. G ...,
ill/P(V1 BD
- V■"-
MD 1111
,....,.....1„.........__
I I , .,..„........,.. ..„_.....,41 _,._ . Wr
„_ ■to. , „2, 4. uov-
. 4.
r . ;•:..a mop-. lirt- . AN
pike F • .......---- it 1001 ,.1 No: 11111..** ..gre
0,., •`,. '..",..:::: -4•411011f IV itz "1•44'L-
r-r%
IMMIIIIIIIMIL- --ill...L IGHWAY _ ,111111170; , , % it; .11:1,- ab Irl:'1, •
10P 1 01
. • in-,— Wm
,!-- 00-* iola ■."7-ri 111/411WAb • (
- a ... . -..r.
0 '47.51;) . Ir- - Iiiik . - L4 all .1■11410-11p
111)\-% (--.1
; -- •—• ---- -
&/ L 1°1.‘ r. ,11; 4,tizi_WAIN'ETz.," a irP
_
N..---- .I/I& Ka-NLVAINA-Pii , LtSlei'Vpit.4114 Ca CI
gv■ .. AO-I:"Off z.
...il .44
op: %I lipitioLv,-.
Mr Allav a 111 di IP' 1.1611:::4‘7--- --
• 41112N it-- RSF
r
,(-
r •
_ .____,_______.,„,
_ _ ,. . ,
INNEN
CIRCLE
v ME
(
Jil
,'• , RS 1111 ) LAKE SUSAN
' All11111:irep AKO AN
'--- • RD
}ow.,
t -
i----- ______ ----`------.___. -----;------- i* __-, _.
. .. _. .
. ,
Pr's-:. •'-• , F...
---\ _.--,-,-,_-■—•_. ';'N -
it- ..
• .
. .;A
_. _
. ___ . _. ...._ .
R4 . P Is- I
i
NC.a
1
- t Eli •
. b #
tr
.
P U D." .R CD
.
_. .
R SE
.,,
,. co -
..
. _
-,
R---'-. 1.
2 ml1 POND
VI 1I
g -R. 18 111a . I
..
RD
I
.....„ ,
I A2
.r......_...
• mh.
I ? ; ijavang....•,,........3P0e, /
4.,
...„,....
. / / •Ae.4-
_____
t
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS I
Section 20-421 requires a wetland alteration permit for dredging
within a Class A or B wetland and any development within 200 feet
of a Class A wetland.
Section 20-438 states the requirements for dredging wetlands .
Section 20-440 regulates stormwater runoff into wetlands.
Section 5-16-2 , of the IOP District allows offices and warehouses
and manufacturing as a permitted use in the IOP District.
The setbacks for the IOP District are 30 feet front yard setback,
10 foot rear and side yard setback and IOP District requires a
minimum lot frontage of 150 feet, lot depth of 200 feet, maximum
lot coverage of 70% and maximum height of 4 stories or 50 feet
for the principle structure.
Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance requires perimeter landscaping,
and landscaping of vehicular areas and screening for trash enclo-
sures .
The Shoreland Ordinance limits development within a Shoreland 11 District to 30% of lot coverage ( land within 1000 ' of a lake) .
REFERRAL AGENCIES '
City Engineer Attachment #2
Fire Inspector Attachment #3 '
Building Department Attachment #4
Fish and Wildlife Attachment #5
BACKGROUND
On October 24, 1988 , Opus Corporation received preliminary and
final plat approval for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd
Addition and approval for the vacation of a portion of Lake Drive.
The proposed plat created Lot 1, Block 1 which is the site for the
Rosemount facility.
The applicant has submitted an EAW for review which will be acted
on by the City Council on November 21, 1988 (Attachment #6) . 1
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
Page 3
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
The proposed site contains two protected wetlands . The smaller
most easterly wetland is a Class B wetland and shown as "Pond" on
the site plan. The larger westerly wetland is a Class A wetland
shown as "Wetland" on the site plan. The applicant is proposing
to preserve the larger Class A wetland and to dredge the smaller
Class B wetland and use it as a detention basin.
The Watershed District has determined that the site must detain
8 acre feet of water prior to it leaving the site. The proposed
1 alteration to the Class B wetland would allow 3 acre feet of
runoff to be detained. Any overflow from the smaller wetland
would be directed to the stormsewer and in some cases to the
' larger Class A wetland. As shown on the current site plan,
drainage is being directed to the smaller Class B wetland from the
majority of the site including the parking area and some of the
roof area and from a portion of Lake Drive. The larger Class A
wetland will be receiving runoff from the roof. The roof runoff
directed to the Class A wetland was provided to maintain water
draining to the wetland which is currently occurring in its
natural state. The City did not want all drainage to be
redirected away from the Class A wetland which could result in the
larger wetland becoming dry.
Staff has visited the site with Paul Burke from the Fish and
Wildlife Service. It was established that the larger Class A -
wetland was of high quality and that it should be preserved. The
smaller Class B wetland could be improved by dredging a portion of
the wetland to allow open water to be contained in the wetland.
Initially, the applicant had proposed to alter both wetlands and
' after meeting with staff changed the plans to alter the smaller
Class B wetland and to preserve the larger Class A wetland.
In his memo, Paul Burke has stated that he would prefer an addi-
tional pond be provided on site to collect the stormwater runoff
prior to it entering either wetland. In speaking with the
Watershed District, it was felt that the Class A and Class B
wetland could be used for storm water detention prior to it
entering Riley Creek or Lake Susan. The philosophy of the Fish
and Wildlife Service is to preserve wetlands and if creating
upland ponds from the wetland will help preserve the existing
wetlands, then that is what should be pursued. The Watershed
District philosophy is that wetlands are upland holding basins for
stormwater runoff prior to it entering the lake and stream system.
The second page of the site plan shows the proposed grading for
the Class B wetland and shows the outlets and inlets to the
ponding areas. The applicant has also provided a wetland infor-
mation sheet which provides additional information on the wetland
alteration application (Attachment #7) . The information provided
on the site plan does not adequately address the final alteration
II
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
II
Page 4
to the Class B wetland, the amount of water entering and leaving
the Class B wetland and the amount of water entering the Class A II
wetland. It appears that there may be more water entering the
Class A wetland than what was agreed upon at a staff level . II Staff had agreed that some overflow from the Class B wetland
could be directed to the Class A wetland only after a certain
elevation had been reached and that it was not a large amount of
water. To preserve the Class A wetland, staff did not want fluc-
tuating water levels where the water would be raised a few feet
or more on a regular basis . Therefore, staff is requiring addi-
tional information on exactly what the final alteration of the
Class B pond will be, how much water is going to be contained in
II
the Class B wetland, how the runoff is going to be cleaned of
sedimentation prior to it entering the Class B and Class A wetland
and how much and how often water will be directed from the Class
I
B wetland to the Class A wetland. The Engineering Department is
also requiring additional technical information on the drainage
of the site ( see Engineering memo) . Staff is requesting the
II
additional information also to show how the 8 acre feet of water
is going to be detained on site since it appears that only 3 acre
feet is being detained.
II
The landscaping plan shows the area directly around the Class A
and Class B wetland as being seeded. Since the Class A wetland
is being preserved, staff is recommending that the land directly
adjacent to the wetland not be permitted to be seeded and must be II
left in its natural state. Staff is recommending that the 75
foot setback required for structures be applied for preserving I
the area around the Class A wetland. Since Option 2A was
approved for the realignment of Hwy. 101, Market Boulevard will
be extended south of Hwy. 5 and therefore the road between the .
I
two wetlands will be deleted. Therefore, the land between the
wetlands should remain in its natural state. When meeting with
Paul Burke, it was felt that the Class B wetland could have a
portion of the adjoining land improved up to the edge of the
II
wetland that could be used for recreation purposes, i .e. picnic
tables, etc.
WETLAND ALTERATION RECOMMENDATION 1
Staff is recommending approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit
conditioned upon information being provided which verifies the
II
preservation of the Class A wetland and clarifies the extent of
the alteration to the Class B wetland.
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the 1
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland
II
Alteration Permit #88-15 with the following conditions:
1 . Submittal of a revised plan and calculations which verify the
II
preservation of the Class A wetland and shows the extent of
1
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
Page 5
alteration to the Class B wetland.
' 2 . A 75 foot strip around the Class A wetland shall be preserved
in its natural state.
3 . No more than 50% of the land around the Class B wetland shall
' be sod or seeded. The remaining 50% shall remain in its
natural state.
' 4 . The alteration of the Class B wetland shall conform to the
six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife as follows:
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for
feeding and resting birds.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of
10 :1 - 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to
encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and
' food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
1 species of wildlife feeding in shallow water ( 0 .5 - 3 .0
feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in
areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (mucx from an
existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to pro-
vide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e . The basin will have water level control (culverts , riser
pipe, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using
the wetland.
' f . The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of
wildlife using the wetland.
' 5 . The wetland impacts due to roof drainage and/or backup from
the storm water retention pond need to be identified and
appropriate measures taken to satisfy any anticipated pollu-
1 tion and/or nutrient loading impacts .
6 . Meet any and all conditions of the Site Plan Approval #88-12 .
1
1
1
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
Page 5A
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On November 2 , 1988 , the Planning Commission reviewed the wetland
alteration permit and site plan proposal for the Rosemount faci-
lity. The site plan and information on the wetland alteration as
submitted to the Planning Commission was not complete and there-
fore the Planning Commission had several questions and concerns
about the development. The applicant has since submitted an
updated and more complete site plan and additional information on
the proposed alteration to the wetland. The applicant has pro-
vided a letter which addresses each of staff' s conditions
(Attachment #13) .
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 with the following conditions: '
1 . Submittal of a revised plan and calculations which verify the
preservation of the Class A wetland and shows the extent of
alteration to the Class B wetland.
2 . A 75 foot strip around the Class A wetland shall be preserved
in its natural state.
3 . No more than 50% of the land around the Class B wetland shall
be sod or seeded. The remaining 50% shall remain in its
natural state.
4 . The alteration of the Class B wetland shall conform to the
six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife as follows :
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to .
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for ,
feeding and resting birds .
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of
10:1 - 20 :1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to
encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and
food for wildlife. '
c . The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0 .5 - 3 .0
feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in
areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an
existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to pro-
vide
a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser
pipe, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using
the wetland.
t
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
' November 2 , 1988
Page 5B
f . The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of
wildlife using the wetland.
5 . The wetland impacts due to roof drainage, parking lots and/or
backup from the storm water retention pond need to be iden-
tified and appropriate measures taken to satisfy any antici-
pated pollution and/or nutrient loading impacts .
6 . Meet any and all conditions of the Site Plan Approval #88-12 .
STAFF UPDATE-Wetland Alteration Permit
The applicant is proposing to maintain the large Class A wetland
in its natural state and to alter the smaller Class B wetland so
that it can be used as a sedimentation basin to maintain the pre-
development stormwater runoff rate on site. Sheet C-2 of the
site plan illustrates the alteration proposed to the smaller
Class B wetland and illustrates how the Class A wetland will be
preserved. The site is required to retain approximately 8 acre
feet of storm water on site to maintain the pre-development
runoff rate. The Class B wetland is being totally altered with
extensive grading to provide an elevation from 924 to 940 for it
to contain the required runoff . The normal water level of the
proposed pond will be an elevation of 933 with a high water level
of 939 .
' Staff visited the site with a representative from the Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife representative felt that
the Class A wetland should definitely be left undisturbed and
that minor alterations to the Class B wetland would be accep-
table. The Fish and Wildlife representative preferred that both
wetlands be preserved in their natural state as best possible and
that additional manmade basins be provided for the use of storm-
water retention rather than use of the existing wetlands .
Initially, alteration had been proposed to both wetlands and as a
compromise Opus is proposing extensive alteration to the Class B
' wetland to maintain the Class A wetland in its natural state.
At least 50% of the area around the Class B wetland ( 75 ' setback)
should be landscaped to provide habitat for wildlife. In review
of the EAW, the DNR recommended a document titled, "Landscaping
for Wildlife" , by Carol Henderson, to be used as a reference for
the landscaping of the Class B wetland.
' The normal high water mark of the Class B wetland is at an eleva-
tion of 933 , therefore, this would become the edge of the wetland
from which a 75 foot setback for the parking areas must be main-
tained. It appears that a portion of the parking lot to the
south of the Class B wetland, once it has been altered, will be
within the 75 foot setback. The applicant must provide a revised
plan showing that the parking lot south of the Class B wetland
maintains the 75 foot setback from the 933 elevation.
I
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
Page 5C
Sheet C-3 of the site plan shows a weir skimmer, proposed outlet ,
of the Class B wetland into the Class A wetland once the water
level reaches the height of 939 elevation. In addition, the site
plan proposes roof drainage from the roof of the facility to the
large Class A wetland. The reason for the roof drainage being
directed to the Class A wetland is to maintain water within the
wetland which currently exists. ,
In Attachment #13, the applicant addresses each of the wetland
alteration permit conditions. The applicant has provided the
plans and details required in Condition #1. Condition #2 will
remain as a condition of approval. The applicant has stated that
the Class B wetland is still proposed to be sod or seeded around
the boundary to prevent erosion. Staff is recommending that the ,
north, east and west side of the Class B wetland be landscaped
with vegetation suitable for wildlife as recommended by the DNR
( State Document Division Land for Wildlife) . The applicant shall
revise a landscaping plan providing wildlife landscaping for the
Class B wetland. The sod or seed on the north, east and west
side of the Class B wetland shall not be mowed and allowed to
return to a natural condition.
Condition #4 recommended the Fish and Wildlife guidelines be
applied to the Class B wetland. Since the Class B wetland is
completly altered, the condition should be changed to state the
alteration shall conform as best possible to the six Fish and
Wildlife recommendations . Condition #5 required additional
information on the impacts to the Class A wetland. The applicant
states that the roof drainage shall be free of pollutants and/or
nutrients . The Class A wetland will only receive runoff from the
Class B wetland during periods of heavy rain. Number 6 will
remain as a condition.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION '
The applicant has addressed several of the conditions and con-
cerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting. Although the
Class B wetland is being totally altered, staff feels that
allowing three sides of the Class B wetland to be converted back
to its natural state and revegetated with natural landscaping
which would support wildlife, helps mitigate the total alteration
of the wetland. With the amended plan, staff is also more con-
fident that the Class A wetland will be preserved in its natural
state.
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 with
the following conditions:
1 . A 75 foot strip around the Class A wetland shall be preserved
in its natural state.
11
1
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
I November 2 , 1988
Page 5D
2 . The north, east and west edge of the Class B wetland shall be
allowed to be sod and seeded but will also be landscaped with
vegetation suitable for natural habitat and will not be mowed
and instead allowed to revert back to a natural state. The
' applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan with the
wildlife landscaping as recommended by the State Document
Titled, "Landscaping for Wildlife" .
' 3 . The alteration of the Class B wetland shall conform as best
possible to the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife as
' follows:
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for
' feeding and resting birds .
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of
10 :1 - 20 :1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to
encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and
food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
species of wildlife feeding in shallow water ( 0 .5 - 3 .0
feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in
areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an
existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to pro-
vide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e . The basin will have water level control ( culverts, riser
pipe, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using
' the wetland.
f . The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of
wildlife using the wetland.
4 . A 75 foot strip around the Class B wetland shall be main-
tained from the 933 elevation. Staff is recommending that
the applicant provide a revised plan showing that the parking
lot south of the Class B wetland is not located closer than
' 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Class B
wetland once it has been reconstructed.
5 . The wetland alteration permit shall conform to any and all
conditions of the Site Plan Approval #88-12 .
1
II
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
I
Page 6
SITE PLAN REVIEW
The applicant is proposing to construct a 330 ,000 square foot I
office/warehouse/manufacturing facility with 950 parking spaces
and on site loading dock. The site is located on Lot 1, Block 1 , '
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition. The site is
bordered by Lake Drive East (future) to the north, Market
Boulevard ( future) to the east, city parkland to the west and II Lake ed bySusan to the south. The subject site also contains two
protected wetlands in the northeast corner of the site. The
topography of the site is very steep along Lake Susan where it is
also heavily vegetated. The proposed site plan is positioning
II
the building and parking area above the slope area adjacent to
Lake Susan so that the existing slope and vegetation will be pre-
served. The proposed facility will house 700 employees and will
II
be used as a manufacturing facility for the production of preci-
sion instruments for the measurement and control of temperature
flow, level and pressure as specified by businesses in the pro- 11 cess control industry.
The applicant is providing access to the site by two driveways
from new Lake Drive and with optional entry from new Market
Boulevard from the east. On October 24 , 1988, the City Council II
approved Option 2A for the realignment of Hwy. 101 which proposes
new Market Boulevard to continue south from Hwy. 5 and to be
located east of the proposed site (Attachment #8) . Therefore,
II
the option A entry road between the two wetlands should be
deleted and Option B entry road from Market Boulevard should be
provided as a substitute. The exact location of the Option B
II
road from Market Boulevard will be determined once the exact
location of Market Boulevard and the continuation of Lake Drive
has been determined. There is a possibility that the Option B
II
road will have to be moved to the south ( see Engineering report) .
The applicant is providing the required number of parking spaces II and the required number and type of light fixtures . The site
plan does not provide any details on location or screening of
trash receptacles . An amended site plan with these details will
have to be provided. The site plan is meeting all the required
II
setbacks including the setback from Lake Susan. The exact edge
of the Class B wetland has not been determined. There must be a
75 foot setback maintained from the edge of the altered Class B II wetland from the parking lot.
The Fire Inspector has reviewed the site plan and has recommended II that access for Fire Department apparatus shall comply with the
NFPA 1141, Section 3-1 through 3-4. 7 . Essentially, the site plan
has to provide access to every side of the building but this does
not have to be in the form of an access road. The proposed site II plan is maintaining a level area around the building which should
provide the adequate access to all sides of the building. In
addition, the applicant must provide fire hydrants at least every
1
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
' November 2 , 1988
Page 7
300 feet (Attachment #3 ) . The Building Department stated that 18
handicapped parking spaces are required and theat the building
must be sprinklered. The applicant is providing 19 parking spa-
' ces . The building will be one story in height with a total
height of 22 feet and the site plan is maintaining an impervious
surface of 29% . Since the site is within the Shoreland District,
development of the site must not exceed 30% impervious surface.
iThe applicant has provided a separate landscaping plan for the
site. The applicant has stated that this is preliminary and they
will submit a plan with the specific types and locations of the
proposed landscaping. The proposed landscaping plan shows
sodding of the open area adjacent to the proposed building bet-
ween the parking areas . The major portion of the remaining site
will be seeded with the southerly and westerly portion of the
site being maintained in its natural condition. As stated in the
Wetland Alteration Permit section, the proposed sodding of the
property up to the Class A and B wetland is not acceptable.
Staff is recommending that the applicant maintain a 75 foot set-
back around the Class A wetland in its natural state and to pre-
, serve at least 50% of the land adjacent to the Class B wetland in
its natural state.
The applicant is maintaining the trees along the slope area adja-
cent to Lake Susan and will not be clearcutting any of these
trees . Staff is requesting that the applicant provide a tree
removal plan showing what types, size and location of trees being
removed from the site of a 4" caliper at 4 feet in height or more
for staff review. The city has the right to require replacement
trees . The applicant proposed significant landscaping along the
Option A entry betweeen the two wetland areas . Since this option
is going to be removed, and entry will be gained from the east, a
major portion of the landscaping proposed will also be removed.
Staff is recommending that landscaping be provided along the two
' other entry areas off of new Lake Drive. The site plan is pro-
posing landscaping along both main entry ways to the building and
within the proposed parking area to the east. The dock areas are
partially screened by a berm directly to the north. It appears
that the docks will still be visible from the northeast and
northwest. Staff is recommending additional landscaping to fully
screen the dock areas .
The landscaping plan does not meet the requirements of the
landscaping ordinance ( internal landscaping for the westerly
parking lot, perimeter landscaping, berming and landscape
screening of the parking areas, etc. ) . Staff is recommending an
amended landscaping plan which meets the requirements of Article
' XXV, Landscaping and Tree Removal.
Grading, Drainage and Utilities
' In Attachment #2 , the City Engineer addresses grading, utility
and drainage issues of the site plan.
1
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
Page 8
RECOMMENDATION 1
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion: ,
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review
#88-15 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received October 14 ,
1988" and subject to the following conditions :
1 . Option B entry road shall be used rather than the Option A
entry road. 1
2 . The location of trash receptacles shall be provided on an
amended site plan and they shall be totally screened. ,
3 . The parking lot shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the
finished edge of the Class B wetland.
4 . The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Fire Inspector
as stated in his memo dated October 17, 1988 .
5 . The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Building
Department as stated in his memo dated September 26 , 1988.
6 . The applicant shall provide an amended landscaping plan which 1
•
meets the requirements of the Article XXV.
7 . The applicant shall preserve a 75 foot setback around the ,
Class A wetland.
8 . The applicant shall preserve at least 50% of the land around
the Class B wetland in its natural state.
9 . The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan designating
the type, size and number of any trees being removed which
have a 4" caliper or more at 4 feet.
10 . The applicant shall provide additional screening north of the
proposed dock areas .
11 . Revised plans shall be submitted for approval addressing the
conditions contained in the staff reports and including suf-
ficient detail necessary for review and approval . An erosion
control plan shall be included in the submittals as well.
12 . Site grading along the Lake Drive and Market Boulevard road-
ways shall be adjusted to coincide with finished roadway
contours . '
13 . The first 500 feet of sanitary sewer which parellels the
easterly property line on the site will need to be
1 "
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
Page 9
constructed by Rosemount. A 35-foot easement shall be dedi-
cated along the entire length of the proposed sanitary sewer
stretch when its alignment has been established by the feasi-
bility study.
14. A 35-foot utility easement shall also be dedicated along the
' westerly lot line of the site along the alignment of the
sanitary sewer as established by the feasibility study.
15 . A watermain extension should be considered to be constructed
along the alignment of the southeast sanitary sewer service
connection to provide further redundancy to the Rosemount
site with an ultimate hookup to the City' s watermain on
future Market Boulevard.
16 . The internal piping scheme for the building should address
the need for documentation of recycled or cooling water
discharge in order that proper sanitary sewer credits can be
identified if appropriate.
17. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City
for utilizing its ponding facilities to accommodate any storm
water, less than the 100-year predevelopment runoff rate,
' which is not being accommodated on site.
18 . The on-site ponding and storm drainage scheme needs to be
coordinated with the feasibility study alignment of the Lake
Drive storm sewer system.
19. The wetland impacts due to roof drainage and/or backup from
' the storm water retention pond need to be identified and
appropriate measures taken to satisfy any anticipated pollu-
tant and/or nutrient loading impacts .
20 . The alignment and right-of-way dedicated for Lake Drive shall
be sufficient enough to accommodate a 35 mile per hour design
speed unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
' 21 . A 36-foot entry drive shall be used for any roads which will
experience truck traffic on a regular basis . As a minimum,
' the main access ( central) roadway should be 36-foot.
22 . A typical section for the roadways shall be supplied for
' approval by the City Engineer and concrete curb and gutter
shall be provided throughout the site including parking lot
areas .
' 23 . The Option A entry road located between the wetland and
detention pond shall be omitted and the Option B entry con-
nection shall be located to directly oppose the future-
planned connection of Lake Drive East from the Ward property
at Market Boulevard, to be established in the Lake Drive
feasibility study.
I
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
Page 10
24 . The plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian ,
traffic around the exterior of the building and on the site.
25 . The applicant will need to enter into a development contract
with the City to guarantee the proper execution of the final
approved plans and specifications for the site and provide
the City with an appropriate financial security.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission had questions and concerns about the site
plan. The site plan has been amended to address a majority of
the questions established in the staff report and to also address
comments made by the Planning Commission. The Commission recom-
mended
approval of Site Plan #88-15 on a vote of 3 to 2 . Conrad
and Emmings voted against the site plan for the following
reasons : 11 There were too many outstanding questions and conditions as part
of the original staff report. Although they were in favor of the
plan conceptually, they did not feel that all of the technical
aspects had been worked out between Rosemount and City staff.
They wanted to make it clear to the City Council that they had
only reviewed the site plan conceptually.
The Commission recommended the following change to #6 and added
the following conditions:
6 . The applicant shall provide an amended landscaping plan which
meets the requirements of the Article XXV. The applicant
will work with city staff to provide appropriate screening
for the parking areas from the lake and surrounding homes.
26 . Comply with all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit.
27 . Staff work with Rosemount to try to develop more native vege-
tation, trees and shrubs on this site.
28 . Comply with all Park and Recreation recommendations , if any.
The Commission also brought up the concern whether the public had
been properly notified and requested a memo from the Park and
Recreation Coordinator with minutes from the Park and Recreation
Commission which concerned the Rosemount site plan. All of the
property owners were notified for the wetland alteration permit,
subdivision and street vacation proposals . In addition to a
separate homeowners meeting that Rosemount and the City had for
the neighbors . Therefore, the adjacent neighbors around Lake
Susan have been properly notified. Attachment #11 is a memo
from the Park and Recreation Coordinator with minutes from the
Park Commission meeting concerning Rosemount proposal.
I
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
Page 11
ISTAFF UPDATE
As part of site plan review, Planning Staff recommended 25 con-
ditions for site plan approval. A majority of the conditions
requested additional information in the form of amendments to the
initial site plan. Conditions 1-10 10 were planning conditions and
the remaining conditions concerned engineering aspects .
Attachment #12 is a memo from the Engineering Department
reviewing the amended site plan. The letter from the applicant
(Attachment #13) addresses the 28 conditions from Planning
Commission approval.
The most recent site plan has removed the Option A entry road
which had been proposed between the two wetlands. The applicant
has also rearranged the parking area to provide an entry drive
from new Market Boulevard to the easterly side of the building.
Therefore, Condition #1 has been met. For Condition #2 , the
applicant has stated that the trash receptacles shall be provided
under the recessed dock areas . Staff is still requesting that
the applicant provide details on how the trash receptacles will
be totally screened. Condition #3 requested that the parking lot
shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the finished edge of the
Class A and B wetland. The applicant has stated that the parking
lot and driveways will maintain the requested 75 foot setback
' from the finished edge of both the stormwater retention pond and
the Class A wetland. The edge of a wetland is typically defined
as the ordinary high water mark. The Class B wetland is being
proposed to have a normal water level of 933 . Therefore, the 75
foot setback must be measured from the 933 contour. It does not
appear that 75 feet is being maintained from this elevation to
the edge of the parking areas south of the Class B wetland.
Even though it has been altered, the applicant must maintain
the 75 foot setback from the Class B wetland since it is still
considered a wetland protected by the city.
Conditions #4 and #5 of Planning Commission approval will be met
as part of the building permit approval. The applicant has pro-
vided an amended landscaping plan as requested under Condition
#6 . The amended landscaping plan has added additional
landscaping and berming to further screen the parking areas from
the lake and surrounding homes . The landscaping plan has also
' included native shrubs and trees as requested by the Planning
Commission. Staff feels that the landscaping plan has been
improved but that additional landscaping along the westerly boun-
1 dary of the northwesterly parking lot be provided for additional
screening from the north and Lake Drive. The topography slopes
down at this location and there is no physical berming or
' screening of the parking area. Therefore, landscaping should be
added on the westerly edge. The applicant would typically be
required to provide landscaping of trees at least one every 40
feet along the perimeter of the site including along Lake Drive.
If the feasibility study includes lighting and landscaping along
r
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
Page 12
Lake Drive, this would not be required to be provided by the
applicant. If the feasibility study does not provide for '
landscaping along Lake Drive, staff is recommending the applicant
provide the required one tree per 40 feet along the north boun-
dary of the property. Condition #7 of site plan approval has
been met. Condition #8 required the preservation of at least 50%
of the land around the Class B wetland in its natural state.
Again, the applicant is proposing to sod and seed the area and
staff is recommending that the north, east and west side of the
Class B wetland be sod or seeded but also be allowed to return to
a natural state and be landscaped with vegetation suitable for
wildlife habitat. Condition #9 requires that the applicant pro-
vide a detailed tree removal plan designating type, size and
number of trees being removed which have a 4 inch caliper or more
at 4 feet in height. The applicant has specified which trees '
will be removed as part of the site plan improvements which
include two mature oak trees located at the southeast corner of
the building. Should the City Council wish, they can request
that additional landscaping be provided to replace the trees
being removed from the site. Condition #10 required additional
screening of the truck dock area north of the building. The
applicant has provided extensive berming and additional
landscaping to further screen the docking area. Staff is
satisfied with the screening being provided for the dock area.
The remaining Conditions #11 through #25 of Planning Commission
approval are reviewed by the City Engineer' s memo.
The applicant is proposing signage which exceeds what is per-
mitted in the IOP District by the Zoning Ordinance. The appli- ,
cant understands that they will have to receive either a sign
variance or proceed with a zoning ordinance amendment to the sign
regulations for the IOP District to allow larger wall signs,
additional ground low profile, directional signs, etc. for larger
sites . The applicant may request direction from the City Council
at the November 28th meeting whether the Council feels that a
hardship may exist or if it would be to the benefit of the appli-
cant to proceed with a zoning ordinance amendment request.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ,
The amended site plan has met several of the conditions raised by
staff and the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the
City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Site Plan #88-15 with the following
conditions:
1 . That the applicant provide details on how the trash recep-
tacles will be screened.
2 . The applicant will provide an amended plan showing the 75
foot setback is being maintained between the Class B wetland
and the parking area to the south.
I
Opus/Rosemount W A
P and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988
Page 13
3 . Additional landscaping must be provided along the westerly
1 boundary of the northwesterly parking lot. The landscaping
shall include evergreens to screen the parking lot from the
north and west.
4 . Should the feasibility study not include landscaping along
Lake Drive, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan
providing perimeter landscaping along Lake Drive.
5 . The north, east and west side boundary of the Class B wetland
shall be allowed to be sod and seeded but will also be
landscaped with vegetation suitable for natural habitat and
will not be mowed and allowed to revert back to its natural
state. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan
with the proposed landscaping as recommended by the State
Document Titled, "Landscaping for Wildlife" .
6 . The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Fire Inspector
' as stated in his memo dated October 17 , 1988 .
7 . The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Building
' Department as stated in his memo dated September 26, 1988 .
8 . The applicant shall preserve a 75 foot setback around the
Class A wetland.
9 . Meet any and all conditions of the EAW Negative Declaration.
' 10 . Meet any and all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit
#88-15 .
11 . A revised erosion control plan which reflects Type II erosion
control ( staked hay bales and snow fence) shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for approval prior to the commencement
of any grading.
12. Site grading along Lake Drive and Market Boulevard shall be
in agreement with the finished roadway improvements for Lake
Drive and Market Boulevard.
13 . A 35-foot utility easement shall be dedicated along the
westerly lot line of the site along the alignment of the
sanitary sewer as established by the feasibility study.
14 . The internal piping scheme for the building should address
1 the need for documentation of recycled or cooling water
discharge in order that proper sanitary sewer credits can be
identified if appropriate.
' 15 . The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City
for utilizing its ponding facilities to accommodate any storm
water, less than the 100-year predeveloped runoff rate which
is not being accommodated on site.
1
Opus/Rosemount WAP and Site Plan
November 2 , 1988 1
Page 14
16 . The on-site ponding and storm drainage scheme needs to be I
coordinated with the feasibility study alignment of the Lake
Drive storm sewer system.
17 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
the City to guarantee the proper execution of the final
approved plans and specifications for the site and provide
the City with the appropriate financial security.
18 . The applicant has indicated that they will be recycling
water. Details for the cooling tower, appropriate screening,
and plans which address the connection to the City' s existing
storm sewer system, shall be provided to the City Engineer
for approval prior to the commencement of any construction. 1
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Excerpts from City Code.
2 . Memo from City Engineer dated October 28 , 1988 .
3 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated October 17 , 1988 .
4 . Memo from Building Department dated September 26, 1988 .
5 . Letter from Fish and Wildlife Service dated September 23 ,
1988 .
6 . EAW.
7. Wetland information sheet.
8 . Option 2A.
9 . Application.
10 . Letter from applicant dated September 13 , 1988 .
11 . Park and Recreation memo and minutes dated November 22, 1988 .
12 . Memo from City Engineer dated November 22 , 1988 .
13 . Letter from Opus dated November 10, 1988 .
14 . Planning Commission minutes dated November 2 , 1988 .
15 . Site plan dated November 15 , 1988 .
,.
i
1
: ,
ZONING § 20-401
I (3) Nonresidential structures. Commercial, manufacturing and industrial structures shall
ordinarily be elevated on fill so that their first floor(including basement)is above the
regulatory flood protection elevation but may in special circumstances be flood-proofed
I in accordance with the state building code. Structures that are not elevated to above
the regulatory flood protection elevation shall be flood-proofed to FP-1 or FP-2 classi-
fication as defined by the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the
I city. Structures flood-proofed to FP-3 or FP-4 classification shall not be permitted.
(Ord. No. 80,Art.V, § 21(5-21-2), 12-15-86)
Cross reference—Technical codes, § 7-16-et seq.
IState law reference—Condfitional uses,M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-378. Residential uses.
I Residences that do not have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two
(2)feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation shall not be permitted unless granted a
variance. In granting a variance the city shall specify limitations on the period of use or
I occupancy of the residence.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 21(5-21-3(1)), 12-15-86)
ISec. 20-379. Commercial uses.
Accessory land uses, such as yards, railroad tracks and parking lots may be at elevations
lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, a permit for such facilities to
Ibe used by the employees or the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood
warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would innundate to a
I depth greater than two (2) feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than four (4) feet per
second upon occurrence of the regional flood.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 21(5-21-3(2)), 12-15-86)
ISec. 20-380. Manufacturing and industrial uses.
Measures shall be taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations espe-
cially along streams having protracted flood durations. Certain accessory land uses such as
yards and parking lots may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set forth above. In
considering permit applications, due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry
I whose business requires that it be located in flood plain areas.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 21(5-21-3(3)), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-381-20-400. Reserved.
ARTICLE VI.WETLAND PROTECTION
IDIVISION 1. GENERALLY
ISec. 20-401. Findings and intent.
0 0 Wetlands are a valuable resource. Wetlands help maintain water quality, serve to mini-
mize problems with flooding and erosion, serve as sources of food and habitat for a variety of
II 1187
-I' '
I ir-
§ 20-401 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
fish and wildlife and are an integral part of the community's natural landscape providing the
aesthetic benefits of open space and a natural separation of land uses. It is the intent of this
article to establish a program of sound stewardship through regulations that strive toward
zero degradation of the wetlands by conserving, protecting and enhancing these environmen-
tally sensitive resources.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 24(5-24-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-402. Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to assure the protection of the general health, safety and '
welfare of the residents and the protection of the wetland resources of the city,for now and in
the future, through preservation and conservation of wetlands and sound management of
development by: I
(1) Establishment of wetland regulations.
(2) Requiring proper erosion control practices. I
(3) Requiring sound management practices that will protect, conserve, maintain, en-
hance and improve the present quality of wetlands within the community.
(4) Requiring improved water quality in streams and lakes with its attendant increase
in recreational use and value.
(5) Protecting and enhancing the scenic value of the community.
(6) Restricting and controlling the harmful effects of land development which adversely
affect wetlands. I
(7) Reducing the need for piped storm water improvements.
(8) Preventing rapid runoff from developed areas. I
(9) Preventing pollution from gas, oil, salt, fertilizer, sand and silt.
(10) Allowing only development that is compatible with wetland protection and enhancement. '
(11) Providing standards for the alteration of wetlands.
(12) Controlling development outside of the wetland areas that may be detrimental to
wetlands.
(13) Prohibiting dumping of waste in wetlands.
(14) Restricting the placement of structures within wetland areas. ,
(15) Drawing attention to the function of wetlands and the impact of urbanization upon
wetlands.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-403. Interpretation. I
Neither the issuance of a wetland alteration permit nor compliance with the conditions
thereof, nor compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall relieve any person from any I
1188
I
I,
IZONING § 20-407
I ,,;Np(lnsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the
I„nuance of any permit serve to impose any liability on the city or its officers or employees for
I„,fury or damage to persons or property.
I (()rd. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-12), 12-15-86)
;*e. 20404. Establishment of wetland areas.
ILands lying within a wetland area shall be subject to the requirements established
herein, as well as restrictions and requirements established by other applicable city ordinan-
I ,('rl and regulations. The Wetland Protection Regulation shall not be construed to allow
,Illything otherwise prohibited in the zoning district where the wetland area is located. The
wetland map, entitled "Chanhassen Wetland Map" dated May 22, 1984 is hereby adopted as
I ',lima facie evidence of the wetland areas and an official copy is on file in the office of the city
clerk. Land within the wetland areas shall be classified as class A wetland or class B wetland
iIH delineated on the map.
I (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-3), 12-15-86) ,_
Hee. 20-405. Determination of wetland area.
IAn applicant for development which may be in a wetland area shall bring this to the
, It.y'S attention. If required by the city, the applicant shall provide appropriate technical
I „li)rmation, including but not limited to, topographical survey and soil data deemed neces-
�
I,IIIy for the city to determine the exact wetland boundary. The city council may exempt land
ii„Ili the wetland regulations if it finds that the land is not in fact a wetland. The city council
„I,,,I t make necessary interpretations concerning the wetland area based upon the wetland
,,,;,I), the definition of wetlands and the intent and purpose of this article.
I(►rd. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-2), 12-15-86)
I ;lee. 20-406. Variances.
I The city council may grant a variance from the requirements of this article.In addition, a
v,,Iiance may be granted based upon mitigative measures proposed by the applicant to
(„create, to an equal or greater degree, the environmental and hydrological function of the
I will and area that is proposed to be altered.
((h'd. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-14), 12-15-86)
I ow, 20-407. Prohibited uses in class A wetlands.
The following uses are prohibited in class A wetlands:
u.== (I) Disposal of waste material including, but not limited to, sewage, demolition debris,
�Y .`m hazardous and toxic substances, and all waste that would normally be disposed of at a
solid ∎%aste disposal site or into a sewage disposal system or sanitary sewer.
(2) Solid waste disposal sites, sludge ash disposal sites, hazardous waste transfer or
disposal sites.
. . I:)i Septic or <oil absorption -4Vs(ems.
1189 r
ax,
§ 20-407 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(4) Sedimentation basins for construction projects.
(5) Open storage.
(6) Animal feedlots.
(7) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
(8) Operation of motorized craft of all sizes and classifications.'
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-408. Prohibited uses in class B wetlands.
The following uses are prohibited in class B wetlands:
(1) Disposal of waste material including, but not limited to, sewage, demolition debris, _
hazardous and toxic substances,and all waste that would normally be disposed of at a
solid waste disposal site or into a sewage disposal system or sanitary sewer.
(2) Solid waste disposal sites, sludge ash disposal sites, hazardous waste transfer or
disposal sites.
(3) Animal feedlots.
•
(4) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-6), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-409. General development regulations.
Within wetland areas and for lands abutting or adjacent to a horizontal(200)feet, the following minimum provisions are applicable: al distance of two
(1) The minimum Iot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet.
(2) The minimum structure setback is seventy-five(75)feet from the ordinary high water 1
mark.
(3) Septic and soil absorption system setbacks are two hundred (200)feet from ordinary
high water mark. 1
(4) The lowest ground floor elevation is three (3)feet above ordinary high water mark.
(5) No development shall be allowed which may result in unusual road maintenance
ntenance
costs or utility line breakages due to soil limitation, including high frost action.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-13), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-410-20420. Reserved.
1190
1 ZONING § 20-422
DIVISION 2. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Part A. General Provisions
Sec. 20-421. Required.
The following activities are prohibited in the wetland area indicated unless the city
council issues a wetland alteration permit allowing the activity:
(1) Scientific research projects in a class A or class B wetland which alter the wetland.
(2) Public works in a class A or class B wetland except for emergency public works which
shall not require a wetland alteration permit.
(3) Creation of ponds or dams and alterations of the natural drainageways or water
courses of a class A or class B wetland.
(4) Removal from class A wetland of trees or vegetation except hay, crops and diseased
and storm damaged trees and vegetation which shall not require a wetland alteration
permit.
(5) Docks, walkways and boardwalks, within class A or B wetland.
(6) Installing or replacing drain tile or ditches in a class A wetland. Repairing existing
' drain tile, in a class A wetland if the property has not been in active agricultural use
during the twelve(12) months preceding February 19, 1987.
(7) Development in any class A wetland or within two hundred (200) feet of a class A
wetland that is within the wetland's watershed.
(8) Septic or soil absorption systems in a class B wetland.
' (9) Sedimentation basins in a class B wetland.
(10) Any structure in a class A or B wetland except for minor expansion and additions to
single-family detached dwellings existing February 19, 1987 that do not require a
wetland alteration permit.
(11) Digging,dredging,filling in a class A or B wetland.
(12) Advertising signs in a class A or B wetland.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-7), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-422. Application,issuance,etc.
The applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall furnish the information required by
the city including but not limited to, a site plan, topographic data and hydrological data for
the review of a wetland alteration permit application. A wetland alteration permit shall not
be issued without having been first reviewed by the planning commission and approved by the
council following the review procedures set forth for conditional use permits. The applicant
• shall have the burden of proving that the proposed use or activity complies with the purposes,
intent and other provisions of this article. A permit must be approved by a three-fifths vote of
1191
i
§ 20-422 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
the council.The council may establish reasonable conditions which are specifically set forth in
the permit to ensure compliance with requirements contained in this article. Such conditions
may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed work, require the
construction of other structures, require replacement of vegetation, establish required moni- 1
toring procedures and maintenance activity, stage the work over time, require the alteration
of the site design to ensure buffering, require the provision of a performance security. The
granting of a wetland alteration permit does not abrogate the need to obtain permits required '
by other local, state or federal agencies.
(Ord. No. 80,Art.V, § 24(5-24-9), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-423. Inspection of work.
The city engineer may cause inspection of work for which a wetland alteration permit is
issued to be made periodically during the course of such work and shall cause final inspection
to be made following the completion of the work.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-11), 12-15-86)
I
Sec. 20424. Expiration,renewal,etc.
(a) Unless otherwise specified by the city council, the person issued a wetland alteration
permit shall begin and complete the development authorized by the permit within one(1)year
after the date the council approves the permit application.
(b) The permittee shall provide written notice to the city engineer twenty-four(24)hours •
prior to the commencement and completion of the development project. No project shall be
deemed to have been completed until approved by the city engineer after receipt of notice of
completion.
(c) If the permittee fails to commence work on the development within the time specified
in this section,the permit shall be void.The council may renew a void permit at its discretion.
If the council does not renew the permit, the holder of the void permit may make original
application for a new permit. I
(d) The permittee may make written application to the council for an extension of the
time to commence work, but only if the permittee submits the application prior to the date
already established to commence work. The application for an extension shall state the
reasons the permittee requires an extension.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-10), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-425-20-435. Reserved.
Part B. Issuance Guidelines
Sec. 20-436. Generally. 1
No wetland alteration permit shall be issued unless the council determines that the
441
proposed development complies with the provisions of this part, as well as the intent and
1192
i
4
ZONING
- - § 20-438
' purpose of this article. In reviewing wetland alteration proposals reference shall be made to
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service under Runoff, Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook and Technical Field Guide. If the city council determines
' that the required calculations in a particular instance are needlessly burdensome because of
the area and nature of a proposal, it may agree to a substitute analysis.
' (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 24(5-24-8), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-437. Filling.
' A minimum amount of filling will be allowed when necessary for the use of property,but
only when it will not have a net adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological character-
istics of the wetland.In determining whether a proposed development will have a net adverse
' effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland, the council shall
consider, but not limit its consideration to, the following factors:
' (1) Any filling shall not cause total natural flood storage capacity of the wetland to fall
below, or fall below further, the projected volume of run-off from the watershed
generated by a 5.9-inch rainfall in twenty-four(24) hours. Since the total amount of
' filling which can be permitted is limited, apportionment of fill opportunities for other
properties abutting the wetland shall be considered.
(2) Any filling shall not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to
' be diminished to an extent that is deterimental to any area river, lake or stream.
(3) Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic wastes may be used.
(4) Filling shall be carried out so as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
(5) Filling in wetland areas will not be permitted during waterfowl breeding season or
fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used
for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5-24-8(1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-438. Dredging.
Dredging will be allowed only when it will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological
' and hyrological characteristics of the wetlands. Dredging, when allowed, shall be limited as
follows:
(1) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
(2) It shall not adversely change water flow.
(3) The size of the dredged area shall be limited to the minimum required for the
proposed action.
(4) Disposal of the dredged material is prohibited within the wetland district unless
specifically authorized in the wetland alteration permit.
(5) Disposal of any dredged material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient
retention measures.
1193
I
1
§ 20-438 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(6) Dredging in any wetland area is prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish
spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for
waterfowl breeding or fish spawning.
(Ord.No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-8(2)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-439. Discharges. _
(a) Soil loss from a construction site any part of which is in a wetland or within two
hundred(200)feet of the wetland that is within the wetland watershed shall not exceed a rate
of more than two(2)tons per acre per year.
(b) Projected soil loss from a completed construction project shall not exceed one-half ton
per year if any part of it is in a wetland or within two hundred(200)feet of a wetland that is
within the wetland watershed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art.V, § 24(5-24-8(3)), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-440. Stormwater runoff.
(a) A minimum increase in volume of stormwater runoff to a wetland from a development
over the natural volume of runoff may be allowed when necessary for use of property but only
when it will not have a net adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological characteristics
of the wetlands.In-no case shall the restrictions on runoff set out below be exceeded.Since the
total increase in runoff which can be permitted is limited, the council when considering
permit applications shall consider, in addition to the following, apportionment of increased
runoff opportunity to all wetland property within the surrounding wetland area.
(b) Stormwater runoff from a development may be directed to the wetland only when free
of debris and substantially free of chemical pollutants and silt, and only at rates which do not
disturb vegetation or increase turbidity. Sheet flow and other overland drainage of runoff
shall be encouraged. I
(c) The proposed action shall not cause stormwater runoff on the wetlands to take place at
a rate which would materially exceed the natural rate.
(d) The allowed total increased runoff, in combination with the total fill allowed,shall not
cause total natural flood storage capacity of the wetland to fall below, or fall below further,
the projected volume of runoff in the whole developed wetland watershed generated by a
5.9-inch rainfall in twenty-four(24)hours.
(e) The allowed total increase in runoff, in combination with the total fill allowed, shall I
not cause total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to fall below, or fall below
further, the projected nutrient production from the whole developed wetland watershed.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-8(4)), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-441-20-475. Reserved.
1194
I
I
ZONING § 20-814
' ARTICLE XXII."IOP" INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT
Sec. 20-811. Intent.
' The intent of the "IOP" District is to provide an area identified for large scale light
industrial and commercial planned development.
(Ord.No. 80,Art.V, § 16(5-16-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-812. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in an"IOP" District:
(1) Offices.
(2) Warehouses.
(3) Light manufacturing.
' (4) Trade shops.
(5) Health services.
(6) Printers.
(7) Indoor health and recreation clubs.
' (8) Body shops.
(9) Utility services.
(10) Recording studios.
(11) Off-premises parking lots.
(12) Conference/convention centers.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 16(5-16-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-813. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in an "IOP" District:
' (1) Parking lots and ramps.
(2) Signs.
(3) Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than
twenty(20)percent of the floor space is used for retail sales.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-3), 12-15-86)
' Sec. 20-814. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an"IOP" District:
(1) Concrete mixing plants.
(2) Communication transmission towers.
1227
I
1
§ 20-814 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(3) Public buildings.
(4) Motor freight terminals.
(5) Outdoor health and recreation clubs.
111
(6) Screened outdoor storage.
(7) Research laboratories.
1
(8) Contracting yards.
(9) Lumber yards. I
(10) Home improvement trades.
(11) Hotels and motels.
I
(12) Food processing.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 16(5-16-4), 12-15-86) I
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-815. Lot requirements and setbacks.
I
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "IOP" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is one(1)acre.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is one hundred fifty(150)feet,except that lots fronting on
a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of sixty(60)feet. I
(3) The minimum lot depth is two hundred(200)feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage is seventy(70)percent.
(5) Off-street parking areas shall comply with all yard requirements of this section,
except that no rear yard parking setback shall be required for lots directly abutting
railroad trackage; and, no side yard shall be required when adjoining commercial
_. uses establish joint off-street parking facilities,as provided in section 20-1122,except
that no parking areas shall be permitted in any required side street side yard. The
I
minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet for lots directly abutting any residential
district. Side street side yards shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in all
districts. Other setbacks are as follows:
I
a. For front yards, thirty (30)feet.
b. For rear yards, ten(10)feet.
c. For side yards, ten(10)feet. I
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, four(4)stories/fifty(50)feet.
b. For accessory structures, one(1)story.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-5), 12-15-86)
1228
I
i
§ 20-1124 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20-1124. Lighting.
All commercial, industrial and multi-family parking lots shall be lighted. Lighting shall
be directed away from the public right-of-way and adjacent residential or agricultural districts.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, § 1(7-1-9), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1125. Required number of on-site parking spaces.
' On-site parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppli-
ers, visitors and employees shall be provided on the premises of each use. The minimum
number of required on-site parking spaces for the following uses shall be:
(1) Assembly or exhibition hall, auditorium, theater or sports arena—One (1) parking
space for each four(4)seats,based upon design capacity.
(2) Auto sales, trailer sales, marine and boat sales, implement sales, garden supply
store, building materials sales, auto repair—One (1) parking space for each five
hundred(500)square feet of floor area.
1 (3) Automobile service station—Four (4)parking spaces, plus two (2) parking spaces for
each service stall: such parking spaces shall be in addition to parking space required
for gas pump areas.
(4) Bowling alley—Seven(7)parking spaces for each bowling lane.
(5) Churches—One(1)parking space for each three(3)seats,based on the design capacity
of the main seating area, plus one(1)space per classroom.
(6) Dwelling:
a. Single-family—Two (2) parking spaces, both of which must be completely en-
closed. No garage shall be converted into living space unless other acceptable
on-site parking space is provided.
b. Multi-family—One (1) parking space per efficiency unit, one and one-half(11/2)
spaces per one (1) bedroom unit, two (2) parking spaces per two (2) or more
bedrooms. Senior citizens housing shall have three-fourths spaces per dwelling
unit. At a minimum, one(1)space per unit must be completely enclosed.
(7) Financial institution—One (1) space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of
I , floor space.
(8) Furniture or appliance store—One (1) space for each four hundred (400) feet of floor
space.
(9) Hospitals and nursing homes—One(1)space for every two(2)beds, plus one (1)space
for every two(2)employees on the largest single shift.
1 (10) Manufacturing or processing plant—One (1) off-street parking space for each em-
ployee on the major shift and one (1) off-street parking space for each motor vehicle
when customarily kept on the premises.
(11) Medical and dental clinics and animal hospitals—One (1)parking space for each one
hundred fifty(150)square feet of floor area.
1 1248
1
ZONING § 20-1125 '
(12) Mortuaries—One(1)space for every three(3)seats.
(13) Motel or hotel—One(1)parking space for each rental room or suite,plus one(1)space
for every two(2)employees.
(14) Office buildings (administrative, business or professional)—Three (3)parking spaces
for each one thousand(1,000)square feet of floor area. I
(15) Public service buildings, including municipal administration buildings, community
center, public library, museum, art galleries, and post office—One (1)parking space
for each five hunched (500) square feet of floor area in the principal structure, plus
•
one(1)parking space for each four(4)rests within public assembly or meeting rooms.
(16) Recreational facilities, including golf course, country club, swimming club, racquet
club, public swimming pool—Twenty (20) spaces, plus one (1) space for each five
hundred(500)square feet of floor area in the principal structure or two(2)spaces per
court.
(17) Research, experimental or testing stations—One(1)parking space for each five hun-
dred(500)square feet of gross floor area within the building,whichever is greater.
(18) Restaurant,cafe, nightclub,tavern or bar:
a. Fast food—One(1)space per sixty(60)square feet of gross floor area.
b. Restaurant:
1. Without full liquor license—One (1) space per sixty (60) square feet of gross
floor area or one (1) space per two and one-half (21/2) seats whichever is
greater.
2. With full liquor license—One(1)space per fifty(50)square feet of gross floor
area or one(1)space per two(2)seats whichever is greater.
(19) Retail stores and service establishments—One (1) space for each two hundred (200)
square feet of gross floor area.
(20) School, elementary (public, private or parochial)—One (1) parking space for each
classroom or office room, plus one (1) space for each one hundred fifty (150) square
feet of eating area including aisles, in any auditorium or gymnasium or cafeteria
intended to be used as an auditorium.
(21) School,junior and senior high schools and colleges(public,private or parochial—Four
(4) parking spaces for each classroom or office room plus one (1) space for each one
hundred fifty(150)square feet of seating area including aisles, in any auditorium or
gymnasium or cafeteria intended to be used as an auditorium.
(22) Shopping center—On-site automobile parking shall be provided in a ratio of not less
than one(1)parking space for each two hundred(200)square feet of gross floor area;
separate on-site space shall be provided for loading and unloading. '
(23) Storage, wholesale, or warehouse establishments—One (1) space for each one thou-
sand(1,000)square feet of gross floor area up to ten thousand(10,000)square feet and
one(1)additional space for each additional two thousand(2,000)square feet plus one
1249
ZONING § 20-1176
Sec. 20-1145. Landscaping and screening.
All berths shall be screened from public rights-of-way and from view from the property
across the street frontage and/or from the zoning district boundary when the adjacent prop-
erty or property across the street frontage or side street frontage is zoned or used for residen-
tial purposes. The screening shall be accomplished as required in article XXV.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VII, § 2(7-2-4), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1146. Design.
All loading areas shall consist of a maneuvering area in addition to the berth and shall
not use any of that portion of the site containing parking stalls.Maneuvering areas shall be of
such size as to permit the backing of truck tractors and coupled trailers into a berth without
' blocking the use of other berths, drives, maneuvering areas or public rights-of-way.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VII, § 2(7-2-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1147. Required loading areas.
(a) Any use which the city believes requires the provision of designated spaces for the
' loading, unloading or parking of trucks or semi-trailers shall provide such spaces and maneu-
vering area in the number and configuration which shall be deemed necessary in order to
prevent interference with the use of the public right-of-way and with vehicles entering onto or
' exiting from the public right-of-way.
(b) Semi-trailer spaces shall be at least fifty-five(55)feet in length, ten(10)feet in width
and fourteen(14)feet in height plus necessary additional maneuvering space.
(c) Spaces shall not be located on a street side of any building, or, if so located, shall be
provided with screening deemed adequate by the city.
(d) Spaces and the associated maneuvering area shall be at least fifty (50)feet from the
property line of any residentially designated property.
(e) No trucks shall be parked in areas other than those designed for such purpose on an
approved site plan.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VII, § 2(7-2-6), 12-15-86)
•
Secs. 20-1148-20-1175. Reserved.
I
ARTICLE XXV. LANDSCAPING AND TREE REMOVAL
' DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 20-1176. Intent,scope and compliance.
(a) The intent of this article is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and
property abutting public rights-of-way;to require buffering between noncompatible land uses;
1251
ZONING § 20-1179 1
Sec. 20-1178. Landscaping for service structure. '
(a) Any service structure shall be screened whenever located in any residential, commer-
cial or industrial zone (except RR and RSF zones). Structures may be grouped together;
however, screening height requirements will be based upon the tallest of the structures.
(b) A continuous planting, hedge, fence, wall or earth mound shall enclose any service
structure on all sides unless such structure must be frequently moved, in which case screen-
111
ing on all but one (1) side is required. The average height of the screening material shall be
one(1)foot more than the height of the enclosed structure,but shall not be required to exceed
eight (8) feet in height. Whenever a service structure is located next to a building wall,
perimeter landscaping material, or vehicular use area landscaping material, such walls or
screening material may fulfill the screening requirement for that side of the service structure
if that wall or screening material is of an average height sufficient to meet the height
requirement set out in this section. Whenever service structures are screened by plant
material, such material may count towards the fulfillment of required interior or perimeter
landscaping. No interior landscaping shall be required within an area screened for service
structures.
(c) Whenever screening material is placed around any trash disposal unit or waste '
collection unit which is emptied or removed mechanically on a regularly occuring basis, a
curb to contain the placement of the container shall be provided within the screening material
on those sides where there is such material.The curbing shall be at least one(1)foot from the
material and shall be designed to prevent possible damage to the screening when the con-
tainer is moved or emptied.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VIII, § 4, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1179. Tree removal regulations.
(a) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and
with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands
which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan.
(b) No clearcutting of woodland areas shall be permitted except as approved in a subdivi-
sion, planned unit development or site plan application. '
(c) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
(1) To the extent practical, site design shall preserve significant woodland areas. I
(2) Shade trees of six (6) inches or more caliper shall be saved unless it can be demon-
strated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site.
(3) The city may require the replacement of removed trees on a caliper inch per caliper
inch basis. At minimum, however, replacement trees shall conform to the planting
requirements identified in division 4 of this article. '
(4) During the tree removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of
public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
1253
§ 20-1179 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(5) The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible.
(d) Tree removal not permitted under subdivision,planned unit development or site plan
review shall not be allowed without the approval of a tree removal plan by the city council.
Tree removal plans shall include the content requirements as dictated in section 20-1177 and
identify reasons for tree removal. The plan shall be submitted three (3)weeks in advance of
the city council at which it is to be considered.
' (e) This section does not apply to single-family and two-family lots of record.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VIII, § 7, 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-1180-20-1190. Reserved.
DIVISION 2. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 20-1191. Generally.
(a) Where parking areas are not entirely screened visually by an intervening building or
structure from any abutting right-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping between such
area and such right-of-way as follows:
(1) A strip of land at least ten (10) feet in depth located between the abutting right-of-
- way and the vehicular use area which shall be landscaped to include an average of
one (1) tree for each forty (40) linear feet or fraction thereof. Such trees shall be
located between the abutting right-of-way and the vehicular use area.
(2) In addition,a hedge,wall,berm,or other opaque durable landscape barrier of at least
' two(2)feet in height shall be placed along the entire length of the vehicular use area.
If such opaque durable barrier is of nonliving material, a shrub or vine shall be
planted along the street side of said barrier and be planted in such a manner to break
up the expanse of the wall. A two-foot berm may be used; however, additional
landscaping at least one (1)foot in height at time of planting shall be installed. The
remainder of the required landscape areas shall be landscaped with grass, ground
cover, or other landscape treatment.
(b) This division applies to perimeter landscaping.
' (Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1192. Required landscaping adjacent to interior property lines.
' (a) Where parking areas abut property zoned or, in fact, used primarily for residential or
institutional purposes,that portion of such area not entirely screened visually by an interven-
ing structure or existing conforming buffer from an abutting property,there shall be provided
' a landscaped buffer which should be maintained and replaced as needed. Such landscaped
buffer shall consist of plant material, wall, or other durable barrier at least six (6) feet in
height measured from the median elevation of the parking area closest to the common lot line,
and be located between the common lot line and the off-street parking areas or other vehicular
use area exposed to the abutting property. Fences shall be constructed according to the
standards in section 20-1018.
i 1254
I
1
ZONING § 20-1212 1
(b) In addition, an average of one(1)tree shall be provided for each forty(40)linear feet of
= such parking area or fractional part thereof. Such trees shall be located between the common
lot line and the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area.
(c) Where such area abuts property zoned and, in fact, used for office, commercial, or
industrial purposes, that portion of area not entirely screened visually by an intervening
structure or existing conforming buffer, shall comply with the tree provisions only as pre-
scribed in this section.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-2), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1193. Combining with easements.
The required landscape bufferyard may be combined with a utility or other easement as
long as all of the landscape requirements can be fully met, otherwise, the landscape bufferyard
shall be provided in addition to, and separate from, any other easement. Cars or other objects
shall not overhang or otherwise intrude upon the required landscape bufferyard more than
two and one-half(21/z)feet and curbs will be required. I
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 2(8-2-3), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1194. Existing landscape material. it
Existing landscape material shall be shown on the required plan and any material in
satisfactory condition may be used to satisfy these requirements in whole or in part.
(Ord. No. 80,Art.VIII, § 2(8-2-4), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-1195-20-1210. Reserved.
DIVISION 3. INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICULAR USE AREAS
Sec. 20-1211. Generally.
(a) Any open vehicular use area(excluding loading, unloading, and storage areas in the
IOP and BG districts)containing more than six thousand(6,000)square feet of area,or twenty
(20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in accordance with
this division in addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior landscaping may be peninsular
or island types.
(b) This division applies to interior landscaping of such areas. 1
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 3, 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1212. Landscape area. ,
(a) For each one hundred(100)square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area,five
(5)square feet of landscaped area shall be provided. '
(b) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be sixty-four (64) square feet, with a
four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang.
1255
I
§ 20-1212 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(c) In order to encourage the required landscape areas to be properly dispersed, no
required landscape area shall be larger than three hundred fifty(350)square feet in vehicular
use areas under thirty thousand (30,000) square feet in size, and no required area shall be
larger than one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in vehicular use areas over thirty
thousand(30,000)square feet. In both cases,the least dimension of any required area shall be
four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang.
' Landscape areas larger than above are permitted as long as the additional areas is in excess of
the required minimum.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 3(8-3-1), 12-15-86)
' Sec. 20-1213. Minimum trees.
A minimum of one(1)tree shall be required for each two hundred fifty(250)square feet or
fraction thereof, of required landscape area. Trees shall have a clear trunk of at least five(5)
feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs, or ground
cover, not to exceed two(2)feet in height.
' (Ord. No. 80,Art. VIII, § 3(8-3-2), 12-15-86) ._
Sec. 20-1214. Vehicle overhang.
Parked vehicles may hang over the interior landscaped area no more than two and
one-half(21/2) feet, as long as a concrete curb is provided to ensure no greater overhang or
' penetration of the landscaped area.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 3(8-3-3), 12-15-86)
4110
' Secs. 20-1215-20-1230. Reserved.
DIVISION 4. LANDSCAPING MATERIALS, ETC.
Sec. 20-1231. Generally.
(a) The landscaping materials shall consist of the following:
' (1) Walls and fences. Walls shall be constructed of natural stone, brick or artificial
materials. Fences shall be constructed of wood. Chain link fencing will be permitted
only if covered with wood strips or plant material.
(2) Earth mounds. Earth mounds shall be physical barriers which block or screen the
view similar to a hedge, fence, or wall. Mounds shall be constructed with proper and
' adequate plant material to prevent erosion. A difference in elevation between areas
requiring screening does not constitute an existing earth mound, and shall not be
considered as fulfilling any screening requirement.
' (3) Plants. All plant materials shall be living plants, artificial plants are prohibited and
shall meet the following requirements.
' a. Quality. Plant materials used in conformance with provision of this division
shall conform to the standards of the American Association of Nurserymen and
•
shall have passed any inspections required under state regulations.
' 1256
I
ZONING
I
§ 20-1231
b. Deciduous trees. Shall be species having an average mature crown spread of
greater than fifteen(15)feet and having trunk(s)which can be maintained with
over five(5)feet of clear wood in areas which have visibility requirements,except
at vehicular use area intersections where an eight (8) foot clear wood require-
I
ment will control. Trees having an average mature spread of crown less than
fifteen (15) feet may be substituted by grouping of the same so as to create the
equivalent of a fifteen (15) crown spread. A minimum of ten (10) feet overall I
height or a minimum caliper (trunk diameter, measured six (6) inches above
ground for trees up to four (4) inches caliper) of at least two and one half(21)
1
inches immediately after planting shall be required.Trees of species whose roots
are known to cause damage to public roadways or other public works shall not be
placed closer than fifteen (15) feet to such public works, unless the tree root
I
system is completely contained within a barrier for which the minimum interior
containing dimensions shall be five (5)feet square and five (5)feet deep and for
which the construction requirements shall be four (4) inches thick, reinforced I
concrete.
c. Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six (6)feet high with a
minimum caliper of one and one-half(11/2)inches when planted.
{ d. Shrubs and hedges. Deciduous shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in average
g
height when planted, and shall conform to the opacity and other requirements
within four (4) years after planting. Evergreen shrubs shall be at least two (2)
I
feet in average height and two(2)feet in diameter.
e. Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high at planting, and are
generally used in conjunction with walls or fences.
I
f. Grass or ground cover. Grass shall be planted in species normally grown as
permanent lawns, and may be sodded, plugged, sprigged, or seeded; except in
swales or other areas subject to erosion, where solid sod,erosion reducing net,or I
suitable mulch shall be used, nurse-grass seed shall be sown for immediate
protection until complete coverage otherwise is achieved. Grass sod shall be
clean and free of weeds and noxious pests or diseases. Ground cover such as I
organic material shall be planted in such a manner as to present a finished
appearance and seventy-five (75) percent of complete coverage after two (2)
complete growing seasons, with a maximum of fifteen (15) inches on center. In I
certain cases, ground cover also may consist of rocks, pebbles, sand and similar
approved materials.
(b) The following trees may be used to meet planting requirements: I
Specific Name Common Name
SHADE TREES
Acer platanoides "Emerald Queen" Maple, emerald queen Norway
Acer platanoides "Crimson King" Maple, crimson king
I
Acer platanoides "Columnar" Maple, columnar
•
Acer platanoides "Jade Glen" Maple,jade green Norway
Acer platanoides"Royal Red" Maple, royal red Norway
I
1257
I
j
1
1
I § 20-1231 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
ISpecific Name Common Name
Acer platanoides "Schwedler" Maple, schwedler Norway
I Acer platanoides "Variegatum" Maple, variegated Norway
Acer rubrum Maple, red or swamp
Acer rubrum "Red Sunset" Maple,red sunset red
I Acer saccharum
Betula papryiter Maple, sugar or hard
Birch,paper
Betula pendula icciminta Birch, cut leaf weeping birch
I Celtis occidental is Hackberry
Fraxinus pennslyvania laceolata "Mar-
shall's Seedless" Ash,marshall's seedless green
I Gingko bilboba Gingko tree
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis Honeylocust, thornless
Gleditsia tricanthos inermis"Imperial" Honeylocust, imperial
I Gleditsia tricanthos inermis "Skyline" Honeylocust, skyline
Quercus alba Oak, white
Quercus macrokarpa Oak,burr
I Quercus rubra Oak, red
Quercus paulstris "Sovreign" Oak, sovreign pin
Tilia omericana Linden, american
I Tilia cordata"Greenspire" Linden, greenspire
Tilia x euchlora"Redmond" Linden,redmond 0
I ORNAMENTAL TREES
Acer innala Maple, amur
Amelanchier Serviceberry or juneberry
I Malus bacata columnaris
Malus(various species) Crabapple, columnar siberian
Crabapple, flowering—Varieties: Dolgo,
flame, radiant, red, silver, red splendor
Prunus"Newport" Plum, Newport
Prunus triloba Plum,flowering or rose tree of China
Prunus virginiana"Schubert" Chokeberry, schuberts
I Rhamnus frangula"Columnaris" Buckthorn,tallhedge
Syringa amurensis japonica Lilac, Japanese tree
EVERGREEN TREES
IPicea glauca densata Spruce, Black Hills
Picea pungens Spruce, Colorado green
I Picex pungeli glauco Spruce, Colorado blue
Pinus nigra Pine, Austrian
Pinus ponderosa Pine, ponderosa
I Pinus resinosa Pine, Norway
Pinus strobus Pine, white
Pinus sylvestris Pine, Scotch
(Ord. No. 80, Art. VIII, § 5(8-5-1, 8-5-3), 12-15-86)
1258
I
ZONING § 20-1251 1
Sec. 20-1232. Maintenance and installation. ,
All landscaping materials shall be installed in a sound, workmanship like manner and
according to accepted, good construction and planting procedures. The owner of the property
shall be responsible for the continued proper maintenance of all landscaping materials, and
shall keep them in a proper, neat, and orderly appearance,free from refuse and debris, at all
times. All unhealthy or dead plant material shall be replaced within one (1)year, or by the
next planting period,whichever comes first;while other defective landscape material shall be
replaced or repaired within three(3)months.
(Ord.No. 80,Art.VIII, § 5(8-5-4), 12-15-86)
1
Sec. 20-1233. Required opacity.
(a) Landscape materials shall be installed to provide a minimum of fifty (50) percent 1
winter opacity and a seventy(70)percent summer opacity,between two(2)feet above finished
grade level to the top of the required planting,hedge,fence,wall, or earth mound within four
(4)years after installation.
(b) The required landscape bufferyard may be combined with a utility or other easement
as long as all of the landscape requirements can be fully met, otherwise, the landscape
bufferyard shall be provided in addition to, and separate from, any other easement. Cars or
other objects shall not overhang or otherwise intrude upon the required landscape bufferyard
more than two and one-half(21/2)feet.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. VIII, § 5(8-5-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-1234. Curbing. '
All landscaped areas shall be protected by concrete curbing.
(Ord.No. 80, Art. VIII, § 5(8-5-6), 12-15-86)
1
Secs. 20-1235-20-1250. Reserved.
ARTICLE XXVI. SIGNS
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
•
Sec. 20-1251. Purpose. '
The purpose of this article is:
(1) To establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportu- ,
nity to advertise.
(2) To preserve and promote civic beauty and prohibit signs which detract from this I
objective because of size,shape,height,location,condition,cluttering or illumination.
(3) To ensure that signs do not create safety hazards. I
1259
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
\i .
\ I /
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer
DATE: October 28 , 1988
SUBJ: Site Plan Review
Rosemount Engineering
Planning File No. 88-12 Site Plan
1
As you are aware, I have had BRW who is preparing the City' s
1 feasibility study for Lake Drive and Trunk Highway 101 realign-
ment, review the site plans and preliminary plat submitted by
Rosemount Engineering. The attached letter dated October 26 ,
1988 contains their review comments and suggestions.
1 I would like to highlight and elaborate as necessary on some of
these items for the Planning Commission and City Council con-
sideration. It should be noted that several of the items brought
out in BRW' s report are items of discussion and evaluation for
the Lake Drive feasibility study and will properly be dealt with
' as a part of that work effort. These items include things such
as utility installation along Lake Drive, service stubs for other
lots, curb cuts, etc.
1 The plans in general are void of specific details such as pipe
sizing, type, location of valves , dimensioning, etc. This report
and review can only be looked at as a concept review subject to
1 provision of final details. Those items which relate specifi-
cally to the Rosemount site plan review and therefore pertinent
for consideration at this time are as follows:
1 Site Grading/Erosion Control
The site grading appears to fit well with the existing topography
' although the majority of the site will experience shaping. The
masses of earth moved on the McGlynn site will not be seen here
however. The final contours on the perimeter of the site will
' need to comply with the new Lake Drive and Market Boulevard con-
tours which will be established as a part of the feasibility
study work presently underway.
1
i
Jo Ann Olsen
October 28 , 1988
Page 2
I
The plans did not include an erosion control plan although I
understand one has been prepared. This needs to be addressed
thoroughly so proper protection can be afforded to Lake Susan and
the wetland area.
Sanitary Sewer ,
Sanitary sewer sizes have not been indicated on the plan. The
building service line located in the southeast corner of the
building would be a private sewer connection. The sanitary sewer
shown which parallels the easterly property line will be a City
sewer line. In the interest of timing, the first 500 feet + of
this line will need to be constructed by Rosemount since the
City' s utility project will not, in all likelihood, be completed
in time to meet Rosemount' s schedule for service. A 35-foot
easement should be dedicated along this alignment for the sewer II
installation.
It appears from the plans that any future expansion of the
building will receive sanitary sewer service from the west. This
sewer would be construction as a public improvement as a part of
the Lake Drive project. A 35-foot utility easement needs to be
dedicated along the westerly lot line for this purpose. ,
Connection of the sanitary sewer should be made to the City ' s
Lake Ann interceptor, not to be confused with the MWCC' s Lake Ann
interceptor which also is in this sewer easement and currently
not shown on these plans.
Watermain '
The plan does not provide any watermain sizing or pipe type.
Watermain will be placed as a part of the City ' s improvement pro-
ject along the entire length of Lake Drive to Market Boulevard.
The extension of this watermain into the site will be a private
watermain which will be the responsibility of Rosemount, Inc.
Looping of the system around the building has been provided and
expansion options appear available for the westerly portion of
the property.
Since Rosemount has potential to be a significant water user, it
might be wise to also extend a watermain connection in conjunc-
tion with the sanitary sewer service line from the southeast
corner of the building to Market Boulevard to ultimately connect
with the City' s trunk watermain there.
Earlier indications were for possible recycling of cooling water . '
The internal metering scheme for the building should address this
so proper documentation of any credits for recycled/non-sewered
water can be identified. There appears to be a sparse number of ,
fire hydrants located around the proposed building which should
I
Jo Ann Olsen
October 28 , 1988
Page 3
be addressed by the Fire Marshall . The plan does not show any
watermain valving and as a minimum the City will require a gate
valve at each connection of the private watermain system to the
City ' s public system. The private portion of the system located
underneath the 9-foot berm along the north side of the proposed
building should be properly designed to accommodate the extra
material burden. Likewise, soils information should be carefully
taken into account when designing these mains.
Storm Drainage
Sizes are not shown on the plan. As noted, the actual conveyance
' of storm water from this pond will be determined as a part of the
feasibility study. The retention pond capacity and outlet struc-
ture needs to be coordinated with the City' s storm sewer plan in
the Lake Drive feasibility. Calculations need to be provided for
' the retention pond in order to understand Rosemount' s proposal
for accommodating the 100-year storm event and off-site retainage
that they are counting on from the City' s pond located at the
northwest corner of Lake Susan. It was my understanding that 8
acre-feet of storage was necessary to meet 100-year, on-site
detention criteria. The plans show 3 acre-feet are provided.
Utilization of the City' s pond should be compensable by the
Developer. Likewise, it is impossible to identify from this plan
the backup flow condition and impact on the wetland. A pipe con-
nection between the wetland and detention pond is shown.
The plan shows a portion of the roof drainage is to be discharged
into the wetland to make up for the loss of contributing
' watershed area resulting from the construction of the building
and the re-grading of the site. Additional information is needed
to define the extent of this roof drainage discharge to the
wetland and provisions need to be made for addressing the pollu-
tant and nutrient impacts to this wetland from the roof drainage.
All parking lot runoff is collected with catch basins and con-
veyed to the sedimentation/detention pond. The parking areas are
required to have barrier curbing to aid in the collection of
storm water as required by City Ordinance.
Roadways
The roadway right-of-way dedicated for Lake Drive shall be suf-
ficient to accommodate a 35 mile per hour design speed. It is
understood that there may be some difficulties in achieving this
on the east and west end connections of this roadway; however,
internally this parameter should be met.
A 36-foot entry drive should be used for any roads which will
experience truck traffic. As a minimum I would expect the center
road along the west edge of the wetland should be 36 feet wide
I
11
Jo Ann Olsen
October 28 , 1988
Page 4
consistent with the City' s commerc i al/industri al standards. A
detail for these road sections should be provided and concrete
curb and gutter should be provided through the site including the
parking lots. The middle service drive connection to Lake Drive
should be located to match the new church entry location to the
north and these details will be worked out as a part of the Lake
Drive feasibility study. The Option A entry road should be eli-
minated to reduce the impacts to the adjoining wetlands since,
with the recent Council approval of Alternate 2A for new Market
Boulevard, Option B entryway will be possible now. The actual
location of the Market Boulevard driveway connection shall be
directly opposite the connection of Lake Drive from the Ward pro-
perty ( see Exhibit "A" ) . The location of Lake Drive will be ,
established by the feasibility study.
Trails/Walkways ,
The provision for movement of pedestrian traffic around the
buildings and grounds has not been addressed.
Recommended Conditions
1 . Revised plans shall be submitted for approval addressing the
conditions contained in the staff reports and including suf-
ficient detail necessary for review and approval . An erosion
control plan shall be included in the submittals as well . I
2 . Site grading along the Lake Drive and Market Boulevard road-
ways shall be adjusted to coincide with finished roadway
contours. 1
3 . The first 500 feet of sanitary sewer which parellels the
easterly property line on the site will need to be
constructed by Rosemount. A 35-foot easement shall be dedi-
cated along the entire length of the proposed sanitary sewer
stretch when its alignment has been established by the feasi-
bility
study.
4 . A 35-foot utility easement shall also be dedicated along the
westerly lot line of the site along the alignment of the ,
sanitary sewer as established by the feasibility study.
5 . A watermain extension should be considered to be constructed 11 along the alignment of the southeast sanitary sewer service
connection to provide further redundancy to the Rosemount
site with an ultimate hookup to the City' s watermain on
future Market Boulevard.
6 . The internal piping scheme for the building should address
the need for documentation of recycled or cooling water
discharge in order that proper sanitary sewer credits can be
identified if appropriate.
I
Jo Ann Olsen
October 28, 1988
Page 5
7. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City
for utilizing its ponding facilities to accommodate any storm
' water, less than the 100-year predevelopment runoff rate,
which is not being accommodated on site.
' 8 . The on-site ponding and storm drainage scheme needs to be
coordinated with the feasibility study alignment of the Lake
Drive storm sewer system.
9 . The wetland impacts due to roof drainage and/or backup from
the storm water retention pond need to be identified and
appropriate measures taken to satisfy any anticipated pollu-
tant and/or nutrient loading impacts.
10 . The alignment and right-of-way dedicated for Lake Drive shall
be sufficient enough to accommodate a 35 mile per hour design
speed unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
' 11 . A 36-foot entry drive shall be used for any roads which will
experience truck traffic on a regular basis. As a minimum,
the main access ( central ) roadway should be 36-foot.
12 . A typical section for the roadways shall be supplied for
approval by the City Engineer and concrete curb and gutter
shall be provided throughout the site including parking lot
areas.
13 . The Option A entry road located between the wetland and
detention pond shall be omitted and the Option B entry con-
nection shall be located to directly oppose the future-
planned connection of Lake Drive East from the Ward property
' at Market Boulevard, to be established in the Lake Drive
feasibility study.
14 . The plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian
traffic around the exterior of the building and on the site.
15 . The applicant will need to enter into a development contract
with the City to guarantee the proper execution of the final
approved plans and specifications for the site and provide
the City with an appropriate financial security.
Attachments
1 . Letter from BRW dated October 26 , 1988 .
2 . Exhibit "A" - Lake Drive connection scheme.
i
1
a
;: pA PLANNING
�r.�
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
ARCHITECTURE
BENNETT, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD, JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. •THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIRD ST. SO. • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 • PH: 612/370-0700 FAX. 612/370-1378
October 26, 1988 i
CITY OF CHA 1I ISSE
Mr. Gary Warren, PE 1( �I? ' i i ,
City Engineer `�
City of Chanhassen OGT 27 1988
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Site Plan Review ENGINEERING DEPT.
Rosemount
Dear Gary,
As you requested, we have reviewed the following documents for the Rosemount ,
site:
A. Plan Sheet pC1, Site Plan, dated 10/14/88 ,
B. Plan Sheet pC2A, Grading and Drainage Plan, dated 10/14/88
C. Preliminary Plat of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition dated
9/20/88 ,
Our examination of these documents focused on two primary aspects:
1. Compliance with applicable City ordinances. ,
2. Coordination with future Lake Drive and TH 101 improvements which
will be addressed in the respective feasibility studies which we are
currently preparing.
Realize that both the Rosemount plans and the Lake Drive and TH 101 projects are
developing on a common time line and, therefore, some of the following comments
and concerns may be mute issues which have already been addressed, none the
less, we forward them for your information.
Preliminary Plat Review i
1. A trunk sanitary sewer is proposed to run along the westerly lot line
of Outlot A and the easterly lot line of the City-owned property. An
existing drainage and utility easement is shown on the preliminary
plat. However, this easement does not appear to be of sufficient width
for the future sanitary sewer. We believe the preliminary plat should
reflect a 25-30 foot sanitary sewer easement.
2. A future storm sewer connection is necessary to connect to the storm
outlet from Instant Web on the north side of the plat. A drainage and
utility easement will be necessary along the easterly lot line of Lot
2, Block 2.
DAVID J.BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E.JARVIS LAWRENCE J.GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A.AMUNDSEN
DONALD E HUNT MARK G.SWENSON JOHN B.McNAMARA RICHARD D.PILGRIM DALE N.BECKMANN DENNISJ SUTLIFF
MINNEAPOLIS ST PETERSBURG DENVER TUCSON PHOENIX
I . , ,
' Mr. Gary Warren
October 26, 1988
Page 2
3. The roadway, as platted, reflects 30 mph curves in three
Y� p � p locations. We
believe that the future design intent for Lake Drive should be a 35 mph
design even if actual posting may occur at 30 mph. At minimum, the
roadway curve at Lot 3, Block 2, should be a 35 mph design.
4. The preliminary plat illustrates a ' . 20-foot drainage and utility ease-
ment for future water main across Lot 1, Block 1. This may not be
necessary as this will most likely be a private water main.
' 5. Carver County should be contacted to insure that they do not want a
150-foot right-of-way for CSAH No. 17, which would impact the westerly
line of Lot 1, Block 2.
6. Will it be necessary for the City to vacate the roadway easement for
the Church Drive upon completion of the Lake Drive project?
7. Our understanding is that the City is vacating or has vacated the old
Lake Drive right-of-way.
8. The sanitary sewer along the southeast side of the property will pro-
bably be a public sewer line. Therefore, an additional sewer easement
will be necessary.
' Site Plan (pC1 10/14/88)
1. Is 30'-0" width on the entry drive consistent with City standards?
2. The middle service drive on to Lake Drive should match the new church
entry location if possible. (Since the church entry will have to be
reconstructed under the Lake Drive project, we should have the luxury
of making this happen.)
3. Option B, Entry Road, on the easterly side of the site should be the
preferred option for site access particularly in light of the City
Council decision to proceed with the Market Boulevard alignment for TH
101.
11 4. Is full vehicular access to all sides of the new building an issue in
light of fire fighting requirements?
Grading and Drainage Plan (pC2A 10/14/88)
A. Water Main Issues
1. A water main stub is shown serving Lot 1, Block 3, in the northeast
corner of the site. Our understanding is that the City has determined
' this site to be undevelopable; therefore, water service to this parcel
is not necessary.
1
Mr. Gary Warren
October 26, 1988
Page 3 ,
ur
2. A water service is not shown to the existing church. We believe a new
service should be provided.
3. Water services are not shown for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2. We believe
some service to these parcels should be provided.
4. Water main sizes are not shown. 1
5. Will the City Fire Marshall/Inspector require fire hydrants on approxi-
mately 300-foot spacing around the proposed building?
6. We believe hydrants should be placed along future Lake Drive.
B. Sanitary Sewer Issues
1. We believe the sanitary sewer in Lake Drive should be extended further
west to serve Lot 1, Block 2.
2. The sanitary sewer should be extended further east to serve the
existing church. I
3. As in Water Main Item #1, sanitary service to Lot 1, Block 3, is shown
but not necessary if this lot is deemed unbuildable. I
4. Sizes are not shown on sanitary sewers.
5. How will a future Phase Two building or building addition be served I
with sewer?
6. The sanitary sewer serving the building in the southeast corner of the
site will probably become a public sewer main. The exact location may
not be desirable as shown.
C. Storm Sewer Issues 1
1. Sizes are not shown.
2. A storm sewer pipe should run to the north through Lot 2, Block 2, to ,
connect and serve the Instant Web facility north of the railroad
tracks.
3. Storm stubs should be provided along Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, and the
church property.
4. The feasibility study will be examining the issue of which way the site
drainage should flow (i .e. , to the east or west) , upon outletting from
the on-site retention pond. This should not substantially impact the
site development of the Rosemount property, but may impact the future
pond outlet pipe.
I
1 11
Mr. Gary Warren
October 26, 1988
' Page 4
5. An outlet structure is not shown on the sedimentation
pond outlet pipe.
6. Future plan submittals should define the intent of the roof drain
discharge to the Wetland (contributing area, outlet details, screening,
skimming, etc.)
7. The final grades of Lake Drive may be adjusted slightly in the final
design of the Lake Drive project.
D. Roadways
1. It appears as though the alignment of Lake Drive on the Site Plan and
Grading and Drainage Plan is not consistent with the Preliminary Plat.
2. CSAH 17 modifications may be required to accommodate the new Lake Drive
intersection.
Future submittals for this project should include details illustrating manhole/
catch basin types, hydrant types, etc. Also, given the proximity to Lake Susan
' and Riley Creek, an erosion control plan is very important to this site during
construction and should be submitted in the future.
As I mentioned earlier in this report, several of the issues referenced above
are specific to Lake Drive and answers will be more fully developed as the Lake
Drive and TH 101 feasibility studies are completed.
We will continue to work with the developer to refine each of these issues.
Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.
1 • Sincerely,
11 BENN -RINGROSE-WOL FEL1-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC.
C,k4-
G r A.het PE
Project Manager
GAE/sk
r
I
I
17. :
_.
. . -
• ..... --
t•••
.,-. .
: . •
-.2.r . - I,•
It
.......... 0.0000e000000100111.11.111.1111.1.111111111111111.11111V., . , .. .. • .. •. • „...,...
''' _:...-.;:.-':....!,-::. . :■.„.
.-7.,±,,,....,••4.s..;i....;,:r.•::.,'' -..-:-:•-:::.' ' .: "
•",•-... '
.'•
. •'-'
•
'•;.,t • .+ '`.:.7,,, ILIPIAMPI. •
..7
..,
.,_
..!..''. ...
AL•
111
(
01... ,.,.,..
3'". Li:0 9.6 .1
" -
g e ei-_
Al --'.
,.
r,!: a„k■ •T.--
. . .
I
0:44
y _.•
. .
I
.•• --. .
46... t i
1131.64C:a 0.1•1 ,.. _,' — ' • i7. -,_ .. ,,....:... i !
----;r4.
i 1. ifbq 14'1".C‘k
-rz.f:?.1.-'- •r..
I I
I
- 11-.,_ -. __...-.•_ ..-
. , .. .. . , . ••
.. .- • - 1
. -•_.•,-•
_.
liN;j• •
i I
1r
Ti.:,•- -1,4,
I
-
:-.
"Ak:;- • 4 '
:! • .*.-'4'
-.:. -••.. 1
.. ...
•••::
.-.1•:' .....•
.,..
p --4•e- ...n..
'.......
. ••.5e• g.••'
11,,t-i.. .•.
....
i .
\ CPP,Mtr 'it,-, .I::1'.• '
.. •.717,
/ ., '. •
...;,.• -
l'.4 •
-,.:'• ,
•
,i•'•
1 I
•
It!-
14. I
...,
.'
1111 I
A...
-• ,
,
Cd■ ,
1 I
E. 01a I 7
)
• . .
I . ; 4
I
..
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector
DATE: October 17, 1988
1 SUBJ: W8-12 Site Plan, 88-25 Sub, and 88-15 WAP, Rosemount
Upon reviewing the site plans for Rosemount, I have the following
recommendations:
1 . The access for Fire Department apparatus shall comply with
NFPA 1141, Section 3-1 through 3-4. 7.
2 . The distances between installed fire hydrants shall not
exceed 300 feet (see map for recommended location of fire
hydrants) , NFPA, Section 1141, 3-6 .3 .
If you have any questions regarding the NFPA requirements, please
let me know.
1
1
1
1
I
1
3
1
11 /
4 I
ti a-a a-a p, a-a
.i,47/
l 00
A
./ J b U y.
11/ i 560' j 62s'
A
y� I� - o :
O
I
7 jrL ou r
9 4
r
---I 0 0 / m
.�- '> �
t}
u
V 0
/171".. -: 1
M
`L I
i To
r P or m
Z X 0
0 fn
1
i'l _J °-4C ' _.----":".9
r S8S
W -
o
Zo=
SL—I a 0 r2 T --c
•
m
1 m r 33
J s =
W 1 [ T A
a
, " cr-''(.... /..•"°47///,.C. 1
c7 I
a
N t
V /a
1
, I G O a b fl
M a 1 .\ /. s •�.�•�•� 110'■
ii w cil 0\ ...I37" 9 4c4
• v <r .
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
1 .
,.j 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
' MEMORANDUM
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner
1 FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector ,( k
DATE: September 26 , 1988
' SUBJ: Planning Case 88-12 Site Plan, 88-25 SUB
and 88-15 WAP (Rosemount Inc. )
1
1) Eighteen handicapped parking stalls required.
2) Building must be sprinklered.
Opus Corporation has already been in contact with the Inspections
Department concerning exiting and smoke venting. We do not have
enough information to do a more complete review at this time.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
�ENT OF y T .
/C" �o United States Department of the Interior I
\. *' A FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE -. No
01 ST. PAUL FIELD OFFICE (ES)
I
50 Park Square Court
IN REPLY REF '£Q 400 Sibley Street
�L�" St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
September 23, 1988
II
II
Ms. JoAnn Olsen
Assistant City Planner
City of Chanhassen
II
P.Q. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Ms. Olsen: I
In response to your September 8, 1988 request, Mr. Paul II Burke of this office conducted our on-site review of two
wetland sites within the City of Chanhassen.
I am enclosing herewith a copy of his report for your
II
information.
If you have any questions or require additional information,
II
please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely, `
/ lAr James L. S, ' h I
Acting Fie d Supervisor
Attachment II
II
II
II
I
SEp 2 7 1988 1
CITY.OF CHANI-IASSEN
' C
Memorandum to File
Subject: Report of Field Investigation of Two Wetland Sites
within the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, MN
Field Investigator: Paul J. Burke
Date: September 20, 1988
Following my on-site review, I have found the following:
Site 1:
This is a small ( 2 acre) wetland (Palustrine Scrub-Shrub) in
' the back yard of Mr. Brent Miller at 1200 Lyman Boulevard in
Chanhassen. It appears that Mr. Miller had a small ( .125
acre) pool excavated for landscaping purposes, with the
' excavated material being graded over the adjacent wetland
vegetation. This activity occurred about a year ago (my
estimate) .
' I found the site to be stabilized, with a dense mat of reed
canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) growing over the graded
fill from the pond. While placing fill in a wetland is a
prohibited practice, the amount in this case was
sufficiently small, and the results almost insignificant to
the overall function of the affected wetland. In principle,
' the fill should be removed. But in this case, such a
requirement could result in more ecological impact than
allowing the fill to remain. I would suggest that an after-
the-fact permit be issued for the project as it now exists.
Site 2:
This is a large tract with two wetlands that are proposed
for alteration by the developer (Rosemont, Inc. ) . An
entrance road and parking facilities are planned that, along
with some preliminary landscaping plans, would adversely
affect wetland sites #1 and #2 (see Rosemont, Inc. site
plans, dated September 13 , 1988) . The consulting engineers
(OPUS, Corp. ) have gone to some effort to plan the
' incorporation of the wetland complexes into the aesthetics
of the project site. However, the plans appear to emphasize
aesthetics over other wetland functions and values. The
total values associated with these wetlands is best
conserved by reducing to a minimum the work planned for
their "improvement. " I would recommend that wetland site 1
be left undisturbed. If the plans call for an employee
' recreation site, I would suggest the use of an elevated
board walk (on piles) with wide spots for tables and
benches.
1
1
r
For Wetland Site #2, I would recommend that not more than
1/3 of the existing wetland be excavated for aquatic
enhancement purposes. For stormwater storage, I would
recommend the use of concrete cisterns beneath the nearby
parking lots and other improvements. Such a system would
aid in the storage and slow release of storm waters, plus
they aid in reducing the insoluble pollutants that are
associated with urban runoff. If the development includes a
requirement for storage of cooling water, I would recommend
that the existing wetlands not be used for this purpose
because the daily cycles of recharge and discharge, combined
with elevated temperatures of the water, would significantly
affect the stability of the wetland biome. Rather, I would
recommend that the 430-space parking area planned for the
southeast side of the plant be relocated to the northeast
side of the plant, and the southeast lot be excavated for a
water storage structure. Also, since run-off from
impervious surfaces is always a concern with state-of-the-
art plans, the roof of the plant can be plumbed to drain
into this storage pool, thus reducing the on-site need for
stormwater storage capacity by approximately 1/3 over
presently planned conditions.
1
11
I
I
I
I
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
EVALUATION WORKSHEET
To Be Completed By Applicant and Submitted with Application
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
1 . WETLAND DESCRIPTION:
Wetland #1 = 3.4 acres
Size: Wetland #2 = 2.2 acres
Wetland #1 — Class A
Class: Wetland #2 - Type: 2
Class B
Location: Lakeside Streamside Upland x
' Watershed District: Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District
Area of Open Water: None
' Drainage Flows To: South and East
Vegetation Types: Hydrophytic vegetation (cattails, sedges, rushes
and a variety of grasses )
Soil Types: Hydric soils (sandy organic peats and mucks)
2 . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: Wetland #1 will be slightly
altered in its northeast corner through extension of Lake Drive East by
ithe City. This alteration should not significantly affect capacity of
' that wetland which will be preserved to function as a tributory drainage
(continued on attached page)
3 . PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: To permit storage of storm water run-
off from exterior parking, roof and other hard surface building areas of
the Rosemount Inc. Manufacturing Facility. Also, to receive some of the
created
run—off/bytheextension of Lake Drive East and Market Blvd. as programmed
(continued on attached page)
r4 . APPLICABLE WETLAND ORDINANCE SECTION: Section 24, Wetland Protection
through
Regulations, Subsection 5-24-1/5-24-14, Chanhassen's Zoning Ordinance.
5 . A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF NO
ALTERATION IS MADE: The following adverse impacts will occur
if the wetland alteration as described in #2 is not permitted.
1) A comparable water discharge holding basin (pond) will have to
be created on another portion of the site. This will interfere
(continued on attached page) CI IOO_ H` � �S
R
P C1 18
1
5 . B. IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO WETLAND
ALTERATION: 1) Direct discharge into Lake Susan. 2) Enlarging
storm sewer piping system to carry direct storm water run-off from site to
its east or west. 3) Creation of on site ponding basin.
C. IDENTIFY THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED
ALTERATION: The major advantages of the proposed alteration are:
1) Allowing a major portion of the existing wetland area to continue
to function as a natural storm water run-off basin and wildlife habitat area.
2) Enhancement. of water quality of storm water run-off that ultimately will
(continued on attached page)
6 . USING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE STANDARDS AS A GUIDE, DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE I
AND PROPOSED ALTERATION: In reviewing the purpose, intent and standards
of the City's wetland protection regulations and relating them to the
plan,
Rosemount's Inc. proposed development/ the developer (Opus Corporation)
feels that the wetland alteration program proposed for the subject site I
have been made consistent with those objectives and standards through
mitigative measures incorporated into those plans. '
I
I
1
I
I
—2—
11
1
2. Continued
and wildlife habitat area. A portion of the storm sewer piping system
' will discharge run-off from parking and building surface areas of the
Rosemount facility into this wetland. Also, a conduit will interconnect
Wetland #1 and Wetland #2 to allow overflow from the latter to the former
during high level run-off periods occuring on the site. All piping
systems will be sized to assure the preservation of Wetland #1 so that it
is not required to handle much more run-off from the Rosemount Inc. site
than it did during its predevelopment phase.
' Wetland #2 will be dredged and reconfigured to handle the majority of the
storm water run-off from parking lot and building areas of the Rosemount
' Inc. facility. It will also be altered by the proposed extensions of Lake
Drive East and Market Blvd. as programmed by the City of Chanhassen. This
will necessitate the enlargement and reconfiguration of Wetland #2 to
provide capacity to handle the run-off from all of the aforereferenced
' private development and public improvement activities.
I3. Continued
as capital improvements by the City of Chanhassen. After alteration, both
wetlands should be constituted to assist with the distillation and
filtration of phosphorous, silt and suspended solids from storm water
discharge, continue to replenish ground water, as well as provide natural
wildlife choosing it as permanent habitat.
4. Continued
with Rosemount's future expansion plans and be very costly. It also will
require land made suitable for development purposes to be reserved for
water storage.
2) Developer will have to reconfigure storm sewer collection and
distribution piping system so that water run-off could be directly
discharged to the east and west of the site. This will be very costly as
well as require holding ponds developed beyond the boundaries of the site
that may affect another land owners development plans and/or rights.
3) More water run-off from the site than is currently proposed may have
to be directly discharged into Lake Susan. This would raise concerns over
water quality in the Lake Susan basin which the current plans avoid
creating.
4) The enhancement of the natural aesthetic appearance of the entry drive
' area into the Rosemount facility through the proposed thoughtful and
responsible alteration of these two wetland areas will not occur if the
proposed alteration is not permitted.
11
1
Page —2—
Continuation
5. Continued '
discharge into Lake Susan.
3) Minimization of the harmful effect of land development that could more
harmfully effect the existing wetland areas.
4) Proposing development around the existing wetland areas that are '
compatible with their function and use.
5) Enhancement of the aesthetic quality, scenic beauty and natural '
recreational value of the existing wetland areas.
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
r
—.. -- • LI 1
)••
I --, , r,---------
__,, __ ......3 ,,..___....,.„._i_
..„ 4 1
Ii-• I.:, '',.
g.___ !
I /-
Z
i ,\ " _
6 6
k '' i
Z_.,
II .
O
i
- <7.1 ,1111ii.
1 ]
ri—• ui i•-v:I
I
T -
g.0 '-'
II
I
- MI
:A
.:, .,.. .•
'E s .',' i 71 N
.' IR
If h
1-4 Li:11
-..-.....:,,,,...
'54
-t.Z"' ''''''''''• -----L--- _,
1
i -D 0= '
—. .
f......3.11;':;e:;:a'••
-i-
t
i
\ -1
,
. Alnix100 141d2NN311
111 .' [1-1.11;/.':4
..1..!:..7--. ;•P:i....,
'!..;-'1":. V.,.--
-, '?1....•,,.•on,=, AINI100 141.13NIN3H
'.:,;:.i.."...,..,fas-: .
—• .'' .;;;rox.. ,:1;wo --"." "Tgi"..=,
;.73
. .
AIN1100H3AUY0
. , . ...
* •
4v-
A.4
•-, 0,1, '--------'0.---- -§I
, . •4,
...„... ....-..„0.,•,,, •\\\,..,,„,,\;, W',' .i \ f, A, ... • - "1 .-,,,,, .
';'' .\\\Cs . • Cl FI\L-1•.\,:;\,.. ,,1 - '1,4•4,„.. .
L.1 , •- ,. - •90 4p.
.. ' /• • - -
1.' - - - A - - /- / - )) • ''''
...(,,....? _ ,
• c‘ . -,f IN •
.L.
1.
..A. .Y.. .\ : <> n° '\7 ' . .. 7. 1 : ' ( -'- it- --7,---;. .,
I . •• , . a -1 (4 •,.. . , \ ..4,,,•,„1 it. 1:‘,„,g3...,
u .• -
A \ ..i -9 \ ______ • 4,
05- /,. 45
1.,____ ,..:_s, • , • 1:._,,---/:
.A ., , ,\ , ......• ..,„ ...., ' ----: l .) • • ,,•;--.... . .
\... • :.\ ,‘,, -.., - _ . .. .... ... ,
3no .. •
volomminag ,‘,..., .
_,_ -__ • : ..\\ , ,.
cl It ..Nill - I . a '
: .V.I• -;-! . a° \
' .1.! :i ''':' -4' -—.V 7.-1
I ,..t \\N
- tr,
o . ', \ 1?) X " . ' •- , Is'
t•\ • X
1, ... .• -------'SEL - .'' •'i-li,_iz 12:IC I.1"
• I: r!,,-!! • !I -.7. 0; 6-- .1 'N • '1-,.....t ,7.-
1.'.; :'. ' ' i:-.;- 1--- . . % t• ., \
'''.,:it X s.„1 :-2
i w it: ii ••,,,,,,, mn-- r \ . 7.`
Np. ,..
3 ; •-.. P;,i . , Is ...„
,_,_ 1,_•_L.•2 .,? • •
k ‘A
.. ..
......„•,,,, ■ - —— EN . :?: \s - \ . ..-, .
\ , ....., T • ,
0•0'.. .:., — ---4---.
1 l■ 2--
0 X 2
a ----
.----
a I a 2 /. '•
,... - ..-- - - 51113 g g.; .,.. s• ...,:i. . .. '3.\ % lit ___ ,..,„ :A _.___
, -11.1 .1:11.07 a., 1's• .....:‘ ',,:. i: , •., •••„ CI 1 : ■ '''Plii'''-:
1: I '" I•::..:...r- . "-__ ,q/.1 ji,.;±bi I 1, 1 l'.„ ; ' H., Xi
. ...:. -. ,i.i. ,..-.:...,„:,:„. .:-_:;_, illipm i.„ ,N, \-,-; '-' ' • %.-- l"' lot- idu
t r). ,,ii!i i;li!,1 i-.• i _-- I ! s; :. . ., .. _ , •
w I ci:
--
,‘, • .
. , . um - • \
,,,...
, 4,...,00,6, . ._ ... ........__
.....,.4,,.... . . .„ • ..........
I .t.2 .,..1,:,. 4 !,\ \..j. •‘ °::' :...•t, \ \,i7--- ,
I
1
1 , ■
E, -,'::::0,1 ,4,-i: . . ',.;,.I,. ,•`,! .1. I '
...---: ...,...t
cc_
-. 2 Z
. .
% .-
tu 0
.
I ii " ,.'?.... ' c:J ,..,4-:*: 1 :
,..i. - L 1 . i r.,i \:\:\1‘ - \
., '.. 'i. v- \ 0
. t w -A ;: ..,
--..„,,,,-•-,... --.,r;:,,,..1.
r7stikiNvR3 ', ' 0 ' 2 i L.)
..
4, 4..
., , cl: ap . ... . :., .
• , I i, . A. ,p • zt,o,
. 11 -
g .
: I. - -> • ;I ,-.. ,. 7.
5 a
.,, g [ 4 i'''' c_ii 1 a ir '1.• '... 4
x 4. !I, •
4 -. I• 1
5 ! I ■ • I .
I 007.111 , %• a.1,,„.„_11 .:,:fi!'•%.57. 7''''''-''''.1...... .
,''a i! •''
I .
I , lAyr_i___--• il 12 Li.' :gi '',.!.;2i.I 77 ' . 1' i r g .:•.?
9 i T, ;' i 1 • y 0 4;...,.., . .. t 4-
.■ .' •Ns -..-',
fr.a ila.L.;43- '• ' ...if' - ' I .
ee.l.
3 '4.
1 .
/ , 1 ,,,__*. ,, ) • .1 /
- .
51
3 - rc;.: •
• lk.. .n tn
) i r - ' 1",' i 1 • •
V
. p q ''''•••'',,
41 ...
..
• •- .
,..,1111•14 . ME..,
a
;I. • 1 ta
2 ri-
r
tla '
1 t
f--..c,,......._.*„. .
'r ..
j S.L1.1D0, I - I './Au. .6 • r.
-.1
3-1P11M . 1 - NtlVd 2 moiatme ' / .;,x
I _
•• •
. ^ . .- ._ r<
/
-Z
.49
I , 1
I • id
.9,..;,
/
1
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive I
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: OPUS Corporation OWNER: ALSCOR Investors .mint VAntnra mil
ADDRESS 9900 Bren Road E. ADDRESS 9900 Bren Road E.
Minnetonka, MN 55440 Minnetonka, MN 55440
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 936-4419 TELEPHONE 936-4444 - 1
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development r
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment x Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment X Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
X Street/Easement Vacation
X Site Plan Review
x Environmental Assessment Worksheet X Wetlands Permit ,
PROJECT NAME Rosemount Inc. Manufacturing Facility
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Industrial 1
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION same
PRESENT ZONING IOP - Industrial Office Park District
REQUESTED ZONING same
USES PROPOSED Manufacturing Facility
SIZE OF PROPERTY 57.76 acres 1
LOCATION Lot 1, Block 1, Chan Lakes Business Center
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST To accommodate construction of a 330.000 sq. ft.
office/warehouse/manufacturing facility with 950 parking spaces and on-site
loading docks, for Rosemount Inc. for the manufacture of precision instruments.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) See attached 1
17 1
-1
I/
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2
'FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
' This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before
' filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION: •
•
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances .
OPUS Corporation
Signed By Ake - Date 9 //�{
Appiicaint _
Robert A. Worthington, AICP
Executive Director — Governmental Affairs
The undersigned A
igned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
ALSCOR Inve_s-tvrs Joint Venture No. 2
By OPUS- Corporation, its General Partner
Signed By
, .�� � � i - Date
F'ee Owner
Jeffrey W. Essen
Vice President — General Manager
Real Estate Development
Date Application Received
Application Fee Paid
City Receipt No.
* This Application will be considered by the Plannin
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their g Commission/
meeting ,
•
OPUS CORPORATION
DESIGNERS•BUILDERS DEVELOPERS
800 Opus Center Mail no Address
9900 Bren Road East P 0 Box 150
Minnetonka. Minnesota 55343 M'nneapohs. Minnesota 55440
(6121 936-4444
September 13, 1988
Ms. Barbara Dacey
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55437
Re: Rosemount, Inc. , Manufacturing Facility, '
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
Dear Ms. Dacey:
II
Opus Corporation, on behalf of Rosemount, Inc. of Eden Prairie and The
Alscor Investors Joint Venture No. 2, is pleased to submit the
accompanying site and building plan proposal drawings for Rosemount's new
330,000 square foot manufacturing facility which will be constructed on 59
acres of industrial land located on the north shore of Lake Susan in the
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. 1
The subject property proposed for the new manufacturing facility is
currently zoned as Industrial Office Park District (IOP) and was the
featured parcel for the Interstate Detroit Diesel Manufacturing Facility
approved by the City for construction in 1984. The Interstate Detroit
Diesel Facility, which was to be a major phase of the proposed 495,000
square foot Pen Industrial Center Development, was never built on the
property.
Rosemount, Inc. is a world leader in the design and manufacture of
instrumentation for the measurement and control of temperature flow, level
and pressure, as required by the Aerospace and Process Control markets.
The manufacturing facility proposed by Rosemount, Inc. will contain ,
330,000 square feet and employ over 700 employees. The facility will
manufacture precision instruments for the process control industries which
are currently manufactured in owned or leased facilities at other
Minnesota locations.
The building, which will be constructed of architectural precast concrete
with metal panel accent walls, will contain administrative office (20%) ,
mechanical, storage and employee service areas (10%) and manufacturing
space (70%) organized to produce the previously described precision
instruments.
i
.1() I
Opus and Aft,hates in Minneapons•Ch cago• Phoenix•Milwaukee•Tampa •Pensacola
rye
I
Ms. Barbara Dacey
September 13, 1988
' Page -2-
The enclosed site and building plans which are attached as exhibits to the
Land Development Application requests the following approvals from the
City of Chanhassen in order for Rosemount, Inc. to receive a permit for
its proposed Manufacturing Facility: a) site plan review, b) preliminary
' plat approval, c) vacation of existing street right-of-way, d) Wetland
Alteration permit, and e) EAW review. An explanation for each of these
separate requests are set forth below:
' a) Site Plan Review - The enclosed sets of plans show the manner in which
the proposed manufacturing facility will be sited on the subject property,
its proposed access from Lake Drive as extended, and its on-site parking
and loading arrangements. The building will contain 330,000 square feet
which will be subdivided into 60,000 square feet of office; 230,000 square
feet of manufacturing and 40,000 square feet of storage, mechanical and
specialized employee service space. The building will occupy 13% of the
59 acre site, parking will cover an additional 16% for a total hardcover
site coverage of 29%. Future expansion, when called for, will occur on
the west side of the site. Nine hundred and fifty (950) on-site parking
stalls will be provided for employees and customers. Two loading areas,
one on the north, the other on the west, have been provided for material
supply to and product distribution from the building. Primary access will
' occur from Lake Drive to the east side of the building with secondary
access from the north. A landscape plan which attempts to preserve the
natural shoreline of Lake Susan; screen loading areas; enhance access
drives to take on a boulevard character, create a unique industrial theme
for the manufacturing building and accentuate natural features such as the
two wetland/ponding areas in the northeast corner of the site, is also
' included as a part of the site plan package.
A grading, drainage and utility plan indicating the portions of the site
which will be graded vs. those left natural or undisturbed is also
' included in the site plan package. The majority of the utilities designed
to service the building will be extended to the site as a part of the Lake
Drive Road extension improvement project scheduled to take place in 1989.
' b) Preliminary Plat - A preliminary plat, which subdivides the entire
acreage of the old Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 3rd Addition into the
major lot and block description upon which the Rosemount, Inc.
' manufacturing facility will be constructed as well as residual lots
created as a result of the dedication for Lake Drive, is enclosed with the
site plan package. The plat, which will be named the Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park 2nd Addition, (a 2nd Addition plat was never filed for the
park) contains all of the drainage and utility easements, right-of-way
I
Ms. Barbara Dacey
September 13, 1988
Page -3- '
dedications, and new lot and block descriptions needed to implement the
site plan layout for the manufacturing facility.
c) Vacation of Existing Right-of-Way - The site plan shows a new
alignment for the extension of Lake Drive east of County Road 17 to the '
proposed north/south extension of Market Boulevard from TH 5 than was
proposed when the plat for Chanhassen Business Park 3rd Addition was
approved. Therefore, the portion of the old alignment not covered by the
new dedication for Lake Drive in the new 2nd Addition plat must be
vacated. A description describing the area to be vacated and a letter of
petition from Alscor, the underlying property owner, requesting the
vacation, is enclosed as a part of the land development application. I
d) Wetlands Permit - There are two existing wetlands within the northeast
corner of the site. These wetlands are regulated by Chanhassen's wetland 11 ordinance with oversite from the Fish and Wildlife Service and The Corp of
Engineers. The DNR wetland standards do not apply to these wetlands. The
extension of Lake Drive as a public improvement will create the need to
alter the present configuration of these wetlands. The site plan proposes
to convert and reconfigure these two wetlands into water holding ponds
that will function as landmark entry type amenities that will reinforce
and enhance the feeling of arrival into the facility. ,
A portion of the ponds will remain natural to assist in the preservation
of any wildlife habitat currently existing in those wetlands. (We were
successful in creating a dual function water/wetland habitat pond for the
Opus Center Office complex in our Opus 2 Park in Minnetonka and feel that
we could recreate the same type of ponding feature for the subject wetland
areas. ) In order to alter the wetland areas as described herein, a
wetland alteration permit is required from the City of Chanhassen.
In summary, Opus Corporation, in behalf of Rosemount, Inc. and Alscor, the
underlying landowner of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, requests approval
of the site plan, preliminary plat, street vacation, wetland permit and
EAW for a new 330,000 square foot manufacturing facility for Rosemount,
Inc. to be located on 59 acres of industrial land on the shores of Lake
Susan in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. We are indeed excited and
most appreciative of the reception the news release for the proposed
facility has received from the City staff, civic leaders and a number of
Chanhassen residents. Our hope is to break ground for the new facility in
r
, '*.
Ms. Barbara Dacey
September 13, 1988
Page -4-
November of this year. While this is an extremely ambitious schedule for
a facility of the size and magnitude of what Rosemount is proposing, with
the City's continued cooperation and support we are confident that the
scheduled time for groundbreaking is "do-able". Call me if you have
' questions or require any additional clarification or information as
regards the enclosed applications. Thank you.
' With warmest regards,
' Robert A. Worthington, AICP
Executive Director - Governmental Affairs
' RAW/km
cc: Rosemount, Inc.
Alscor Investors Joint Venture No. 2
Joanne Olson, City of Chanhassen
I
CITYOF
1
1
.8
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
i
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinators 1
DATE: November 22, 1988
SUBJ: Rosemount
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan pro-
posed by Rosemount, Inc. , at their September 27, 1988 meeting.
The Commission has a park plan for Lake Susan Park which includes '
a boat access . To place the access in the ideal location, two
additional acres is needed along the eastern boundary of the
park.
The Park and Recreation Commission moved to recommend that the
City request the dedication of 2 acres along the eastern boun-
dary allowing a $48,000 credit to park dedication fees .
Additionally, the Commission recommended that the developer pay
100% of the trail dedication fees.
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IIjo„ September 27, 1988 - Page 36
REVIEW SITE PLAN FOR 330,000 SQUARE FEET INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, ROSEMOUNT,
INC.
II Sietsema: What they've ui`t
y proposed is a 330,000 square foot industrial
building on the north side of Lake Susan just east of Lake Susan Park. "'k ='
The proposal is to be on 57. 75 acres of land that is now zoned IOP. This' "=,.
I area here is the property. This is Lake Susan to the south of that and ;`Lf ;
this area is the existing park, Lake Susan Park. The park shelter lies `,.,�, '
right here. We' re currently getting access to the park off of CR 117 Ak1
along a field road that comes down along here and then into the park. '`
I There's park in there as well. I don' t know if everybody has been out .
there or not. In preliminary discussions with Rosemount , what they've
agreed to and what we suggested, staff has suggested that they dedicate to
I us 2 acres of parkland along our eastern boundary which will allow us to � :"
put in our boat access. The only logical place that we really have to put
the boat access in without taking out the stand of trees that' s right
II along the shore just down below the park shelter. We moved it out of the
line of vision from where the people will be congregated at the park
shelter and 2 acres is really about all that we need. I don't know if you
recall the discussion with Mark and Don when they came in and said that
IHRA bought the additional 8 acres of property and showed how we could use
it and the extra 2 acres . That ' s what was proposed at that time and we
felt that we had gotten general consensus from the Commission at the the
time that that' s what we wanted was an additional 2 acres . Originally we
had talked about giving up 4 acres in that area with 100% credit on the
park dedication fee . We came back and said it' s really unuseable land .
I They might as well keep it. We just need the 2 acres to put the access in
and give them 50% credit on the park dedication fee. Not 50% but give
them credit for what the acreage is worth on those 2 acres . That means
the land cost in that area was 24, 000. 00 an acre which brings the amount
IIto $48,000. 00 leaving a park dedication balance of $12, 637. 00.
Hasek: That $24, 000. 00 an acre is for what they' re getting as park
Idedication?
Hoffman : It' s what they paid for that land.
I .::-1 . Sietsema: What they paid per acre for the land. So we are giving them a
credit on their park dedication fees which the total of what would be due
on 57.75 acres would be $60, 637. 00. We' ll be giving them a credit of
I $48,000. 00 and taking in the $12, 000. 00. We' ll get the extra 2 acres of
land. The other thing is that trails , on the trail plan it calls for a
long whole distance of Lake Drive East. That ' s part of the street
improvement project. It would be an assessed thing. It wouldn' t be
I something that they' re giving us so we would require them to pay the full
trail dedication fee which comes to $20, 212. 00. Staff feels that this is
a good deal for us . Lake Drive East is finally going to be built so we
I can get to our park. We' ll have a place to put the boat access in the
logical place. We' ll still be getting some money in to do some other
IOC developments to add to the park and it' s my recommendation to do so. , .
II Hasek: How do we get into the park? .:
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 37
-,-..;.; . .„,
_.:._:
Sietsema: This is the new Lake Drive East alignment. This is the 8 acres
that we recently acquired from the HRA so we would be coming in, and I 've "
got a park plan here. >-;; -
$it.r_ '
4
Watson : I think it' s interesting that we can collect our park dedication- --`
fees and assessed. . . �••
Hasek: I did see one thing on here that kind of bothered me and I wanted
to mention it. It seems like they've got a site sign proposed within the
30 foot setback including the building setback. I certainly hope the
don't plan on putting the site sign within the 20 foot trail easement. '.' ,� `}
It' s outside of the building.
Sietsema: No, it' s going on the north.
Hasek: It is? It' s going to go on the church side?
Sietsema: Yes . It currently is on the north side, on the other side of I
TH 101 so it would probably continue on that same side. Lake Drive East
goes all the way down to McDonalds so if you drive from the McDonalds past
the Sinclair station and through the Hidden Valley subdivision, you' ll II
notice that it' s on the north side of the street.
Hasek: How about our new Market Blvd.? Which side is it going to be on I
there? The trail proposed on that? It' s just going to follow along Lake
Drive?
Mady: You walk on the east side right now. 1
Sietsema: And that would continue when it goes all the way down.
` Hasek: So then their signs are not within our 20 foot easement. II
' Sietsema: I wanted to show you real quick, this was the preliminary plan
for Lake Susan . Staff had to just throw a plan together for the
_ ::_,,, ; development for what we applied for LAWCON grant money and that shows Lake
Drive East here . This being Powers Blvd . and coming in right along the
=;'t eastern boundary pretty much where the existing access is. That existing-'`'
access comes out here and comes up that railroad tracks . What we'd coming
is the same place and right where you turn off to go into the existing
parking area, you go straight down and curve over so as you can see, if .._�
there' s a park shelter here, when you look out to the lake, if we didn' t V .;
acquire the 2 acres of property, this would have to come this way unless
we wanted to- take this mature stand of trees out which I personally
wouldn' t be in favor of and it would be right in front so it would be
right where that fishing pier would be instead and I don' t think that' s
something that we want to be our focal point in our park. So the reason
the 2 acres would acquired here. We should be able to put the boat access II
here. This shows you how it all fits together . Rosemount would be right :�_
. ,
( -�
_
L here.
Mady: I don' t see anything about trail along the lake. Did you talk to II
them about it at all?
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IISeptember 27, 1988 - Page 38
II (
ll Sietsema: We own all the lakeshore eshore property so that ' s in this plan also.
IIMady: Okay, so we do own that. That' s just a comment I had. If they -r:;:;;:
owned it all and we asked them to put the trail in along there. Obviously
their employees are going to want to use the park. ;
I ..., u4
Schroers moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend the dedication of 2 acres of parkland on the eastern boundary of ';l`
I Lake Susan Park, allowing a $48,000. 00 credit to park dedication from x `
Rosemount. Additionally, it is recommended that the City include the -': :4!
sidewalk in the Lake Drive East street improvement project and that the ' "K''
II developer be required to pay 100% of the trail dedication fee
($20, 212. 00) . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
IIREVIEW PROPOSAL FOR 1989 PLAYGROUND PROGRAM.
I Hoffman: I would ask that we take a few minutes on this . It is a
recreation item and we don' t deal on specific recreation items all that
too often and this is one that does have some bearing and something that
we have to put some thought in at this time if we are going to take this
I program over . If you all haven' t read through that, basically we have two
organizations which run our summer playground programs for our children in
Chanhassen right now. Two different school districts , Chaska and
II Minnetonka. Chaska operates a program up here at the school at City
Center Park. Minnetonka operates the programs at the other parks stated
there, Lake Ann, Meadow Green and Carver Beach. During the development of
this brochure we did have extensive talks with the people down at Chaska
I Community Education. Came up with some agreements as we went through this
on what we should be handling and what they should be serving the public
with. What we should be serving the public with, etc. . I 've noted some f
I 'r the changes that were made there . One of those changes would have been
the summer playground. It' s a recreation program. Community Education is
_,/, ,, = currently handling it. Should that be one of the programs that Park and
Recreation takes over under that agreement? As noted there, the only
s,, shortfall or the only drawback to that is , if we agree to that, the Chaska
School District Community Education, then we have to approach Minnetonka
on the other end of town to see if they would want to hand over the summer
playground program to the Park and Recreation Department and we handle it ;,_
there. Just as an update to this , I have talked to Gayle Madsen who is
the recreation coordinater or the program coordinator for Chaska and she
II said Chaska Park and Recreation has agreed to take over the playgrounds
that operate within the City of Chaska so that kind of puts a bind on
their program. If we were to come back to them and say no , we don' t want
to take this over next year, you have to do it, they'd be in a limited
I spot there kind of. Now they' re half way inbetween and they' re not so
what I 'm looking for, I stated there is your review of the programs. If
you have any questions on the programs which are currently in place, I can
I'�. answer those and then I need some direction on which way you think we
should go.
,L
I S
Y. .. . __ _. 4 f.. _ ,tom: z,:t
1
CITY OF
I .. .
\ _1 if,
1 ,L,\ ik _:•
'-'? �" 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I 3.,
--, (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
1 FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer i
/
DATE: November 22 , 1988 /
I SUBJ: Staff Memo Update to Gary Warren ' s Staff Report dated
October 28, 1988 , Rosemount Site Plan Review
Planning File No. 88-12 Site Plan
1 As you are aware, Rosemount, Inc. has sent a revised set of plans
Y . � p
to address some of the concerns brought up in the previous staff
I report and at the Planning Commission meeting which was held on
November 2 , 1988. The revised plan set is dated November 15 ,
1988.
IThe following is a list of the engineering conditions which were
approved at the Planning Commission meeting on November 2 , 1988 .
IA discussion of each condition will follow.
SUMMARY
Ii . Option B entry road shall be included in the plans rather
than the Option A entry road.
Ill . Revised plans shall be submitted for approval addressing the
conditions contained in the staff reports and including suf-
ficient detail necessary for review and approval . An erosion
control plan shall be included in the submittals as well.
I12 . Site grading along the Lake Drive and Market Boulevard road-
ways shall be adjusted to coincide with finished roadway
Icontours.
13 . The first 500 feet of sanitary sewer which parellels the
I easterly property line on the site will need to be
constructed by Rosemount. A 35-foot easement shall be dedi-
cated along the entire length of the proposed sanitary sewer
stretch when its alignment has been established by the feasi-
1 bility study.
14 . A 35-foot utility easement shall also be dedicated along the
I westerly lot line of the site along the alignment of the
sanitary sewer as established by the feasibility study .
1
Jo Ann Olsen
November 22 , 1988
Page 2
15 . A watermain extension should be considered to be constructed
along the alignment of the southeast sanitary sewer service
connection to provide further redundancy to the Rosemount
site with an ultimate hookup to the City' s watermain on
future Market Boulevard.
16 . The internal piping scheme for the building should address 1
the need for documentation of recycled or cooling water
discharge in order that proper sanitary sewer credits can be
identified if appropriate. '
17 . The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City
for utilizing its ponding facilities to accommodate any storm
water, less than the 100-year predevelopment runoff rate,
which is not being accommodated on site.
18 . The on-site ponding and storm drainage scheme needs to be
coordinated with the feasibility study alignment of the Lake
Drive storm sewer system.
19 . The wetland impacts due to roof drainage and/or backup from '
the storm water retention pond need to be identified and
appropriate measures taken to satisfy any anticipated pollu-
tant and/or nutrient loading impacts.
20 . The alignment and right-of-way dedicated for Lake Drive shall
be sufficient enough to accommodate a 35 mile per hour design
speed unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
21 . A 36-foot entry drive shall be used for any roads which will
experience truck traffic on a regular basis. As a minimum,
the main access (central ) roadway shall be 36 feet in width.
22 . A typical section for the roadways shall be supplied for '
approval by the City Engineer and concrete curb and gutter
shall be provided throughout the site including parking lot
areas. I
23 . The Option A entry road located between the wetland and
detention pond shall be omitted and the Option B entry con-
nection
shall be located to directly oppose the future-
planned connection of Lake Drive East from the Ward property
at Market Boulevard, to be established in the Lake Drive
feasibility study. I
24 . The plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian
traffic around the exterior of the building and on the site. I
25 . The applicant will need to enter into a development contract
with the City to guarantee the proper execution of the final
approved plans and specifications for the site and provide
the City with an appropriate financial security.
I
Jo Ann Olsen
November 22, 1988
Page 3
The following is a discussion of each condition as it relates to
the revised plan set or comments provided by Rosemount in their
letter from Opus dated November 10 , 1988 .
Condition #1: The new plans have been revised to include Option
B for the entry road versus Option A.
Condition #11: The plans do include an erosion control plan.
The erosion control which has been called out on the plan set is
' the City ' s Type I erosion control . It has been the City ' s policy
in the past that any time work is being done adjacent to a
wetland or a major body of water, that Type II erosion control be
installed. Staff is recommending that the erosion control plan
be revised to include Type II erosion control for all the pro-
posed erosion controls shown on the plan set. These plans shall
be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to construc-
tion.
Condition #12: The plans accurately reflect the proposed Lake
' Drive and Market Boulevard roadway improvements.
Condition #13: At the time of the November 2 , 1988 staff report,
staff was under the impression that Rosemount needed occupancy
and sanitary sewer service by April of 1989 . In light of that,
the City Engineer felt that Rosemount would need to construct the
8-inch sanitary sewer line proposed on the southeast corner of
the site. Since that time, Rosemount has clarified their inten-
tions regarding their occupancy date. They will not need sani-
tary sewer service until the end of the year of 1989 . Staff is
' confident that the sanitary sewer service that will be installed
as part of the Market Boulevard improvement project will be
installed prior to their needing this municipal service.
t Condition #14: The applicant has agreed to provide a 35-foot
utility easement along the westerly property boundary. This uti-
lity easement shall be dedicated on the plat prior to its filing
with the Office of the Carver County Recorder . We find that this
is acceptable.
Condition #15: The applicant states in their November 10 , 1988
letter that they do not feel that a water line extension along
the alignment of the southeast sanitary sewer service connection
is necessary. Rosemount has indicated in the EAW that they have
a potential to withdraw an average of 180 ,000 gallons per day of
water from the City' s municipal service. Because of this large
demand, staff is still recommending that they include a water
service along the proposed sanitary sewer service in the south-
west corner of the site such that they have any alternative water
source. This will not be a condition of approval but is solely
for their note.
I
Jo Ann Olsen
November 22 , 1988
Page 4
Condition #16: The question arose during the Planning Commission '
meeting as to why the City required documentation for the
recycled cooling water and discharge into the sanitary sewer ser-
vice.
It should be noted that the City ' s current policy for
billing of sanitary sewer is based on a prorated formula of the
amount of water drawn from the City ' s municipal water system. If
the water is recycled and not discharged into the sanitary sewer
service, a metering device needs to be installed such that we can
adjust the sanitary sewer discharge billing appropriately.
Condition #17: In the attached letter dated November 10 , 1988 '
from Opus Corportion, Rosemount has agreed to reimburse the City
for the ponding facilities needed to accommodate any runoff that
is less than a 100-year predeveloped runoff rate which has not
been accommodated on the Rosemount site. Staff is anticipating
that a reasonable estimate for this reimbursement will be
available once the Lake Drive East project has been bid. ,
Condition #18: The applicant has agreed to work with staff and
the approved feasibility study for Lake Drive. '
Condition #19: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will
discuss this item.
Condition #20: The revised alignment will accommodate a 35 mile
per hour design speed. We find that the proposed plan is
adequate. '
Condition #21: The plans have been revised to show a 36-foot
wide entry roadway for all roadways which experience truck traf-
fic
on a regular basis. It should also be noted that the plan
set calls for a 5-foot radius on the curb radii . As a minimum,
these should be a 10-foot radius.
Condition #22: The applicant has noted the general sections
under the general notes of Page C-1 of the plan set for the dri-
veway section. We find that the proposed driveway section meets
the City ' s recommended standards for a private driveway and is
acceptable for the anticipated use.
Condition #23: The plan set has been revised to include the I
Option B entry road as requested by the City and added that the
applicant has agreed to locating this driveway across from the
Ward property which will be further established in the Lake Drive
feasibility study.
Condition #24: The plans have been revised to include sidewalks
and refuge islands where necessary in larger parking lots to
accommodate pedestrian traffic. We find that this plan is
acceptable.
I
Jo Ann Olsen
November 22 , 1988
' Page 5
Condition #25: The development contract will be executed via the
City Council .
' In reviewing the EAW and the site plan, a large amount of
discussion has been generated with regard to the potential for
the discharge of 119 ,000 gallons per day into the City 's proposed
' storm sewer of Lake Drive. The applicant has recently advised
the City that they intend to recycle the entire 119 ,000 gallons
per day. This will also be discussed in the EAW.
' Details regarding the cooling tower and possibly screening for
this apparatus shall be submitted to the City Engineer and
Planner for approval prior to construction.
It is therefore recommended that the City approve the site plan
dated November 15 , 1988 subject to the following conditions:
' 1 . A revised erosion control plan which reflects Type II erosion
control ( staked hay bales and snow fence) shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for approval prior to the commencement
' of any grading.
2 . Site grading along Lake Drive and Market Boulevard shall be
' in agreement with the finished roadway improvements for Lake
Drive and Market Boulevard.
3 . A 35-foot utility easement shall be dedicated along the
westerly lot line of the site along the alignment of the
sanitary sewer as established by the feasibility study.
4 . The internal piping scheme for the building should address
the need for documentation of recycled or cooling water
discharge in order that proper sanitary sewer credits can be
identified if appropriate .
5 . The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City
for utilizing its ponding facilities to accommodate any storm
' water, less than the 100-year predeveloped runoff rate which
is not being accommodated on site.
' 6 . The on-site ponding and storm drainage scheme needs to be
coordinated with the feasibility study alignment of the Lake
Drive storm sewer system.
7 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
the City to guarantee the proper execution of the final
approved plans and specifications for the site and provide
the City with the appropriate financial security.
8 . The applicant has indicated that they will be recycling
' water. Details for the cooling tower, appropriate screening,
and plans which address the connection to the City ' s existing
storm sewer system, shall be provided to the City Engineer
for approval prior to the commencement of any construction.
4-- OPUS CORPORATION
DESIGNERS•BUILDERS•DEVELOPERS
800 Opus Center Mailing Address
9900 Bren Road East P 0. Box 150
Minnetonka,Minnesota 55343 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55440
' (612)936-4444
November 10, 1988
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
Assistant City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
' P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55437
RE: Rosemount Inc. , Manufacturing Facility
' Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
Dear Ms. Olsen:
Opus Corporation, on behalf of Rosemount, Inc. of Eden Prairie, is pleased
to submit the accompanying site plan, grading plan, landscaping plan, and
building elevations dated revised November 10, 1988 for Rosemount's new
' 330,000 square foot manufacturing facility which will be constructed in
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park.
These plans have been revised based on further development of Rosemount's
needs as well as to address the planning staff's concerns regarding the
wetland alteration permit and the site plan approval. The following is an
item by item response to the planning staff's recommendations for approval
as noted in the staff report presented at the November 2, 1988 planning
commission meeting:
Wetland Alteration Recommendations
1. The revised plans indicate that the Class A wetland is to remain
' undisturbed and that current water levels should be maintained by
providing roof runoff to replace the runoff which is currently being
discharged into that wetland. Attached is a copy of our calculations
which indicate the approximate amount of roof area drainage which needs
to drain into the subject Class A wetland to maintain the current water
levels. The revised plans also indicate the extent to which the Class
B wetland will be altered to accommodate the majority of the storm
water runoff from the new Rosemount facility.
2. The revised plans indicate a 75 foot strip around the Class A wetland
' which is to be preserved in its natural state. Erosion control fencing
shall be placed as shown in order to preserve this area.
1 3
•
/ [�S NOV 1 1988
11 Op sg`anc Affiliates in Minneapolis•Chicago•Phoenix Milwaukee•Tampa •Pensacola Y J
c161 ur ,AbsEiv
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
November 10, 1988
Page 2
3. The staff has recommended that 50% of the Class B wetland shoreline
remain in its natural state. Due to the extent of dredging required to
create a pond at this wetland as well as the City's construction of
Lake Drive and Market Boulevard, we feel that the entire shoreline will
end up being altered. Therefore, in order to control erosion we have
indicated that this shoreline is to be seeded per the revised
landscaping plan. If desired by the planning staff, we shall request
that Rosemount not mow the north, east, and west shorelines of the new
pond so that they may revert back to their natural state.
4. Again, the revised plans indicate the extent of the Class B wetland
alteration in order to construct the retention pond. Note that a seven
foot high berm has been provided along the north edge of the pond in
order to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland as well as
screening the parking lot.
5. We feel the roof drainage will be free of pollutants and/or nutrients ,
and should not adversely affect the vegetation or the water quality of
the Class A wetland. Backup from the storm water retention pond to the
Class A wetland will only be in periods of extraordinarily heavy rain, II
and therefore, will not be an everyday occurrence.
6. The following comments address compliance with the conditions of Site
Plan Approval #88-12.
Site Plan Recommendations
1. The entrance to the east visitors parking lot is now shown to provide
access off of Market Boulevard directly opposite the proposed Lake
Drive alignment east of Market Boulevard. Note that this alignment
will require that easements be provided to Rosemount across the Ward
property to allow driveway access and for a Rosemount sign. It is our
understanding that the City shall obtain the easement.
2. Trash receptacles shall be provided under the recessed dock areas.
3. The parking lot and driveways will maintain the requested 75 foot
setback from the finished edge of both the storm water retention pond
and the Class A wetland.
4. The conditions of the fire inspector as stated in his memo dated ,
October 17, 1988 shall be met.
5. The conditions of the building department as stated in the memo dated
September 26, 1988 shall be met.
6. We believe the revised landscaping plan meets the requirements of
Article XXV. Note that the west parking lot has been moved farther
north away from Lake Susan and that additional berming has been
provided. The east parking lot is screened from Lake Susan by the
existing woods to the south. Also, the south portion of the east
parking lot is the visitor parking area and therefore is anticipated to
be used primarily from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Native shrubs and trees
have been introduced into the landscape plan as requested by the P.C.) I
wp/C45 I
r
" Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
November 10, 1988
Page 3
A 75 foot setback has been provided around the Class A wetland.
8. This item (preservation of 50% of the land around the Class B wetland)
was previously addressed under item 3 of the wetland alteration permit
responses.
' 9. The landscaping plan indicates that two existing mature oak trees are
to be removed at the southeast corner of the building. Please note
that we have situated the building on the site in a manner which
minimizes the need to remove existing trees.
10. Please note that the grading plan indicates that a 15 foot high berm is
being provided north of the truck dock area and that further screening
is provided as indicated on the landscaping plan.
11. We believe the revised plans addressed the conditions contained in the
' staff reports as we know them. Note that the erosion control plan has
been provided on the grading and utility plan.
12. The grading and utility plan indicate the proposed Lake Drive
elevations and how they line up., with the coinciding Rosemount
elevations. We will cooperate with the City staff to coordinate
contours as the final Market Boulevard and Lake Drive designs are
completed.
13. It is our understanding that the City of Chanhassen shall construct the
easterly sanitary sewer line noted. If the City cannot complete the
construction of this sanitary sewer by September, 1989, Rosemount shall
construct this sanitary sewer in accordance with work specifications
and shall be compensated by the City for that work.
14. A 35 foot utility easement shall be dedicated along the westerly lot
line of the site. This easement shall be indicated on the final plat
prior to its filing with the county.
15. We do not feel that the waterline extension along the alignment of the
r southeast sanitary sewer service connection is necessary. The grading
and utility plan indicates that the water to the building shall be fed
from mains provided in Lake Drive and Market Boulevard.
r16. Our current plan is to recycle cooling water rather than discharge it
to the sanitary sewer system. If this plan changes, we will submit a
revised plan to the City for approval.
r17. Rosemount has agreed in concept to reimburse the City for utilizing the
City's ponding facilities to accommodate excess storm water runoff not
provided for on-site using the 100-year predevelopment rate as the
design basis. Rosemount is awaiting the City's notification as to the
amount of that reimbursement.
' 18. We shall coordinate our storm water drainage plan with the City's
feasibility study alignment of the Lake Drive storm sewer system.
r
wp/C45
r
AIL Ms. Jo Ann Olsen I
4.110.-,- November 10, 1988
Page 4
19. Please refer to the above response to wetland alteration permit
recommendation number five regarding wetland impact issues.
20. The alignment of Lake Drive has been designed to accommodate 35 miles i
per hour design speed except for the intersections at County Road 17
and Market Boulevard. This alignment has been shown on the final plat.
21. The truck drive shall be 36 feet wide as shown on the revised site
plan.
22. A typical roadway section has been shown on the revised site plan for
review and approval by the City Engineer.
23. Entry road Option A has been eliminated between the two wetlands and
the east visitors parking lot entrance has been located directly
opposite the future connection to Lake Drive East at Market Boulevard.
Again, note that easements will be required across the Ward property
for the driveway and a Rosemount sign.
24. Sidewalks shall be provided as shown on the site plan. 1
25. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City in
order to guarantee the proper execution of the final approved plans and
specifications for the site and provide the City with an appropriate
financial security.
26. It is our understanding the plans as revised comply with the conditions
of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15.
27. Native vegetation has been incorporated into the revised Landscape
Plan. .
28. It is our understanding the requirements of the Parks and Recreation
Department have been satisfied.
We trust that our revised plans and the above explanations and descriptions
address the planning staff's and planning commission's concerns as discussed
at the November 2nd meeting of the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
r a '
Robert A. Worthingt , AICP
Executive Director-Governmental Affairs
cc: Jeff Schmitt, Rosemount
Ernie Echols, Rosemount
Mike Cuskelly, Rosemount
Christine Petersen
John McKenzie
Dave Bangasser
I
cap/C45 I
r
II
' November 11, 1988
Mr. Gary Warren
City Engineer
' City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
•
Dear Gary:
The enclosed grading and drainage plan indicates the conceptual
drainage scheme. However, I felt it would be beneficial to you if a
further explanation of the drainage design parameters was provided as
the exact details of the pond water level-control and sediment control
structures need to be studied.
Development of the site will remove approximately 2.6 acres of
area tributary to the Class "A" wetlands which encompasses 3.3 acres.
Currently, the total tributary area is 16. 1 acres which includes a
portion of the church property and also MN. Dot right-of-way. There
' is presumable a culvert under the existing church driveway which
allows drainage from north of the driveway to flow into the class A
wetlands.
' Based on soil conservation service methods, the current runoff
depths from the 2.6 acres are 0.83", 1 .82", and 3.27" respectively for
a 2 yr. , 10 yr. , and 100 yr. rainfall event. This translates into
runoff volumes of 0.18 acre feet, 0.39 acre feet and 0.71 acre feet.
To maintain the current inflow conditions for the Class "A"
' wetlands, a portion of the roof area, 1 .50 acres, will drain directly
into the aforementioned wetlands. Based on the 100 yr. 5.9" rainfall
over a 24 hour period, a runoff depth of 5.67 inches would occur from
II
1
Mr. Warren
November 11, 1988
II
Page 2
an impervious roof surface. This equates to a volume of 0.71 acre I
feet from a 1 .50 acre area which is equivalent to the pre-development
inflow from the 2.6 acre parcel. II
Prior to discharge .into the Class "A" wetlands, the roof drain
line from the 1 .50 acre area will discharge into a manhole which will II
have a 4" diameter outlet pipe located near the bottom of the slab. 1
This 4" pipe will connect into the storm sewer system which drains
into the "B" pond. - II
Inside this same manhole, located approximately 2 feet above the
4" pipe, a 18" diameter pipe will convey water directly into the Class 11
"A" wetlands. This design will allow the initial small flows carrying I
sediment, nutrients etc. to by-pass the Class "A" wetlands and
discharge directly into the "B" pond. The 4" pipe will discharge a I
peak flow of 0.6 c. f.s. before flow occurs in the 18" outlet pipe.
This flow correlates to a rainfall intensity of 0.4 inches per hour II
over a 1 .5 acre area with a runoff coefficient of 0.9.
II
At this time, the assumption is being made that the class "B"
pond will serve as a settling basin for sediments and nutrients and I
also that this pond can serve as a trap for any floating materials.
Weir skimmer structures will be installed on the pond "B" outflow pipe II
and also on the outlet end of the pipe entering pond "B" from the I
Class "A" wetlands. These structures will prevent backflow of
nutrients, sediments and floating materials from entering the city I
storm sewer system and will prevent back-up of un-clean water into the
class "A" wetlands during periods of high pond levels. II
I
t '
1
Mr. Warren
November 11, 1988
Page 3
1 I would like to set up a meeting with you and our consulting
engineer for discussion of the necessary details for the pond control
1 structures. Please let me know when this would be convenient for you.
i
Sincerely,
1 c8�
Bob Steinhoff
Opus Corporation
1 BS/jab
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
'1
N.
II
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ` a
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 2, 1988
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at
g 7: 30 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, David Heala II
and Brian Batzli
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Jim Wi.ldermuth '
STAFF PRESENT: Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer and Fred Hoisington,
Planning Consultant I
SUBDIVISION OF 22.8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 1. 9 AND 20. 9 ACRES ON PROPERTY I
ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON CHES MAR DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1
MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, GINER GROSS, CHES MAR FARM REALTY.
This item was tabled per the applicant's request. I
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CLASS A AND CLASS B
WETLAND INTO STORMWATER RETENTION BASINS LOCATED AT OUTLOT A AND LOT 1,
BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION, JUST NORTH OF LAKE
SUSAN AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, II
ROSEMOUNT, INC. .
Larry Brown presented the staff report.
Conrad: Just a quick question Larry. The road between the two is not an
alternative, is that right for whatever the option is that City
Council . . .? '
Brown: That' s correct. That road will not be going in.
Conrad: Where's it going? '.
.1 Brown: That roadway is part of Market Blvd. . You and see, it' s not real
clear here but we will be proposing an entrance down at this point here. II
Part of this crosses over into the Ward property and we consented to
obtaining easements through the Ward property as part of the Lake Drive
feasibility study for probably this access.
Conrad : This item is a public hearing so we' ll up public open it u for ,
P
comments . If there' s a representative from Rosemount who would like to
make a comment. '
Bob Worthington: I ' ll introduce our case on the application that' s before
You. I 'm Bob Worthington with Opus Corporation. We are going to be the II
developer contractor for the Rosemount project which is going to be
considered. The site plan item is last on your agenda, really the
operation for that is somewhat out of context if you don' t take it within
the area of concern, the entire site plan. In terms of the alteration II
permit, that was filed in conjunction with a site plan and plat
1 ,
Planning Commission Meeting
1 November 2, 1988 - Page 2
' application for the property on which the Rosemount development is being
proposed. The Wetland Alteration was and should be considered in the
context not only of preservation of wetlands but also in terms of the
' overall drainage, overland drainage program that we are proposing for the
site. We have two wetlands that are being shown on the plan. One is a
large wetland that the City identified as a Type A wetland. The smaller
I one is a Type B wetland . We have gone through several analysis , both
field as well as in house on both of the wetlands to determine how they
could be used to assist in handling discharge in the form of stormwater
from the proposed Rosemount facility. The original proposal was to use
' both wetlands to receive discharge from the parking lot area as well as
from the building itself for the Rosemount facility and then to transfer
the water that would be impounded within those wetlands into storm sewer
' which would be located beneath the newly extended Lake Drive East as shown
on that plan over to an area to be designated by the City which would be
controlled by the City and which would be used for further impoundment of
water before it would be discharged into Lake Susan. That as a matter of
fact is how we described originally the proposal in our EAW which is
pending comment and final approval and the Declaration of Negative Impact
by the City. After analysis it was determined that a larger wetland was
very valuable. It had some characteristics to it that even though it was
going to somewhat be altered by an extension of Lake Drive East, would
warrant it' s preservation. After consultation with the staff and the Fish
and Wildlife folks, it was determined that that wetland should be
preserved. A conduit or a pipe between the smaller wetland and the larger
wetland was the only water runoff discharge that would be allowed between
the storm water runoff as it left the site and was collected in the
' smaller wetland then ultimately transferred to the stormwater piping
system that would be in Lake Drive East over again to the settlement area
which would be controlled by the City near Lake Susan Park and then
ultimately to Lake Susan itself. So the only alteration that we' re
looking for this evening is to alter the smaller wetland. It would
receive most of the discharge from the proposed facility and in most
' normal circumstances would not have any need to have water which would
overflow out of it into the larger wetland except in those times when you
have the 100 year flood, then you would receive some back up into the
larger wetland . The storm system that is being designed and being looked
at right now for the feasibility report for the City anticipates sizing
which would allow for all of the water that would be discharged into the
smaller pond until it overflowed into the storm water system over into the
pending area which is yet to be designated by the City and I think that
was a stipulation as contained in the site plan review which would be
considered next. Then ultimately into Lake Susan so the Alteration Permit
that we' re asking for is basically for the smaller wetland area only.
' There is a larger wetland would remain pretty much intact with the
exception of having a small portion of it having to be restructured
through the extension of the Lake Drive East Boulevard or Road which is
the one that' s to be constructed as a part of Rosemount so all of that
comlicated language I guess to kind of give some justification and some
background in terms of why we' re looking for an alteration permit for that
wetland .
Conrad : Have you read the staff report?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 3 1
Bob Worthington: I 've read the staff report. I have no objections to the
stipulations contained within that report and will work with staff to
resolve those. . . I
Conrad : Okay, thanks Bob. It' s a public hearing and we will open it up -
for any other public comments.
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ,
Headla : On the Class A wetland. On the very southeast side you have that
pipe carrying water from the road down to the Class A wetland. Is that
normal practice to try to get that rapid runoff? I thought we tried to
impede the runoff.
Brown: Sometimes the roof runoff, due to the contaminants , leaves what
not that blow around, the best place for them is to be directed straight
into the wetland where the nutrients can be stripped in that wetland and
go through that filtering process. Not very often do we have these II wetlands immediately adjacent to the site where it can do that . . . . .go to
water methods such as trying to disperse the runoff into a sheet flow
until such time as it reaches a body of water such as a wetland or a lake.
Headla: I guess I 'm so used to a sheet flow and I 'm so anti-dyke and that
sort of thing , that creates a more rapid flow, I just have a hard time
understanding that concept. ,
Brown: It ' s not very often that we have a wetlands immediately adjacent
to the site where we can take advantage of this.
Headla : So you think the leaves and everything will just go through that
culvert and be dumped right in there right away? That' s taking it off the
parking lot? Okay.
Fred Hoisington: Let me just respond to that a little bit. One of the
reasons we wanted that particular flow to drain into the wetland is we do
need , at first we were concerned about getting enough water into the
wetlands to maintain it' s level . We felt the roof drainage was the way
that could be accomplished . One of the things that we talked about is, in I
the interest of trying to strip whatever there is floating in that
material here , the water that goes to the wetland , is there are ways you
can do that with a manhole and so forth before it gets to the wetland to
collect whatever it is in that flow. That probably would be a good idea
in this case but we do need to put some water in that wetland just to make
sure that it. . .and we felt the roof drains was the way to do that.
Headla: In really wet years, would it tend to be quite detrimental then? II
In years like this , yes , it seems to fit real well but like just a few
years ago when we had a lot more moisture coming down. If the pond is
full , it' s going to be damaging to have a lot more water dump in there
right away?
r
Planning Commission Meeting
' November 2, 1988 - Page 4
Fred Hoisington: No. As a matter of fact, right now that entire
� g site or
a good share of that site is draining to that wetland . What we' re going
' to do is be cutting that off because we' re going to divert all of the
water, almost all of the water in the parking lot and so forth into this
wetland instead . What that' s going to do is overflow into the storm sewer -
' first and as this storm sewer, a 100 year frequency storm gets too full,
what it will do is it will back some additional water into this wetland
but it will only be a temporary thing. Just kind of a holding pattern and
then it will be eliminated and continue off into the storm sewer. The
' question is, if before all of this was draining into it, now how do we
keep the level up? It will dry up is what it will do over time so we need
water to support it and we decided that instead of taking it off the
' parking lots into here , that we would take it off the roof directly in the
wetland instead. So it' s a small amount of water.
Headla : Okay, I didn' t understand that concept. That gets back to pages
3 and 4. I was trying to understand what assumptions do you make for that
type of drainage to go that way but okay. I like that. On recommendation
number 3, no more than 50% of the land around a Class B wetland shall be
sod or seeded . Is that pretty standard to go 50% on that? I guess I 'm
uncomfortable because I don' t know.
' Fred Hoisington: I 'm not sure if that comes, apparently it does come from
the Fish and Wildlife Service in that case. One of the things we were
concerned about that it not all be finished , polished , fertilized area .
Something was pushing against that. I don ' t know where that 50% comes
from. I think it' s something you used before. Does that ring a bell?
Headla: I feel uncomfortable. To me I think that' s high. I 'm certainly
' not an expert on it and just shooting from the hip I question it but
that ' s all I can do. Should I stop there or can I go onto. . .
' Conrad : Not to the site plan . Let ' s just stay on this .
Headla: Okay. I like what I see here.
Batzli : I was curious , how far apart are the Class A and the Class B
wetlands right now? Approximately.
' Brown: Approximately 75 feet . We have 100 foot bid back there.
Batzli : 100 foot? I was just curious because you ' re going to require
some grading of the Class B wetlands and you ' re going to keep a 75 foot
stripe all the way around the Class A wetlands , how are you going to
accomplish both those tasks? Are you going to be able to?
' Bob Worthington: Remember , this again, we' re considering out of context.
This should be considered as a part of the site plan but this road which
is shown on the site plan which is no longer going to be there. So you' ll
' be eliminating those things that you did have then in these two wetlands
. . .this is going to be altered .
i
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 5 I
Batzli : Right but they' re only 100 feet apart. You' re going to have to II
walk a pretty fine line staying just 25 feet from the edge of the Class B
wetlands without altering within 75 feet of the Class A wetlands , correct?
Bob Worthington: That's correct.
Batzli : What are you going to do, stake that off? ,
Brown: One of the initial stages of construction will be to establish the
boundaries of construction limits.
Batzli : I guess I 'd like to see, and this isn ' t really wetlands, '
site plan more but kind of do what we've been trying to do in the past.
�s
Kind of snow fencing or staking off some of the areas that we ' re trying to II
preserve around the existing stand of trees and the wetlands and things.
My only other question, I think it' s a fairly good plan here. I was just
curious in the 5th, we have the impacts needs to be identified and II appropriate measures taken. Who ' s going to do that? Is that something
that the applicant is going to provide?
Hoisington : There are a number of things Brian. Both of us are going to II
provide things that there. The City is currently doing a feasibility
study on Lake Drive East and the new TH 101 so there are a whole lot of
drainage questions that can' t really be answered right now because of
that. The applicant however will have to tell us what the volumes and so
forth are going to be that will come into that wetland from drainage so
yes , they will be providing some. The City will have to provide some as
well. It' s kind of a melting of that information as we continue down the II
road .
Batzli : What do you think might be appropriate measures taken to satisfy II
anticipated pollution and/or nutrient loading impacts?
Hoisington: I 'm not too concerned about the effects that we' re likely to
have on a Class B wetland. I think we conceded, at least I have conceded
that that is going to be altered and it' s going to carry the first flush
of water from this site for a long period of time. What ' s going to
happen, Bob explained this but it' s kind of, the water in the small
wetland . . .Class B in the pipe and a portion of the required storage on
site will actually be born by the City in it' s downstream pond . When it
does that , they are going to help pay for a certain portion of that
improvement because they' re shifting their load off site. So most of that
additional nutrient load is going to go directly into , the first wetland
into the storm sewer into the City' s pond where it will be stripped. It
will then trickle in a fashion down to Lake Susan through a rather long
drainage ditch. The one that already exists there. We think that will be
adequately taken care of. One of the things we' ve been talking about for
a long time with respect to the silt and so forth, is to have a catch
basin in advance of the wetland itself to catch the silt, the sands and
those kinds of things. It will have to be cleaned out periodically but it
does do the job extremely well . '
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 6
' Batzli : What about the run off from the roof? What kind of roof is it
going to be? Is it going to be an asphalt type roof? Is that the type
of impact you' re going to look at from the runoff from the roof?
Bob Worthington: That would be better I guess to be answered as part of
the site plan but John McKenzie. . . John McKenzie is the project manager
' for the building.
John McKenzie: The final selection of a roof system hasn' t been
determined but it would either be a built up asphalt and gravel roof or a
' ballasted single ply membrane. So in any event, we would make certain in
working with the staff that water that drains from that roof through the
interior roof drain system through the storm sewer to the wetland is
' consistent with what we' re looking at. I don' t think we have to
anticipate any particular problem because of the Rosemount operation that
would be different than any other roof drainage. We' ll just continue to
work with the staff to see that those issues are resolved.
Batzli : Okay. I didn' t have any more questions.
q n .
' Ellson: I had some of the same ones that Bob just answered that Brian
had. It seems to me that if they can satisfy staff with most of these
types of things that are still open , then I ' ll be perfectly happy.
' Emmings: Everything looks fine to me too. A lot of this stuff is pretty
technical and I don ' t appreciate it but the one thing that looked to me to
be kind of an inherent contradiction and maybe it' s not is one of the 6
' conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service is that, for the Class B
wetland you' re supposed to have an uneven rolling bottom on this Class B
wetland after it ' s altered. One of the purposes is to provide forging
' areas for wildlife feeding in shallow water . In the EAW it says that
they' re going to be excavating 6 to 8 feet, making it 6 to 8 feet deeper.
Those 2 things don' t seem compatible with one another to me . I don ' t
know, am I missing something?
Brown: I think what happens is we have to again , take the conditions
two different bodies and combine them. Provide an area wherei ' from
' sufficient for wildlife to come in and habitat. However , I think the EAW
is basically getting at trying to get that stormwater retention volume
that ' s necessary.
Emmings : It seems to me we' re making a pond here, not a wetland and I
don ' t think we ought to have this condition on here from the Fish and
Wildlife Service . It seems to me that ' s inappropriate for what they' re
' trying to do with that pond which I think is a right thing to do but I
don ' t want to put a condition on here that they can ' t possibly meet. I
don ' t know what we can do about it.
' Hoisington : Steve, I agree . When I first looked down through this list,
I found two that I had questions marks . It appears, also (b) . (b) and
(c) . There is a possibility I suppose in some slopes but this is a fairly
small wetland. It' s designed, built to do what it ' s going to do here.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 7
Emmings : But these conditions are for when you' re trying to keep it as a II
wetland, not when you' re making a pond out of it. I guess I don' t know
why we should impose the Fish and Wildlife Service requirements on that
wetland, or what' s going to be a pond. Maybe we should take them all off. t
I don' t know if any of them are appropriate.
Conrad: I don' t know either.
Hoisington: Maybe what you can do is suggest that we strive as best we
can to obtain these. I think we' re going to have a real problem with (b)
and (c) . r II
Emmings: Since we' re not trying to preserve it' s character as a Class B
wetland but we' re actually converting it into a pond, I guess my
inclination would be just to take out number 4. The more I think about it .
the less appropriate it seems. That' s my only comment.
Bob Worthington: To reconcile with. . .there ' s no question that we' re ` II
creating the capacity for the storm water runoff that is needed . . .doesn ' t
make sense. Maybe it ' s at the edges you create. . . It ' s only a thought .
You will find some wildlife that will go to the edge and look for food and II
go through some growth in terms of aquatic vegetation that will come up at
the edges. Maybe that' s what the Fish and Wildlife people are looking
for . Creating at least some medium there where the deer come down and
want to drink. . .they can do that.
Emmings : I think too , these 6 conditions they put on, everytime we alter
a wetland, they put these same 6 down. These weren ' t designed with this II
in mind at all . They' re just standard conditions . Maybe what we could do
to keep it in is say, just add in there before, say the alteration of the
Class B wetland , to the extent possible shall conform to the six
conditions. Then maybe we've made it meaningless but at least. . .
Headla : I think you' ve made it meaningless already. You say in areas of
shallow water. That' s self limiting right there. It doesn' t apply to
anything before you do have shallow water . That' s at the end of (c) .
Encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water . So you
don' t care about what' s going on. I like this because when I look at Near
Mountain, the pools of water they've got are very sterile. It' s like a
swimming pool . Wham, you ' ve got water and then you' ve got ground . You
don't have any shoreline at all . Ducks and geese can land there but
that' s about it. I think you need some type of shoreline.
Conrad: Normally when we had a previous consultant that worked for the
DNR, Dr . Rockwell would always give us input . As you know our ordinance
says zero degregation. Usually what we get back from out experts was
talking a little bit about that . In our kit tonight , I don' t have a clue
what Mr. Burke is talking about. Normally they fill out our forms and
talk to us in our language. What I ' ve got here isn' t really anything that
I feel comfortable with. He' s just really doing a different routine than
what we' re used to. I ' ve always trusted those people because they knew II our ordinance. I ' ve always gone along with them. When they said it' s not
a good wetland , a non-functioning wetland , we ' ve applied that reasoning to
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 8
' allowing it to be altered . I 'm real comfortable with that. In this
case, I don' t know what they' re saying. They didn' t say. We've done a
real good job in the past of listening to them, using them as experts but
just letting them apply their guidance to it and when they said it' s not a
functioning wetland and I think we've typically allowed that it be
utilized for drainage and we' re not going to protect something that' s not ---
' that valuable . In this particular case, I still don' t know if there was a
value to it and we've applied that to those reasonings or that rationale
to every other wetland that we' ve looked at until this one. Another
point, on his comments , and I 'm just not able to send comments back to the
proposal or to the alteration. Version 1 versus version 2. On his second
page he made some comments, storm water storage, I would recommend the use
of concrete cisterns . . .to aid in reducing insoluble pollutants . Has any
' of that been incorporated into what, are any of those comments bound into
the proposal or did we just say that ' s not important?
Hoisington: I don' t see them in there Ladd. I think that is probably one
of the most important things he says .
Conrad : Yes , and nobody' s responded to me on it. I haven ' t got the staff
' report telling me that we don' t think that's important or we do. I have a
problem with these two . Not that I 'm against the dredging and making of
the pond. It seems reasonable. I just don' t have any good input where
' staff has spent the time to dissect what some consultant is telling me
that I can' t understand so I can' t vote on this. Somebody could make a
motion and take it through provided staff provides more input by the time
it gets to City Council .
Emmings: I didn' t read that that closely. It says too , no more than a
third of the existing wetland should be excavated it says for aquatic
' enhancement purposes .
Conrad: I just don' t know.
Emmings : Yes , you' re right .
Conrad: I don' t know what he' s talking about.
' Hoisington : We' re really talking about a body of recommendations in the
staff report for our plans that you' ve seen before. Apparently that' s
' been generally applied to wetland alterations in the past . My
understanding and I was not present at the walk through the wetlands but
after Jo Ann came back from that walk, the impression I had was that the
big wetland ought to be preserved and the small wetland could be
sacrificed because it' s a meadow wetland . There' s nothing there. When I
read this, I see some inconsistencies in what he apparently told her and
what this says . I don' t understand . . .either . I think the important
things that both of you have raised are to what degree will the. . .
pollution of the parking lots , off of the roof, silt sands and those kinds
of things before they enter the wetland . I think that' s an important
' consideration that we still have to work out as a process and we will work
those out with Opus and Rosemount. They are minor things but they are
important things in this case . The incongruity with respect to the degree
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 9 ,
of excavation , I can ' t explain. I don ' t know how to explain that to you. I
Emmings: Your point on, for example the concrete cisterns may be included
where it says they still have to assess the wetland impacts .
Conrad: Yes, it could be.
Emmings: Due to roof drainage. Actually, that will come from the parking II
lot.
Brown: I think the point here is , and you can certainly open it for
discussion but the point here is that the flow to the wetland needs to be
regulated and Jo Ann talks in her report about how it can be 2 feet down
one day and 3 feet up the next day. I think that' s what he' s trying to
get at here with this system because he wants a constant release rate into
those storm water retention ponds such that the wetland is not affected
daily.
Conrad : That' s one side of it Larry, yes . In all ast wetland alteration
teratzon
permits, Jo Ann and Dr. Rockwell or whoever ' s representing the DNR, tell
us that they' ve reviewed the site. That they find that the wetland to be
good, bad, indifferent, not needed or in great condition and useful .
We' ve listened to that. If they say it' s not a very valuable wetland,
we' re allowing that construction to take place and we don' t apply the II standards. I don' t have that in my hands. I don ' t have somebody telling
me that which is inconsistent with what we' ve done with everybody else and
that makes me uncomfortable. I 've got two problems. One, Jo Ann is not
here, obviously, and she knows. She' s the one that could solve our
problem. Two, I 'm not getting the same information, the same type of
input that we typically get from those consulting people out there and I
can ' t interpret . I 'm not smart enough to understand what he ' s saying and
why we didn' t incorporate some of those things or if we did so I can' t
make a recommendation.
Emmings: I ' ll take a swing at a motion. I
Conrad : Why don ' t you talk to me about, what you' re thinking of.
Emmings: I guess my notion is this . What I 'm thinking is , that I would
propose to make a motion , I 'm going to change the language in 4 just a
little bit in that I would make a motion to approve this with directions
to staff to take your comments into account and to square what appeared to
be conflicts in the Fish and Wildlife Service report with the staff' s
recommendation and explain that to the City Council when it ' s presented
there.
Conrad : I 'm comfortable with that .
Ellson: Let' s hear it .
Emmings: You just heard it.
11 g language.
Batzli : We didn' t hear your change to the lan ua e.
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 10
Conrad : I was wondering where he was going overall .. Whether we want and
this is sort of discussing what kind of motion we want to make here.
Emmings : This is a pre-motion.
' Conrad : It ' s a question of whether want it coming back here so we can
look at it or if we want it to proceed and make sure that staff does a
good job of analyzing it but send it along to City Council with additional
input.
Emmings : My notion is that they are all technical issues and they can
explain those technical issues to me all night long and I 'm probably going
to, I don ' t know.
Headla : I think you brought up the one good point about, I can imagine
' particularly in the springtime when all the grease and oil coming off the
parking lot is going into this pond, if there shouldn' t be something else
in there.
Conrad : I don' t understand . Remember what we' ve got going on at TH 7 and
TH 41 and we've got skimmers over there for a little parking lot. There
we' ve got skimmer . Here we ' ve got 1, 000 cars , or whatever , and we don ' t
have, I don ' t know what we have.
Headla : However , on the other hand , the Village allowed themselves to put
inferior quality of water right through that immediate area so how can we
' justify being hardnosed on this?
Conrad: I don' t think we' re being any harder nosed.
IFHeadla : I 'd like to see 5 include some type of direction to staff to take
a look at the pollution coming off, possible pollution coming off the
parking lot. If it' s appropriate action, they know more about it than we
do but at least highlight our concern.
Batzli : I thought that was already included from the current language.
Do you want to beef it up?
Headla : I didn' t see anything about parking lots . They talked about the
1 roof.
Conrad : Are you comfortable letting it fly out of here?
' Batzli : Yes, I already thought with clause 5 in there, that there was
going to be a lot of technical issues determined downstream, if you will ,
from this meeting. I assumed that they' re going to look at the impacts
' and the pollution and whatever and they' re going to make appropriate
decisions and put in the appropriate devices for it. I kind of assumed
that already.
' Conrad : Normally we see that stuff.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 11 I
Batzli : I know. That' s I guess why I asked the question about 5. What II
are you thinking of putting in.
Conrad : The only control you have is allowing it to proceed . You don' t 11
have control of anything as letting it get out of your . . .
Emmings : In 5 maybe we can just , after roof drain you can just add,
parking lots .
Conrad : But the other issue is, there' s a road going right next to this
wetland.
Emmings : You mean Lake Drive East?
Conrad: No. Market Blvd . , right?
Emmings: That' s on both sides . One of each side.
Conrad: So the City' s
II
y' going to take care of this wetland if Rosemount
doesn' t but I haven' t heard anything about that. This baby' s gone for all
practical purposes but I guess from a consistency standpoint, I 'd like to 11
hear and see the same stuff as we review this . Especially on a big
project like this. Steve, do you want to make a motion?
Emmings: I do . I want to move that the Planning Commission recommend '
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 with the following conditions
and they' ll be the conditions set forth in the staff report with the
following alterations. I 'd alter 4 so that after the word conform, the
introductory sentence to 4 would read , the alteration of the Class B
wetland shall conform to the extent possible consistent with it 's use as a
pond with the 6 conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service as follows .
Number 5, I would add parking lots right after where it says roof drainage I
so it would say, wetland impacts due to roof drainage, parking lots ,
and/or backup from the storm water retention pond. Then I 'd also, not as II
a condition but instruct staff to be sure to be prepared to explain to the
City Council what appeared to be specific suggestions set forth in the
Burke report from Fish and Wildlife Service with the recommendations
they've made so that we know all those things have been considered . I
Conrad : Is there a second?
Batzli : Second . ,
Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend '
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 with the following
conditions :
1. Submittal of a revised plan and calculations which verify the
preservation of the Class A wetland and shows the extent of alteration
to the Class B wetland .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 12
2. A 75 foot strip around the Class A wetland shall be preserved in its
natural state.
3. No more than 50% of the land around the Class B wetland shall be sod
or seeded. The remaining 50% shall remain in its natural state.
' 4. The alteration of the Class B wetland shall conform to the extent
possible consistent with it' s use as a pond with the six conditions of
the Fish and Wildlife Service as follows :
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase
shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and
resting birds.
' b. The basin will have shallow enbankments with slopes of 10: 1 to
20: 1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of
' emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable
water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife
' feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3. 0 feet) and (b) encourage growth
of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby
increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation.
d . The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing
wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable
substrate for aquatic vegetation.
' e. The basin will have water level control (culverts , riser i e
P P .
etc .) to minimize disturbance of wildlife using the wetland .
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the
basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland .
5. The wetland impacts due to roof drainage, parking lots and/or backup
from the storm water retention pond need to be identified and
appropriate measures taken to satisfy any anticipated pollution and/or
' nutrient loading impacts .
6. Meet any and all conditions of the Site Plan Approval #88-12.
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
' Conrad : Larry, as a footnote . We have to have the right input on the
right forms from the advisory bodies . We have to have that. If we don' t
get it , staff has got to interpret it for us . We also want staff to tell
us how the impact relates to our wetland ordinance. That has to be in the
kit. I know Jo Ann , you ' re not doing this and I know Jo Ann has got other
things happening but I want Don to know that and Jo Ann should hear that.
' Rosemount shouldn ' t have to go through this . This should have been
debated before it got here and resolved.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 13 1
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 330, 000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND 1
MANUFACTURING FACILITY LOCATED AT OUTLOT A AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN
LAKES BUSINESS PARK 3RD ADDITION, JUST NORTH OF LAKE SUSAN AND WEST OF
HIGHWAY 101, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, ROSEMOUNT, INC. I
Larry Brown presented the staff report.
Fred Hoisington: A couple of comments with regard to the site plan. This
whole process has been kind of an evolutionary one. One that most all of
you know since it' s been here before for the platting and so forth, has
been one that because of the timing, the rapid pace that this thing is
moving on, and it was really one of the conditions under which the City
was selected. That we could get in the ground in November, construction
could start this year . It' s necessitated that we kind of bring it to a
stage, resolve our problems and then take it to the next stage, resolve
our problems. We know you don ' t like to see so many conditions on a site
plan as this one has. We fully understand that. The most difficult part
of this whole thing has been the drainage. We think we' ve got all of the IN
things that you' re talking about just about worked out. By the time it
gets to Council , they will be worked out . One piece of information that
still is not available that we know you like to look at, are architectural 11
drawings or image of the building and so forth . What Rosemount and Opus
people are willing to do is to come back to you on the 16th or whatever
would be convenient and kind of go over that aspect of the building with II
you. They had hoped they would have those drawings here tonight but
because of the very difficult schedule and the need to select a certain
appropriate building. . .and so forth, we ' re not able to bring that to you
tonight. What they kind of want to do is they want to run through 11
everything that they have committed to. Again, you ' ll have to trust a
little on the staff in that these conditions will in fact be fulfilled .
I 'm satisfied they will . I 'm real pleased with where we are right now. I II
didn' t think we could ever be this far along this soon in the process but
we are and I 'm amazed at the progress that Opus has been able to make with
that charge. So with that , what I think what we'd like to do is have them
make a presentation. Give you a good feel for what it is that' s being
proposed from their drawings and so forth. I 'd like to introduce again ,
Bob Worthington who will give our presentation.
Bob Worthington: Fred has stated a precondition of, I guess of our
presentation which we hope that you will take into consideration as we
evolve and weave our tale through the site plan this evening for
Rosemount. We are very pleased to be able to be standing before you a
month and a half I guess since we initiated the process with the City with
what we consider to be the completed site plan with a couple of minor
modifications . Hopefully within the next week or two, we will complete an II
architectural statement for the building which as Fred has stated, we' ll
be very happy to bring back to you to show you what the final . . . is going
to look like once it' s been committed to by the client. Before I
introduce John Miller who is the chief architect with Opus Corporation
responsible for the evolution of the site plan as well as the
architectural drawings which you won ' t review until later on. I would
like to go back a moment because, when I was before you on the plat, we
kind of gave you the plain vanilla envelope version of what Rosemount was
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 14
all about . Why they wanted to be here and what they really intended to do
with the building once it's completed. Of course, I couldn' t do as good a
job as the person who would be with us and shortly could do, from
' Rosemount who has kind of lived with this dream, seen it evolve and now is
finishing up the final touches of it before we go into a construction
mode. I think that the story that he has to tell in terms of why they
have chosen Chanhassen, what they intend to be doing in this building,
needs to be told before we launch into very pragmatic and to the point
discussion of the site plan so without , if you can bear with me for a
moment, I 'd like to introduce Jeff Schmidt with Rosemount Corporation who
will tell you a good story.
Jeff Schmidt: Good evening. My name is Jeff Schmidt. I 'm Vice President
' of Company Services for Rosemount and I , in that capacity am responsible
for the facilities for our organization in the Twin Cities area and
national and internationally. Rosemount is a 32 year old company that was
' founded in Minnesota . In Rosemount, Minnesota . We've grown in Minnesota .
A majority, as a matter of fact, all our growth has been in Minnesota. We
have acquired other companies through our parent. . .and our own
acquisitions but our growth has been in the State. We currently have five
facilities , five major facilities in the Twin Cities area. We are
headquartered in Eden Prairie. About 8 months ago we started an extensive
search which included other states , as a matter of fact , and also some off
shore type locations, as where we should do and build our world class
manufacturing facility to build our pressure transmitters which is the
precision instrumentation that ' s talked about. This is a pressure
transmitter . It ' s something essentially this size. It is the major
' product, the largest product line within the Rosemount family. This
project is by far the biggest thing that we' ve ever undertaken from a size
standpoint and relative to an impact that it will have on our operation.
We did this site search. Was probably, when we got it narrowed down to
the State and decided in the Twin City area, there were about 50 sites .
It got down to a comparison between Chaska and Chanhassen. We know both
communities because we are close in Eden Prairie. We felt that the
Chanhassen site was the site that would best fit the kind of operation
that we want to have. i don' t know if any of you have ever seen our
facilities but we are very sensitive to the aesthetics and to the green.
' We have parks in our Eden Prairie facility. We have softball fields. We
have amenities for our employees . We are very concerned about those kinds
of things . We' re concerned about vegetation and many of the conditions
' that go along with the site plan that we talk about tonight. We fully
intend to try to meet all of those in response to the City' s concerns and
to make it an area that we think is going to be good for our employees .
The building will have 700 people initially. It will be our largest
' single facility in the Twin Cities area . We' re excited about Chanhassen
and we think we' re good community citizens . We have in other facilities
and I think in talking to those governments or if you ' re talking to
people, they would say we are. We' re excited about showing you at least
our plans that we have so far today and we were hoping that we would have
the rest of them today but by next week we would have more details on some
of the elevations and the details of what the building would look like.
I 'd like to introduce John Miller to present. . .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 15 I
Emmings : Can I just ask you real briefly. The product that you make in II
this plant, what is it and what does it do?
Jeff Schmidt: It' s a pressure transmitter used in the process control
industry and that would be an oil refinery or a pulp and paper mill. It's
a transmitter that has a sensor which essentially is in the pipe or in the
process. Instrumentation that measures the pressure. It takes that
pressure through an analog measurement and converts it to electronic
signal which is then used to go back to a computer which would help
control that process for that factory. So it' s taking an analog
measurement and converting it to an electronic measurement.
Conrad : I 've got a question. Briefly, when you compared Chaska to
Chanhassen for the site, what were the pros there and the pros here and
the cons in both?
Jeff Schmidt: I think one of the things that Fred mentioned , and it' s
difficult to make that determination here because you don' t know. We II
haven' t had an operation in Chanhassen or Chaska . You have to look at the
people you're working with and you have to look at , get a feel for what
would go faster . That was an issue . I think probably the biggest thing II
was the fact that we thought that the site was a beautiful site. We
thought it would be a good place for employees to work and we thought
Chanhassen would be a good place for them to work. It was a little closer II
to our current operation. We did find in doing a study, when we looked
around and started evaluating sites , that 25% of the employees that we
currently have on the product line that we are going to move here , which
by the way we' re moving 3 or 4 different facilities in Eden Prairie and
that ' s one of the reasons why we' re under such a tight time schedule to
get this done is we want to get those consolidated for efficiency reasons.
25% of the people in those operations live to the south or to the west , to II
the south and west of our current facility so we' re drawing from a large
population out here already. We felt that was good for those people and
we didn't want to go out, we'd like to get a little closer for those II people that are on the other side. I think it was the site basically that
sold it for us and the feeling that the City could allow us to go along as
fast as we have. And as Mr . Hoisington mentioned , I 'm even more amazed at
where we're at today in the process. It was our plan several months ago
that we wanted to break ground on a site in November . There were a number
of delays, several of which were imposed by ourselves and by our parent
company but nonetheless we ' ve got to a point where we might not meet that
exactly. We would hope to be very close.
Headla : I 'm having a hard time with the area you ' re building and the
number of employees. It seems to be off by maybe 50%. To say world class II
manufacturing , are you trying to operate a black factory?
Jeff Schmidt: A black factory in that it 's secret? I
Headla : You turn off the lights . It' s mostly automated .
Jeff Schmidt: No, that is not the case. World Class is a term that we
didn' t coin ourselves but it' s one we ' re using to describe it. Basically
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
IINovember 2, 1988 - Page 16
I what we want world class to be is we want this facility to
quality produce the
kind of
q y products that can be competitive in today' s market and
that means some things. We' re looking at different approaches like Just
II in Time engineering, Tehoochi methods for measurement and cell
manufacturing . We' re going to have 700 people there initially. This
facility, we' re hoping based on our projections , will give us growth space
I for the next at least 3 to 4, 5 years . And there will be more people
going in there. . . We are not a very automated operation.
Headla : This is just the. . .700?
IJeff Schmidt: This is essentially the people that we have
on line now in different operations around Eden Prairie and the Twin Cities rand
t
I those that we feel we' re going to have to hire over the next 12 months
while we' re constructing this building.
I John Miller : It' s a real pleasure to be here in front of you and it' s a
real pleasure to the be the designer for this facility for Rosemount. At
Opus we' re totally convinced that they really want to make it a quality
project out of this . It' s very aesthetically pleasing. It ' s going to
I project a strong image for them and that as a designer makes me feel good
about it. I always like to work with that situation. I think we' ve been
through the site plan in several ways already. I 'd like to maybe focus on
I the building itself and what the concept of the building design is all
about. We worked extensively with Rosemount up to this point finding out
how their operation wants to work. What type of functional requirements
there are and I think we' re getting a real strong handle on that.
IIBasically the concept we have is that they need a large, very flexible,
high base face that can function as manufacturing and also has office
space integral with that manufacturing space. As their product
I development proceeds and evolves , the actual organization of these areas
within this big, high base face would be altered. Would be very flexible.
In other words, office space could move around the various parts of this
I large high base space. What we' re talking about basically looking at this
plan here is the high base space which is 720 feet long , this dimension,
by 400 feet wide. We' re talking there about 18 feet of clear building
height to the bottom of the joist and that ' s the area where we would have
I the flexible type of arrangement between the manufacturing and the office
space. Now that might scare you thinking of a 700 foot plus dimension for
the building. Initially I was scared. I get over that easily. What we
I are going to augment that basic building block is providing around the
perimeter for additional functions that are of a fixed nature. In other
words, functions that will not be subject to the kind of change that we
see happening within the large building block. Those would be things such
I as mechanical rooms, major central utility areas where services for the
building would be generated and dispersed throughout the building. There
are what we call personnel service areas which are conference rooms,
I toilet rooms, break areas, some of these fixed type things with things
such as plumbing where they don' t want to be moveable. Those are located
in various locations around the basic building block. We have a major
II cafeteria on the south side of the major block which is almost 20, 000
square feet. This is something that you would not perceive having to be
moved at any point in time. Those types of things are lower ceiling
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 17 1
heights and lower roof height types of building modules that will be
placed around this larger box to break up the impact of the long walls
that would be on the basic building block. We have, as Jeff eluded to,
proceeded beyond this point as far as the elevation development has gone. II
We' re really excited about some of the things that are coming out of this
and I honestly think you' ll be amazed at what the product we come in with
will actually be, the manufacturing facility that you think it might be soli
I 'm looking forward to when we can bring in more detail on that. I ' ll
just briefly describe a little bit some of the locational requirements for
some of these building blocks. The biggest one is the cafeteria area on II
the south that we located there so it can take advantage of some of the
views to the Lake Susan. We've got it nestled in some major oak trees
there right along the crest of that hill . This is going to be a real nice
amenity space for the people working in the building so I think that has ,
worked out very well . We' ve got several of the break areas that are also
in that south face of the building that we take advantage of those to use
as a green space. The building as it functions , we have two basic product
lines that are on each half of the building and along this north face of
the building you' ll see a large, one of these large areas that is, there ' s
a central utility area in the center of that. To the side of that area
are two loading dock areas which provide service to the two halves of the
production area. We are providing across from those berming as necessary
to screen those docks so they would not be a negative impact on a site.
Now along with having two production areas on both ends of the building ,
obviously we have people working in both of those areas so we provided
parking on the east side of the building and on the west side of the
building with two major entries from each end of the building . Visitors
coming to the building would primarily come in the east side of the
building off of the Market Blvd . access into a turn around into the east
entry of the building. That' s where the visitors would encounter the
building . Other than that , until we can come in with more information as II
to the facade and the exterior treatment of the building, I 'm here to
answer any questions you might have regarding site plan and building
concept. '
Headla : What' s your rationale for the 18 foot height?
John Miller : We had the parameters we were given is that they want 11
feet of clear height for installing the work stations as are required as
well as for movement of materials through the plant so there would be no
encroachment on that limit for height . Then above that we' ve got 7 feet
that we are allowing for all horizontal runs of utilities , of lights, of
whatever technical types of support equipment is necessary to get the work
stations and the assembly stations to function. So that' s where our
ceiling height evolved.
Conrad : You' re not breaking the parking lot up much. Any reason for
that? You've broken it up in two basically, east and west but we have 500 II
cars on each side but it looks like it ' s just mass parking.
John Miller : One of the things we run up against in Minnesota is in
almost all of our projects we 'd like to put more plantings in the parking II
areas. However, the snow removal gets to be a major factor and the more
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 18
islands we have, the more of a hinderance that is to getting the snow off
in a big hurry and being able to pile it somewhere up in the perimeter.
So we provided some green areas between the parking lot and particularly
I along side major entry roads and this kind of thing but more for
maintenance reasons we try to minimize that. When the climate changes,
we' ll probably. . .
Conrad : It ' s a lot of cars for one spot.
John Miller: It is a lot of cars. I don' t think it' s extraordinary
' though considering what has been done.
Ellson: What are the hours of operation? This is a factory so does it
start by 7: 30 in the morning or?
Jeff Schmidt: We utilize flexible hours and that means that employees
have to work from 9 : 00 a .m. in the day shift but they can come in as early
' as 6: 30. There could be instances where people would come on an overtime
basis and come in possibly at 5: 30 but general the population would be
coming in between 6: 30 and 8 : 00 is the normal starting time. Eight hours
then. We do run a second shift 4 days a week, Monday through Thursday.
That would go until approximately 2: 00 in the morning . It ' s a 4 day, 10
hour a day shift. So there would be 5 working days. . .working days on day
' shift and 4 on night .
Batzli : The dotted line at the far end of the building there, what is
that for?
John Miller : There will most likely be future building development on the
site. However , that is really quite undefined at this point and just due
' to the nature of the product development and not being able to define how
much square footage need there would be in the future, we really haven' t
tried to get into that in too much detail . This is perhaps the most
likely scenario however . Where you would just extend the 400 foot wide
building by going out to the west of the building. Again, emphasizing the
need to keep the product flow and the organization within the block as
simple and as flexible as possible.
' Batzli : I guess the comment was made that they hope that this is going to
provide enough space for the next 3 or 4 years so perhaps that expansion
isn ' t too far down the road .
Jeff Schmidt : That would be wonderful if that was the case.
Conrad: Any other questions of John while he' s standing or should we just
let him sit down for a few seconds? We' ll probably have some questions
for you.
Bob Worthington : We' ve reviewed the staff report and understand all of
the stipulations that have been listed and have no objections to any of
them. One thing that happens when you ' re evolving plans as quickly as we
' have with this product for this project, there' s a lot of discovery that
takes place all of a sudden . One day something unknown becomes known and
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 19 ,
you' ve got to make sure that . . . One of the things that the EAW speaks to II
is the question about archeological artifacts in the site. There is a
requirement that you have to indicate in the EAW that there are no
significant artifacts in terms of archeological and historic significance II
that are on the site and are going to be disturbed or destroyed by
development. We called the Historical Society and. . .by Rosemount to take
development, asked them if they through their mapping or through their . . .
artifacts in this area could identify any on this site. The Historical
Society, after taking a day to look it over came back and said we had
inclusive information. That's probably one of the worse things that you
want to hear if you're in a fast track and you want to move very quickly II
on the site. You'd like them to come back and say no, . . .there may be
some concerns that any developer would have as they' re going into. . . In
order to come up with conclusive information we commissioned a
consultant . . .who was highly recommended by the Historical Soceity to go
out and do a site analysis. Come back with a report which we then could
definitively come to a conclusion relative to the significance of
artifacts out on the site. She just concluded in her study a week ago - II
with a preliminary draft. The good news is that there are no significant
artifacts left on the site. . . She did several digs and she found some
artifacts but because of the fact that this site has been farmed for a
long period of time, most of those artifacts have been destroyed and she
expected. . . However , she did discover two sites that had promise. These
sites and I will pass this report around to you. We didn' t prepare an
overhead . You can see the two stars that are right within the setback
area for the building for the area that the building is going to be set
back from the lake.
Emmings: They' re on the slope?
Bob Worthington : They' re on the slope right next to the lake indicating
that they have some potential artifacts . They are going to be in an area
which will not be disturbed by the development . As a matter of fact , they
are going to be in an area which the City has identified as a public area
in which the City would like to put a trailway system along the lake II
within and there is something that now the City will have to, when it
designs it' s trailway will have to keep in mind if and when that trailway
is ever implemented. So the good news is that we are not disturbing any
artifacts of significance on the site . Those two sites that have promise
are going to be within the wooded preserve area of the site which will not
be disturbed by the Rosemount development which makes everybody happy. I
Emmings : What did she find? You said she found something . . .
Bob Worthington: Well , she went down and I 'm not an archeologists but she I
found some artifacts in the form of pottery. Apparently the original
settlers of this area , the Indians and their ancestors used lakes and
waterways to put their camps on. They also, as you know, used in this
area , quite a few of them for burial grounds . These weren ' t burial
grounds but it looks like the two sites which she identified as Opus 1 and
2, maybe it should have been Rosemount 1 and 2 but she identified them as II
Opus 1 and 2, she found some artifacts which would have indicated that
that at some time in the past could have been used as a campsite by the
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' November 2, 1988 - Page 20
' tribes which were in this area . Temporarily set up shop there as they
were foraging and hunting. She indicates that it will take further
digging to determine what kind of relationship those artifacts have to
what actually happened there. But the good news is, it' s not going to be
disturbed and it will be left preserved forever as far as Rosemount is
concerned and as far as the City' s interest in it. So I thought I would
bring that little fact to you and there will be other things that we will
be discovering. We' re just receiving all of our comments back now from
the EAW. Some of the assumptions that we' ve made that we' re going to be
receiving comments back on. Of course we talk a lot about the overland
' drainage issue which we haven' t received all the comments back on but all
those things will have to come back and have to respond to. As a matter
of fact, we have a meeting set up for some time this week with the people
' from the Metropolitan Council who want to make sure that what we' re doing
in terms of phospherous discharge and handling of phospherous is going to
be adequate. For those of you who don' t know, we were able to get Barr
Engineering to join our team as our consultant in the area of this
' phospherous issue. As you know, they are the consultants to the Purgatory
Riley Creek Watershed District. They went to the board and asked if they
felt there was going to be a conflict of interest should they come on our
side and do this special research and analysis for us and the board
manager said that he didn' t think there would be so they have come on and
done a very special technical report which I think is included with the
' EAW that has been circulated and out for comment. They will be
accompanying us over at the Metropolitan Council on this issue and we
think with the caliber of consultants that we've hired on that issue plus
what we' re done with our expertise in-house to properly mitigate the
impacts that normally would occur should we not handle the water runoff
issue properly. They will be able to take care of any concerns that the
Metropolitan Council may have on that issue. So everything is evolving as
' Fred stated. Everything kind of is bubbling here and there but it has
a. . .to come together and we apologize but because of the fast track nature
of the project and because of the way your meetings are scheduled versus
how we' re moving in terms of the development of plans . We can ' t bring
everything together in one fell swoop for you but we' re willing, as a
matter of fact we've invited ourselves back perhaps at your next meeting
to kind of show you the finished product in terms of architectural
' drawings and by that time we should pretty well know any and all comments
that have been received back from others so that you can feel comfortable
with the fact that we have done everything we can to be as responsible as
' we can as the developer is saying in bringing a world class facility to
the City of Chanhassen . So I just wanted to bring that one point up. We
have no objections to the stipulations within the staff report. We have a
cast of thousands as you might expect . I apologize for not introducing
everybody. Mike Pescally who is sitting next to Jeff is with Rosemount.
Jack is in the back is also with Rosemount and then the rest of the folks
are with the Opus group. You' ve already met John. Christine Peterson who
is sitting next to John was the one person responsible for all the real
estate development aspects of the project. This is John McKenzie, Vice
President for Opus is the chief honcho as we call him in house in charge
of the project. He' s the one who makes sure everything gets done right
' and on time. Dave Vangasser is also working with John and what will
happen is, as most of you know. . .what we call a beauty contest where all
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 21
the presentations are done and all the fanfare is over , then it will be
Dave' s responsibility to make sure that everything gets done right. So
Dave will be the person who will be handed the baton once we' re done with
the approvals here at the City and move forward with the project. So that 'll
basically I guess is all I have to say this evening . I appreciate your
tolerance and your time. . .it's an interesting one. One that hopefully is --
going to be a very important chapter for not only Opus and Rosemount but II
also for the City of Chanhassen. We'd be happy to answer any questions .
Emmings: There are a world record number of conditions on this but given
the way the process is going, I think that's probably a necessity. It' s ,
also nice I think of Rosemount to say they're excited about coming here -
and I 'm sure they realize that the City' s very excited about having you
come. I think that has to be said. This is a wonderful thing for us to II
have here. The only thing I 've got is more a matter of curiosity than
anything else. Was it Detroit Deisel?
Conrad: Yes . _ I
Emmings: And I wasn' t here for that one but I got the history of it when
we did the Sunnybrook proposal and both of those created quite a lot of
comment from the folks who lived around the lake with concerns such as
lighting and noise and generation of a major manufacturing facility. All
kinds of concerns of the neighborhood. Also brought the neighboring
property here to just about every meeting and there were quite a number of
them, of meetings and we haven' t seen those folks at all and I just don ' t
know why.
Bob Worthington: Is that the Wards?
Emmings: The Wards were here and I think their primary concern at that II time was the road and I guess , there are things being done with the road
here but it' s basically the same plan as for Sunnybrook I guess so maybe
the Wards aren' t concerned for that reason but we haven' t seen the
neighbors at all .
Fred Hoisington : We have been working with the Wards very closely in
order to get something done with them so I think they' re quite satisfied I
Steve with what 's happening here. Now the neighbors , if you didn ' t know
they had a neighborhood meeting but not very many people came. . . They
were all noticed . ,
Conrad : You mean all lakeshore owners were notified?
Fred Hoisington: Right . ,
Emmings: Maybe they' re just worn out from the other two. I don' t know.
Bob Worthington: Can I just comment on that because that was one of the
first orders of business was to meet with the neighborhood and tell them
of our plans. Even though only 3 showed up, 2 of them were the more
important neighborhood organizations within that area. One. . .she
represented a number of neighbors and she was going to take back the story
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 22
and if they didn' t like it they would be here tonight . We were truly
expecting that. . . By and large they were excited about our plans, if you
can believe that, and felt that it was a good use of property as long as
we handled all the issues that you just identified. The noise and the
fumes and lighting . We indicated into our site plan that we were going to
do that and told by staff things that they want to control are the things --that they are going to require us to control . . .
Emmings: I 'm glad to hear that they've been included and that they've
been given notice and apparently they' re satisfied . I don ' t really have
any other comments.
Conrad : Because they have been so vocal . Site plan review Larry is not a
' public hearing, is that right?
Brown: That' s correct. However , the plats were public hearings.
' Conrad : Should have been.
Bob Worthington: We did have a schedule that we did make for the
' neighborhood. . .
Conrad : I'm really concerned with what the City is doing . We announce
' the public hearings. We inform the people when there' s something that' s
impacting them. It' s really not you. They have been so vocal in the
past, I don' t think they' re going to find anything bad here but not
involving them and I 'm hearing you say you' re involving them but I 'm kind
' of concerned a little bit because they' re not here. The last time Detroit
Deisel was here , the last time that a resort complex was here, we had this
place full . The concern, there were different uses at that time. Maybe
they' re not concerned anymore that this use is affecting them. They are
very concerned with lighting and you do have a parking lot there that' s
rather close that basically glare should be a problem and I 'm not totally
comfortable that we can solve that but typically they do show up for those
things. I 'm kind of surprised .
Emmings : Are you talking about second shift activity?
Conrad : Yes , we' re talking about night time activities and noise . When
you' re on a lake, you' re bouncing sound off that water and it' s a concern.
I'm kind of surprised they' re not here. They wouldn' t be here tonight if
they weren' t conerned. . .but it ' s not a public hearing.
Ellson : I really like it . I agree with John in that it ' s nice to work
' with somebody who wants to do everything right . We find people coming in
wanting to change everything because of. . .or what have you. I really
enjoy seeing a plan like this . I think it looks gorgeous. That cafeteria
' in the woods and everything like that , I think it ' s a great way to use
this site. I think the biggest concern I have is about the traffic. I
think all these people are probably going to be turning left to get into
here and that's 700 people to 900 people to whatever, when everybody else
is going into the city and we know how congested TH 5 is going into the
city. I don' t know. We' ve got a left hand turn thing from MnDot outside
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 23 '
of the SuperAmerica just for a neighborhood and I wondered what we' re '
going to do. Just to have that backed up all on TH 5. I don' t know, I
can see that as being a problem around 8 : 00 or 7 : 30 or something in the
morning with everybody trying to take a left hand turn and there's nothing "
stopping the people from going into the city and nothing allowing those
people to go around them or something. I 'd like to see something like
that. '
Brown: . . . that' s something that will be addressed probably with the Lake
Drive East feasibility. We have to go through, I anticipate a traffic
generation study. They will be accessing obviously Lake Drive connects up
with the County Road. It's a common requirement of the County that if -
they exceed x number of cars . . . to allow a continuous flow of the traffic
around the left hand turn movement.
Hoisington: As part of this whole TH 101 process, we had some additional
study done by Benshoof. and Associates who did the broadened study area II study. Ladd you may remember , we did a number of different alternatives .-
At that point we had several different scenarios where we looked at TH 101
and what we were trying to do is evaluate traffic impacts for each one.
Rosemount was plugged into that traffic analysis. Everything was updated. II
All the language was updated . What we concluded from that, or what
Benshoof concluded was that each of the three major intersections would
operate during the peak hour at level of service D. Very acceptable level II
of service. Now when we had TH 101 on the present TH 101, Great Plains
Blvd. , it was a level of service C at Market , E at Great Plains and D at
the Dakota. But when we moved TH 101 over to Market, we ended up with D, II
D, D and it ' s going to work extremely well . We' re not saying that you
won' t have an occasional problem but nonetheless, all the traffic analysis
indicates a real good situation.
Ellson: At least they've looked at it.
Conrad : They have. Brian.
Batzli : I appreciated the artifacts findings. I propose that we have
ave an
artifacts overlay for the city to go along with all of our other overlays.
The first thing I guess I wanted to ask about was the chemicals. I think 11
you have a chemicals room here and in your environmental statement you
talk about you' re going to be discharging suspended irons into municipal
sanitary sewer system. Is that the normal state of affairs for lead '
suspension in water?
Jeff Schmidt : Yes . Our current operation we are not a heavy chemical
user. We do have a small plating and cleaning lab that we have in our
operation . During that you take some parts in to clean and then you dip
them in these things. Sometimes there will be some small places of
suspended metals in those rinses that we have. Those are monitored
through the Metropolitan Waste Commission. We do tests every few months
on those things. . .putting them through the sanitary sewer system. . . .but
it's a very small quantity. We do have some degreasing solvents and
things like that that we use in our operation that we dispose of
through. . .approved hazardous waste or those kind of agencies that deal
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 24
with that kind of an operation. We take off the site. . . for disposal .
Batzli : So you' re basically covered pretty tightly by the Federal
' Regulations? All the safety data sheets and all that other stuff .
Jeff Schmidt: Exactly.
Batzli : Is the storage room, are you talking large volume storage or do
you have the stuff taken out fairly often?
' Jeff Schmidt: We' re only allowed, I believe it' s to keep things 30 days
maximum in storage. The quantities are very small .
' Batzli : How small is small? This is a big factory.
Jeff Schmidt: I guess I don' t remember all those numbers . Maybe 2
' barrels of a certain chemical . Maybe of the degreasing solvent or
something like that. We do have a list of that and. . .could certainly make
available.
Batzli : I didn' t have an idea of what kind of chemicals really you were
talking about there. The other thing, I guess I did want to talk about
the fact that obviously the landscaping plan is going to be redone. I 'm
curious if there is going to be shielding from the parking lot, between
the parking lot and the lake. I know that you' re talking about an
acceptable one will be provided but I don' t know, what are the
requirements for screening from between a lake or something and a parking
lot? Is there any requirements?
Hoisington: Really Brian, the primary landscaping isn' t between the lake
and the building. It's from the parking lot and it's for the loading
areas behind . Those are the areas that Jo Ann has concerns about . The
whole slope coming up from the lake is wooded now so the few trees that
are shown, I 'm not sure if they' re on this site plan but they' re on this
one, . . .more meadow trees. Not for the purpose of screening. The trees
are already there.
' Batzli : Yes . If this is the one you've got up there, they' re not between
the lake and the parking lot. They' re between the building and the park
and the lake so the question is, if the neighbors have a concern and if
' you'd rather look at trees than a parking lot when you' re on the lake, is
that something that' s going to be provided for in the corrected
landscaping plan or no or can' t you even see the parking lot from the
lake?
Hoisington : For the most part, the trees that are there will screen the
parking lot.
Emmings: How high is the site above the level of the lake?
' Batzli : Is it 50 feet above the lake there?
Hoisington : To the floorline, it' s about 35 feet .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 25 ,
Batzli : But then you' re elevating the lights even higher up.
Emmings : But the lights themselves should be shielded but of course ,
you' ve got the glow.
Batzli : Are shielded lights planned on being used? ,
Bob Worthington: . . .by the same token, we need the security for employees
that are going to be using the facility. That would require some
me
Batzli : As it's currently drawn, is the parking lot 75 feet away from the
finished edge of the retention pond? That doesn' t need to be amended at '
this point does it?
Bob Worthington: It' s about 100 feet. The original concept plan showed, II
it closer. We've revised the. . .
Batzli : I guess my comment about either staking off or fencing off around
the Class A wetland and around the trees that you ' re trying to keep so the
bulldozers don' t run rampant through this stuff applies to this as well .
The one thing that I really I guess had my big question, actually maybe
two, condition 11 here. What is this in there for? That ' s basically
saying that everything that we' ve got right now doesn' t mean anything?
Brown: No , I think the intent there is, there is obviously some open
doors which exist right now regarding the feasibility study of Lake Drive II
East . In Gary Warren ' s memo he states that there is more that need to be
worked out. Admittedly it' s kind of blanket statement to try to cover
these open doors . . . for the feasibility study to be completed . '
Batzli : I guess I see that and rather than have to go through the staff
report and find all the conditions in sufficient detail necessary for II reviewing approval , i assumed that' s what the other conditions were trying
to do . Are you saying that there are some conditions that are in the
report that aren' t addressed currently in the conditions that are in front
of us? '
Brown: I think there are options out there such as, one of them being the
entrance on the easterly property boundary needs to be worked out in
conjunction with the feasibility report . In turn , we need to work out the ,
technical details of the storm water retention .
Batzli : But aren' t those two already conditions? The storm water 1
retention is condition 19 again isn' t it?
Brown: Yes . '
Batzli : So the entrance to the east isn ' t a condition right now?
I thought that was already. That's option B entry road, that one?
Condition 1?
i
II
' Planning Commission Meeting
IINovember 2, 1988 - Page 26
IIHoisington : Brian , I think all they' re saying with that number 11 is the
things that she is pointing to in these conditions need to show up on the
plan somewhere . That there should be a revised plan submitted as soon as
IIall that detail is defined.
Batzli : I guess do we not typically also tie this back into the , and
I maybe it' s already been done and I missed it, don' t we normally this back
into the wetlands? Don' t we just kind of automatically put them back and
forth on each other as one of the conditions of the wetland? Is that in
here? I guess I 'd like to see that. Although some of the conditions are
1 in here already and I 'm not sure if all of them are or not. It seems that
at least 3 of them were I think. My only other question is, the applicant
is responsible for reimbursing the City for utilizing it's ponding
IIfacilities . What are you envisioning?
Hoisington: What we' re envisioning there is that a portion of the on site
I ponding requirement will be met with city ponding to the extent that,
there' s a cost associated with that. They' ll pay their fair share of the
cost .
IIBatzli : How are you going to measure that?
Hoisington: That' s part of the feasibility study that ' s being done right
I now. What they will determine is exactly. . .deficient and therefore
calculate the costs associated with it to satisfy that need. The
consultants are figuring that out now.
II Batzli : Do you mean yearly? Monthly? One time up front? What would be
the cost associated?
I Brown : At this point , as I ' ve discussed it with Gary Warren, I talked a
little bit briefly before the meeting with Rosemount and Opus staff is
that there ' s obviously costs . The incremental costs in enlarging our
I proposed storm water retention pond to accomodate the needs of the
Rosemount site . We can calculate that additional storage that ' s required
and in turn the additional cost required to get that storage. As Fred
pointed out, they would be required up front to pay that incremental cost.
IBatzli : One time? I don ' t want to make it sound like I 'm not welcoming
Rosemount with open arms . This is a world record for conditions I think.
I The one other thing I had which is perhaps minor but, is the trail
dedication, whatever , is that normally done at the preliminary platting
process or is that done now or did we see that then or where?
IConrad : Usually it ' s done now.
Batzli : That ' s not on here is it? Are you aware of the Park and Rec
I Commission' s, what they' re doing with the trails on this matter? Can you
inform us?
I Bob Worthington : There was an area down near the bottom of that plat that
was reserved for trails .
II
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 27 1
Batzli : Is that normally one of the conditions? 1
Conrad: Normally it is . Usually we have a Park and Rec recommendation
that tells us what they' re, because it affects the whole site in terms of II
any easements or whatever. I don't see that .
Emmings : I don' t know. My recollection is that when we looked at the
same site for Sunnybrook, the only place that there's a trail that affects 1
this site is right along the lake itself right?
Conrad: I don' t recall it being a trail there. 1
Emmings : Oh, I thought there was . Or an easement at least.
Conrad: It seems like there should be.
Hoisington: There is an easement along the lakeshore.
Emmings: That exists . II
Hoisington: That exists . There is sewer in that already and it ' s a '
fairly wide easement. I 've heard it mentioned as a trailway also. Is
there more that needs to be added to that Ladd?
Conrad: Usually we have a recommendation from the Park and Rec as to what 1
they' re looking for in terms of additional improvements or park dedication
or whatever.
Bob Worthington: If I could make just one comment. The Park and
Recreation Commission did review, you might recall, stipulated two
conditions to satisfy the park dedication fund for the site . The first
was that the project dedicate 2 acres of land to the Lake Susan Park which
would be . . . They also required somewhere in the neighborhood of
$32,000. 00 to be dedicated to the City in cash to satisfy the balance of
the park dedication requirement . . . We feel that with those conditions, we 1
are satisfying park dedication funds . There is an area reserved there
for trails. . .
Headla : Interesting on the landscape we don' t put one tree back in there
that' s native to that area. I think that ' s really a problem. I think
that' s the City' s problem. I think we should . . .give them a choice and I
don't understand why we can' t put trees back in there that are native.
I think we ought to do that.
Conrad: I thought that was a standard these days . 1
Headla : Juniper , green spruce, basswood are native to that particular
place. I 'd like to see a lot of deciduous treP -- something like the maple II
tree. That ' s going to become a pinecone if we Keep going but I really
would like to see trees more native to that area. That' s a beautiful
area . Why can ' t we put trees like that in there? I would like to see
more trees , what I'm really thinking of is , now I 'm going on the other 1
side but I 'd like to see like highbush cranberry around the parking lot so
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 28
as the cars come in . Take around Christmas time. You get a lot of
traffic and the people out on the lake and on the other side see all that
traffic . If you just had like highbush cranberry that are going to block
all the flashing of the car lights, the reflections won' t go out on the
lake. I think that could help the whole area aesthetically quite a bit
and I don' t think it's a whole lot of cost. Larry, for my own information
' and I think this is the first time I 've said this . I think I kind of
understand that type of operation that they want to put in there and
they' re going to be, I think the inside of that building is going to be
very dynamic. It's going to keep growing. The lines are going to change.
' They are going to be changing offices . When they start rerouting there's going to be some plumbing and stuff, do they g power
permits to do all theirs or are they free to do anything they
or how is that worked out? y g Y please to do
Brown: If there are any major modifications to the building, they are
required to submit any new modifications to the building structurally, ,_
they are required to get a building permit. As far as electrical power,' I
guess it comes down to a public safety and enforcement issue. If they do
any rerouting of electricity then it should be inspected by a licensed
' electrical inspector.
Headla : Should they or do they have a master electrician do it? What I 'm
trying to do is make sure we' ve got some common thoughts on it and not get
into a box later on. That ' s why I 'm asking questions . I don ' t have the
answers .
Jeff Schmidt: One of the things, you asked the question before about the
18 foot high. One of the things we want to have in that 7 feet between
the roof and where the operations are is because of the flexibility that
we needed , you' re exactly right . There is going to be changing and moving
around. We anticipate putting in a utility grid system which will allow
us to run, when we construct the building grids throughout the building so
' that when we do things, we can move them effectively by just unplugging
them from here and moving them over there. We hope to, that ' s exactly the
thing we hope to eliminate is the major modification as we feel we can' t
go into the cost or from a time standpoint to effectively do the things we
have to do.
Headla: To me, when you decided to put in a line or change a cell , that ' s
' what you're got to do and you' re not going to screw around and wait 3
months to go through it. So do we have some common thoughts or should we
develop any common guidelines so they know what ' s expected and you know
what they' re doing and there isn ' t a conflict or is that established
already?
Brown: The guidelines and restrictions have been established through the
State Codes. I 'm not real positive that it ' s the City' s jurisdiction to
enforce that . We may get involved from a public safety standpoint but
it' s all handled under, well a lot of it' s handled under UBC. In that
instance the City wouldn ' t come involved but a lot of it just boils down
to their liability versus insurance versus something. . .
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 29
Headla : So what you' re saying is there really is no good mutual
understanding?
Brown: Not from a City' s enforcement policy, no. ,
Headla: I 'm not thinking so much of an enforcement itself. It's just a
good understanding of what the City can expect. I think I see rules
broken quite frequently but the company still have to et the
g job done andll
they don' t deliberately go out and abuse it but they've got to get the job
done. We've got to give them a certain amount of flexibility.
Brown: Again , we would expect them to meet all the code of
requirements '
q
the UBC and I 'm sure a facility of that magnitude would be inspected
by OSHA. That ' s about it. There's a clear understanding of that aspect.
Headla: So you have a master electrician who understands what' s required
and they can go ahead and reroute? It shouldn' t be a problem? I
Brown: I certainly hope so yes .
Headla : As long as they don' t really disrupte the structure of the '
building, okay. On item 15, the watermain extension should be considered
to be constructed . I don ' t know what should be considered means . Are we
going to construct it or aren't we? '
Brown: One of the key things that Gary was trying to get at , he was just
essentially trying to insure that Rosemount is obviously going to be
taking out a large volume of water and it' s suggested here, it ' s not a
requirement . I believe the way he stated it, he wants it considered
putting in an additional service out here just so they have another
source. Obviously if they' re going to be dependent upon that water
source , it' s obviously a good idea to have more than one source. Where
you get into a little bit of the vagueness, this kind of leads into
another point . This watermain will be constructed as part of the new
Market Blvd. and that's why he' s saying once the watermain exists they
should consider putting on some additional storage.
Headla: All we' re saying is we recommend they look at making double 1
source in their water supply?
Brown: That ' s correct. That leaves the City with another problem
which I know the Rosemount staff was very interested in. Condition 13
states that the first 500 feet of sanitary sewer which parallels the
easterly property line on the site will need to be constructed by
Rosemount. I think that' s misstated in the condition. It should
continue to read, if the sanitary sewer line is not completed by the Lake
Drive project versus the need that Rosemount needs that. In other words,
we' re saying that the City is proposing once again along with this
watermain to construct the sanitary sewer line that runs down this
portion. Now Rosemount is very interested in using this, it' s called . . .
right now. If we don' t get to it first , then obviously Rosemount is going II
to be interested in constructing that line before we get there just based
on their need and date of occupancy. Now when Gary wrote the report he
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 30
11 was under the understanding that Rosemount was going to need that sanitary
sewer line by April 15th. Rosemount has clarified their position stating
that they will not be looking to put that sanitary sewer line in until
sometime in December of 1989 so with that in mind we' re very optimistic
that we would be at that point but if we haven ' t got that portion
constructed due to delays or whatever , it would be Rosemount's
' responsibility.
Headla: So if we stumble around and screw off then we get the bonus
because they have to put it in?
Brown: They would put it in. However , it would be either reimbursed _
credited. d or
Headla : Okay. They would get credit if they had to put it in?
Brown: That's correct .
Headla : Item 16. I don ' t understand cooling water discharge
it went right through the other stuff. There wasn' t going to •beianyought
cooling water discharge. That scares me. As soon as we open the door on
cooling water discharge, or at least what my concept of cooling water
discharge is . What did they really mean by that?
Brown: This was one that I had a question mark by. They are going to be
recycling some of the water and I know a classic example is Instant Webb
where, because they recycle water they got the credit for that and we need
some way of verifying that. The amount of water that they are recycling
versus the amount of water that they take and Gary's point was that we
needed some way to verify the credit that they receive for recycling that
water.
Headla : Don ' t we have a restriction on , just by using the heat out of the
water and pouring it down the drain? That' s the concept that I 'm
concerned about.
Brown: As was mentioned before , all the discharge from the facility are
' monitored by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and they have to
get a special permit for that .
Headla : We' re not talking the same thing . Bob, I think one of you
understand what I 'm talking about. Do you have a comment?
Jeff Schmidt : What we do in Eden Prairie right now for instance is we do
' take some cooling water and we do put it into the storm sewer and we do
get credits on our sanitary sewer charge for that and we meter that
useage. It is not our plan at this particular site to put that water , we
plan an internal use for recycling our water in this particular project.
Hoisington: All it appears that she' s asking for in this case Dave is
some documentation that they' re doing that so they get the proper credits
for whatever . . .
r
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 31 1
Headla : That' s what they' re really asking for is the documentation. . . '
Hoisington: When this first started we were talking about pumping it in
the sanitary and storm sewer . What we concluded was that that didn' t make ll
any sense. In the long haul they should keep it and reuse it.
Headla: Fine. Okay, 17 I had the same thing as Brian. It' s just going
to be a one time charge right? Okay. That's all I have.
Conrad : A couple thoughts . Larry, I want you to make sure that you
verify that lakeshore owners were notified and report to the City Council II
that they were or were not. In terms of screening on the lake, in terms
of building elevation. With the trees that are left standing on the hill ,
does that screen the building from the residents on the other side? Any
answers? The residents have always been terribly concerned about that and
I am too. It ' s a big building and I want to break it up visually. I 'm
also concerned about screening of the parking lot on the lake too. We II don' t have standards but in this case I think we have to take a look at
how we' re going to screen the parking lot. When somebody tells me that a
berm is going to take care of it, that' s fine. A berm can do it, a hedge,
but we' re got a big parking lot over there and we have to have the
appropriate screening from the lake. Larry I want to find somebody in the II
planning staff who may still be working for the City that can report to
the City Council what the impact of that parking lot is in terms of how
massive the impervious surface is and whether we have broken it up
effectively through the use of green islands. I understand what our
friends from Opus are saying about snow plowing and I don' t want to
inhibit that . On the other hand, this is the biggest parking lot in the II
city and we've always been, the planning staff has always been concerned
about breaking up . We' re breaking up little lots with 12 cars in it.
Here we have 500 cars on one side and maybe it' s okay. Nobody' s talked to II
me about it .
Hoisington: I 'm not sure it is and I don ' t think Jo Ann is saying it ' s
okay. What she' s saying is there still needs to be some work done.
Conrad : And that brings up my next point. There' s so much work that
needs to be done, it's a question. This is fast track stuff folks but I II
don' t know if you know what you' re going to be approving if this goes out
of here because it' s all referring to something else or something in the
future. There are some things that I think we've seen that make sense but
I don' t want to send the City Council the message that we've reviewed
everything because we really haven' t reviewed much of what this plan is
about. We haven' t found many problems with it but we haven' t looked at it
or we haven' t had a lot of staff input because we' re on this so called
fast track. I haven' t seen the Park and Rec report which we typically do.
Therefore, I personally feel comfortable forwarding it on but I personally
am not going to make a recommendation on it because I don' t know what I 'm II
making a recommendation on other than let ' s move this on.
Headla: Let me comment on that . First of all, I think I comprehend the
size of this parking lot of the building because based on the soil
engineer ' s report, the parking lot I 'm not really concerned. It' s
r
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 32
' identical to the one that I 'm used to in the city. I feel comfortable
with this whole thing and the reason I feel comfortable and budgets are
working and I go by feel . I think there' s a good flavor . I think the
I/ City' s trying to help and I think they are dealing in good faith with us
and when you can work it mutually, I think it' s an experiment but when we
can work it mutually and keep it going as fast as it can, it's money in
II their pocket. It' s to their advantage to . . . I think we can keep friendly
with this. . . .then you've got to take a look at it but for right now I
have a comfortable feeling on this .
' Conrad : I have no doubt. I think it' s a good project and when you work
with quality people and quality projects they typically go on pretty well .
I think I like Bob working with the folks in the neighborhood because it
works far more effectively on your level than it does once it gets into
the City' s hands so I like what I 'm hearing Dave. I 'm just not
comfortable sending the signal to City Council saying hey, this is all
perfect. I want them to review this critically as if we typically do.
When we say we like it, we are saying we have critically gone through
every point and the City Council should feel pretty comfortable. Whether
they do or not is a debate but when we say from a planning standpoint we
' like everything about this plan, I can' t send that message. I want them
to be as critical as I normally would be at their level .
Headla : We could send them that message though.
Conrad: I 'm just opening up that point .
Emmings : Annette and I were kind of talking about the same thing . This
project is so different in scope than what we usually deal with, it' s
almost a different kind . When you think about how we look at the mini-
golf or the driving range down here, we were much fussier about that than
we are about this enormous facility. We went into that in a lot greater
detail and that' s ridiculous but I think you almost have to treat this
' differently. I think you do have to go with kind of a feeling , an overall
feeling of whether or not you think you like the, you almost treat it more
conceptually than in detail and you almost have to trust the staff on one
this big when we' re trying to move it through the way we' re moving it
through. That they are going to work out the technical details . I 'm
willing to do that on this one but I kind of . . .what I hear from Ladd and I
think maybe it' s worth considering doing is just saying we' re comfortable
with this thing conceptually. You guys with the staff, take our comments
into consideration and we' re generally for it conceptually but we' re not
going to tell you that we think that these are the set conditions that
ought to be applied to this .
Headla : I don ' t think we should manage to that detail . Let staff .
' Conrad: But staff hasn' t done it yet .
Emmings : Normally we do do that .
Conrad : Yes , normally we do manage to what staff tells us . When they
review it, we review what they've done. Right now they haven' t done it.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 33 ,
Emmings: But this one is a little overwhelming in that regard and I don' t
want to hang it up here. The choice seems to me is to table it until
there is a firm concrete plan . I don' t want to do that. I don' t want to II
hang them up here. I 'd rather let the City Council do that work on this
one.
Conrad : Absolutely. I
Headla : One question I did have. Is there any type of fire fighting
equipment needed for this building. . . Just wait, next year the capital
improvement fund .
-
Conrad: Is there a motion? 1
Headla : Let' s talk a little bit about it . I like the concept and I'm
thinking about next year already but talking about a motion a little bit II
first . I think that helps us maybe get out a little bit better motion
although we've got a pro over at the end who can usually word it quite
thoroughly. How do you people feel about . . .maybe from the actual
standards that the City set for trying to get more of the native
vegetation of trees and shrubs on sites like this? Do you think we should
try to fool around with that at all?
Conrad : I think that ' s a suggestion at this point in time that we can '
make. We don' t have a standard so if Rosemount wants to put in certain
select trees and vegetation, they can do that but that' s something they
negotiate with the City. I think you can make it as a recommendation that
they strongly consider some native vegetation but what I suggest to you
and you've mentioned this many times and we don' t have any planning staff
to implement anything right now but I sure hope that we could get some is
standards put in there in terms of how we want new developers to put in
the vegetation that we' re requiring . The landscaping plan should have
some direction at least, some guidelines out there. '
Headla : There ' s got to be guidelines .
Conrad: Yes, there' s got to be guidelines and it shouldn' t be a surprise II
and staff should have talked to the developer before they get here about
that and it' s not us saying we want 2 more maple trees. It's staff saying
these are our standards and we' d kind of like you to do this type of II greenery or deciduous trees. They should be working with the developer .
Typically they' ll do it but we don ' t have those standards right now and
we' re not going to until we get planning staff.
Headla : Let me make a motion then that we recommend approval of #88-15
with the 25 conditions listed by the staff and item 13, Larry you had some
wording there. You felt it should be a little bit different . '
Brown: If anyone has any way of shortening it up, I ' ll certainly be open
for suggestions .
11
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 34
Batzli : How about if we add at the end after the word Rosemount, in the
event that the same has not been constructed by the City when required by
the applicant?
' Headla: So moved.
Ellson: He thought of the Wetland Alteration Permit one.
' Emmings: Just that they comply p y wi th all the conditions of the Wetland
Alteration Permit.
' Headla : Yes, you provided that in. I think we ought to tie that in.
We' re talking item 26. Then 27, I 'd like to see something worded that the
' staff work with Rosemount on seeing if we can develop more native
vegetation, trees and shrubs on this site. I think we covered all the
other ones didn' t we? I think that' s it.
Batzli : I 'd like to propose a number 28. Something to do with the Park-
and Rec Committee recommendation.
Elison: Some sort of compliance with whatever they' re recommending?
Batzli : Yes, well I 'd like to know what it is . I hate to impose
' something that they' re going to dedicate half the site to a park or
something but at least somehow or another that it gets in here.
Headla : It complies with the Park and Rec recommendations?
' Emmings: I think it' s already been taken care of but you could I suppose
you could just say comply with all the Park and Rec recommendations , if
any.
Batzli : I 'd buy that. The applicant shall comply with Park and
Recreation recommendations, if any. Just take the words out of your
' mouth.
Conrad : Do you want to include that in your motion Dave?
Headla: Yes .
Batzli : Did you want to include something about screening the parking
lot?
Conrad : We could . We should . If you don' t , I will .
Batzli : Somewhere in here there was a clause already that revised plans
shall be submitted . I know that one of them, here we go , clause 6. Shall
' provide an amended landscaping plan which meets the requirements of
Article XXV. I guess I 'd like to insert another sentence in condition 6
that says, the applicant will work with city staff to provide appropriate
screening for the parking areas from the lake and surrounding homes .
Conrad: Is that acceptable?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 35
Headla : Yes .
Headla moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #88-15 as shown on the site plan stamped w
"Received October 14, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: '
1. Option B entry road shall be used rather than the Option A entry road.
2. The location of trash receptacles shall be provided on an amended site'
plan and they shall be totally screened. _
3. The parking lot shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the finished
edge of the Class B wetland.
4. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Fire Inspector as
stated in his memo dated October 17, 1988.
5. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Building Department as
stated in his memo dated September 26, 1988.
6. The applicant shall provide an amended landscaping plan which meets
the requirements of the Article XXV. The applicant will work with
city staff to provide appropriate screening for the parking areas from "
the lake and surrounding homes .
7. The applicant shall preserve a 75 foot setback around the Class A
wetland.
8. The applicant shall preserve at least 50% of the land around the Class "
B wetland in its natural state.
9. The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan designating the type,
size and number of any trees being removed which have a 4 inch caliper !'
or more at 4 feet .
10. The applicant shall provide additional screening north of the proposed "
dock areas.
11. Revised plans shall be submitted for approval addressing the
conditions contained in the staff reports and including sufficient
detail necessary for review and approval . An erosion control plan
shall be included in the submittals as well .
12. Site grading along the Lake Drive and Market Boulevard roadways shall
be adjusted to coincide with finished roadway contours . y
13. The first 500 feet of sanitary sewer which parallels the easterly
property line on the site will need to be constructed by Rosemount in
the event that the same has not been constructed by the City when
required by the applicant. A 35 foot easement shall be dedicated
along the entire length of the proposed sanitary sewer stretch when
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 36
' its alignment has been established by the feasibility study.
14. A 35 foot utility easement shall also be dedicated along the westerly
lot line of the site along the alignment of the sanitary sewer as
established by the feasibility study.
15. A watermain extension should be considered to be constructed along the
alignment of the southeast sanitary sewer service connection to
provide further redundancy to the Rosemount site with an ultimate
hookup to the city's watermain on future Market Boulevard.
1 16. The internal piping scheme for the building should address
for documentation of recycled or cooling water discharge s ge intorderethat
proper sanitary sewer credits can be identified if appropriate.
17. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for
utilizing its ponding facilities to accommodate any storm water , less
1 than the 100 year predevelopment runoff rate, which is not being
accommodated on site.
18 . The on site ponding and storm drainage scheme needs to be coordinated
with the feasibility study alignment of the Lake Drive storm sewer
system.
19. The wetland impacts due to roof drainage and/or backup from the storm
water retention pond need to be identified and appropriate measures
taken to satisfy any anticipated pollutant and/or nutrient loading
' impacts .
20. The alignment and right-of-way dedicated for Lake Drive shall be
sufficient enough to accommodate a 35 mile per hour design speed
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer .
21. A 36 foot entry drive shall be used for any roads which will
experience truck traffic on a regular basis . As a minimum, the main
access (central) roadway should be 36 foot.
22. A typical section for the roadways shall be suplied for approval b
the City Engineer and concrete curb and gutter shall be provided by
through the site including parking lot areas .
' 23. The Option A entry road located between the wetland and detention pond
shall be omitted and the Option B entry connection shall be located to
directly oppose the future planned connection of Lake Drive East from
the Ward property at Market Boulevard , to be established in the Lake
Drive feasibility study.
' 24. The plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian traffic
around the exterior of the building and on the site.
25. The applicant will need to enter into a development contract with the
City to guarantee the proper execution of the final approved plans and
specifications for the site and provide the City with an appropriate
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 37
financial security.
26. Comply with all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit .
27. Staff work with Rosemount to try to develop more native vegetation
trees and shrubs on this site . g '
28. Comply with all Park and Recreation recommendations, if any.
All voted in favor except Emmings and Conrad who opposed and the motion II
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Conrad : And Steve your reason?
Emmings: I'm against approving it for the reasons we discussed before. _ I
favor the plan. I don' t think we' ve gone into the conditions in enough `
depth or enough specificity to approve this and have the City Council
think that we have looked at it to what the necessary specificity. I am
in favor of the plan conceptually. I 'm comfortable with it and I think it"
should be dealt with by the City Council once the technical aspects are
worked out between Rosemount and City Staff .
Conrad: That ' s exactly my position. I agree in concept but don' t have
enough information to agree as we typically do in terms of making this
recommendation. So conceptually I am in favor of what we saw tonight but
definitely want the City Council to review it critically as if they were
the planning commission when it got to their level. The other comments at
that point in time, the Park and Rec report should be there. Just
reinforcing what the motion said but I 'n interested in a staff report.
I 'm concerned with the parking lot and the massiveness. I 'm concerned
with the fact whether the lakeshore owners were notified for the public
hearing and I 'm concerned that screening of the building and the parking
lot be reviewed by staff. I think those additional concerns of mine II
should certainly be met by the time this gets to City Council .
Headla: I was going to try to get in something after that covering just II
such stuff.
Conrad : You voted for. '
Headla : I still think it' s good but I was going to. . . that and then saying
in postscript attached with the recommendation to the Council essentially
saying the same thing . We' re working this on the run, floating target.
Everything isn' t absolute.
Conrad : It will all come out in the Minutes . They understand . '
Bob Worthing : First of all thank you for allowing us to move ahead . We
understand your concerns . We think they' re legitimate . The conflict that I
We think we can resolve all of the 28-30 issues that have come up in the
timeframe that we' ve given to the plan . . .under construction for this
Planning Commission Meeting
November 2, 1988 - Page 38
facility. The only thing we'd like to request is perhaps the stipulations
that have been stated, I would ask the staff to have those available to us
as quickly as possible if this plan is to evolve. We go to the City
Council meeting on the 14th. There' s a lot of things that you have
conerns about . . . So to a certain extent I thank you for the trust. . .
' Emmings: Even our negative vote was a one of trust.
Conrad : I really do want to make sure that you' re covering these issues
with your neighbors because I don' t want any surprises with that group
because they will put a wrench in if we don' t talk to them. It' s so much
easier when we do it on your terms. If you've done that and we sent out
our public hearing notices , than we' ve done our job for the neighborhood
' to get their input in the development of this land. The comments that you
heard from me were directly related to what I heard them. The last time
projects came through on this land, we had elevations prepared so we knew
exactly how high the trees were. Where they were. How much higher the
building projected above the trees . They were extremely concerned so if-
they' re not concerned anymore, I think that ' s terrific. I just am kind of
skeptical that they' re not concerned. I don' t know what changed their
minds so continue working with them and that will resolve a lot of
problems downstream.
Hoisington: Ladd , just a comment. I just hope and request that the
Minutes of this meeting indicate that there is a unanimous support in
concept for the Rosemount proposal . I don ' t want to confuse the Council
on this.
Conrad : I think Steve worded his comments clearly. I couldn ' t word mine
any more clearly Fred. All we' re doing is passing this along to City
' Council . They can review it . What I didn' t want to indicate is that we
reviewed it in the detail that we normally review it in. We didn' t and
that came across 10 times in what we said. It ' s sort of a disclaimer on
our part. We just don't want to deceive them by saying that we' ve
reviewed everything because it' s not here. I think our comments reflect
that and our comments reflect that this looks like a good proposal . We
like it.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes
' of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 19 , 1988 as presented.
All voted in favor except Headla who abstained and the motion carried .
Headla moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. .
' Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Asst . City Planner
' Prepared by Nann Opheim