Loading...
1988 11 02 e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, David Heala and Brian Batzli MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer and Fred Hoisington, Planning Consultant SUBDIVISION OF 22.8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.9 AND 20.9 ACRES ON PROPERTY 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. 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 lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, ROSEMOUNT, INC.. e 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? 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. 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 open it up for public comments. If there's a representative from Rosemount who would like to make a comment. e 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 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 permit, that was filed in conjunction with a site plan and plat -' -- -<-- ---,. -- -~~ ~ -,---- Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 2 e e 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 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 ponding 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. e Conrad: Have you read the staff report? Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 3 e 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... 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 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. e 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 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. e Headla: In really wet years, would it tend to be quite detrimental then? 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? Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 4 e Fred Hoisington: No. As a matter of fact, right now that entire 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. e 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? e 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. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 5 e Batzli: Right but they're only 100 feet apart. You're going to have to 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, this is site plan more but kind of do what we've been trying to do in the past. Kind of snow fencing or staking off some of the areas that we're trying to 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 appropriate measures taken. Who's going to do that? Is that something that the applicant is going to provide? e Hoisington: There are a number of things Brian. Both of us are going to 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 corne 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 road. Batzli: What do you think might be appropriate measures taken to satisfy 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. e Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 6 e 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. ElIson: 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 from two different bodies and combine them. Provide an area where it's 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 e Emmings: But these conditions are for when you're trying to keep it as a 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. 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) . 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 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 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. e Emmings: I think too, these 6 conditions they put on, every time we alter a wetland, they put these same 6 down. These weren't designed with this 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. e 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 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 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 8 e 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. of the most important things he says. I think that is probably one e 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. e 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 e of excavation, I can't explain. I don't know how to explain that to you. 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 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. e Conrad: That's one side of it Larry, yes. In all past wetland alteration 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 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. 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. e Emmings: You just heard it. Batzli: We didn't hear your change to the language. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 10 e 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. C~nrad: 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. e 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. Headla: 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: roof. I didn't see anything about parking lots. They talked about the 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. e Conrad: Normally we see that stuff. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 11 e Batzli: I know. That's I guess why I asked the question about 5. What are you thinking of putting in. Conrad: The only control you have is allowing it to proceed. You don't 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 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 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? e 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 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 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. 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. e Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 12 e 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. e 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 pipe, 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. e 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. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 13 e SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 330,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND 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 lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, ROSEMOUNT, INC. Larry Brown presented the staff report. e 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 e Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 14 e 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. e 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... e - Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 15 e Emmings: Can I just ask you real briefly. The product that you make in this plant, what is it and what does it do?c 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? e 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 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 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 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 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 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 manufacturing, are you trying to operate a black factory? Jeff Schmidt: A black factory in that it's secret? e 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 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 16 e what we want world class to be is we want this facility to produce the kind of quality products that can be competitive in today's market and that means some things. We're looking at different approaches like Just 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 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? Jeff Schmidt: This is essentially the people that we have on line right now in different operations around Eden prairie and the Twin Cities and those that we feel we're going to have to hire over the next 12 months while we're constructing this building. e 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 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 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. Basically 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 e Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 17 e e 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. 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 so 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 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 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 cars on each side but it looks like it's just mass parking. e 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 areas. However, the snow removal gets to be a major factor and the more Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 18 e 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 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. ElIson: 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. e 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. e 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 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 19 - e you've got to make sure that... One of the things that the EAW speaks to 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 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 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 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. Ernrnings: 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 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. Emmings: What did she find? You said she found something... e Bob Worthington: Well, she went down and I'm not an archeologists but she 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 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 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 20 e e 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 e Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 21 e 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 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 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 have here. The only thing I've got is more a matter of curiosity than anything else. Was it Detroit Deisel? Conrad: Yes. e 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 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 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. e 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 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 22 e 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... e 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. e ElIson: 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 e 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. e 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 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. 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 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, 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. ElIson: At least they've looked at it. Conrad: They have. Brian. Batzli: I appreciated the artifacts findings. I propose that we have 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 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? e 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 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 24 e 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. e 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. e 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. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 25 e 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 lighting... 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 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? e 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 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 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 retention is condition 19 again isn't it? Brown: Yes. e 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 I? Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 26 e Hoisington: 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 all that detail is defined. Batzli: I guess do we not typically also tie this back into the, and 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 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 facilities. What are you envisioning? Hoisington: What we're envisioning there is that a portion of the on site 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. Batzli: How are you going to measure that? e Hoisington: That's part of the feasibility study that's being done right 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. Batzli: Do you mean yearly? the cost associated? Monthly? One time up front? What would be 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 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. Batzli: 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. 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? Conrad: Usually it's done now. Batzli: That's not on here is it? Are you aware of the Park and Rec Commission's, what they're doing with the trails on this matter? Can you inform us? e Bob Worthington: There was an area down near the bottom of that plat that was reserved for trails. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 27 e Batzli: Is that normally one of the conditions? 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 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 this site is right along the lake itself right? Conrad: I don't recall it being a trail there. 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. 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? e Conrad: Usually we have a recommendation from the Park and Rec as to what 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 are satisfying park dedication funds. There is an area reserved there for trails... Headla: Interesting on the that's native to that area. that's the City's problem. I don't understand why we can't I think we ought to do that. landscape we don't put one tree back in there I think that's really a problem. I think think we should...give them a choice and I put trees back in there that are native. Conrad: I thought that was a standard these days. e Headla: Juniper, green spruce, basswood are native to that particular place. I'd like to see a lot of deciduous trees, something like the maple 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 side but I'd like to see like highbush cranberry around the parking lot so Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 28 e 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 power and there's going to be some plumbing and stuff, do they get building permits to do all theirs or are they free to do anything they please to do or how is that worked out? 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. e Headla: Should they trying to do is make into a box later on. answers. or do they have a master electrician do it? What I'm sure we've got some common thoughts on it and not get That's why I'm asking questions. I don't have the 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? e 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... Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 29 e 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 get the job done and 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 requirements of 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? Brown: I certainly hope so yes. Headla: As long as building, okay. On to be constructed. going to construct they don't really disrupte the structure of the item 15, the watermain extension should be considered I don't know what should be considered means. Are we it or aren't we? e 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 source in their water supply? e 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 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 ~ Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 30 e 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 or credited. Headla: Okay. They would get credit if they had to put it in? Brown: That's correct. Headla: Item it went right cooling water cooling water discharge is. 16. I don't understand cooling water discharge. I thought through the other stuff. There wasn't going to be any discharge. That scares me. As soon as we open the door on discharge, or at least what my concept of cooling water What did they really mean by that? e 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. e 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... Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 31 e 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 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. e 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 making a recommendation on other than let's move this on. e 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 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 32 e 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 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 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. e 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. e 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 e 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 hang them up here. I'd rather let the City Council do that work on this one. Conrad: Absolutely. 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? 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 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? e 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 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 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 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. e Brown: If anyone has any way of shortening it up, I'll certainly be open for suggestions. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 34 e 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. ElIson: He thought of the Wetland Alteration Permit one. Emmings: Just that they comply with 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? e 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. e Conrad: Is that acceptable? e 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. e Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 35 Headla: Yes. Headla moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of site Plan Review #88-15 as shown on the site plan stamped "Received October 14, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: Option B entry road shall be used rather than the Option A entry road. The location of trash receptacles shall be provided on an amended site plan and they shall be totally screened. The parking lot shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the finished edge of the Class B wetland. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Fire Inspector as stated in his memo dated October 17, 1988. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Building Department as stated in his memo dated September 26, 1988. 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. 13. e l_ 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 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1988 - Page 36 e 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. 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. e 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 by the City Engineer and concrete curb and gutter shall be provided 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. e 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. 28. Comply with all Park and Recreation recommendations, if any. All voted in favor except Emmings and Conrad who opposed and the motion 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 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 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. 1_ 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 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 I i I I l 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 carne 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. e 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 carne 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.. e Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen Asst. City planner Prepared by Nann Opheim .._. ~-~