Loading...
PC Minutes 7-18-06 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING: W A YTEK. INC.: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 100.000 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCA TED AT 2440 GALPIN COURT IN CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK. PLANNING CASE 06-27. EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address LuAnn & Peter Sidney Bill Olson Ben Merriman Sue Marlock Bob Lamoreaux Mike, Peter, John, Wayne & Mark Larson Barry LaBounty Rod Zivkovich Laura Sp 2431 Bridle Creek Trail 2403 Bridle Creek Trail 8155 Mallory Court 2325 Boulder Road 7660 Quattro Drive 7660 Quattro Drive 2421 Bridle Creek Trail 2337 Boulder Road Mark Undestad removed himself from the Planning Commission for this item. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Thank you. Debra? Larson: I don't have any questions. McDonald: Go ahead. Dillon: Just one comment. I mean in terms of the proposed trees near the parking lot. There were quite a few less trees proposed from what the regular guidelines are. So looking at some of the other areas, there are more trees but you know why, what was the deal with that? Generous: That's just how they originally designed it. The conditions that they'll need to comply. I think the parking lot, with the additional parking lot islands on the south side, we can get some more trees in there. However we are also looking at the potential for revegetating the open space in Outlot C with more native trees and where that berm extends into the open area, we'd like to see additional trees planted in that also so. We think it's a win/win because Outlot C is part of this development was a common outlot for all the lots and so if they needed to get additional green space, they could take it from that property. And so now we get some additional landscaping in that. McDonald: Mr. Keefe? Keefe: On a related note. Just, what is the height of the berm. I recall from when we looked at this before, didn't we have some language in there that talked about visual height and what the 2 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 view, particularly I think from the north side and I'm just wondering if that was considered or, I thought that was made part of the design requirements. And so I guess you know I just want to get a full understanding of what the height of the berm is and where the trees are and what sort of the visual will look like from the north end. Can you give us any sense on that? Generous: Well Alyson can talk about the height of that I believe. Fauske: Commissioner Keefe, as far as your question of the height of the berm, it ranges from 4 to 10 feet high. And then I can, I don't have a cross section available that would give you any idea as far as elevation. Just looking at the grading plan here, if you look at the back yards of the homes to the north, it's approximately 10 feet high from the ground of their back yard to the top of the berm. Keefe: Okay, and then types of trees. It will be a mix of. Generous: It will be deciduous and conifers in there. And also they originally showed that buffer immediately adjacent to the property line. One of our recommendations is that they spread that out, as well as provide additional trees up next to the building. Keefe: So you get this kind of stand. Generous: Yeah, you get a little depth to your screening and as they grow, they sort of fill in. It's a little better than just a narrow row of landscaping. As well as we think they can raise the elevation of that berm a couple more feet by, when they do the extension. They have plenty of dirt out on the development so. Keefe: And then on the east side, it's only landscaping? No berm? Generous: It will come down, in the northeast comer of the site there's that existing stand of vegetation and we really prefer that that remain. It's pretty dense in there. It may not be year round but it is you know right now you can't see through that area and we'd prefer that that not come out. Keefe: Okay. McDonald: With that, is the applicant present? I have no questions by the way, so if the applicant wishes to come forward. Ben Merriman: Good evening. I'm Ben Merriman. I'm with Eden Trace Corporation, and I'll just briefly go through the project. I think Bob's done a real good job of explaining. There's a couple of things I'd like to go into with regard to the berm. A couple of other things of details on the plan. On the building itself, we've used a number of different materials. We've got, it's a pre-cast or poured wall, but they're exposed aggregate and we've used a couple of different types of exposed aggregate, and then we've also used some smooth faced areas in it as well. The smooth faced areas you can see are in these areas here, over the entryways, and these columns. These are actually fake columns and they're used in there. We've also got a lot of cornices 3 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 through in here, so we've got a lot of architectural to the building. We've given a lot of breaks because it is a fairly long building. We've given it a fair number of breaks throughout there with the entries and these column posts. Waytek is the company that's going to be moving into the facility and they're currently in Chanhassen. They're on Quattro Drive. They've expanded once in their current facility and now they've outgrown it and so the building is for them and they feel it will serve them for years to come. We do have, as Bob pointed out, office area that Waytek' s main entrance is in the southeast comer, and this is a view of their entrance, and they will have office in this comer of the building. It's 110,000 square feet. It's on 7.9 acres. We have about 31 % green area, and the balance is asphalt and building, so we're in compliance there. I'd kind oflike to talk a little bit about the berm area because that's probably an area that we're going to do a little bit more work in. We're going to have about a 4 to 9 foot berm, which we can increase some along in here, but we'd like to make some few corrections. As Bob pointed out, there's a stand of trees in this comer down here, and there's a house back in here and he's going to be facing pretty much towards this parking lot and so I think he's here tonight, but we could increase the berm right through this area to hide the parking and the comer of this building. If we take out a few of these trees in the comer, we could also increase the berm and then plant perhaps some evergreen trees and those which, these are deciduous trees and they're going to lose their leaves during the winter. The evergreens would hold and so we could do that for this comer of the building. As we pointed out, there's a wing wall that's going to extend out into this area here, and we'll extend that wing out and then the berm will extend out this way and it may meander a little bit. There's a large tree here, and you can see it's hard on this drawing but you can see the drip line of that tree. We may change this comer a little bit to try to stay away from the center of this tree. Try to save that tree, and then extend maybe the berm in here. Most of the trees that you see are all lined up right on the property line down here, and that probably will not be the end result. We'll move a lot of these onto this berm here. If it exceeds 9 or 10 feet in height, we may have some problems trying to keep trees on that berm. We can plant bushes but if you plant trees on the top of a berm, it gets a little bit tricky in trying to keep them alive, but there is a, we can plant additional trees up in here and extend that berm and maybe raise it up a little bit. With regard to sight line. Do you have full scale plans here? Generous: The revised one? Ben Merriman: Well I think either one. If you'll look, it will be, can you get this detail? Here's a detail of the berm. This is the north wall of the building itself, and then the berm comes up to approximately 9 to 10 feet and then slopes back down. This is the sight line from the property line, so if you're right here in 6 foot of height, here's what you were looking at. Now this berm goes back. This wall, this comes up a little bit and then the homes sit in here so, you were asking about the a sight line and this is a sight line that the architect has prepared. And that's with a 9 foot berm, and we're going to play that with a little bit. So just to give you an idea of what that looks like. On the east side we've got a number of trees that are being planted here. There's a large grove of trees that continue in here. We're going to put a retaining wall along on one section through in here, and then parking. But this is a fairly significant drop off and doesn't taper down to grade with Galpin until you get down into this area in through here. So we think we've done an adequate job oflining up trees, with the existing to mitigate any view of the building from the neighborhood that exists over in here. This area, we've hidden the loading docks with these two. The wing walls here and it faces out into Outlot C, which is never to be 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 developed. So that should work out quite well. I think that's pretty much it unless you have some, oh lighting. I'd like to cover lighting a little bit. There are no lights on the north wall of this building. There are wall packs throughout the building and they face downward and they're for security and safety reasons. We're going to eliminate any pole lighting that was originally planned in the parking lots and just go with the wall lighting. This will help in deferring light off into the neighborhood so we think that will help a great deal. Keefe: What height are those placed on the building? Ben Merriman: You know I don't think it's actually been determined exactly what height but I would suspect that they're probably going to be 15 feet in the air. On the building. Facing downward. They're kind of a can light, or not a can light but a covered light that faces downward so it doesn't reflect and light directly out. There is no paint on this building. It's entirely pre-cast or exposed aggregate, metal and then all aluminum windows and doors. I think that pretty much covers it. Is there any questions I might be able to answer? McDonald: We'll find out. Keefe: Just one quick question. Is there a single, you said Waytek is going to be the tenant. Is, or the owner I presume. Ben Merriman: They are the owners. Keefe: And is it anticipated it will be a single user? Ben Merriman: They may lease out some of the space for a time. They haven't made out the final decision. The owners of the company are here and so I'm sure I can get one of them to come up and answer any questions about their plans for the building. The complete ownership. McDonald: Kevin, any questions? Dillon: On the roof of the building, are there like air conditioners or you know that type of things? And if so, how will they be intrusive or how is that going to be screened? Ben Merriman: Yes there are. If we get back to this drawing again down here, it kind of gives you an idea. Can you zoom in just a bit? Okay, great. This is actually an air conditioning unit right here. And this is a parapet and so the wall comes up and the roof attaches here and the parapet extends beyond the roof. What that does is take care of any sight lines, so those air conditioners units are set far enough back from the parapet, or the edge of those buildings that they're not visible. McDonald: No questions? The only question I had was a comment you made about the lighting in that front parking lot. You said that there will not be lighting there. Only on the building itself. Is that going to be sufficient for the safety of that parking area at night? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 Ben Merriman: Yes. Well, the lighting can be increased. The number of lights and the intensity of the lights can be increased so that it covers the parking area but doesn't extend beyond the parking area. And so that's quite easily accomplished, and the other alternative is to go with poles. Put poles out and then put, it's called a shoe box light on there and then it floods light downward. It'd be a little bit more intrusive to. . . pole lights than with a shoe box, even though it defers light straight down and we do a study of the lights so it doesn't penetrate past the boundary of the property, it's still going to be more of a view than if they were wall packs on the building itself. McDonald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that at least the parking lot's going to be illuminated enough at night so that employees can go in and out safely. Ben Merriman: Yes, there will be. McDonald: Okay. That's all the questions that I have. At this point then I would open it up to the public and ask anyone to come forward with comments and again, state your name and address and please address the Chair. Okay, seeing no one come forward. Peter Sidney: Sorry. McDonald: Okay, I'll unring the bell. Peter Sidney: I was waiting to see if anyone else would come up. I'm Peter Sidney. I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail, and so we are about here. On the comer of the building and the parking lot and the Outlot C. There are a few concerns and questions that I wanted to raise. One has to do with the berm height, and I don't know, I'm obviously not an expert so I don't know what is possible but I recall that in the earlier discussions of this property there had been talk of a berm of 15 feet high or something like that because we have expressed concerns about shielding the residential properties on the north side of the building. So I would ask about that. And in terms of extension of the berm to the west, we have a tree that is near the lot line and we would ask that any extension of the berm does not go within the drip line of this tree, which does, the drip line does go into Outlot C and so we would want that not to, not to interfere with the roots of that tree. We have a little bit of concern with the northwest comer of the parking area and Ben has addressed it to a certain extent, but there are some very large oak trees near the property line that are in Outlot C, which according to this plan looks like they're going to be lost and we would want to encourage the developer and the owner to minimize the loss of trees there. I'd also like to emphasize that in terms of the roof top equipment, the parapet will apparently screen the sight of the equipment on top and the view, but we also have concerns about screening for the sound and if there's anything that can be done in terms of screening the equipment itself to mitigate any sounds from that. And I just wanted to confirm, it sounded from what Ben said that the, on the north side there will be no lighting, and I just want to confirm that. Also a question to the owners ofWaytek. What will the hours of operation be for the new building, or what are they the current hours of operation? And then I noticed that in the plan, in the document from the staff that this can be a multi tenant building, and I wanted to ask about what plans there might be related to that, and on the plan it looks like there are multiple entrances all along the building and I just wanted to confirm that that was the case. Finally related to the northeast comer wing wall, 6 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 on the plan here I'd be curious how far out 10 feet goes and then also how high that wing wall would be. And I think those are all the concerns and questions that I wanted to raise. Thank you Mr. Chairman. McDonald: Okay. Does anyone else wish to come forward? Come on up. Laura K.: I'm Laura...and we're at 2384 Stone Creek Lane West. And my question involves the 18 wheelers that are going to be running out of there and I'm curious about how many are expected to run up Galpin. I mean there's Bluff Creek School is right there, and then you've got plans for a Chanhassen High School, and those big semi trucks, which I'm understanding are going to be the result of this company, don't seem to go along with kids driving and also the fact that there's schools there, so I'm wondering if any concerns were addressed along those lines. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment? Bill Olson: My name's Bill Olson. I'm at 2403 Bridle Creek Trail. We just moved in in March, and have subsequent been absorbed into this rather fast. I guess my question to the council and belief in the council is just that in your best taste and interest to the community that that wall that they're proposing on the northeast side, to add that and take out some of those bigger trees, whether it's summer or winter, still a 30 year old tree does provide nice coverage and would rather see as many of those stay as possible. Other than that, that's it. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Barry LaBounty: Hello. My name's Barry LaBounty. I live at 2421 Bridle Creek Trail, which is the house that will be directly facing the development here, and I guess my concerns tonight are primarily is the height of the building. It's pretty significant and if the parapet that's planned is not tall enough, I'll actually be looking right out from my bedroom window and be able to see a sea of air conditioning units across a very large building, and so I'd like to have hopefully some consideration there along with as Peter Sidney mentioned, the sound screening for those fans that will be running constantly. Today we can hear the Chaska development with all the businesses over there from my house. You can hear those quite significant. Also if possible have the owner of the business maybe give some sort of statement on the amount of shipments that go out daily. The hours of operation. Kind of the type of shipments that go out. Is it typically LTL shipments? Is it UPS? FedEx? What hours are they picking up during the day and night? And as far as the berm height goes, again it was mentioned at one time possibly getting a berm height as high as 15 feet. I think as well the higher that berm height is, the more sound that's going to absorb. As you can see now, the berm height's probably 30 plus feet. We do not hear much sound today so it's certainly when they lower that, the sound is much greater. And again reiterate that the wing wall being of enough length and height to hopefully block any significant truck traffic that would be moving in and out of the area at those times. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay, seeing no one, this time I will close the public meeting and will bring the issue back before the commissioners for discussion. Kurt, I'll start with you. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 Papke: So just, so we're not going to allow the owners to come up and answer any of the questions about hours of operation? Does that make sense to continue that at all? McDonald: That would be perfectly fine at this point. I'm okay with that. Papke: I think there were a number of the residents raised concerns about shipments and hours of operation and stuff like that. I think it's probably worth touching on. Bob Lamoreaux: Good evening council. My name's Bob Lamoreaux. I'm President ofWaytek. There are four owners. They are here. I'm the President. Right now we've been a corporation resident ofChanhassen since '88? Wayne Larson: '89. Bob Lamoreaux: Since '89. Right now our hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. General rule of thumb, we do not work weekends. On occasions someone might be in, in the office doing something but general rule of thumb we don't. As far as the number of shipments. A majority of our shipments are going out UPS, FedEx. One pickup from each truck. We do probably about 10 or 15 other semi's might come in deliver or pick up during the day. Papke: Are these 18 wheeler sized semi's or are these more the UPS size trucks or some mixture of the two? Bob Lamoreaux: Mixture of the two, yeah. Right now we only have 3 loading docks so. Papke: How many employees do you expect to peak out at? Bob Lamoreaux: Oh boy, peak out at? I'd love to peak out at 100 or so. Right now we have 48 employees. Papke: Okay. Okay. So you expect to eventually double in size would be. Bob Lamoreaux: Yeah, right now we're a 49,000 square foot building. When we moved into the building it was. Wayne Larson: 25. Bob Lamoreaux: 25? Thanks Wayne. So 25 and we added 10 employees. Now we're at 50 and we are at 48. Papke: Okay. Keefe: Are you anticipating sub-leasing part of the building then? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 Bob Lamoreaux: Initially right now we're not. The building is kind of designed if we had to or something happened, we can. Right now we're not planning on it. But if we did, it would be at the north end of the building because we are, our offices and everything at the south end. Actually the north end of the building right now will not have any air conditioning units on the roof. All the air conditioning units will be at the north, south end. The inside the warehouse will all be hanging furnaces. No air conditioning in the warehouse. So that's kind of the plan right now. The only air conditioning will be in the offices at the south end. Are there any other questions on this? Keefe: I've got just a couple questions on the site plan, and I'm not sure if you'd be the right person. Maybe the staff can help out but you know there's a comment around the oak trees on the certain northwest comer. You know given that they're expanding the parking on the south end, does the pavement need to continue out as far as it did? It'd be a way to potentially retain some of those trees or? Generous: Well you could cut back on the parking lot in that area. And also there's construction techniques to make less of an impact to the trees. And we'll work with them on revising that, and they're up for it. Like with the revisions to that parking area on the south, over... Keefe: Yeah, that's what I was wondering. I mean you really need to have the asphalt going out as far as it is on that north end, taking out more trees presumably. That's what's happening. Generous: Yeah, they're pretty close to the elevation they'd be in out there so. Ben Merriman: As long as you don't object to parking, that's fine with us. We have that there because we needed parking spots to meet code, and Bob knows more about it than I do. Keefe: Right, yeah so the addition on the south end would you know mean that you tend to cut back a little bit on that northwest comer possibly. Maybe consider you know... Ben Merriman: The odds of anyone parking up there are very slim because all the employees are going to be down in this area. Keefe: I mean it looks like there's a couple of trees that may exist there, at least from the, those 2 that are just to the left there. Ben Merriman: Yeah, these here. Keefe: Yeah, right. Would those come out or are they, would you save a quarter of the tree or? Ben Merriman: ... we could leave those as proof of parking, okay so that they're not, they're not developed now. If they're needed in the future, we could, we have the liberty of going in there and adding them but we leave them as proof of parking and then curve the radius point here, and just do a radius. We need to be able to get semi trucks and so that needs to be able to work, but the architect can make this work in this comer so that this tree can be saved and we'll try to stay 9 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 out of the drip line as much as we can of this, and then we can mitigate the damage through construction techniques so, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. Keefe: There was also one comment that I heard, I think on one significant one on the east side. I'm not aware of what that might have been but. Ben Merriman: On the northeast? Keefe: Yeah. I thought there might have been. Ben Merriman: And I have to, on one hand sit down with the owner and go through this and he's here tonight and he expressed an interest here. We can leave this grove of trees the way it is right now pretty much, primarily. Or we could put in a retaining wall. Take out some of the trees and put in some spruce trees, which you know hold cover during the winter. It's kind of his option, and we'll work with them. The same as we'd like to work with the residents back here about how this berm is constructed and what it looks like and how it undulates through here. Keefe: That's good to hear. Get some input from the local residents. Okay. McDonald: Okay? Thank you very much for coming forward. Debbie. Larson: A couple of the residents brought up the berm height. Was it 15 feet? I don't remember that. Keefe: I thought we put in language. Papke: Yeah, I suggested some language that we try to prevent sight line issues which, you know judging from the drawing that we saw, I don't recall the exact language of it but it at least satisfied the spirit of what we were trying to get to when the PUD was approved, which is to try to permit you know, obviously the, you know if you're up on a second story bedroom looking down, you're going to see some portion of the building. I don't know that we can put a building in this location and say you're not going to see the building at all but. Larson: Right. Well I mean and, Ben made a point. Is it Ben? Ben. No, you just made a point that the higher the berm, that it's harder to keep trees alive and so I understand and I think that it's best that we don't. I've seen them before with a row of dead trees sitting on top of them. Papke: Yeah, that was going to be my, one of my primary comments was you know, I think we're going to have to let city staff and the developer mediate out so that we maximize the screening here and not end up with a 15 foot berm with a row of naked trees. Larson: Dead trees, right. Papke: Yeah, that's not a great sight. We'll entrust the developer and city staff to work through that. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 Larson: Okay, that's all I have. Papke: Other than that, my main concern with this development was just the scale of the building. You know going from 3 buildings in this, in what we originally approved when we approved the PUD to 2, this one is bigger and it's physical presence from Galpin is going to be a little bit more substantial. But I think developers have done a great job with working on the aesthetics of the building. With providing visual contours, parapets, columns, etc so I think they've done, you know I don't know that you could do a lot more with an industrial building to break it up and provide visual appeal than what they've done, so I think they've done a great job with that. I don't have any reservations. You know certainly when we approved the PUD there was a lot of discussion about the screening. There was a lot of discussion about the traffic, but I think the design meets the spirit of what we approved when we approved the PUD so I have no concerns. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: I think the developer's done a great job here and I really like the attitude of working with the local residents, particularly with the berm and the screening. I commend you for doing that. That's terrific. Sometimes we don't get development teams in here who are willing to necessarily do that and be proactive that way. That's great so. Look forward to this building going up and continuing your work in the city. Appreciate it. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: The only, one of the residents talked about the traffic with the trucks and all that and we haven't heard a lot about that you know from other people tonight, and the new school and everything is going in nearby. I mean was, being a relatively new member of this commission I haven't heard any previous discussions about what do the people in the school think about you know traffic from trucks, because this is a business park area and so this is nothing new. I mean were there concerns about placing a school with the trucks? McDonald: Well all of this was discussed when we did the initial PUD and we asked for a traffic study and we looked at the way the roads were going to be put together and actually Lyman Boulevard is scheduled for an upgrade because it is going to be an access road off of 312 or 212, so all of this was evaluated. In fact we even asked about another entrance so that there would be two entrances instead of one, and I guess we were shot down by the County on that, as I recall. That because of what they want to do with Lyman, it wasn't possible. We also looked at maybe an entrance and an exit through the park going through the Chaska area, and again because of different ownership, that wasn't possible either. So we did address the issue of traffic, and the school came up at that point. It was more of a rumor I think than anything. It was a possible site, which has now become more solidified. So we did discuss all that at that point and I think we have pretty much exhausted all of our remedies for that but. Papke: The only thing I'd add to that, if you look at our existing schools on Pioneer Trail, lots of truck traffic on that so I think the school system is, you know got a fair amount of experience with coping with that. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 Dillon: Other than that, I mean the aesthetics of the building and I agree the attitude of, willingness to collaborate with others is positive so, don't have any other questions or comments. McDonald: Okay, thank you. I guess the only comment I would add is to kind of echo that it is nice for a developer who's willing to listen to the residents. I know that this has been a long and drawn out development and there were a number of individual meetings. There were a number of issues that I have not heard come back today, and the ones that did come back I believe that you have addressed them but the comment I would make to everyone who came up to the mic is that if you wish, you may contact city staff about any of the details of this and that they would be able to fill you in but I think from what the developer's told us tonight, that your concerns have been addressed as best we can I believe so from that standpoint I am, you know again grateful for the fact that we do have a developer that is willing to listen to the neighborhood. With that, does anyone want to make a motion? Larson: Okay. Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case Site Plan 06-27 for one story approximately 110,000 square foot office-warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects dated 6-16-06, subject to the following conditions 1 through 31. Okay? McDonald: Yes, 1 through 31. Papke: Second. Larson moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case Site Plan #06-27 for a one story, approximately 110,000 square foot office- warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated 6-16-06, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The developer shall extend the sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk on Galpin Court and include pedestrian ramps at all curbs. 3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 4. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 5. The developer shall heighten the retaining wall on the south side of the northerly drive-in overhead door to create a wing wall that is a least 10 feet above the grade of the loading dock area. This wall shall extend from the building westerly at least 15 feet then may be stepped downward as it continues west. 6. A temporary cover of seed and mulch shall be established on all areas of exposed soils not actively worked within a 14-day time period and within 14 days of achieving final grade. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 7. The plans shall show temporary inlet control details for all proposed catch basins, including beehive catch basins. Existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project shall be protected as well. Plans shall indicate that inlet protection shall be installed within 24 hours of inlet installation. 8. All sediment tracked upon paved surfaces shall be scraped and swept within 24 hours. Plans shall include a designated concrete washout area and/or plans on how the development will handle the concrete wash water. 9. An NPDES Construction Site Permit shall be applied for and received from the MPCA by the owner/operator of the site. 10. The area in which the rain garden is proposed shall be part ofa project sequencing plan that will protect the rain garden site from compaction. The rain garden shall not be built until at least 70% of the contributing area is stabilized. The applicant shall submit a planting plan for the garden. 11. High overhead windows shall be added on the northern building elevation between the smooth bands. 12. Overstory trees shall be added every 40 feet along the north building elevation. 13. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of39 overstory trees within the vehicular use area. Trees may be added to the west side within Outlot C if their installation does not damage root systems of existing trees within that area. 14. A row of four conifer trees shall be added north of the parking spaces in the northwest comer of the loading dock area. 15. Tree preservation fencing is required to be installed prior to any construction around existing trees along Galpin Boulevard, Outlot C and any trees preserved along the north property line. 16. All landscape plantings along Galpin Boulevard shall be field located as to not damage existing plantings. 17. The bufferyard plantings along the north property line shall be spread out between the property line and the building to provide screening in depth. 18. Areas proposed for the preservation of existing trees shall not be sodded. 19. The developer must install a storm sewer stub south ofCBMH 6. 20. The storm sewer downstream ofCBMH 6 will not be owned or maintained by the City since it will not convey runoff from a public right-of-way. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 21. The developers of Parcels A and B must enter into a maintenance agreement for this segment of storm sewer. 22. The outstanding balance of the Park Dedication Fees for Parcels A and B must be paid with the building permit. The amounts are $82,600.14 for Parcel A and $29,579.78 for Parcel B. 23. The height of the berm shall be increased and extended to the west to provide additional screening for the existing single-family homes to the north. 24. A revised grading plan must be submitted with the building permit application. 25. Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 26. Eight-inch watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be privately owned and maintained. 27. Sanitary sewer and water hookup are due for this site. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. These fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 28. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xce1 Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 29. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 30. Builder must comply with Fire Prevention policies numbers 4, 6, 7, 29, 84, 36, 40, 49 and 52. 31. Drive aisle widths shall be a minimum of 26 feet." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to o. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, just for the record, this is going forward to the City Council on August 14th. So anybody that wants to follow the item. And then we'd also ask that the applicant work with the property owners prior to that meeting so we have a little bit more definitive resolution on some of those issues before the council meeting. McDonald: Okay, with that we will go back to the first agenda item. Is the owner, Mr. Loren Veltkamp present? Aanenson: Yes he is. 14