The URL can be used to link to this page

4 Site Plan for General MillsTO: Planning Commission C YOF 7700 Mar'k~ Bo~leva'd PO Box 147 Chanhasson, MN 55317 FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Directol~.,~ a' April 9, 2003 Site Plan Review for Genexal Mill~ Expansion AdmlnlstmUon Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax:. 952.227.1190 Eeglneerlng Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 On April 1, 2003 the Planning Commission reviewed the revised plans. This item was tabled by the Planning Commission at their March 18, 2003. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions outlined in the staff reIx~ PLANNING COMIVffSSION SUMMARY MINUTES Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Ra3'eatJon Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax:. 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Corer Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 PUBLIC ItF~ARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 45,600 SQUARE ~ AND A 730 SQUARE FOOT BUff.DING VMITH VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVEIDP~ WITHIN THE BLUFF CR~K OVERLAY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 8000 AUDUBON ROAD, GENERAL IVIILLS. Public Present: Name Address Rick Gorra Doug Peterson Jim Pensyl Mark Pollman Mark Wasescha Jack Werner 8201 Stone Creek Drive 8369 Stone Creek Drive 1972 Andrew Court 1930 Bluff View Court 1954 Andrew Court 1795 Fairview Av~mm, St. Paul 3721 Impatiens Lane, Brooklyn Park Web Site w~,v. ci.chanhass~n.mn.us Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Rick Gorra, Doug Peterson, Jim Pensyl and Mark Zitzewitz expressed their concerns during the public hearing about truck traffic and speed on Coulter Boulevard, screening, lighting, and noise. The Planning Commission added 6 conditions, which are highlight in bold expressing their concerns. They felt traffic and speeding were items the City Council would have to discuss. Commissioner Slagle wanted to compliment the applicants on the work they had done since the last meeting addressing the Planning Commission's concerns. Commission Lillehaug added a concern' with the screening on the west side. He felt it was important to define screening and The City of Chanhassen * A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving busines,~, winding trails, and beau'dful parks. A gmat place to live, work, and play. Planning Commission April 9, 2003 Page 2 increase the berm elevation, which would help reduce in the noise projecting into that adjacent neighborhood. RECO~ATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: A. "l'he Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit g2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003, based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property." 'Whe Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review ~r3-2 for a 45,600 square foot office warehouse _addition and a 730 square foot thermal oil building, as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003, with variances with the following conditions: , Submit storm sewer sizing for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event and pond design calculations. . Add the latest City standard detail plate numbers 1002, 2202, 2203, 3101, 3102, 3104, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, and 5302. 3. Show the proposed watermain and storm sewer pipe, class and slope. 4. Any off-site grading will require temporary easements. . Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a 6. Add a storm sewer schedule. 7. Add a note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be core drilled." . The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street improvements. However, the sanitary sewer and water hook up charges will be applicable for the new addition. The 2003 tnmk hook up charges are $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hook up fees may be ~cally assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building additions. 9. Two additional signs shall be posted, no left exit and no left turn. 10. Manholes with two foot sumps shall be installed as the last road accessible structures prior to discharge into the stormwater pond. Planning Commission April 9, 2003 Page 3 11. 12. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure the existing storm water infrastructure is maintained and functioning properly, including any necessary improvements such as increase in pond volume to accommodate any increased runoff rates. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of National Resources, Army Corps of Engineers), and comply with their conditions of approval. 13. 14. 15. Building official conditions: a. bi The addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. It is evident that the proposed addition will create exiting and high pile storage issues in the existing building that must be examined. Silt fence shall be removed when constru~on is completed. Work with staff to select possible alternate evergreen over the Colorado Spruce. 16. 17. Place at least 2 more evergreens on the northeast in front of the cooling units. Work with staff to consider screening to the west. 18. 19. Work with staff to check fighting compliance. The parapet will be increased in height as necessary to fully screen the rooftop equipment on the addition as required by ordinance." ATrA~S 1. Planning Commission minutes and summary dated 4/1/03. 4. Staff report dated March 26, 2003 3. Original staff report. 4. Revised site plans. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMLqSION VERBATIM MINUTES RF~ULAR MEETING APRIL 1, 2003 Cludrwomnn Blackowink enlled the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik, Rich Slagle, Steve Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, and Uli Sacchet STAFF PRE~ENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner, and Mak Sweida~ ~n~neex PUBLIC PRF~E~ FOR ALL ITEM~: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 I. axedo Drive Public Present: Name Address Rick Gorra Doug Peterson Jim Pensyl Mark Pollman Mark Wasescha lack Wemer 8201 Stone Creek Drive 8369 Stone Creek Drive 1972 Andrew Court 1930 Bluff View Court 1954 Andrew Court 1795 Fairview Avenue, St. Paul 3721 1 ~mpatiens Lane, Brooklyn Park Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commi.~sione~s, any questions of staff at this time? Sacchet: I have two questions Msdam Chair. First of all, so basically aH the conditions that were crossed out were taken care of? Generous: Things that were resolved, yes. Sacchet: One thing that was crossed out was the requirement for silt fence number 1I, that it must be removed after construction's complete. Is that because the silt fence is shown on the plan now? Generous: Correct PUBLIC HEARING: CONSmER Tmr. RF~QI~-qT FOR ~ PLAN ~ FQR ~ ~DmON OF ~RQX~~Y ~~ ~Q~E ~ET ~ A ~ ~QU~ ~T B~.D~G ~ v~~~ ~ A cQ~mQN~ U~ ~ ~R n~~ WITB~N ~ BL~ ~~K Q~Y D~~~ ON PRO~~ ~~ ~US~AL O~~ P~ ~ ~~~ AT ~ A~~QN RQ~, G~ Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Sacchet: So we still would want to make sure they take it down afar they're done. Generous: Exactly. Sacchet: And then the other question, you mentioned that additional berrrfing to the east side along Coulter, that you may recall was one of my concerns last time. Is there any planting planned on that? I'm trying to see whether there's, I didn't notice. Yeah, there is one here. Do we know what these plans are that are foreseen there? Is it all coffee trees and Colorado Strum, e? Is that pretty much the outside is the Kentucky and the inside is the Cokrado? That's how I would read the drawing. Do we still have an issue with Colorado Spruce? Because I remember in the past the forester was trying to steer us away from the Colorado White. Generous: Blue Spruce? Sacchet: Yeah, Colorado Blue. Generous: Yeah, I think we're taking that out under the proposed revisions to the landscaping. Sacchet: So we may want to maybe, or ask them to do some~ else to be consistent with what we've done in the past. Generous: Work with staff to come up with... Sacchet: Now that planting on that berm, would that provide about how much screening of that gear that is screened only from the east approach, not from the west approach. The gear to the north that is on the ground level. Do we have an idea? Is that going to provide, between the berm and those plantings, is like 100 percent screening? 50 percent screening? Do we have an idea? Generous: I'm not sure. You could ask the applicant. Saeehet: Maybe I'll ask the applicant that. That's my only questi~ thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? Commissioners, do you have questions Steve? Lillehaug: Yes I do. Two questions. One would be on the grading plato Maybe en~neering could confirm this. I assume that this is 100 scale plan. 1 inch equals 100 feet. And when I scale off the truck driveway, it ap~ first what would be the maximum grade allowable for thi.~ driveway? Is it 6 percent? Sweidan: For driveway 10 percent maximum. Lillehaug: 10 percent. Then I don't have a question for that. My other question would be, I hit on this at the last meeting, and I guess it still hasn't been a~ddressed really, and this would be, in the previous report it was mentioned that the proposed development is required to maintain the existing runoff rates. How is this being handled? And I guess what I'm getting at is I want to make sure it's clear to the applicant that the specifics on the requirements to maintain existing runoff rates and provide additional ponding is clear to them. I realize it says work with staff but I want to make sure it's clear to them. So my question would be is how do they, how can they maintain the existing runoff rates? Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Sweidan: Not necessary to main~ that existing runoff for grades because due to the additional.., and they have submitted thc storm sewer desiring for the existing and with thc addition so we would need to extend the, or I mean to enlarge the existing storm pond. Yes, they do have to do that. But .... submit a storm sewer and that's why we put the condition to meet that. Lillehaug: Okay, so two things. Because of the increase i ,mpervious area as well as the existing storm water infrastructure maybe not functioning properly, it might be a specific requi~ment to add that the pond may need to be. Sweidan: Maybe but we cannot until we see that calc~ons. Once we get them, I mean we can make sure that they do need to enlarge the sizes, either the storm sewer size or the pond size. The difference according to calculations. Lillehaug: Okay thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Any other questions commissioners? Claybaugh: I don't have anything new to add? Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. At this time the applicant or their designee can make a presentation. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. And it can be shore It doesn't have to be really long either. I want to put you on the spot. Mark Wasescha: I'm Mark Wasescha, architect with AMEC, 800 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis and in addition to the information you've got in front of you, we prodnc4xl this drawing that shows a cross section through the site... Slagle: Mark first of all, ifI can, what's ha~ed? Axe you okay? Mark Wasescha: No I'm frae. It looks worst than it is. But in discussions with Kate Aanenson, she had requested that we produce a drawing which describes I guess what the relationship is between Coulter Drive and the parking area in the building and this is going to be longer than... piece of the building. So the top of the berm is about 983 that we're proposing along Coulter. There is a retaining wall hem and then at the edge of the building ~_ddifion it's 965 so we're only 18 feet differential there. So we think this will be pretty dramatic landscaping and berming which will help to screen the area. The elevation of the road hem is about, it varies obviously as you're driving along here but it's around 974, or in that area, and obviously changes as you go to the west but we're about 10 feet difference so we think that as you drive near here, the view in there is going to be minimal. There's three rows of landscaping. There's some shrubs which are called for in the staff report. We've got those right near the retaining wall. And then the spruce or whatever...put in there as a result of this meeting and then the large coffee trees so our application's been amended to incorpomm all the reeommemlafions of the landscape staff. That's about all, if there's any questions on that. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Uli? Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. The question that I posed to staff and how much screening do you expect that will give to those machineries that are on the fimtmr to the east~ Mark Wasescha: We do have...same condition. It's going to go to the east... I think the rc~x~ called for 26 of these large coffee trees so only about 18 of those ate...the addition. The rest of Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 them are going to be towards that refrigeration complex. I think that was your concerto The stuff on the ground. Sacchet: Right, right. Mark Wasescha: The rooPa~ equipment on the, we've looked at it again after the meeting last time and it's pretty minimal. Sacchet: Yeah, my concern is just all that on the ground, yeah~ Mark Wasescha: This condition is...we're proposing to extend pretty much to the east also. Sacchet: So you would expect this to be pretty fully screened? Mark Wasescha: I think it will be, yeah. R's about as steep as we can make it. We're about 4 to I slopes. We really can't make it any higher. Sacchet: Would it be possible to maybe add a few more of the evergreens further towards where that drive inlet is? Mark Wasescha: Yeah. If you refer to the landscape plan, it's pretty, the grading plan actually is pretty aggressive. Sacchet: R's pretty steep? Mark Wasescha: Yeah. I think the grading's actually gging to screen most of this. It really can be, you can see how close the contour lines are here. You really can't push it much higher and I think with landscaping we ar~ proposing, particularly if we have some kind of an evergreen tree, it will be pretty much a mask... We realize your concerns about the refrigeration... The top sUfff here isn't really bad. Actually it's the concrete where it's kind of gray and stuff on the roof is kind of gray and it all kind of matches and it's l~etty low so, it's the stuff on the ground I think that we'll be addressing with this revised plan. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Questions? Any other questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah. I was lxying to find some inf~on on the height of the parapet wall on the addition. Mark Wasescha: Let's see. Claybaugh: They just call out the elevation as 134 for the top of the parapet, but I don't have an elevation for the roof top. Mark Wasescha: We're projecting it's going to be about a foot high, but we kind of discussed this in the last meeting. There's not going to be a lot of refrigeration or air conditioning in this building. We're basically going to try to suppmx the ~ of 55 degrees. It's just a warehouse, so it's not going to be air conditioned. We'll probably just have like smoke relief vents up on the roof, in a real small area to take care of the mmker's lounge area we're creating, Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 which is a very small air conditioning so we think we can control...it should be pretty much invisible. Claybaugh: Could you qualify small? Mark Wasescha: Probably in the ord~ of like 3 by 3 by 1. One foot high type of things. Jack Wemer: Not much bigger than a household. Claybaugh: It's almost like a residential scale, okay. Mark Wasescha: Yeah, because there's a lack of I-IVAC in theae. Real HVAC. It's space heat It's basically like space ~ hanging in there. Claybaugh: So with the revisions to the berm, road elevation, roof top elevation, what is the vantage. How much of that will be seen7 You know it's... Mark Wasescha: Yeah, I think because the height of the building is 34 feet. It's not going to be a lot. I think you have to, the addition will be tall enough that from most ground...you won't see anything actually. Claybaugh: And you said previously, if I un~ you con'ectly, you can justify some of that equipment a little more to the interior of the roof area rather than up towards the front there. Mark Wasescha: R's our anticipation that it mostly should he somewhat...to function properly because it's...in the warehouse so it should be inboard mostly. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Blackowialc Okay, thank you. Unless anyone else has something to add, I'll open the public hearing. I don't know if anybody else from General Mills wants to say anything or. You know what, we're going to have a public hearing in just a second so I just want to make sure General Mills has their chance and then I'll open it up for general, for ca:nntnents from the public. So if anybody else wants to add, otherwise we'll just move forward with public heating. Okay, I'll open this item up for public hearing. This is a time to get up and ask your questions and make your comments. Please come to the microphone and please state your name and address for the Rick Gorra: My name's Rick Gorra. I live at 8201 Stone Creek Drive in Chanhassen. I've got a question on the, my house directly looks at your property so I can see it from my back window. The 730 foot, it says some kind of thermal building. What's it called? Mark Wasescluc Thermal oil. Rick Gorra: What does that rne~m7 Jack Wernen It's just a heating. It heats up oil that's used to bake the products, so it's an edible oil that's heated up in this small building, and it's pumped over to the ovens where R's used to heat up the ovens so it can bake the muffins and stuff like that Rick Gerra: Does it smell? Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Jack Wemer: No. It's a cold system. There's no expos~ to... Lane Paolocci: Actually a mineral oil is what it is. Jack Wemer: So there is no odor to it at all. Rick Gorra: Well how about the, well it heats up the oil. What kind of furnaces are you using for that? You said there was smoke release vents. Jack Wemer: That's for the warehouse. In case of a fire in the warehouse we have a release the smoke through vents. It's a state requirement. Rick Gorra: So it's not always going to be pumping smoke up? Jack Werner: Oh no.. Only in the case of a fire, then those will release it, and in the case of a fire the smoke...that's the reason for the smoke vents. The ~ oil is just a gas heater that heats up the oil so the only thing would be...so there shouldn't be any odors at all. Rick Corm: You would say it emits about the same as if you'd put a 30 trait apartment building there or something like that? Jack Wemer. As far as the amount of natural gas? Rick Corm: Yeah. Jack Werner: Oh, I'd say less than that. It doesn't take a lot to heat up the oil once it's in the system... Mark Wasescha: Our calculations of getting the whole system up are about 755 gallons of fully loaded, so that's the maximum amount at any given time. Jack Weme~....the exhaust. That's stays within the system. Rick Corm: So how about when you get rid of it, does it stink? I'm worried about smell. Jack Wernec. No. No .... change it out but if we ever do then we just take it out. There's no smell to it at all. Rick Gorra: Okay, so you're going for a variance. Now are you going closer to the pmpe~ line than what is allowed? Blackowiak: You know what, yeah. Can you come up to the microphone too. You know if you guys could share so that everybody can, make sure we're all hearing this. Jack Wemec. The thermal oil building is right here. It's 36 by 20...that's it right there. It's like a small building. But that's it. This is the addition we're talking about. The ~ oil. Rick Corm: And where's the warehouse? Jack Wemer:. The warehouse is this building. Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Rick Gorra: You're going to pump, it from here to there7 Jack Wemer: No. This is used for the process... This is just strictly for raw materials for the warehouse. This has nothing to do with the process... This is basically a boiler to warm up the oil so we can cook the muffs... Rick Gorra: Those are my questions. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Doug Peterson: Hi. I'm Doug Peterson and I live at 8369 Stone Creek Drive, and my concern, I guess I've talked to quite a few of our neighbors in the Stone Creek, or in the Creek~ide neighborhood there along Stone Creek Drive, and especially the ones that back up towards the General Mills property. And the biggest concern I think that I've heard from neighbors is that as the building is going to be closer to our houses, as they move with this warehouse facility ~ to the west, it's just, you know it's just a sight issue really. I mean it's a very large building set up on the highest point of land in the entire community, and so from anywhere arotmd it, you can't miss it. I mean it's the dominating feature of our neighborhood, especially from any of our back yards. And I particularly live at about a 45 degree angle, up this way from the whole complex and so we see it kind of from the west and from the south side, and on both sides the screening, the landscaping screening is very inadequate. There's obviously been an attempt to plant some trees there and they're spruce or some kind of evergreen tree, but they just take decades to get to the point where they really do very much good. So as that expansion continues now as the building is going to continue to expand further to the west, particularly those neighbors right down at the north end of Stone Creek Drive, I know their concern is that they hope that the city would require additional berming to the west and additional planting of some very large trees because it's just, I mean you should just come out to one of our decks and sit in our back yard sometime and take a look to see how dominating that is, and you know it's just a beautiful area. They've got the wetlands right there and we've got some nice open space and so some additional trees to kind of screen that, it would really help a lot. I think it would make a big difference. That was probably the most significant thing that I heard as I talked to neighbors in our neighborhood. A couple other concerns that they had, and some questions that we didn't know the answers to were, are there currently any restrictions on the hours of operation that the trucks c~ opera~? Blackowiak: You know what, I'm just going to kind of jump in and ask Bob, can you speak to that? Generous: Not currently, no. Blackowiak: Not currently, okay. Doug Peterson: That might be something that would be appreciated if there were some limits on the hours of operation so they weren't coming in late at night when we're all trying to sleep. And the second issue that, I don't know if this is even related. It's probably not related to the expansion at all, but there's a lot of banging of noise during the night and I think it's dumping of. Blackowiak: You missed our last discussion. At the last meeting we were laughing about that. It's the flour trucks. Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Doug Peterson: Yeah, we have no idea what the noise is but it's very loud and it happens during the night. Like middle of the night. Yeah, so if there is any restrictions that the City could place on them for that kind of operation, I mean they have noise restrictions for builders. You can't be banging, pounding nails in the middle of the night, building a house and so it just seems like it's kind of funny that there's no restrictions on operatiom that create loud noise that carry across that entire wetland very easily. So that was another question that some neighbors had. And then the third question is, is there any plans for furore expansion beyond this? That was I guess another possible area that we were concerned about ff they're going to continue. I know they own the property further to the west there which is now a eom field, and as it gets closer and closer to the back yards of our houses we are a little concerned about that. Blackowiak: Understandable. Okay, why don't we answer your first question. Bob, can you talk a little bit about screening on the south and west sides, and do we have any options in terms of adding any more conifers or something to, for the screening. Or talk to Jill or I mean. Generous: Yeah, you can always add additional trees. It's the problems that if you get them too close. Blackowiak: Too close to the wetlands. Generous: Too close together then they don't grow very well. And unf~mnately it does take time to grow trees. Doug Peterson: Well the concern right now is, if you look at those trees that are planted, it's just one row of conifers and usually when they do it for a screening purpose, you have a couple of rows so that they're staggered. Blackowiak: Staggered. Doug Peterson: Staggered, yeah. So it fills in the open spaces and so another row to space inbetween those would help a lot and you know there axe other trees that don't help in the winter but are conifer trees that grow very large. You know maples or something that would fill in a lot more so at least 7-8 months of the year we'd have a little more screening. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Would someone from General Mills like to come up and take a stab at some of these questions. Future expansion plans, and I think we talked a little bit about that at the last meeting but just for the people in here this evening. Hours of ~emfiom Noise. Somebody. Who's brave tonight? Lane Paolocci: I wasn't at the last meeting so... Blackowiak: Go fight ahead. Lane Paolocci: I'm Lane Paolocci, the plant manager of the General Mills facility and from the perspective of the noise. We feel like the addition of thia warehouse, along with the berming on the north side of the plant will actually shield quite a bit of the noise. Looldng at the drawing here, the flour trucks are in this area right here and by adding the warehouse along with the truck docks right here, and the berming on the north side, the trucks will actually be down in a pocket. That's one perspective. The other one is, we'll continue to work with the flour companies to get their drivers not to pound on those macks after hours. The reason they pound on the macks is because the trucks don't empty all the way and most of their customers require them to pound on Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 the tracks so that the flour that they've purchased in those trucks, gets delivered to the plant. And we've talked to them several times in the past about not ban~ng on those trucks and saying that we will take the financial burden of missing that 1,000 pounds of flour to keep the area quiet in after hours. We can continue to do that. Blackowialc Okay. Well I think that will be good for the neighbors to hear. Lane Paolocci: From a perspective of fumm expansions to the west, the land to the west isn't necessarily where we would want to build If you think about the facility on the north side, this would be the area that we would practically want to move to for the next expansion and we actually already have a variance to bring the building out to be equal to the walls of the condenser units on the sou~.ast comer, and what is now flour receiving on the northwest comer. As far as moving to the west, it doesn't match up with the rest of the facility so it would be a completely separate building which wouldn't necessarily make any sense. The reason that we purchased the property is to stop the expansion or encroachment of residential property up to the facility, because we knew there was going to be these issues with noise and 24 hour operation. That was the only reason we purchased that ~. Not for expansion. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Okay, this item is open for public heating for any of the neighbors or general public. Come on up. Jim Pensyl: Hi. I'm Jim Pensyl. I live at 1972 Andrew CourL The townhome development just to the west of the General Mills facility, and I echo the concerns and questions of the previous citizen and I hear the truck banging. I thought it was someone's performance review going on, but apparently not. So that is a concern, and I'm not so sure the plans to buffer that sound would address the townhome development just to the west because the berm would seem to funnel the noise downward across the ravine and into the townhome complex where it's quite loud right now. But the benefit of course is that we smell blueberries quite often and that's a pretty good fragrance. I like that. Most of my concerns have already been a_ddressed. I'm wondering how many employees would be added to this facility, and I'm starting to think of traffic load on Coulter. Blackowiak: Okay. And do you have any mom questions or shall L I'm just going to. Jim Pensyl: I'll ask more questions, okay. How many employees, and I haven't really looked at this plant. I wonder if there's an additional driveway entrance going to be carved out so that it empties out onto Coulter and if so I would be concerned about that. And I would also like to appeal to General Mills to perhaps get, put on driver awareness training for their employees. We get a lot of road noise in the evening, or at all 8hilts from people speeding and the faster they go of course the more road noise from the tries. Let's see. I think: I would wonder if General Mills would consider, let's see. This has already been addressed. More shrubbe~ to the west, so I'll skip over that. Any possibility of working with the City to get additional speed limit signs put up as well on Coulter?. And I think: oh one other c. oncei~. Tractor trailers using Coulter going west bound. I have observed a number of tractor trailers pulling out of General Mills and using Coulter going west bound. That's a concern. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. General Mills. If somebody would like to come up and talk a little bit about employees. Driveway enwance. Driver awareness training and then I'll talk to Mak about speed limit signs. So those three issues. Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Lonnie Malikowski: Lonnie Malikowski, 3402 Highlands Road, Brooklyn Park...for the use of the warehouse so, which is definitely a plus. The entrance for the trucking entrance, as you can see right here, will have a right turn only so there will be no Uaffi¢ on the west side of Coulter Boulevard. Everything will be from Coulter out towards the Audubon Road. So we'll be putting a fight hand turn here. Right hand turn sign only. Blackowiak: Okay. And driver awareness training. Is that something you do or can we, you know? Hey, I'm just passing it along here. Lolmie Malikowski: Well we've had the same issues in our parking lots. Blackowiak: Oh I'm sure you have. Lonnie Malikowski: We've put speed bumps in our parking lot so it's kind of like once they're out, they' re out. Blackowialc Right. Lonnie Malikowski: I think maybe if you odd a few. Blackowiak: Just a continuing effort. I think that might help. Okay, thank you. Mak, can you talk about speed limit signs on Coulter. Is there a standard set by the City for spacing of si~s? Sweidan: There is a standard for spacing of signs but we have to take a look to see what's available over there and if we do need more ~ signs. Because as the applicant has no Blackowiak: So this might be a separate issue, right. Sweidan: Yeah. Blackowiak: But I think just in general if we could look at that and, because I know that. Sweidan: Sure, yeah. We can look at it and see if we need it or not. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, thank you. Anybody else like to comment or have questions this evening? Mark Zitzewitz: My name is Mark Zitzewitz. I live at 1930 Bluff View Court. Also in the Stone Creek neighborhood and also, my back yard overlooks this property and without repeating what's already been said, this is the dominant ~ in the neighborhood and as much as I hear about screening along Coulter, I don't hear a lot about screening to the neighborhoock There isn't anything on the other side of Coulter to this property to worry about screening so much, but on the south and west side there is no screening. We look directly at thin building with an a_ddifional building to the west. And I reiterate the concerns that have already been stated. The one thing I haven't heard, the other concern that I have is in the lighting. On a cloudy night you can sit outside at 2:00 in the morning and read a book because of the amount of lighting that comes from that property. I don't know what the a_dditional lighting for this warehouse facility will be but that is a concern of mine and I would also, since I've got the microphone reiterate the problem with speed on that road. It may not be at all related to this protxaXy, although there are a number of cars coming in and out of ~. This is a road leading into a residential area with an 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 elementary school and rec center on it. I don't blame General Mills for all the speeding on that road but it is a constant concern of mine as well as the rest of the neighbors. Blackowialc Okay, thank you. So again we're hearing screening and I think that maybe staff can, we'll just have to look into it and see what we can. Generous: As far as lighting, all the new standards require that lighting have a 90 degree cut off angle so we don't have the glow going up. Blackowiak: Right. Generous: And there's a limit to the height on the light pole. Blackowiak: The standards. Okay, and speed. Alright. Anybody else like to make comments? Okay, seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Now's the time when commigsioners can make their comments. Anybody? Start with you. Claybaugh: Quite obviously there's a lot of issues that have been raised tonight that aren't necessarily directly relevant to this project but I understand why the neighbors want to use the opportunity to state their opinions. And I agree with Chairperson that certainly things that staff needs to look into. The one resounding theme that I heard that I think is well within grasp is possibly berming to the west. And I'm not sure with respect to how G-en~ Mills has worked with the staff, if that has actually been addressed head on or if that's a new issue, but if staff could shed any light on that, that would be apgredated. Blackowiak: Okay, well maybe an issue that staff, we could make sure that slm'T brings forward to council when it goes at that point. Claybaugh: That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. We'll just continue on. Steve. Lillehaug: I would like to thank and commend the applicant in the revisions made to the plans from the previous submittal. I think they've come quite a ways and they address more of the issues that they should have. ~y increasing the berm, as well as adding trees to the north side so thank you there. Before I make another comment, can I ask the question to staff. What variances are we actually looking at here? Generous: From the development design standar~ for ~ and industrial and institutional buildings. They don't have the fenesu~on on the street frontage and the use of materials. Lillehaug: Okay. So with us granting variances, that would be, the materials on the building are kind of, I'm not seeing the hardship and I guess I'm not kind of agreeing with sta~s findings on a few of them, particularly A and C. And I guess for me to buy off on that I think there should be a trade off as far as obviously the residents see as berming and screening on the west side of your property is important, so I think that that would be a good trade off. So I don't know the earth work balance on the project but I think it'd be easy to accomn~__ato, additional berm on that west side so I think that is a condition that I would like to add. I would also like to address screening on the roof. I think that a condition should be add_,_~cl that the parapet would be increased in height as necessary to fully screen any rooPtop equipment. I don't know how extensive that would he 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 but I don't think it would be too much. And then I think we should also add a no track traffic and maybe limited to a certain tonnage beyond the north truck driveway, and is that a possibility? I'm not sure what the rateage of tonnage is on that road but it a~ that up to a point to that truck entrance, it lessens after that truck enlrance. Sweidan: Well as a boulevard, I mean it does take that tonnage of trailers they are going to use, but you know if we need to limit that we have to see actually like what is the maximum they are using. Lillehaug: Okay, and I think that's doable I guess. And I think that would be it, thank yom Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Brace. Feilc I wasn't here last meeting but I do have a couple minor ones, real quick. Bob, the zoning to the west and to the south, with the exception of the very low area to the southwest, what is the zoning of that? It's industrial, is it not? Generous: Yes, it's industrial office park. Feilc The same thing on the north side of Coulter, south of McGiynn. East of the church. Generous: That's correct. Feik: And those would all have ~s via the road for trucks. Generous: Correct. Feik: So even if we were to limit the macks for the General Mills, the next al~plicant who comes in who wants to build adjacent to the church, they have to have an ~. Am I not correct? Okay. As relates to the berm on the west side, I see that as given the zoning of the parcels surrounding that, I understand the residents concerns bm that is a band-aid. That's a temporary fix because there will be, it may be 2 years. It may be 10 years but you will have additional commercial development, odds are to the west of that building and to the south of that building. So I'm not sure, given the amount of changes I saw from the last meeting, I'm not sure whether or not it's fair to add additional berming to the west for what I think might very well be a temporary measure. That's it, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Uli, corrm~nts? Sacchet: Yeah, a couple of comments. First of all when we say these variances, that's a question for staff. When you say these variances, can we be more specific and say these vaxiances, can we be more specific and say these variances from design standards? Is that basically what we're saying? Generous: That's exactly what we're saying. Sacchet: Okay. Then to address some of the comments that were raised, we actually were quite at length into the odor question. One of the gentleman had a concern about odors. We went quite a bit into the odor question last time and were very much ~assured also thai thexe was no concern with that oil building. Traffic and speed limits is really a separate issue. I mean that is not related to what's in front of us, and I would encourage the neighbor, to neighbors to register their 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 complaints. I would think probably goes to the sheriff's depafln~mt first of all, that they do mom checking there. And with the City to consider more, additional signage potentially. Lighting as far as I know is following the stan~ so I don't see an issue. There are a couple of additional conditions I'd like to bring into this. One is that we leave in a condition that says the silt fence come out when construction's complete. That we ask that the applicant work with staff to select possible alternate evergreen in place of the Colorado Spruce, just to be consistent with what we've done with similar situations in the past. I would like to see 2 more evergreens there by that cooling building. I think there's enough room to the eazst on that berm to put 2 more evergreens in there. And then ask that the applicant work with staff to consider some more screening to the west side because I don't think we're in a position to really nail this down, but it's something that I'd like to make sure council is aware of when it comes before. Blackowiak: You mean the screening on the west specifically. Sacchet: Towards the neighborhood across the wetlancL That's my comments. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Rich. Slagle: I just have a few. Question for staff before I begin. The gentleman from General Mills mentioned they have a variance approval for expansion to the north of, perhaps some additional warehouse plant. Is that going to affect at all what we're talking here with our berms and so forth? Generous: Like he said, it's to align with the existing protrusion of the building so it would be to the south of any of that. And they're pmp~ng the use of a retaining wall in there. Slagle: So from your standpoint things will be okay. Comment and concern exhibited by the neighbors about lighting. Are there any, are there cun'ent lights that they have that don't meet the most recem updated requirements7 Generous: I'm not certain. I'd have to check on that Slagle: Okay, can we check on that and to the applicant I only ask if there are some that are not, maybe we could make them. I'm in agreement with one of the commissioners about the additional berming and screening to the west for the neighboa, s. Obviously I think we're going to be expanding some parking to the west, so I'm just wondering if we can do that, and I guess I would ask that the way I see the landscape plan now, there are no evergreens to the west. Again, that might be helpful. And then let me just see here. There was talk about the screening of the rooftop. My only concern there, and I agree that we need to do that but at what vantage point, what elevation are we talking about for a sight line because Coulter has got the hills and I mean if you drive on 5 and you look down at Instant Webb as an example, you can see all their roof so I mean it might not be a doable item. And then lastly, just a housekeeping note, and I don't know if this is the applicant or if it's the City. But the sidewalk to the east of your building is in somewhat disarray with lots of cracks and holes. Just as an FYI if you haven't noticed it, to the east of the building. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I don't have many additional comments. I'd just like to thank the neighbors for coming tonight and thanks to General Mills for their patience. I hope you understand why we felt the need to table this last time so we could get the neighbors co~ts on the record and make sure that they're being heard and address their ismaes. But again: thank you. Thank you all for coming this evening. I see some decisions that we can make tonight. We 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 can vote. I think the City Council has a few decisions to make too in terms of the noise, the screening, the lighting. You know we talked a little bit about trade-off's and that's not our decision tonight. It really has nothing to do with the issue before us but that's something I would hope the council would kind of look at, sort of in general and sort of see what makes sense for this and how can we help buffer the neighbors, and I do disagree with you Bruce. I mean I realiTe that something may happen to the west but I think short term we've got to put some trees up and, but that's my personal opinion. For what it's wor& Feik: For what it's worth. Blackowiak: For what it's wort~ So with that, could I get a motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission reconmxmds approval of Conditional Use Permit number 2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the following condition number 1. Blackowialc Okay, is there a second? ' Slagle: Second. Saeehet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commi~nlon recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit g2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003, based on the Fi~__dtn~on of Fact and subject to the following condition: 1. The developer shall enter into a sim plan agreement for the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Blackowiak: Another motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of the site plan review number 03-2 for a 45,600 square foot office warehouse addition and a 730 square foot thermal oil building as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003, with variances from design standards, r m adding from design standards, with the following conditions, 1 through 13 with the addition of a bunch more conditions. Number 14. Silt fence shall be removed when construction is complete. Number 15. Work with staff to select possible alternate evergreen over the Colorado Spruce. Number 16. Place at least 2 more evergreens on the northeast in front of the cooling gear, or how would we call that? Blackowiak: Cooling units. Sacchet: Cooling units. And I think looking at the landscaping plan it should be clear where those go. They go to the east, far east side of it. Condition number 17. Work with staff to consider screening to the west. Number 18, work with staff to check lighting compliance. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Been a motion. Is the~ a second? IAllehaug: Can I make a friendly amendment? 14 Planning Commission Meeting- April 1, 2003 Blackowiak: Sure can. Sacchet: Do we need a second first? Lillehaug: I second it. Sacchet: Thank you. Lillehaug: Friendly amendment? Saeehet: Yes please. Lillehaug: To numar 11 I would like to add to that and say including any necessary improvements such as increase in pond volume to accommodate any increased runoff rates. Sacchet: That's acceptable. Lillehaug: And add number 18. Sacchet: 19. Blackowiak: 191 believe. Lillehaug: 19. The parapet will be increased in height as necessary to fully screen the rooitop equipment on the addition as required by ordinance. Sacchet: That's a little tougher. I accept it with the notion that this is going to be a council item to look at. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, this motion's been moved and seconded. Saeehet moved~ I.illehaug seconded that the Planning Commi~don recommends approval of Site Plan Review/Y2003-2 for a 45,(fl)0 square foot office warehouse addition and a 730 square foot thermal oil building as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003, with varlanc~ from design standards, with the followin~ eonaitions: 1. Submit storm sewer sizing for a l0 year, 24 hour storm event and pond design calculations. 2. Add the latest City standard detail plate numbe~ 1002, 2202, 2203, 3101, 3102, 3104, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, and 5302. 3. Show the proposed watermain and storm sewer pipe, class and slope. 4. Any off-site glading will require temp~ easements. 5. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 6. Add a storm sewer schedule. 7. Add a note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be core drilled." , The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and stmel improvements. However, the sanitary sewer and water hook up charges will be applicable for the new addition. The 2003 tnmk hook up charges are $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hook up fees may be specifically assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building additions. 9. Two additional signs shall be posted, no left exit and no left turn. 10. Manholes with two foot sumps shall be installed as the last road accessible mucnnes prior to disc~ into the stormwater pond. 11. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure the existing strum water infrastructure is maintained and functioning lXot~ly, ineJuding any n_~_~cessary improvements such as increase in pond volume to a~ommodate any increased runoff rates. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of National Resources, Army Corps of F-n~neers), and comply with their conditions of approval. 13. Building official conditions: a, cl The addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The plans must be prepared and signed by design Nrofessionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requiream~ts cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. It is evident that the proposed addition will create exiting and high pile storage issues in the existing building that must be examined. 14. Silt fence shall be removed when construction is completed. 15. Work with staff to select possible alternate evergreen over the Colorado Spruce~ 16. Place at least 2 more evergreens on the northeast in front of the cooling units. 17. Work with staff to consider so'eenin~p to the west. 18. Work with staff to check lighting emnpllancL 19. The parapet will be increased in height as necessary to fully screen the rooftop equipment on the addition as required by ordimmce~ All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimm]My with a vote of 6 to 0. 16 Planning Commission Meeting- April 1, 2003 Blackowiak: This item goes to City Council on April 7~. No? 14~, okay. I'm sorry, I was looking at my old date. April 14m. So any residents interested in following this to City Council, April 14t~ mee~g. Agenda is on line if you want to go see City of Chanhassen's web site. It's all them. Commissioners, do we want to make any ~_dditional comments for City Council? Or su~. We approved the motions. We added 6 conditions. Sacchet: I would say the conditions pretty clearly express our aspects of concern. Maybe the only thing that would be possibly speeding, the traffic situation. Blaekowiak: Traffic, screening. Sacchet: The screening, yeah. Blackowialc Just some of the trade-off's that council will have to decide. Sacchet: The different screening aspects, definitely. Slagle: I think also just some verbiage complixamting the applicant. Blackowialc Alright. Well thank you. Lillehaug: And Fd like to add one thing with the screening on the west side. Just to be elaborated on a little I think it'd be i ~mportant to define screen_ lng, to increase the berm elevation, which would really help reduce in the noise projecting into that adjacent neighborhood. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you everyone for coming. 17 7700 Uarket Boulev'a'd PO Box 147 Chanhassen. MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax:. 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 F~ 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax:. 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site ::,,,,r,;,.ci.chanl'~n.mn.~ Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aazlc~lson, Commlmity Development l~- DATE: March 26, 2003 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for General Mills Expansion PLANN-]~G COMMISSION UPDATE On March 18, 2003, this item was tabled by the Planning Commission. The two major issues were notices to the residents and revised plans. The item was re- noticed (see attachment). Three phone calls were received with the first notice and to date three additional calls and one walk in were received with the second notice. The nature of the inquires were general in nature. They wanted to know where the expansion was taking place regarding the location of the addition. The applicant has submitted revised plans d_a_te~t March 25, 2003. Based on these revisions the staff has modified the conditions of approval. The conditions of approval have been reduced from 34 to 13. Following are the commission summary points and attached are the minutes. One of the con~ of the commission was the screening of the existing roof top equipment on top of the large freezer units. The applicant has stated that it is not feasible to screen these units. They are prepared to discuss this further with the commission at the meeting on April 1~t. Finding of Fact remain as stated in the original staff report. PUBLIC HEARINCc CONSLDP;R THE REQUF~T FOR SITE ~AN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION OF APPROXIMATEIX 45,600 SQUARE ~ AND A 730 SQUARE F(xYr BUII~DING WITH VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVF~OPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CR~ OVERLAY DISTRICT ON PROPF~TY ZONED INDUSWRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 8000 AUDUBON ROAD, GENERAL MII2.,S. Sharmeen M-Jaff present~ the staff repo~ on this Public Present: Name Address Ron Miller 9141 Inverness Clrde, Ranmey · Chris flail 2442 Ponds Way, Shakopee Lonnle ~[~ikowski 3402 ~ Road, Brooklyn Park The City of Chanha#en * A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charmino downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. ^ grot place to live, work, and play. Planning Commission March 23, 2OO3 Page 2 Mark Waseseha 1795 Fairview Avenue, St. Paul Jack Warner 3721 Impaflem Iaum, Brooklyn Park Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Harming Commi~ion table the request for site plan review of an addition of approximately 45,600 square feet and a 730 square foot building with variances, and a conditional use pexxnit for development within tho Bluff Creek Overlay District for General Mills at 8000 Audubon Road until a further complete application is provided and the notification is sent to the homeowners on Stone Creek Drive and Andrews Court. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. The Planning Commission tabled this item so the applicant could prepare a more complete plan and specifically asked the applicant to address screening of the rooftop equipment and Coulter Boulevard. There was also discussion about the ace, s on Coulter Boulevard and parking. RF~OlVIMF. NDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: A. 'q~he Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Petit g2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003, based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property." '~Ihe Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review g03-2 for a 45,600 square foot office warehouse addition and a 730 square foot thermal oil building, as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003, with variances with the following conditions:. le Submit storm sewer sizing for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event and pond design calculations. . Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002, 2202, 2203, 3101, 3102, 3104, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301 and 5302. Show the proposed watermain and storm sewer pipe, Wfm;-s~, class, and slope, and L,~I,It,.;VV UL, I.;&LA& LL.UdALA&I,.;.Lq,~ .LA.L.L& bLZ&qd. J. LL Vlk,'.Lb 1,,,,aq,,;V ~d*4d. qt.;.i. Zt3o t,~.a].qr,.; VV ~d.,Lq*,,; L,;..,L~,;,~'~PL.~I,,~d. L.~S,,q~..L..LLL L~I,,,;VVqb,~.Z. · Planning Commission March 23, 2003 P~ 3 4. Any off-sim grading will r~luim t~mporary easements. 5. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered en~neer. A ,4,..i *-I.,~ ...~,.,...+k ...... .;,.,-., +,-..f-k,,, .,.1,,.,.,,, 6. Add a storm sewer schedule. 7. Add a note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be c. om . The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street improvements. However, thc sanita~ sewer and water hook up charges will be applicable for the new addition. The 2003 trunk hook-up charges are $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for water main. Sanitary sewer and water main hook up fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at thc time of building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building additions. Planning Commission March 23, 2003 Page 4 ~-.~c~ r~.~.,,, Two additional signs shall be posted: no left exit and no left mm. 10. Manholes with two-foot sumps shall be installed as the last road accessible structures prior to discharge into the storm water pond. 11. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure the existing storm water infxas~ is maintained and functioning properly. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permim from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Depamnent of Natmal Resouxee~, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 13. Building official conditions: i. The addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. ii. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. iii. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. It is evident that the proposed addition will create exiting and high pile storage issues in the existing building that must be examined. ~,J,ia'~.;vv Ma'b,' .L'&,,; V.a. Ia~,r~,6 ~d*~J,.LLld, qt,,,q,a Ld,.a,. Ld.&~.,~ j.,~.,,v~,.~---,~,.;.&& ~,.;.L P. LA'I,,,; ul_L...l.~ 'q,.J'JU,. Planning Commission March 23, 2003 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Public hearing notice mailed 3/20/03. 2. Planning Commission minutes and summary dated 3/18/03. 3. Original staff report. 4. Revised site plans. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Proposed Addition APPLICANT: General Mills LOCATION: 8000 Audubon Road NOTICE: You am Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, General Mills, is requesting an addition of approximately 45,000 sq. ft. with variances and a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Oveday District on property zoned Industrial Office Park and located at 8000 Audubon Road. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments ara received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson at 227-1139. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. m CI'B=ORYwxtr -' - I~ ~ PI~F'Y BR '1~ BU,B ~ LN E 1t W.,lu-B~Em~ I. AI~ E 1~ BU1'FB~ GIJP cl~r Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 5160® ALAN M & TERESA Y JOHNSON 8286 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 ALBERT M & CAROL A BISTANY 1931 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 ALFRED A IVERSEN PMT CORPORATION 1500 PARK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8200 ANDREW M & STACEY A LAUSENG 8117 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 ANTHONY & BRENDA WILLIAMS 8384 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7417 ANTHONY R MALLAWAARATCHY 1934 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 BLUFF CREEK PARTNERS C/O LAND GROUP 123 NORTH 3RD ST MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401-1657 BRIAN D & ELIZABETH J GUTHRIE 8123 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 BRUCE M & KANDREA D JELLE 1927 CREEKVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7418 CAMPBELL PROPERTIES LP II C/O ARAMARK EDUC RESOURCES 573 PARK POINT DR GOLDEN CO 80401-7042 CHRISTOPHER M VERNIER &' CHRISTINA A SMITH 8090 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7419 CHRISTOPHER N & PAIGE M GILES 8180 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 CHRISTOPHER t & BRENDA M BERG 8269 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 CREEK FIVE ASSOCIATES C/O LAND GROUP INC 123 3RD ST N MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401-1407 DANIEL E & KAREN K TRUE 8091 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7419 DANIEL J & GWEN M MICHAEL 1944 CREEKVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7418 DANIEL L TROST & EVELYN DECOS-TROST 8151 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 DANIEL N & JULIE L PFEIFFER 1950 BLUFF VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7421 DANIEL R & DONNA L HERNANDEZ 8289 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 DANUTA B & CF7ARY WERNIKIEWICZ 8348 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7417 DARCl L ECKERMANN 1938 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 DARYL L & TRACY L SNADER 1910 BLUFF VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7421 DAVID & TONYA WAR'S 8400 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7422 DAVID L ALLEN 8198 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 DOROTHY M SUTTER 1913 CREEKVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7418 DOUGLAS & EILEEN PETERSON 8369 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7417 DOUGLAS J PETERSON 1971 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 GERALD P CORNELL 8345 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7417 HADI ANBARGHALAMI & SOODI PESSIAN 8381 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7417 HAROLD E & BEVARD M SCHRUM 8297 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® HARRY & JULIE BENJAMIN 1929 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 JAMES H & KATHLEEN PENSYL 1972 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 JANE SCHMITZ 1944 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 JAN NA ADAIR 1927 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 JASON L & LYNN M WATERMAN 8108 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 JAY & KATHLEEN PETERSON 8216 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 JEFFREY W & LYNN S T HEITNER 8161 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 JOHN WAYNE BULL & BARBARA A MILLER BULL 1929 BLUFF VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7421 JON S & LORI A DAY 8229 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 JOSEPH A REGNIER 4701 XERXES AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55410-1865 JURGEN W & CAROL A SEEMANN 8401 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7422 KATHY E SCHNEIDER 1946 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 KATHY J ROBILLIARD 1978 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 KEVIN R WRIGHT & MEGAN A ARNOLD 1976 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 LAWRENCE D & EMILY P WALDRON 2085 MAJESTIC WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9356 LOVE 4 ONE ANOTHER CHARITIES 7801 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8205 LUKE & RANDINE JOHNSON 8162 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 MARK & DAWN POLLMAN 1954 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 MARK HANLEY PAINE LEWIS 1967 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7406 MARK L & TIFFANY H ZITZEWI'rZ 1930 BLUFF VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7421 MA'I-rHEW WRIGHT & ANN WRIGHT 8126 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC #366 C/O GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT PO BOX 1113 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1113 MICHAEL D & LAURA F WOELFEL 1924 CREEKVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7418 MICHAEL J & DARLENE M LEONARD 8129 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 MICHAEL J GORRA 1680 ARBORETUM DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9416 MICHAEL S SMITH 1936 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 MICHAEL WAINWRIGHT 1950 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 MONICA L DAVIES 1952 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 OSMONICS INC 5951 CLEARWATER DR HOPKINS MN 55343-8995 PAUL E & BARBARA D BOWMAN 8272 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 Smooth Feed Sheets M Use template for 5560® PRAMOD & SHILPA TANEJA 1969 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 PRN MUSIC CORPORATION 7801 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8201 RANDAL B TOFTELAND & LAURINA L TOFTELAND 8325 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7417 RANDY L & TERRY R DELP 8135 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 RICHARD & SUZANNE M BONIN 1943 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 RICHARD C & LISA N HART 8249 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 RICHARD M GORRA 8201 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 ROBERT C & PAMELA J DEDIC 8377 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7417 ROBERT R & TAMI J MERRILL 8141 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 SHARI MUSOKE 1932 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST CIO CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR 6OO 4TH ST E CHASKA MN 55318-2184 STEPHAN L & LORI A NALEFSKI 8181 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7416 STEVEN & KATHERINE SCHRAMM 1949 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 STEVEN B & PENNY J STORO 8244 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 STEVEN D 8, SUZANNE R KLOOS 8258 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 TAMRA S ADAMS 1973 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 THE PILLSBURY COMPANY CIO GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT PO BOX 1113 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1113 THEODORE J & CORINNE Z DUDINE 8372 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7417 THOMAS P & SANDRA J OPHEIM 8305 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7417 TIM P BRZEZINSKI & DON HERMANN 1956 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 TODD T & CARRIE L TRAXLER 8230 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 TORRI L ENSMINGER 1947 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE ASSN CIO PERSONAL TOUCH MGMT PO BOX 5233 HOPKINS MN 55343-2233 VAN & NGA DANG '8080 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7419 WILLIAM R B ANDERSON & KATHLEEN M B ANDERSON 1974 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 Rich Slagie 7411 Fawn Hill Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kate Aanenson City o£ Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 553~7 Planning Commission Summary Minutes -March 18, 2003 Public Present: Name Address Arild Rossavik Mark Kelly George & Jackie Bizek Greg Kahler Cheryl Doty Steve & Kristi Buan Jayme Lee 8800 Powers Boulevard 351 Second Street, Excelsior 8750 Powers Boulevard 8742 Flamingo Drive 8736 Flamingo Drive 8740 Flamingo Drive 1380 Oakside Circle Sacchet moved, Lmehaug seconded that the Planning Comrnis~ion table the request for a land use amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density, Rezoninoo from Agricultural Estate District to Single Family Residential, and subdivision of LOt 1, Block 1, Hillside Oaks into 6 lots with a variance for the use of a private street located at 8800 Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of Sto0. This item was tabled and the applicant was directed to work with staff on preparing a mom complete application and plans to address the 50 conditions in the stuff report. Specifically addressing changing the plans to reflect a 5 lot configuration, have a bluff survey done on the back of Lot 6 to determine the impact of a bluff on Lot 6, the length and size of the cul-de-sac, and directed staff to get a legal opinion on whether this is a 2 lot neighborhood or 7 lot neighborhood. George Bizek was concerned' about the having to share the one curb cut with this development and drainage, especially as it related to Lot 6. Jayme Lee and Steve Buan were concerned about disrupting the green space between parks and drainage. There was discussion about whether this development was premature and if it should be looked at in conjunction with .. Mr. Bizek and Mr. Lee's property. PUBLI(~ HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUF~T FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION QF APPROXIMATELY 45,600 SQUARE FEET AND A 730 ~QUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH VARIANCES AND A coNDmoN,~L USE PERMIT FOR DEVELQPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT ON PRQPERTY ZQNED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 8000 AI~DUBON ROAD~ GENERAL MILLS. Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Public Present: Name Address Ron Miller Chris Hall Lonnie Malikowski Mark Wasescha Jack Warner 9141 Inverness Circle, Ramsey 2442 Ponds Way, Shakopee 3402 Highlands Road, Brooklyn Park 1795 Fairview Avenue, St. Paul 3721 Impatiens Lane, Brooklyn Park Planning Commission Summary Minutes -March 18, 2003 Slagle moved, IAllehaug seconded that the Phmning Comminsi_ on table the request for site plan review of an addition of approximately 45~}0 square feet and a 730 square foot building with variances, and a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District for General Mill~ at 8000 Audubon Road until a further complete application is provided and the notification is sent to the homeowners on Stone ~ Drive and Andrews Court. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. The Planning Commission tabled this item so the applicant could prepare a more complete plan and specifically asked the applicant to address screening of the rooftop equipment and Coulter Boulevard. There was also discussion about the access on Coulter Boulevard and parking. PUBLIC HEARIN(~: REQUEST FQR AN AMENDMENT TO ~ ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK PUD ~TANDARD~ TO PERMIT PER~QNAL ~ERVICE~ A~ A PERMYVFED I~E AND A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW FOR A FA~T FQQD ~A~ A~ AN ANCILLARY USE AND ~ITE PLAN APPRQyAL FQR A 9~0 ~QUARE FQQT ONE ~;TORY B~IN(~ LOCATED AT (~QRPORATE PLACE AND BOULEVARD~ HELSENE PARTNERS~ LLC~ AND ~TEINER DEVEIO~NT~ INC. OUL VA COURT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. The following four motions Were made after discussion. Ao Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards, PUD g92-6, Permitted Uses to permit Personal Services on Outlot D, Arboretum Business Park, Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretnm Business Park 2"d Addition and Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 4~ Addition- All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Be Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commtnnion recommends denial of the amendment to Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards, PUD g92-6, Ancillary Uses to permit a drive through for a fast food restaurant on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 4t~ Addition- AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Cm Sacchet moved, Lfllehaug seconded that the Planning Commtnsion recommends approval of Site Plan g2003-1, plans prepared by Steiner Construction Services, dated February 14, 2003, revised March 12, 2003, subject to the foflowino~ conditions: Thc developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with thc City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. . The developer shall provide an addition al 150 square feet of fenestration on the south end of the building and 190 square feet of fenestration on the east side of the building. Fagade transparency on street frontages shall maintain 50 percent of the wall area to the top of the brick. Plax~nin§ Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Claybaugh: Do we need to summarize? Blackowiak: No, we're not summarizing. We're not sending it to City Council. It's not going anywhere. Okay, so we'll take a quick break and we'll be back in about 5 to 10 minutes. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point. Commissioner Claybaugh left the meeting at this point.) Blackowialc Craig had to leave for a personal matter so he is no longer with us. However we still have a quorum tonight so we'll move right along to item number 4. And I believe we're going to be able to finish items 4 and 5 tcmight. Any commissioners have any other feeling that we can't get it done in an hour, tell me now. Otherwise Fm holding you guys to this. An hour? Okay. Alright, items 4 and 5. PUBLIC I-~&RING '.. CONS_ruER ~ REQUEST FOIi SITE PLAN R~ FQR AN ADDmQN QF APPROXTMAT~.I.Y 45~)0 ,SQUARE FEET AND A 730 SQUARE FOOT BU~-,DING WITU VA.RI'~(~ AND A CONDrnONAt- U;~E Pe:~T FOR D~.ye:IOPMe:N'I' WITHIN THE BLI~'F CRE~K QVERI.AY DI~TRI~'T ON PROPERTY ZQNs:o INDI~;~'I'RIAL QFfflCE PARK AND L0(~ATF. D AT 8000 AI,~DI~QN ROAD, GENERAL M~.I.S. Public Pr~ent: Name Add__res~ Ron Miller Chris Hall Lonnie Malikowski Mark Wasescha Jack Warner 9141 Inverness Circle, Ramsey 2442 Ponds Way, Shakopee 3402 Highlands Road, Brooklyn Park 1795 Fairview Avenue, St. Paul 3721 Impatiens Lane, Brooklyn Park Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay Rich. Slagle: Just quickly. On page 2 of our report, the gray area that I see to the west of the parcel appears to abut the creek and the path along those homes. Al4aff: Yes. Slagle: And then when I look at the map or the diagram of the facility, specifically page 2 here, it shows what I will call the new automobile asphalt paved area. Is that into that western property? AI-Jaff: No. Slagle: Okay, so the western property that we see on page 2 is not txfing touched at all? A[-Jaff: That's correcC Slagle: Okay. And then I'm going to hold off the other questions until later, but just one more. I noticed on the mailing list, which first of all I didn't get one of these. FYI. But secondly, I'm a little concerned because none of the homeowners to the west are included in this, and I'm guessing that you went 500 feet 38 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 from the existing building perhaps. I don't know if it would reach over them or not, but anyway I think I would be very encouraging if you will to have the mailing~ be sent to that neighbm'hotxt because basically you're going to have semi trailers now on, albeit the north side, much closer ~ the Audubon side. Do you know what I' m saying? I don't know if it' s Stone Creek or, what is that? Blackowiak: Stone Creek Drive. Slagle: I mean I just got to tell you, if I was a homeowner there and didn't get a mailing and Fm not watching TV tonight, I might be a little interested to see what's hapI~ing when the bulldozer~ come. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve, I'll go to you. Mixing it up. Lillehaug: Alright. My questions would be, is the office portion of the building in the southwest corner, what would be the material on that portion of the comer? The exterior. Al-Jaff: EIFS. Lillehaug: That is RIGS. Al-Jaff: It will be 2 percent. Lillehaug: Say again? Al-Jaff.' 2 percent. Lillehaug: On the existing portion of the office building. Al-Jaff.' On the existing portion? Lillehaug: Do you know what that material is? Al-Jaff: No I don't. Lillehaug: I mean it appeam to be EWS I guess. Mark Wasescha: It's a pre-cast concrete that we specified the ~ to be a really fine finish to match the fiat appearance of the pm-cast. And the contract documents say to match the office portion so. Blackowiak: Okay, we'll get into that when the applicant comes up. Lillehaug: Question on the height oftbe building. You have 21 feet And then there's 24 feet on the next page. I' m looking at page 3 and 4. I'm confused at really the building height's going to be. I mean when I look at their plans, when I look at an elevation plan I calculate 34 feet and maybe that's because I'm including the, what do you call it, parapet or whatever it is. Is that, am I missing something? Al4aff: That would include the parapet Lillehaug: So when you say the building height, your 21 feet doesn't inclnde that, is that correct? AIJaff: h should be 34 feet. Especially if we look at the elevation sheet, and the building is built at an elevation of 100 and the parapet is at 134. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Lillehaug: Okay, so if I look on page 4, it says existing building height is 36 feet and the sddition will be 24 feet. Are you saying that should be 34 feet? Al4aff: Corr~t. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: More numbers Sharmeen. We're sorry. Lillehaug: Yep. Al4aff: Yeah. I didn't write this one, can I explain that. Lillehaug: And a one foot parapet wall, it doesn't ~watr that, if I were to scale the elevation drawing, I wouldn't get one feet there. So what that's telling is, and conect me if I'm wrong, does that mean there's only one foot of wall that would cover or screen the roof equipment? A1gaff: Commissioner Lillehaug, the architect is here. Maybe he can answer that question. Lillehaug: I'll hold off on that. Same page, number 4. There's, number 5. Does that meet, I assume it meets. Is that correct? Alqaff: That's one of the things that we believe that with the addition of the screening, the berm, the landscaping you would be able to achieve. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: So meets with conditions, is that? Alqaff: Correct. Lillehaug: Page 6. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. I don't see that a possibility. Because you are increasing the i ,mpervious area of that parcel so how do we address that? Am I missing something there? I don't mean to be. throwing these-at you but, maybe I've got to address that to engineering. Alqaff: Yes please. These are engineering issues. Lillehaug: And you know, let me follow up on that because in the next paragraph it says, it apwatm the existing stormwater infrasmmture may not be functioning ~ly. So if we have a non-fimcfioning storm sewer infrastructure, and then we can't increase or we need to maintain that existing runoff rat~, it appears that we have a problem, and I know you say, you're indicating that you'll address this with the applicant. Alqaff: That's correct, and earlier conversations between Kate and the applicant's engineer indicated that these are things that they can work out. When they're up here they will be able to answer that question. Lillehaug: Okay. I'll save that one for the applicant. I'll leave you alone a little bit here. And then in, on page 10. One of your findings you indicate that it's going to, it appears th~ we're going to be reducing the number of trucks coming into the site because, I mean, and rm insinuating that because it says the Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 noise is going to be reduced. Is that accurate that the number of tru~ coming to the site is going to be reduced? I'm just not putting that, putting 2 and 2 toget~r on thaL AI-JatT: Currently they truck the flour from Eden Prairie where they have one of their plants, into this area. They're consolidating the two plants. Number of trips will be reduced and hence the noise will be less. Lillehaug: I'm going to pose that one to the applicant. Blackowiak: The Itaffic calming one. AI-Jaff: I tried. Lillehaug: Okay, I'm done. Blackowialc Okay thank you. Uli, questions. Sacchet: Yes, a couple of quick questions. What's a terminal oil building? Is that an applicant question? Al-Jaff: Sure. Sacchet: Alright. We'll ask that for the applicant. You pointed out where it was. Staff report says this was first approved by council in 1998. Wasn't it 19887 Al-Jarl: 1989. Sacchet: 89. 89 instead of 98. A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. I figured that couldn't possibly be true. It talks about that there is no activity in the Bluff Creek Overlay, you addressed that. So it is a requirement they still get the conditional use permit because they do something, whatever it is on that property. AI-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. I don't see a condition, I don't know whether I wasn't looking close enough for screening the roof equipment. AI-Jaff: On the addition only. Sacchet: Excuse me? A1-Jaff: On the addition only. Sacchet: On the addition, yes. Preferably. IS it in there? Okay, it was hiding when I looked for it. Blackowiak: I don't know. Sacchet: Okay, we can always come back to that The design standards, that's the one... To come back to Commissioner Lillehaug's comment. It appears the existing ~ water infrasUuctum may not be 41 Planning Commission Meeting- March 18, 2003 functioning properly. What does that mean? Are they getting puddles? Are they over flowing? What exactly, what does that mean? Sweidan: I think this is a comment from our Water Resources ~, Loft, and she is doubting like to put because they did not submit the sewer sizing so we can wimess if they are sufficient ~r not for the proposal and that's why she's doubting from that. Sacchet: So it's a question. It's not... Sweidan: It's a question and we condition that he has to submit a storm sewer sizing to confirm that it is sufficient for the addition. Sacchet: It has to be con~. Sweidan: Yes. Sacchet: It's necessarily like we have a real problem, but we don't know exactly. We want to make sure it's clean before we move forward. Sweidan: Yes. Sacchet: Alright. AIJaff: The applicant will be able to address this. Sacchet: They will address that one, excellent. A1Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: This one kind of baffled me is sanitary sewer and watermain hook-up fees the same for industrial building as for residential building? It looked to me like they were, or what that is on page 7. Is that accurate? That kind of startled me a little bit. It just seems like such a huge thing versus maybe a single family house or duplex or like. Sweidan: Well any additional connections would have charges. Sacchet: It's just standard? Sweidan: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. So it is the same. Whatever it is this row of evergreens on the west side, I assume they would be moved. Maybe that's an applicant question if staff doesn't know. This is getting to the meat of my story. Originally Coulter was not supposed to be a through street, correct? AIJaff: No it wasn't. Sacchet: And therefore all this screening, view screen_ lng and looks were designed to be viewed from the east, and not from the west. And that's why if you drive east on Coulter we see all this machinery there on the side of the building. The big fans and all ~ pipes and ~ and mesh and what have you. Al4aff: That's conect. Plaoning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacchex: Has any consideration been given of how that could be screened, either with tilt up panel.~ or berming or anything? AI-Jaff: One of the things that we have attempted to do, Nann if you will please, with this application is, this is the area that they are adding. We've attempted to insure that the berm extended out to screen at least a portion of this building. We've also tried to. Sacchet: Yeah go a little further. That's my concenz Little more over mere. Okay. So that is a berm there? AI-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Yes, a little bit of a berm, okay. But no consideration of possibly having filt-up's or something there so far? Doesn't look like, okay. That's a clear answer. So this, that's an applicant questiom There's no activity on the south side. There's already a temporary parking lot kind of up on the southwest comer, but there is not going to be ~ activity that we're aware of there? The reason I'm asldng is we're only asking for silt fence on the western look. Sweidan: We conditioned a silt fence along the west side of the park. Sacchet: West and. Sweidan: Southwest of it. Sacchet: Oh southwest, okay. Sweidan: Actually even along the north too. Sacchex: That's all my questions, thank you. Blackowialc Okay thank you. And I just have a couple questions regarding entrances. Truck entrance. I'm assuming that the truck will have to be going west on Coulter Boulevard to enter at this extreme angle, and can I make the same ass~ ,n,~ption that they could only make a right mm onto Coulter Boulevard. Are they going to exit the same way or are they exiting in a different way? Al4aff: It looks like they will be, that assumption is valid. It appears as if they will be. Blackowiak: They'll be going up to the north, backing in and then driving out, is what L AI-Jaff: Driving out. Blackowialc Okay. I didn't see any condition about a right turn only. A14aff:. Okay. Male, do you want to add to this condition? Sweidan: Yeah we can add that as a right. Blackowiak: Yeah, because I just don't feel that, I think it'd be hard to turn left. Well for a truck. Sweidan: We expect this entrance it will be just turning left and exit will be just turning right. 43 Planning Commission Meeting- March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay, but I mean I'm just thinking maybe we need conditions. Conditions for that so. Go ahead Rich. Slagle: I just want to throw this out because your question about the entrance is just a question I'll be anxious to hear from the applicant because I've seen many, many times running down Audubon and I've seen what I'll basically call congestion on Audubon with trucks and trailers. So I'll be anxious to hear how your plan is to how you're going to handle what a~ to be perhaps even a smaller area than the existing one. Blackowialc Okay, and then my second question is, can you point out where the existing entrance is? Is it the same entrance? It's kind of over, shifted over a little. Can you show me where the old entrance is off of Coulter. For cars. From the north side off Coulter there's an entrance and I can't really tell where that is. Lillehaug: It's right where note 8 is. Sweidan: It's almost in the middle between the two proposed. Blackowiak: It's almost in the middle? Sweidan: Yes. Lillehaug: It's right where note 8 is on the third slx~. Jack Warner:. Currently the truck and car enla'ance is one entrance and it's directly north of probably the northeast comer of the new expansion. So I think them should be another blend, yeah. If you look at, I guess we don't have that one here. I've got a larger plan that I can show you. It does have the existing... Blackowiak: Okay, and maybe it's. Sweidan: You saw the two proposed, and thi.q is the existing. Blackowiak: Okay. I can see that a little bit belier now. Okay. Alright, those are my only questions right now. Would the applicant or designee like to make a presen~on? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Jack Warner. My name is Jack Warner. I'm with AMF~. We're an engineering firm working for General Mills for this projecL Our address is 800 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, 55401. Excuse me, 402. 55402. We really don't want to make any statements. We'd just like to open up to questions. A couple cormnents I could maybe address it, were brought up here. As far as less traffic, I think your comment about no shuttle traffic between Eden Prairie and Chaxthassen will now be gone. They can bring in full tracks. Right now they bring in a lot of partial trucks because they only have a limited amount of storage at Eden Prairie. Or sorry, at Chanhassen. So they need to nm partial trucks back and forth which means a lot more trucks are nmning back and forth from the two plants. And now they will be able to bring in full truckloads, store it in the warehouse and then as a result have a lot less traffic. Even though they're producing a lot more warehouse space, the usage and the amount of product that can be brought in at a time is greatly increased with this. As far as the storm sewer system, that has not been reviewed that. That will be reviewed as part of our engineering plan. We are not going to be the engineers of record. It's a design build project that's out for contract award right now. It should be awarded within 2 weeks Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 and that engineer will be responsible for providing all those calculations and the storm sewer sizes and doing what needs to be done to meet the city requirements and code requirements. Blackowiak: Okay thank you. Let's start with questi~. Rich, do you have questions for this applicant? Slagle: Sure. Can you, and I don't know if it's you sir or one of the other gentle~en but can you tell me the number of current stalls if you will versus what you're putting in. Jack Warner: We're adding about 10 stalls total. We're eliminating about 27 but adding back about 37 so. We're eliminating about 27 and adding back in 37 so the gross is net 10. Slagle: Okay. And those 37 would be all along this warehouse ar would they still be partially over in the old location. I'm talking about deliveries. Jack Warner. Oh I'm sorry. You're talking about truck traffic. Slagle: Exactly. Jack Warner. Oh okay. I was talking car traffic, sony. No the, well let's see. With 5 loading docks, there's no, there shouldn't be any issue of trucks having to park someplace and then be waiting to unload. With 5 docks and the frequency of the deliveries with the large full truck loads and the fewer partial truck loads, we don't feel we need to have a parking area for trucks. They can just come neatly into the docks and be unloaded and then leave. Slagle: How many do we have today? Jack Warner:. Okay, you're talking about the shipping area which is a different area. It's down in the southeast corner. And that's shipping out of the warehouse. Slagle: Okay. And that's where I typically see the congestion. Jack Warner: Right, on Audubon Road. If there's any congestion on Audubon Road, it's relative to shipping. And I believe they've addressed that by providing a lot of truck parking. Slagle: It's gotten better. Jack Warner. Yeah. They have provided a lot of truck parking along the south side so they can park the trucks, the trailers. The trucks can then leave and th~ they have their own dolly to move the trucks into position once they're ready to load those out. The full ones are just brought up and then the truck has come and pick up the trailers when they're ready so. Slagle: And from what I can see of this diagram you'll have 4 spots or so? Jack Warnec. 5. 5 loading spots. Slagle: For those trucks waiting. At least the way it looks here. There's 5? Jack Warner. On the south. Sacchet: On the north side. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 1ack Warner:. On the north side. Slagle: On the north, yeal~ Jack Warner: Really it's, yeah probably about. Actually those are flour and sugar unloading. Those are separate from the warehouse itself. Those are existing spots that are there currently. Slagle: I'm talking about the... Jack Warner: Again there would only be one truck. One track or one sugar truck at a time. Them wouldn't be 3 or 4 tracks lined up to. Slagle: You okay Bob? Generous: I'm awake. Slagle: Maybe this gentleman could comment. Here's my point and it dove tails with my comment of the neighbors to the west. I just want to make sure that, and we're ~y happy to have your company as one of our major tenants but I just don't want to have a situation where we've got all these trucks you know backed up again like we had before on Audubon, and obviously thank you for making that better but, how many parking spots for trucks and then probably 5 loading docks. Lonnie Malikowski: We have two separate ate~. Right now we have the shipping area and we have a receiving area. What we did for the shipping area is we added the 20 drop trailer locations where the tracks could stop and park. On the south side getting off of Audubon Rind. On the receiving side we average about 16 trucks a day with about 7 coming over from Eden Prairie presently. So what we're trying to eliminate hopefully is the traffic coming over from Eden Prairie and with the space capacity of the warehouse, which we should be able to start ordering product and full truck loads rather than having all the partial LTL loads coming in. Slagle: So you would say somewhere tenish, you know 5 to 10 per day is what a resideat could expect? Lonnie Malikowsld: We're still probably going to be in that 16 area but what we'll do is we'll e 'hminate the traffic coming over from Eden Prairie so fight now we're presently around that 21 area, back and forth. What we can really focus on now is trying to e 'luninate some of that night traffic, you know because with the small capacity that we have in our warehouse presently, try to eliminate some of that night traffic that's coming over from Eden Prairie. Slagle: And I'll say this somewhat kiddingly but please see what you can do. Your drivers with the mallets. That hit the things. Blackowialc The flour mu:ks. Slagle: And I live 3 miles north, in all sodousness, you can hear it in the wee hours of the night so I would only ask of you to do something about that. Lonnie Malikowski: Yeah those are the flour trucks where the flour actually sticks to the sides of the tanks and they need to hit that and we're trying to address that as much as possible. Slagle: Okay, thank you. It's tree. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Oh I know, I've heard them. I knew exactly what it was when yon said that Okay, Uti. Or is that your questions, I'm sorry. Applicant questions. Sacchet: What's a thermal oil building? Jack Warner: Thermal oil, it's an edible oil that they use to heat up the ovens so it's warmed up. The building itself is a heating unit that warms up the oil. It's pumped into the baking oven with the products so it's a completely closed loop system. Sacchet: So there's no odors? Jack Warner: No, there's no fumes. No odors. It's completely enclosed. There's no open flame so it's a very environmentally safe and very preferred system nowadays in the baking business. Slagle: But you'll keep the odors going though... Jack Warner. Oh yes. Slagle: That's good. Sacchet: The evergreens on the west side that, are you planning to replant those? Jack Warner:. Whatever we can save will be replanted. If not, they'll be replaced. Sacchet: Or replaced, okay. In terms. Jack Warner: This is Mark Wasescha. He's our architect He could probably address some of these landscaping and architectural issues a little better. Mark Wasescha: This is an image. We've studied the project using 3D and we think this is probably the maximum impact view of the project, which is the west side. This illustrates I guess how high the berm is going to be. Our intent on the landscaping is to have all new landscaping in the report which discusses the need for beefing up. We've identified 22 evergreens on the north and 20 on the west and the report identified the need to increase the amount of landscaping. And the applicant is willing to do that Other comments generally I guess the project is designed to blend pretty much with the existing. It's an expansion really of the plant. This plant, the project ...the NAen Prairie facility is going to close on October 31~ and the operations are consolidated here. And the two warehouse fimctions, they're kind of inter-dependent. Kind of back up what was discussed earlier. Right now they kind of work in tandem and that creates a lot of traffic which you know on the site. One comment genea-ally about vehicle and truck service. Observations was mad_e about the doors and the nearby developments over here across Bluff Creek. I should point out the existing doors are hem and we're moving them here so we're projecting the impact will actually be less on the neighbors. Those doors right now are facing west so there's probably a sound wave going up directly to that development that's going to now be projected north into the industrial development along Highway 5, which we think is a more appropriate use. I guess the front east door presentation is that this will actually i .reprove the conditions on the site. We are differentiating vehicle and visitor traffic. Right now that occurs in one entrance. This functions to create a segregated truck and automobile entrance, which exceeds the city standard of 300 feet separation as opposed to having a common entrance right now. The overall site approach is to put the industrial support functions on the north and east. The south is preserving the views to the wetland and future development includes office will react and respond to the fact that them are views which is really quite a tremendous view to the southwest. So we see this as an extension and reinf~ really of a plan 47 Planning Commission Meeting - Mm-ch 18, 2003 which helps to create some of the industrial corridor, kind of a belt along Highway 5 which we think is an appropriate use. The issue of the storm water was discussed. It's i ,m!x~'tant I guess to see the shaded area which shows the new i ,mpact on parking. We are adding relatively little new i ,mpervious area to this site. The building, this is all paved currently so the additional area is identified in the shaded area. We think that the existing storm water pond was somewhat, this is going to take the detail en~neering analysis beyond the scope of a preliminary design, will reveal that that pond perhaps can probably be deepened or modified but it should take the runoff from this site with very little additional modification, which will address the whole pre-~nt issue. Lonnie Malikowski: Just pre-treatment, they recommend we put a drop manhole. That will be included in the project also. Mark Wasescha: Yeah, rear stmcun~, yeah. Slagle: Mark, two quick questions if I can. The elevation that you showed, what elevation was that? Mark Wasescha: This is looking from the northw~ and as I mentioned. Slagle: So looking south, southeast? Mark Wasescha: It's looking southeast, yes. Slagle: So that's the loading docks. Mark Wasescha: Now the loading dock are behind the berm here, yeah. We did some analysis and in order to see those docks and we think that they're going to show just briefly as you look down that, that new ramp into this complex which is going to be something like, which serves the trucks, which is going to be kind of like looking basically...freeway on ramp. This is going to be a very short window where you can see what's going on in this facility. Slagle: I'm sorry, if you could help me. Those 4 or 5 silver gray vehicles in your rendition, where would I see tho~e? Mark Wasescha: Well assuming they're actually there, that would be right in this area, but that's just along the...parking. Slagle: So those are trucks but they're not supposed to be trucks. Mark Wasescha: No... Truck service is fight here and right now... Slagle: Got you. I'm with you. Mark Wasescha: And the view is really looking through here. You're looking at that corner which is our analysis of probably the maximum. We endeavored to look over this berm, you know with the computer analysis and the drawings. I should point out, as you come down Coulter and say you're going home here. This structure heavily masks this so when we did the analysis of thi~, you don't see thi.~. It's hidden by this. This thing actually functions, this is kind of a foil to screen the warehouse so we think that this computer image actually represents probably the maximum impact on the site. Slagle: Last quick question. The parcel to the west. Any thoughts as to what's going to happen there? Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Mark Wasescha: No. Not currently. There was a plan to add a lot of space there under the McGlynn Bakery ownership which is not really I think part of the current plan. We, due to the i ,rn!~et on the site, the current thinking probably on the expansion might be to avoid going very far west just because of the Bluff Creek district and thing so. Sack Warner: ~f I could address the roof top equipmenL There's very little, there's no air conditioning. There's a small air conditioning unit for office. A 3 person office, a restroom and a trucker's lounge and that's the only air conditioning unit that will be on this. The~ will be some exhaust hoods, exhaust fans on the roof but they will be relatively low, so we don't think there's probably the requirement for screening. We don't think anything will be sticking up high enough to be seen from Coulter or fi'om that side. Mark Wasescha: Which addresses your question of air, but it's i~t to understand that the ambient temperature in here will be 55 degrees and. Jack Warner: That's during the winter. Mark Wasescha: ...not heating. There's no air conditioning so the air conditioning, the mechanical requirements usually occur due to the fact that you have to provide a massive air conditioning system. Space heating and smoke relief vents and there's going to be water in c~ler to handle the trucker's lounge in here so the minimal parapet should not be an issue because you're not dealing with HVAC. Air conditioning equipment for this building. Jack Warner. I think the equipment you're used to seeing are usually the compressors for the freezex and stuff like that. Obviously very large. This is all just strictly dry storage so there's no refrigeration or freezing or anything within this building. Mark Wasescha: There was an earlier discussion the existing situation on the roof here. Our analysis of that is, that's refrigeration equipment and the problem with a screening wall them would be that it could create a snow drifting condition into the louvers of intakes on that equipment, and obviously being a bakery, such a huge bakery, there's a need to keep that stuff refxigerated and then there could be an effect on the function of that equipment by putting that screen wall up there. Slagle: You're referring to the roof equipment now? Blackowiak: Existing. Jack Warner. Existing over the freezer area. Sacchet: May I jun~ in at this point? Blackowiak: Sure. Your mm. Sacchet: I'm not referring to the roof top equipment I'm referring to the equipment that is on the ground on the north side of the building. And you might be wondering why am I refen'ing to that. That has nothing to do with what you're currently trying to do. The reason why I'm refen-ing to that is beca~ you are asking for a variance, and so we are trying to see what can be done to the benefit of the City, being in exchange so to speak or to balance the fact that we are consi~g giving you a variance. And I wonder, have you given any consideration or could you give some consideration to screening that equipment that is on the ground. Huge equipment that is cmxemly very well screened, what do you call from the east side. It's not at all screened if you come from the west for the ._,fimple reason that it was 49 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 originally decided it was envisioned to be viewed from the west and not from the east, but since the conditions have changed, now it's a through ~ Coulter Boulevard, it's very visible and it's a combination of tilt-up there and maybe berming m the north could be done, I think that would be excellent. Mark Wasescha: lust to back up on that Our discussion with staff, there was...your concern was, we were led to believe it might be the equipment on the roof. In response, I guess we are willing and able to address having what landscaping is required I guess is the only thing that additional, given the possibility of other modifications or expansions in that area. The addition of having panels and that lcind of ~ could be kind of problematic as there...sma11 strucua'~ in support of the process of operation in that area in the past. So there's a concern I guess about having those kind of thinG that might complicate the future changes of the internal operation of the plant. Jack Warner: The owner just suggested that maybe we would look at possibly sending the berm further down to try and screen it. The problem with perimeter wails in them is the air flow and the equipment that's there needs to have certain spaces for air flow and things like that. We're a little concerned about restricting that and affecting the effectiveness of the equipment. Sacchet: it's your belief it could be fully screened with berming and landscaping? lack Warner: We'd have to look at it and see. How much, I mean it may require some retaining walls and things to do it properly but we would be looking at that as a possibility, yes. Sacchet: Okay thank you, that answers my question. Blackowiak: Good, thanks. Steve, any questions for the applicant? Lillehaug: Okay, my questions. I'm hearing, I'm talking rooP,~ equip~t- I d~n't have, out of these drawings and what you're saying, you're saying we don't think. It should not be in view. At this point I'd like to hear will not be in view. I mean serious, I want to hear, I'd like to see more defmites. Mark Wasescha: I think we could make that statement because again it's just purely a storage. ~t's an S1 building and we have some discretion to the scale that we could place those root~p equipment is primarily smoke relief vents. In board and they will be low enough in the ~ that we think that due to the height, the 34 foot height it probably is essentially but we don't believe you'll be able to see it. Again there's the lack of air conditioning to this project I think gives us some confidence that there's not going to be a lot of heavy mechanical on the roof. Lillehaug: Okay, I'll hold you to that. And now Fd like to talk about the concrete tilt-up panel for the exterior of the building. In the southwest corner you have the office portion of your building and it's not the tilt-up concrete. Or it's covered by. Jack Warner. it's pre-cast, it's pm-cast concrete but it's just a horizontal panel rather than vextical panel. it doesn't have the ribs like that. Lillehaug: So it appears, texture wise it looks like smcc, o/~. Jack Warner: Right. Lillehaug: Alright. 50 Planning Commission Meeting- March 18, 2003 Sack Warner. To distinguish the office from the rest of the plant. That's the way it was originally intended, yes. Mark Wasescha: It's a standard insulated panels. Very unusual bec__ause it's slung horizontal. Lillehaug: So with that, I'm trying to weigh this out In my mind it doesn't matter what's inside this new expansion. It's an expansion period and there's no reason that this same material in the office portion of the building could be carried into this portion of the building because it's still, it still flows with the rest of the building. Mark Wasescha: A comment on that. The panel is used to, on the horizontal panel on the existing is used to identify the office functions and it's a pure white. And the storage industrial fimcfi~ on this building are the gray panel with the vertical so it kind of differentiates two functionalities going on in the building through the administrative and support or industrial. Lillehaug: Would staff have a comment on that? I'm not famili~ with really any ordinances that even remotely address anything like that. I mean other than being their business standlm:l or, can you address that at all? Probably not, is that safe to assume. Okay. Let me move on here. Jack Warner: Could I address that real quickly? Lillehaug: Sure. Jack Warner: It would be a bit of a hardship on the owner because then we would require a steel framing inside the building to suplxn~ the exterior walls. These are stand alone panels basically and it makes a nice clean surface for sanitary purposes and by putting in a steel frame and framing these, it creates horizontal surfaces and infestation areas and sanitation issues that the baking and food industry are very much against. And that's the advantage of having this type of a panel because it's vertical. It's load bearing and there's nothing, there's no steel or any framing inside of the building to support this. Mark Wasescha: The internal function of the building is guided by GMP which is Good Manufactur~g Practice which basically encourages or demands that the sudac~ be wiped dowm So a horizontal ledge creates dust which creates an issue in terms of food handling and the USDA has regulations which directly address that. Jack Warner:. ...they're similar in appearance, other than, but the offices are franx~ steel framed building. They're not concerned about ledges and they're not concerned about those issues as they are concerned with the manufacturing process areas and the warehouse areas. So they are two distinct functions really, and there's different standards that apply to each. And the warehouse and process area can be much cleaner than the office area from a sanitary standpoint and inf~on areas and things like that. Mark Wasescha: As an extension of that idea, the roof stmclxtm will be a double V fasten, kind of a pre- cast and the reason for that is a metal frame building of R joists would collect all that dirt so on the structural.., there will be no build-up of dust or dirt in the smicun~ like thaL Lillehaug: Okay. Let me move on with my questions here. There's going to be maybe a minor insignificant loss of parking through this constructiom Is that. Jack Waruec. During construction? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Lillehaug: During construction. What I'm looking at is staging of the parking right now and how is that going to be handled. I don't want to see it out on Coulter Boulevard or Audubon. Is that. Jack Warnec. No. They'll have sufficient space on site and them's, as was mentioned earlier there's a temporary parking lot that's been constructed for the conlractor's use and that will also be utili~l as needed during the construction so we don't feel there will be any parking issues with, during the consmacfion. Lillehaug: That'd be it, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, and I don't have any additional questions at this time. Thank you. Jack Warner. Thank you. Blackowiak: This item is open for a public hearing, so if anybody would wish to speatk on this item, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments. Who'd like to start7 Lillehaug: I'll try to make this quiclc I don't mean to be critical but we don't, I haven't seen in my short one year, seen design built projects so when I look at these plans, they're lacking, like you said. These are preliminary plans and when I compare this to the next site plan here, these are final plans in my view. So when I look at this there' s missing, they're missing some key elements in this. It' s tutrd for me to put 2 and 2 together. For example I wanted to measure the spacing between ~ driveways. I can't even figure out the scale on this drawing. So it's lacking items that city ordimmces require. So I think somehow we need to direct or address design build projects because we don't at this point and I think we're lacking some information on these plans that typically we would see. And it's not fair to other applicants that are required, or that do present this information. Let me move onto my comments. I'd like to ensure that any equipment on the roof is screened so I will be adding a condition that it will be screened. I think that is irr~, ortant as we proceed here. I'm kind of torn on the docks on the north side. I drive that road quite frequently. My kids go to Bluff Creek school there, and I'm kind of weighing out personally would I prefer them on the north side. I'm not too sure, but if the applicant's willing to do it, he's willing to provide additional screening there and I think that's a good solution ~. Because it does provide screening from the development to the west of that area. Let me try to shot'ten this up. Yeah I think that's probably it. That's it, thanks. Blackowiak: Thanks. Uli, comments. Sacchet: Yeah a couple comments. One of the things here is this variance request for tilt-up's. And I would disagree with the staff report that says well because it's 15 percent of the building, it would crea~ a hardship. It doesn't really create a hardship but it's a reasonable reqtm.sc It's ~y applicable to any other building that has an addition of 15 percent or less. I do agree though that we requiring to hold them to the standants is inappmpriam. However I do believe that it's appropriate to ask for something in return because that's as a discussion of the applicant.., it would be very difficult to do a diff~ structure because these tilt-up's, not only do they blend to reflect what's happening in there, they also make it possible inside with reasonable ease to do what you want to use it far. And I do, I'm very adamant about shielding screening that machinery to the north. The machinery that sits on the ground that is totally visible from the west side. It's well screened from the we, sc I do believe it is reasonable to ask that there would be some panels potentially towards the west plus some berming landscaping to the north. How it's going to be screened, that's not for me to determine but I do want to put a condition on this that it has to be fully screened. I think that's reasonable. Another couple of comments, in the staff recommendation it talks about the, it talks about the 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zones at the setback and that kind of threw me. Sharmeen and Bob, are you still awake? 52 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Generous: I'm awake. Sacchet: Alright, the motion A. Lillehaug: Page 12. Sacchet: Page 12. 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback. Does that apply here? Is that something that was previously. Generous: Unless that's the storm water pending or the. Sacchet: That's stormwater pending? So that applies there. And then why do we say to permit a contractor's yard. Is this considered a contractor's yard? Lillehaug: Does this apply to this application? Sacchet: Is this cut and paste from somewhere else or does it really apply? Generous: Chan Business Center 3'~. Lillehaug: I don't think this applies. Generous: The conditional use permit does. AIJaff: They do need a conditional use permit. Generous: Oh, this is for DayCo. Saccbet: So this does come from somewhere else so we may need to clean this up before we vote on this. And also on the findings of fact, you're missing the legal property description... In order for us to vote on that I think we need to have that on there. That's my commen~. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: I'm not going to say anything more than this. I think we need to get a more complete application- I think everybody, or I should say, I'm encouraged with this applicamt just because of all that they do for our community but we need a complete application. And staff, I'm sorry. Blackowiak: It's getting late, I know. Slagle: I know but most i .mportanfly, in addition to needing a complete application, I would request, require, however you want to state it, that all of those ~ owners along the east side of that road. You know I'll give you the guidance or the fleya'bility as to how far south you go, but I definitely think they should be part of a next public hearing. That's ii. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, I agree with what you said Rich. I also would like to just make a comment on behalf of Commissioner Claybaugh because he had to leave. In discussing this he made, he was insistent~ Not insistent, he was in favor of screening existing, not only new but also existing roofh~p equi~C In other words, if we are going to allow the tilt-up concrete, there should be some trade-off and what can we 53 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 get for a trade-off and his feeling was, screening is i .mportant. So I'm just going to put that in for him since he's not here, Slagle: Can I throw one thought out too? Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: If I may. I think it's important for the applicant to sense this because I think some of the thought of asking for screening for the existing facility is because of Coulter Boulevard having been changed. I mean I hope they appreciate that. We're not just saying to a business, you know add these things now. There have been things that have changed and it is from the north, you can see tractors and there's a snowblower down there and so forth so, I'm sorry. Blackowiak: That's okay. Also a couple things that I'd like to see in conditions. In condition 34, just to say that the lighting will meet all ordinances. We didn't talk about that. I'd like a condition 35 with the northeast truck access to be a right out only. And then we've talked about rooftop equipment and we've talked about maybe a condition for extending the berm eastward to help screen the existing fans that are on the ground, Uli and I'm sure you'll, whoever makes the motion can do that. And I do also agree Rich about the mailing to the neighbors. Not only Stone ~k Drive but also Andrews Court and I'll make, I've got a couple comments about that when we do our summary for City Council. Slagle: Well we might table this. Blackowiak: We might table this. Okay. Well then I will just say right now because when it does go to City Council, it will not have a public heating so I would hope that City Council would number one, make sure that the neighbors in Andrews Court and Stone Creek Drive get the mailing. Number two, allow time for them to speak should they wish to do so. So that would just be a direction for when it goes to council. If it goes to council. I don't want to assume anything. Slagle: Yeah, I guess my comments about wanting a complete application similar to Commissioner Lillehaug's comments but also with the neighbors, is the thought that we would table this. Them would be another hearing. Residents would get to come, listen, participate. Blackowiak: Go ahead and make whatever motion you would like. And I suppose it could be addressed in either format. Either at City Council or with a public hearing or he~. Slagle: I think, I mean personally I don't think it's gotten to the point where it needs, where I'm ready to pass it on. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: Personally. Blackowialc Well then I would like somebody to make a motion. Slagle: Well I'll make the motion. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table this application until, and Commissioner Lillehaug, you might want to help me with the technical details of the application but a more complete application is provided, similar to what we've received so far tonight on others. And then also that homeowners on the western side of, whatever road that is, as well as those townhomes that I think you're referring to. Blackowiak: Andrew Court and Stone Creek Drive. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Slagle: Need to be sent a mailing, because I think acting whether voting to approve or disapprove without any input from those neighbors, and then just giving them a chance to attend a public hearing, or excuse me, attend the City Council and hope that they're going to have a chance to speak, I don't think is fair. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: Point of clarkfication? Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: What's the timeline? Is there a timeline... Blackowiak: May 25~ for review deadline. Sacchet: May 25th, okay. Jack Warner:. Do we have any opportunity to comment on the timeline impacts? Blackowiak: No, this is actually a timeline, a legal timeline for review by the City. It's not a construction timeline. Slagle: Believe me we, I think we empathize and tmderstand the cmxent situation, but on the other hand, you know I mean I just, I think we've got to have the residents. Jack Wamec. It's a little bit unique because of the timing of the Eden Prairie closure... Slagle: I understand. And we just had that same thing with Banta, to give you an example, two weeks ago with a closing of a plant and expansion. We just have to do what we have to do and you know if the timeline will work, it's great. Blackowiak: Okay. Did you give me a motion? I'm son'y, I'm geuing tired. Slagle: But I had a request to Mr. Lillehaug to clarify. Lillehaug: To clarify any specifics. Address the utilities. Address the basically just the general requirements that are stated in the ordinance. It's lacking all the way around. Slagle: So I move that the Planning Commission table this application until a fiaxher complete application is provided and the mailings are sent to the designated homeowners. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: I second. Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for site plan review of an addition of approximately 45,600 square feet and a 730 square foot building with variances, and a conditional use pennR for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District for General Mill, at 8000 Audubon Road until a further complete application is provided and the notification ts sent to the homeowners on Stone Creek Drive and Andrews Court. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacchex: Do you want to hear why I'm opposed? Blackowiak: Yes I would like to. Sacchex: I sympathiT~ with the idea of tabling it because obviously my big issue is the screening of that equipment. I'd like to see that in a plan in front of me as I pass it through. But I believe that by tabling it and delaying this process we actually are putting it through I believe we will get more good will for them to work on this. But I...for delaying it for what you say. I think it will be...go to cotmcil at this point and then at council these things would be ~. Slagle: I'm trying to envision at a council meeting, you know you invite these residents who truly should have had an opportunity in my opinion to be here today, to listen to this, and not that I have my documents but those documents aren't in my opinion, what I typically see. And so I mean simply put, as much as the timeline is i .mportant, and I realize that them is the dute~ they're under if you will, I mean it's simply put, it's just not complete. I mean not good or bad. Blackowiak: Okay. Well the motion to table then carries 3-1 and I would request of staff that when this does come back to us, that it be first on the agenda. Whatever evening that happens to be so we can hopefully have residents. I hope somebody comes and says someXhing atica' all this. Okay. Got 3 minutes guys. 56 CITY OF P.C. DATE: March 18, 2003 C.C. DATE: April 7, 2003 REVIEW DEADLINE: May 25, 2003 CASE: 03-2 Site Plan BY: Aan~ Z STAFF REPORT Site Plan Review for a 45,600 square foot Office Warehouse Addition and a. 730 square foot Thermal Oil Building with variances and a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Oveday District on property zoned Industrial Office Park LOCATION: APPLICANT: South of Hwy. 5, West of Audubon- 8800 Audubon Road Tammy Ziegenbein Project Manager West 9000 Plymouth Ave North Mpls, MN 55427 Mark Wasecha, AIA AMF_C Midwest Plaza Building 800 Ma~lUeae Ave., Suite 1200 Minnognnli_~ Mlinno_~ta Ixl Industrial Office Park 2020 LAND USE PLAN: ACREAGE: aplxo~ly 60 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan Review for a 45,600 square foot office warehouse addition and a 730 square foot Thermal Oil Building with variances and a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all ~ owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whefher or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the ~ project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordi~ce. General Mills March 18, 2003 Page 2 The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit stan~ outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit stan~ are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. BACKGROUND In 1988 City Council approved a subdivision and a site plan for a 161,700 square foot building on 69.7 acres of land for McGlyxm Bakery. At the time of the subdivision there were two outlots platted north of McGlynn's, and south of Hwy. 5. In 1993 the city extend~ the southern half of McGlynn Road west to Galpin Boulevard and renamed it Coulter Boulevard. The northern half of the loop mad remains as a culqte-sac (McGlynn Road). Since the'original McGlynn development Pillsbury bought the ~ and completed an addition to the building in 1995. The lots to the north were sold. There is a day care (Children's World) on the southwest comer of Audubon and McGlynn Drive. Pillsbury bought the ~ to the west which has a combined acreage of approximately 60 acres. General Mills now owns the property and is proposing an oddifion becamse of consolidation of the Eden Prairie plant. The additions to the smacune include a new receiving building and a thermal oil building. The receiving building is adjacent to the existing recei~g dock and the thermal oil building is located in the southwest comer. General Mills March 18, 2003 Page 3 When the McGlynn building was given site plan approval, access was solely off of Audubon Road. The orientation of the building is: the office portion faces the southwe~ corner of the site, shipping is located in the southeast comer, and the warehouse component is along the northern portion of the site. The warehouse portion is tilt up concrete raised panels and does not meet the currant design standards. The applicants are req~g a variance to the standards so they can match the existing material. The thermal oil building is 21 feet high; 730 square feet and will have an EFIS exterior. The percentage of EFIS is based on the existing building of 313, 820 square feet is less flum 2 percent. The city ordinance allows a maximum of 15 percent EFIC. There are two lots under separate ~ identification numbers. Staff is recommending that the two lots be combined as one lot. This will ensure the i .mpervious surface ratio be maintained as it is being calculated using both lots. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a new mw material warehouse addition. The 45,600 square foot addition requires additional parking and new driveways. The receiving docks are currently at this location. The doors (6) will now be facing Coulter Boulevard. The city code requires that all loading be screened. The applicant is also requesting the existing material (a plain concrete tilt up panel with a one inch reveal every 3 ~6 inches) be continued on the addifiom In order to mitigate these requests, the staff is proposing a landscaping berm to provide screening. Additional landscaping is also proposed along the western property line. With the berming and addition, noise from the loading docks should be reduced. The additional storage space will ~ the truck trips between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. The applicant has also requested a small building to house thermal oil for the manufacturing process. The building is EFIS which meets the design standards. The building is approximately 730 square feet and 21 feet high. It will be connected on two sides to the existing building on the Two drives are proposed along Coulter Boulevard. One driveway will be for the semi truck deliveries and the other will be for employee parking. Additional parking is required with the addition. With the maximum shift of 305 people, the applicant is proposing 439 parking spaces to cover the overlap in shift changes. The proposed parking meets city code. The i~ous surface is being calculated using both lots. The ~ous surface is less than 30 percent. The ordinance allows a maximum of 70 percent. The applicant requires a conditional use permit bec_~use a portion of the Bluff Creek Overlay District falls within this site. No activity will take place within the Overlay District. Staff is recommending that storm water be treated before it goes in the existing stoma water txmd, via a sump manhole. Storm water calculations need to be providecL General Mills March 18, 2003 Page 4 Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with the archi~ variance and the conditional use. G~L SITE PLAN/ARCX-IITF_L-WURE In evaluating the material used for the addition staff took into consideration the existing layout of the building and that Coulter Boulevard was not a through street at the time of the original construction and the addition is 15 percent of the building. The applicant is also requesting the existing material (a plain concrete tilt up panel with a one inch reveal every 3 ~A inches) be continued on the addition. The existing building height is 36 feet and the addition will be 24 feet in height with a one foot parapet wall. There will be a four foot high HVAC on the roof. It should be screened from Coulter Boulevard. The delivery area and the parking will be screened by the berm and landscaping that runs the length of the addition. Specifics on the type and species are detailed in the landscaping section. The landscaping will be required to be sprinkled. The addition does not meet all the requirements of the design standards, which include: 1. A defined entrance accentuated by a projecting canopy (does not meet). 2. Articulation through the use of staggered canopies, parapets on the roof, different materials and colors, landscaping, windows, and columns (does not meet). 3. All materials used on the building are durable and permitted (meets). 4. The colors on the building are harmonious (meets with existing). 5. All elevations that can be viewed by the public have been designed to include windows and/or doors to minimize expanses of blank walls ( 6. Trash enclosure is screened from views (meets). 7. The majority of the parking lot is being moved to the south west corner of the site; with will further screen the parking lot (meets). SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the genend appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; General Mills March 18, 2003 Page 5 (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and furore buildings having a visual relationship to the develo~t; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for smaemms and site features, with special attention to the following: s. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and general community: b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring stmeUnes and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior eimulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements with the incorporation of staWs conditions and approval of the variance to the city design standards to permit the concrete panels to be used. WETLANDS One wetland exists on the southernmost edge of the site. Two wetlands are shown (one ag/urban wetland and one natural wetland) on the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) maps; however, the northernmost wetland appearing on the maps (ag/urban) is actually a storm water pond. The pond was constructed when the lot was originally subdivided (in 1988) by constructing a berm and impounding water between the parking lot and Bluff Creek. No wetland impacts are proposed in conjunction with this project. BLUFF CRRF. K OVERLAY DISTRICT The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees throu~ the use of careful site design and other low-impact practices. General Mills March 18, 20O3 Page 6 The southwest corner of the sir incorporates a portion of the primary and secondary zones of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. No alterations are proposed within the overlay district. Storm Water Management The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rotes. Storm water ponding must meet NURP standards. Calculations should be submitted to ensure the existing storm water infrastructure is sized adequately for the drainage area. Manholes with two-foot sumps should be installed as the last mad accessible smacmms prior to discharge into the storm water pond. It appears that the existing storm water infrasmactm~ may not be functioning ~ly. The applicant should work with staff to ensure the existing storm water infrastructure is maintained and functioning properly. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their condifi~ of approval. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The plans do not show the proposed building pad elevation and proposed contours around the addition. This information must be provided prior to City Council sir plan approval. A maximum slope of 3:1 is allowed where applicable or a retaining wall must be used on the berms along the north side of the proposed middle access. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height needs to be designed by a registered engineer. The plans do not propose a rock construction entrance or erosion control fencing around the perimeter of the siR. Type H silt fence must be used and extended along the west and north sides of the proposed grading area. In addition, a rock construction entrance at a minimum of 75 feet in length must be shown at the entrance that is to be utiliT~:l during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-siR grading will require an easement from the appropriate property OWTler. The plans propose to abandon a portion of an existing storm sewer line and re-route it around the proposed building expansion area. The proposid building and parking areas will drain toward the proposed catch basins in the parking area and be conveyed via existing storm sewer to an existing pond south of the site. The applicant needs to submit storm sewer design data for a 10- year, 24-hour storm event and the pond drainage calculations for the additional building area and parking lots for staff review. UTILITW. S No public utilities are proposed as part of this project. The plans propose to abandon a portion of an existing 8-inch watermain line and re-route it around the proposed building expansion area. General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 7 Also, a private 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer is proposed to be abandoned and relocated away from the building addition foundation with the project. The applicant needs to revise the plans to show all existing and proposed utilities. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street im?rovements. However, the sanitary sewer and water hook up charges will be applicable for the new addition. The 2003 tnmk hook-up charges are $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for water main.. Sanitary sewer and water main hook up fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building additions. STRF. I:rrs No public streets are proposed as part of this project. The plans propose on eliminating the existing full access for Lot 1 off of Coulter Boulevard and installing two new full accesses off of Coulter Boulevard. The proposed accesses are spac.~ 520 feet apart which is greater than the 300-foot minimum spacing requirement. Due to the configuration of the no,easterly access, truck traffic will only be able to access the site when traveling westbound from Audubon Road. The access has a small curb radius on the west side which will limit the mining ability of trucks coming from the west. Staff is recommending that a sign be posted at this access stating '~rmck Traffic Only." Due to the building expansion a ntunIw of parking apaces will be eliminated and relocated to the two new parking lots along the west side of the existing parking lot. The applicant should be aware that no parking is allowed on the adjacent public streets at any time. LANDSCAPING Minimum requirements for landscaping include 4,192sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, 17 trees for the parking lot, and bufferyard plantings along the north property line. Landscaping proposed by the applicant as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Vehicular use landscape area Trees/vehicular use area Coulter Boulevard Buffer yard C -430' 20' width Required 4,192 sq. ft. 17 canopy trees 8 islands/peninsulas 13 canopy trees 26 understory trees 39 shrubs Proposed >4,192 sq. ft. 0 canopy trees 5 islands canopy 20 understory shrubs The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for all plantings. It is important that the applicant screen views of the truck loading/unloading area and the parking lot. Success~ General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 8 screening will require the use of berma in addition to landscaping. LIGHTING There is existing street lighting along Coulter Boulevard, one or two of the light may have to be removed to ~odate the two new driveway locations. Ad~fional wall pack lighting will be placed on the new receiving building over the 6 doors and the 3 d~ors.. The light will be 6own east and shielded. SIGNAGE There are existing signs at Coulter Boulevard and Audubon Road and the delivery area at Audubon Road. General Mills has an application in to change the signs from Pillsbury. COMPLIANCE TABLE- IOP DISTRICT Building Height 4 stories / 50 feet 1 story/Mf~ Building Setback N-30' E-30' S-30' W-30' N-60' E-60' S-400+' W-250' Parking stalls 305 439 Parking Setback N-25' E-25' S-25' W-25' N-60' E40' S-40' W-170' Hard surface 70% 27.7% Coverage appro~ly 60 acres VARIANCE FINDINGS As part of this application, the applicant is requesting a variance from the material standards. The ordinance prohibits flit-up concrete panel that are fibbed or corduroy in appearance to be used in any visible exterior application. This material can only be used if permi~ by the city in areas with limited public views. The applicant is also requesting the existing material (a plain concrete tilt up panel with a one inch reveal every 3 ½ inches) be continued on the addition. When the McGl~ building was given site General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 9 plan approval, access was solely off of Audubon Road. The orientation of the building is: the office portion faces the south west comer of the site, shipping is located in the south east comer, and because the warehouse portion is along the northern portion of the site. The fimcfion of the ~ddition is warehousing of deliveries. In reviewing the addition, staff con~ that this location is where this function needs to occur. Again this addition is less than 15 percent. In order to mitigate these requests the staff is proposing a landscaping berm to provide screening. · The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance tmless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Unch~_e hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable ~ within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria Finding: Because the addition is less than 15 percent of the building, the existing function of the building is warehouse along Coulter Boulevard and the building was consmicted before the slaz~ was extended. A requirement of complying with the design standards does cause some un&j¢ hardship. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other ~y within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to properties in the IOP zoning district. However, the existing clevelopment of the site for warehouse dictates the architecture and materials of the addition. c. The p~ of the variation is not based upon a desire to in~ the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed variance will add value to the building by increasing the building size. With the berming and addition noise should be ~ The additional storage space will reduce the truck trips between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. The intent of the addition is to im.rmave efficiency of the plant's operation. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a serf-created hardship. Finding: Staff is requiring the applicant to combine the lots which eliminates an overall nonconforming hard surface coverage. The original development and previous additions were designed and constructed under other standa~. Our goal is to allow it to blend in with the existing structure. Requiring the new addition to comply with revised standards is inappropriate. General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 10 e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the pamel is locateck Finding: Approval of the variance will reduce the major complaint the city has received regarding site operation, which is noise caused by the number of trucks. f. The proposed variation will not i ~mpair an adequate supply of light and air to adjae~t ~ or substantially increase the congestion of the public.slxeets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially ~h or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets subject to revisions in staff's recommendation. Based upon these findings, staff is recommending approval of this variance with conditions. coNomoNa.L USE FINDING FINDINGS When approving a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, the City must determine the compatibility of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232 include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general weffare of the neighborhood or the city. This site has been used for food preparation since 1989. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. 3. Will be designed, consmacted, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that arem Finding: The proposed use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in a~ce with the existing building or intended character of the general vicinity and General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 11 will not change the essential character of that area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The proposed use is not hazardous or distarbing to existing or planned neighboring Ugh. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The proposed use is served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage smmOmes, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools. 6. Will not create ex~ve requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The proposed use will not create ex~ve requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic weffare of the community. The expansion enhances the city's economic weffare. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general weffare because of excessive production of uaffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, redents, or trash. Finding: The proposed use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detfimen~ to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, gmoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or tmsl~ The proposed expansion is intended to reduce external impacts site operations, i.e. reduced track traffic. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the ~ which do not create traffic conge~on or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed use has vehicular approaches to the ~ which do not ~ traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. 9. Will not result in the destm~on, loss or damage of solar access, natmal, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The proposed use do~ not result in the desmmfion, loss or damage of solar accel, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 12 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The proposed use is aesthetically compatible with the area. The ~ redevelopment of the site will continue existing architecune. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding ~ values. Finding: The proposed use will not depreci~ surrounding ~ values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. article. The development complies with the site plan requirements and the conditional use standards. STAFF RECOMMF~NDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: A. 'q'he Planning approves Conditional Use Permit g2001-2 to permit develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with variances for alteration within the buffer area and a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback, and to pem~t a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3~ Addition based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan ~t for the ~. 'Whe Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #03-2 for a 45,600 square foot Office Warehouse Addition and a 730 square foot Thermal Oil Building with variances with the following conditions: le . Submit storm sewer sizing for a 10-year, 2A-hour storm event and pond design calculations. Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002, 2202, 2203, 3101, 3102, 3104, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5300, 5301 and 5302. Show a minimum rock construction entrance of 75 feet in length per City Detail Plate No. 5301. 4. Show the existing sanitary sewer. General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 13 5. Show the proposed watermain and storm sewer pipe, type, size, class, slope, and length. 6. Show storm manhole rim and invert elevations. Silt fence type II must be used and removed when construction is completed along the west and north side. 8. Add concrete driveway apron on each proposed access per City detail plate 5207. 9. Any off-site grading will require temtxrary easements. 10. Maximum grading side slope of 3:1 is required or a retaining wall must be built. 11. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered en~neer. 12. Revise sheet title from "Site Plan" to "Utility Plan" showing all existing utility sewers in dashed line and proposed utility sewer in bold line. 13. Revise sheet title from "Partial Site Plan" to "Grading Plan" showing all existing contours in dashed line and proposed contours in bold line. 14. Revise the existing "8-inch FM" to "8-inch watermain". 15. Revise "Coulter Drive" to "Coulter Boulevard." 16. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit for the site. 17. Add the north arrow sign to the plans. 18. Add a legend to the plans. 19. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 20. Add a storm sewer schedule. 21. Relocate the existing street light and add a new one at the two proposed access locations. 22. Add a note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be core drifted." 23. On the site plan, show dimensions of parking stalls, drive aisle width and curb radii. 24. Show the proposed pad elevation and proposed contours around the addition. General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 14 25. 27. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street improvements. However, the sanitary sewer and water hook up charges will be applicable for the new addition. The 2003 trunk hook-up charges are $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for water main. Sanitary sewer and water main hook up fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building additions. Staff is recommending that a sign be posted at the northeasterly access stating "Truck Traffic Only". Calculations should be submitted to ensure the existing storm water infrastructure is sized adequately for the drainage area. 28. Manholes with two-foot sumps shall be installed as the last road accessible structures prior to discharge into the storm water pond. 29. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure the existing storm water infrastructure is maintained and functioning properly. 30. 31. 32. 33. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resomces, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. Building official conditions: i. The addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. ii. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. iii. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is providecL' It'is evident that the proposed addition will create exiting and high pile storage issues in the existing building that must be examined. iv. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the ln~qpections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedure. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. Applicant shall screen views of track loading/unloading area and parking lot. General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 15 Additional wall pack lighting will be placed on the new receiving building. The light will be down cast and shielded." ATTACHMENTS 1. Site plan of thermal oil building. 2. Site plan data. 3. Initial location of McGlynn Bakery. 4. Original location of mad. 5. Location of Bluff Creek Overlay District. 6. Letter and application. 7. Memo from Loft Haak, Water Resoume~ Coordinator dated March 7, 2003. 8. Memo from Mak Sweidan, Engineer dated March 7, 2003. 9. Public hearing notice and property owners lis[ 10. Site plan General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 16 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND I-II~qNF_,PIN COUNTIES, IvIINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of General Mills Company, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit and Sim Plan Review On March 18, 2003, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of General bfdls for a conditional use permit variance and site plan review for the property located at 8800 Audubon Roar[ The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed use, p~ by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development lOP, light industrial/office park and is within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCO). 2. The Land Use Plan guides the property for office/industrial land uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: 4. Ordinance Compliance Section 20-232 (Conditional Use Permits): a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b. The proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c. The proposed use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appemance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that ama. General Mills Addition March 18, 20O3 Page 17 d. The proposed use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e. The proposed use will be served adequately by essential pubhc facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage smlcmres, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. The proposed use will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the propemj which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or sm'rounding public thoroughfares. The proposed use natural, scenic or The proposed use k. The proposed use 1. The proposed use this article. Section 20-110 (Site Plan): will not result in the desmmtion, loss or damage of solar access, historic features of major significance. will be aesthetically compatible with the area. will not depreciate surrounding property values. will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in (1) (2) (3) Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted with the variance and conditional uses; Is consistent with this division; Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing gm__de changes to be in keeping with the general General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 18 appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site feamLtr, s and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creates a functional and harmonious design for smmmms and site features, with special attention to the following: al An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; C~ Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and mount of parking. (6) Protects adjacent and neighboring ~es through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not a_dequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Variances Section 20-58 " The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reakmnable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of General Mills Addition March 18, 2O03 Page 19 comparable property within 500 feet of it. A reasonable use of the property is office industrial use. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pm-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site as originally con~mpl~ as part of the Chanhassen Business Center development and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pm-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The subdivision was done prior to the adoption of the current standards and many existing subdivisions within the corridor do not comply with code requirements. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The use of the parcel for an office/industrial use is reasonable. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-creatod hardship. The lot was platted prior to the Bluff Creek Overlay ordinance, so the hardship is not self-cxenmxl. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public weffare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. This area had been approved for development as part of the overall plan.. The site had been rough graded up to the area now being proposed for preservation. General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 20 f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially in~ the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. , The planning report gCIJP 2003-1 and Site Plan Review 2003-2 dated March 18, 2003, prepared by Kathryn Aanenson, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMF~NDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conditional use permit, variances and site plan for the General Mills, Inc. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of March, 2003. CT-tA_NF~SSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ATF~T: BY: i ; ~.-..~ .o ~..... ~ ~..~.~.. ..... .. .. . · .~,~.f .~ . ~..... .......~ .... . . .- SI.T.E' PLAN DATA;" .".. MAXIMUM' EMPI'OYEES/SHIFT" =. 305'.-i:'.:i:~-~:.....:.:i.i.::...-.: .- :.: -'. -:i:.~." --' :: -~:ii: ,i~ NU. MBER".OF'PARKiNG' SP. ACES".REQUiRED = 3057~ ~[JMB£R'.SPACES' PROVIDED.'= '43~,'"-~....-:-'.' -'i':~.. .":~:¢ iqFIGHI/~UUS[R. 'OF. STOR!FS =. 34 ~ISII~I.~.'..~~IkDI~G' = '313,~20 SF '::""--~..-.." '~'~- ~D~:~-r~o~...'2- 4.S,.~..oo.. s[ '.. ".~., ""' ~. .:'.:' TO..TAL. =...559',420 SF' " SITE. "COVERAG'E TAB'ULAT. ION' BUILDING. AREA =-359;429 'S:F · . · PARKING. AREAS - 562,:000 SF · TOTAL-'7.21;420 SF · .- TOTAL".-SITE' AARRE~ - ;2,606,683' SF .IMpERVI-ous' ' =-2.7i7Y0 VICINITY 'MAP .o ,. { A2 ~ A K~ ' ANN RD R12 ! ! .. RSF R8 ~ R4 STATE H,~?. ?.b HIGHWAY NO. 5 0 C 0 I, r 0 6~b,.7o I I I I I I I I I I I I I M~Glynn Coulter Blvd Bluff Creek District March 7, 2003 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attention: Kate Aanenson Re: General Mills, Inc. Raw Materials Warehouse Expansion 8000 Audobon Road Dear Ms. Aanenson: Enclosed please find a sketch of the referenced project as requested in our February 25, 2003 meeting with you and your staff to discuss this project. The proposed project is being planned by General Mills because of the impending (October 31) closing of their facility in Eden Praide and the subsequent loss of its warehouse capacity. General Mills believes that the expansion project offers the City and the surrounding area the opportunity to improve upon existing conditions at the site. The 45,600 square foot addition is designed to match the architecture and detailing of the existing warehouse and process building. The addition will effectively screen much of the existing parking area from view from the north side of the property. The current single entrance will be closed and separate employee/visitor and truck entdes constructed. The new truck entrance will located approximately 340' east of the existing entrance. The new employee and visitor entrance will be located approximately 200' west of the existing entrance. A new berm approximately 4' above the elevation of Coulter Drive is proposed to help to screen views of the truck dock area. This feature will be landscaped with evergreens on 20' centers to help mitigate noise and visual issues. The overall land use approach for this site involves placing office and administrative functions on the southwest side, taking advantage of the available views, and placing industrial and support functions on the north and east sides. An existing retaining pond is proposed to be modified and a weir structure installed, if necessary, to address the requirement that site runoff be pretreated. New civil engineering works put in place will meet City of Chanhassen design standards. The site is proposed to be landscaped with a belt of evergreen trees placed on the crest of a perimeter berm or bank on the north and west sides of the property. Ughting will be kept to a minimum on the building extedor because of the Owner's desire to minimize the insect population near the building due to the food processing nature of the business. Other site C:~K~aT~'~S and Setflngs~(ateA~ Settings\Temporary Intemet Flles~(2~lMI--3703.doc AMEC E&C Services Inc. Midwest Plaza Bulldtng 800 Marquette Ave., Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel (612) 332-8328 Fax (612) 332-2423 www.amec.com lighting will be pole type to match existing. No major new signage or large corporate identity signage is being proposed. AMEC has identified the need for approximately six smoke and relief power vents on the roof of the proposed structure. A small HVAC unit will be located on the roof to serve the receiving office, trucker's lounge and restroom. We believe that the visual impact of these features will be minimal due to the proposed height (approximately 34') and interior location of the equipment. It is AMEC's understanding that the closing of the Eden Prairie site will reduce the amount of truck traffic at the Chanhassen location, as the current operations are interdependent and result in much shuttle traffic. Feel free to contact me with any questions. I can be reached at 612 252-3715 or at Mark.Wasescha@amec.com. Sincerely, Mark S. W asescha, AIA Chief Architect encl cc: Tammy Ziegenbein, GMI Lane Paolocci, GMI Lonnie Malikowski, GMI Chris Hall, GMI Con Blake, AMEC Jack Wemer, AMEC File J744 CrrTY OF CHANH/lk,qSEN 6g0 COULTER DRIVE C?.IANH~, MN · ·1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION 'J';~ ~=PHC)NE (Day th'ne) OWNER:. ' c.,. · ADDRESS: ~_o~o P'-w~,,,~o~,,~_-r.~. /[w . IJ I-,4p~,s,, ~M 5'~; 47_'7 mill -- C~mpr~ensiva Plan Amendment Usa Permit i Temporary Sales Permit i Wm~llon o~ ROW/~om~'~ Non-conforming Use Permit WeUand AJtera/lon Permit ......_ PJanned Unit Development' Sign Permits ~ Sig~ PJaA Review S~ Plan Review* , Subdlvls~· -I II _-._ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ ._~ Notification Sign ' _X_ Escrow for Fnb~g Fees/~y Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Mete~ and Bounds, $4O0 Ml__mr. SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A llst o! all property ownem within 500 feet of the bound~ea of the property rolm be Inoluded with the 1quad]rig matmlal sample~ must be sul~nltted with see plan review& *Twenty-six full slze ~ copies of the plarm mu~t be submitted, Including an aY=" X 11" reduced copy of ~-:,,---~-~._~g~. ;,.ch pMn,she~t. "' Eson3w will be required for other applicatlone through the development contract NOTE- When mulflple appllca/ions am processed, the appropriate fee shaJ1 be chaq;led for each appBcatbn. ~ 'd PEIP~ 'PT :VT 'This apt~allon must be com~ in I~11 ~ be ~ or clearly printed and must be aca3mpanlad I~ a~ Infonnadon -,~,-,d plar~ required by applicable City Ordinance provolone, aerobe ~ang mis appiJcatlon, you nhould c~nfer with the Planning Depamaent to determine the spedr~: ordlnance and pmcedu~ requlmment~ oppll~le to your =pplk~atlon. A dutuwn~ of eomplet~rmsa of the ~lcaJon ~all be m _,~,_ vahln an business days eutm~lttaL. A written ~ af n~ deficiencies ~ha]l ~ mal~ to the appaoent within ten bus~ss ~ of · the CJty ~x~cl ~ ~ any martin I~rmlra',g to this iq~f, oatlon, i have ~ m co~ of proo~ o1' owmmh~ (~r CITYOF CHAN SElq 7700 Ma~ka Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanl'~. MN 55317 Mmlnlstratlon Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax:. 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resonrces Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax:. 9,.52.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site ,,w,r,v. ci.chan hassaq.mn.us FROM: DATE: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Loft Haak, Water Resources Coordinator March 7, 2003 SUBJ: G-ene~ Mills Site Plan Review Upon review of plans prepared by AMF_~ received February 25, 2003, I offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS One wetland exists on the southernmost edge of the site. Two wetlands are shown (one ag/urban wetland and one natural wetland) on the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) maps; however, the northernmost wetland appearing on the maps (ag/urban) is actually a storm water pond. The pond was constructed when the lot was originally subdivided (in 1988) by constructing a berm and impounding water between the'parking lot and Bluff Creek. No wetland impacts are pa'oposed in conjunction with this project. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low-impact practices. The southwest comer of the site incorporates a portion of the primary and secondary zones of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. No alterations are proposed within the overlay district. GRADING~ DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Storm Water M~nt The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water ponding must meet NURP standards. Calculations should be submitted to ensure the existing storm water infl'as~ is sized adequately for the drainage area. Manholes with two-foot sumps should be installed as the last mad accessible struc~ prior to discharge into the storm water pond. The City of Chanha#en · k growing community with c~an lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A grot place to live, work, and play. Kate Aanenson March 7, 2003 Page 2 of 2 It appears that the existing storm water inf:mslxuctum may not be functioning properly. The applicant should work with staff to ensure the existing storm water in~ is maintained and functioning properly. Ot~r Agendes The applicant shall apply for and obtain penxdts from the appmp~ate regulatory agen~es (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, i~rmmesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Depamn~t of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with theft conditions of approval. SITE PLAN REVIEW: . . . RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Calculations should be submitted to ensure the existing storm water infrastructure is sized adequately for the drainage area. Manholes with two-foot sumps shall be installed as the last road acces~ble mucuam prior to discharge into the storm water pon& The applicant shall work with staff to ensure the existing storm water ~ is maintained and functioning ~ly. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgato~-Bluff Creek Watemhed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Reso~, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. CqTYOF /700 Made{ I~Jleva~d PO Box 147 Chanhas,~n, MN ~17 AdmlnlstraUon Phone: 952.227.1100 Fa~ 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.221.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.221.1160 Fax: 952,221.1110 Finance Phone: 952.221.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Fta~eation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.221.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resoumes Phone: 952.221.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 9..52.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site w~wv. ci.chanhassen.mn.us TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Mak Swcidan, En~ ..D ~:~/'7 March 7, 2003 '~ Site Plan Review for General Mills Building Expansion Land Usc Review File No. 03-01 Upon review of the plans prepared by Amec dated February 25, 2003, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The plans do not show the proposed building pad elevation and proposed contours around thc addition. This information must be provided prior to City Council site plan approval. A maximum slope of 3:l is allowed where applicable or a retaining wall must be used on the berrns along thc north side of the proposed middle access. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height needs to be designed by a registered engineer. The plans do not propose a rock consmmtion entrance or erosion control fencing around the perimeter of thc site. Type II silt fence must be used and extended along the west and north sides of the proposed grading ama. In addition, a rock construction entrance at a minimum of 75 feet in length must be shown at the entrance that is to be utilized during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. The plans propose to abandon a portion of an existing storm sewer line and re- route it around thc proposed building expansion are~ Thc proposed building and parking areas will drain toward thc proposed catch basins in thc parking area and be conveyed via existing storm sewer to an existing pond south of thc site. The applicant needs to submit storm sewer design data for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event and the pond drainage calculations for the additional building area and parking lots for staff review. UTILITIES No public utilities are proposed as part of this project. The plans propose to abandon a portion of an existing 8-inch watermain line and re-route it around the proposed building expansion area. Also, a private 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer is proposed to be abandoned and relocated away from the building addition foundation with the project. The applicant needs to revise thc plans to show all existing and proposed utilities. The City of Chanhassen, A growing community wilh clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, ttlrivlng businesses, winding trolls, and beautiful parks. A Oleat place to live, work, and play. Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director March 7, 2003 Page 2 The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street improvements. However, the sanitary sewer and water hook up charges will be applicable for the new addition. The 2003 trunk hook-up charges are $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for water maim Sanitary sewer and water main hook up fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building additions. STREETS No public streets are proposed as part of this project. The plans propose on eliminating the existing full access for Lot I off of Coulter Boulevard and installing two new full accesses off of Coulter Boulevard. The proposed accesses are spaced 520 feet apart which is greater than the 300-foot minimum spacing requirement. Due to the configuration of the northeasterly access, truck tra~c will only be able to access the site when traveling westbound from Audubon Road. The access has a small curb radius on the west side which will limit the ,ming ability of trucks coming from the west. Staff is recommending that a sign be posted at this access stating "Truck Traffic Only". Due to the building expansion a number of parking spaces will be eliminated and relocated to the two new parking lots along the west side of the existing parking lot. The applicant should be aware that no parking is allowed on the adjacent public streets at any time. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL , Submit storm sewer sizing for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event and pond design calculations. e Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002, 2202, 2203, 3101, 3102, 3104, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5300, 5301 and 5302. 3~ Show a minimum rock construction entrance of 75 feet in length per City Detail Plate No. 5301. 4. Show the existing sanitary sewer. , Show the proposed watermain and storm sewer pipe, type, size, class, slope, and length. 6. Show storm manhole rim and invert elevations. . Silt fence type II must be used and removed when construction is completed along the west and north side. 8. Add concrete driveway apron on each proposed ms per City detail plate 5207. 9. Any off-site grading will require tempo~ easements. Kate Aan~n, Community Development Director March 7, 2003 Page 3 10. Maximum grading side slope of 3:1 is required or a retaining wall must be built. 11. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. 12. Revise sheet title from "Site Plan" to "Utility Plan" showing all existing utility sewers in dashed line and proposed utility sewer in bold line. 13. Revise sheet title from "Partial Site Plan" to "Grading Plan" showing all existing contours in dashed line and proposed contours in bold line. 14. Revise the existing "8-inch FM" to "8-inch watermain". 15. Revise "Coulter Drive" to "Coulter Boulevard". 16. Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit for the site. 17. Add the north arrow sign to the plans. 18. 19. Add a legend to the plans. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 20. Add a storm sewer schedule. 21. Relocate the existing street light and add a new one at the two proposed access locations. 22. 23. 24. 25. Add a note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be core drilled". On the site plan, show dimensions of parking stalls, drive aisle width and curb radii. Show the proposed pad elevation and proposed contours around the addition. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street improvements. However, the sanitary sewer and water hook up charges will be applicable for the new addition. The 2003 trunk hook-up charges are $1,44.0 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for water main. Sanita~ sewer and water main hook up fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building additions. 26. Staff is recommending that a sign be posted at the northeasterly access stating '~rruek Traffic Only". C: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer 8':.~-ng~projects~l~neral mills~uilding expansion plsn r~ricw.doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Proposed Addition APPLICANT: General Mills LOCATION: 8000 Audubon Road NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, ~ Mills, is requesting see plan review for an addition of approximately 45,000 sq. f. with variances and a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on property zoned Industrial Office Park and located at 8000 Audubon Road. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to Inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall dudng office houm, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen at 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 6, 2003. Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 5160® CRR~.K FIVE ASSOCIATES C/O LAND GROUP INC 123 3RD ST N MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 OSMONICS INC 5951 ~WATER DR HOPKINS MN 55343 -PRN MUSIC CORPORATION 7801 AUDUBON RD CHAN'HASSF~ MN 55317 ALFRED A IVERSEN PMT CORPORATION 1500 PARK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CAMPBI~ J-PROPERTIF_3 LP II C/O ARAMARK EDUC RF_.3OURCF_3 573 PARK POINT DR GOLDEN CO 80401 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC #366 C/O GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT PO BOX 1113 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 LOVE 4 ONE ANOTHER CHAR1TIF_.S 7801 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALFRED A IVERSEN PMT CORPORATION 1500 PARK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIIE PILLSBURY COMPANY C/O GENERAL MIl J.S TAX DEPT POBOX 1113 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 /'.ddress l.abets Laser 5160®