Loading...
1988 07 13 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING ~ JULY 13, 1988 Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Annette Ellson, Steven Emmings, Brian Batzli and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth and Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION OF 7 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND TO CREATE A NEW 64TH STREET CUL-DE-SAC ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 64TH STREET AND HWY. 41, REED ADDITION, GARY REED AND HSZ DEVELOPMENT Conrad moved, Batzli seconded to table this item until July 20, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. tit PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE RURAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HWY. 41 APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. Public Present: Name Address Brian Pike Jim Dalhart Wests ide Baptist Church Architect for Applicant Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Headla: You say they looked at the site. Did they take borings or is that just an opinion? Olsen: We did not take borings at that time. There was a big hole being dug with the Lake Ann Interceptor so he did get an idea of what the soils were like and then the topography. There was area to work, it was just that we had not been given any information to prove there was a boring site out there. - Emmings: Is the applicant here and does he want to make a presentation at this time? Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 2 It Brian pike: Yes, I have a few things to say about this. We've given her one soil boring. Actually two that are in this area. The pond is over here isn't it? Doesn't it come across this way? Olsen: It comes along the bottom. Brian pike: So is this 150 setback correct with this pond over here? Olsen: Yes. e Brian pike: We gave her two in this area and she's asking for a second site. This sewer that's coming through right through here is going down 52 feet and the man some time ago asked for permission to move their dirt over this line down into this area over here. We had given him permission to do that so when I brought, you see a letter in there from Mr. Schneewind from R & D Soil Consultants. He said this area, it looked like the water table, and he also looked at this hole that's right here, and the water table he said looked too low for over here. Then he said the only other spot is up in this forest area which is a mature forest land and we have done everything we could to keep them from knocking those trees down with this septic line coming through. In fact, the forest land that you see right here used to go out to here and they took out stuff that they told us they were not going to take out. They're going to supposedly compensate us for that. We're trying to save these trees and she's asking us to put, to do a soil boring up in here. We're saying that we don't want to put it up in there. I've sought some advice and some counsel from other folks and they say that it is a possibility up here although Schneewind said he thought that the grade was too steep so we didn't pursue this. Also, because we were seeking, as the application says, an opportunity to hook up to the Metro Waste Sewer line that's running right through the middle of our property. Originally when it became clear that they were going to come right through the middle of our property, we said at that time we would like to hook up. I spoke to a lady named Miss Pahl. That was some time ago. Not two months as the letter states. When I spoke with her she said there could be something considered called an exception. That's the first time I heard of an exception. To get an exception she said you had to go through your City but it won't be likely that you'll get this exception until it's proven that you've actually purchased the property and you're getting ready to build so we waited because we did not know how fast we were going to build. How fast we were going to grow. How soon we needed to move from the location that we needed to move from here in Chanhassen. So we waited and it began to look like, as we did some searching and research, that we could build. We found someone that was willing to finance and we found a builder that thought that we could put the building up so we plan on proceeding. Slow but sure and we're ready, at least it looks like financially, and the builder has designed this design for us. This hooking up to the sewer line is the only thing that's holding us, it looks like to us. For us to put a septic system up in this tree growth, it means knocking out some mature trees that are not going to be replaced very easily. When we know we're going to hook up to the sewer line in maybe 1995, is what Miss pahl first said to us because it's 2000 before they open up to anybody outside the sewer line. Is that correct? e Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 3 e Dacy: At minimum. Brian pike: She mentioned to me 1995 and again, it seems to us that with this thing going right through the center of our property, that we should be an exception to this rule. We discovered that we would use less than one household, one residential household. The urban sewer line is just the other side of the pond from us. We're not real far from that sewer line and there isn't anyplace that's undisturbed except that little 150 foot stretch she shows there between the construction limit and the pond. Again, that is low land over there so it would probably require a mound system which again to us is a little bit more money for a temporary system that will hold us until the year 2000. Emmings: I guess the point is that if the Metropolitan Council has written us a letter that says they're not going to allow you as an exception. They're not going to let you hook up. Brian pike: The Metropolitan Council has not relayed exactly that firm of a position to me. Emmings: Let me tell you, I've got a letter dated July 1, 1988. e Brian pike: I've got the same letter right here. Emmings: It says in one paragraph, the Metropolitan Council has a letter that says an outside system could not be installed to serve the church and an exception will not be granted at this time. We can't get, the Planning Commission is not going to get in a wrestling match between you and the Metropolitan Councilor between you and the staff. You're going to have to satisfy our staff that you've got some way to dispose of this sewage. If you can hook up, fine. It makes sense but if you can't, we're going to have to have the on-site septic systems. There can't be any two ways about it. There's no third alternative that I can think of and as far as all the stuff you've told us so far, this is all how, the problems you've had getting the Metropolitan Council to see the light to do what you want to do and that really doesn't concern us. There's nothing we can do about that. Brian Pike: About Met Council? Emmings: Right. Brian pike: Well Met Council has mentioned another option to us that hasn't been mentioned. In here there's no mention of our other soil borings that's given to you. I'm having a struggle definitely and I don't feel like I'm having a struggle so much with Met Council. Met Council is telling me that it's up to this staff. 4It Emmings: Brian pike: To recommend to them or not to recommend to them and they're saying they can't recommend because of those two possibilities that they To do what? -~ Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 4 e disagree with Mr. Schneewind about as being possibilites. Emmings: We hire professional consultants because we don't know about sewage disposal and we rely on them for their technical expertise and if it comes down to a showdown between Mr. Schneewind and our City retained experts, traditionally we follow what our experts tell us. That's what we hired them for. I have to ask the staff if this Mr. Machmeier and... Olsen: Jim Anderson. Emmings: And have they said that they think it's possible that they can have two on-site systems? Olsen: Right, but we need the information, the soil borings, to prove it one way or the other. Emmings: And who do you get that from? Olsen: The applicant. Brian pike: We gave them the two. We haven't heard any comments about the two because they're still waiting for the other ones up in the trees. So when it comes down to that subjective of being in the trees, who is that makes the determination on whether or not those trees come out? Is that you? Them? Us or the Councilor who? e Emmings: I suppose if that's your alternative site, there wouldn't be any reason it would have to be disturbed. If you could use the primary site where there are no trees, you may never need the secondary site. You may never need it at all or you may never need it until you'll be able to hook up into the Lake Ann Interceptor. There's no reason to think right off hand that you're ever have to take out a tree if your primary site is built correctly and maintained correctly. That would be what I would say. Olsen: And Mr. Anderson commented that they wouldn't be clearcutting a huge area. Emmings: Why do they have to cut anything? Olsen: They don't. That's just an alternate site but if they do. Brian pike: So you said two acceptable sites, at least that's the way we were reading the site. Olsen: Receive the soil borings. Brian pike: So they need soil borings in the trees. Is that an issue by which we would be tabled and stopped at this point? e Emmings: We can't process your application. I think what staff is saying to us is we can't process this application without having all the information in. The information isn't in. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 5 e Brian pike: So two soil borings? Emmings: I don't know. Whatever they require. Brian pike: Two soil borings. them mentioned in all of this. checked? The other soil borings, we've never had Were they not acceptable? Have they been Olsen: What we need are the two sets of soil borings with the site shown on the plan, which you have not done. You haven't really shown. Those are two soil borings that were taken previously. Brian pike: We showed where they were on the site plan. Olsen: Right. What we need is to have on the site plan to show the area where that site is proposed. We need to have that area staked out on the site so the soil consultants can go out there and see exactly where it is. Brian pike: But we did give you two and we did mark those two on the site plan. Ernmings: That's not what she said. She said she needs to have defined on the site plan an outlined area where you plan to build your drainfield and show them where the borings are and that and then show the alternative. e Brian pike: We did that didn't we? Emmings: Have you seen it Jo Ann? Olsen: We've gotten two soil borings shown. Emmings: It sounds to me like there's a communication problem here. Have you corne into the staff office and just said, here's our plan. What more do you need so we can complete our application? Brian pike: Yes. Ernmings: Have you done that? Brian pike: Yes. Olsen: He's been explained what's needed. Brian pike: It's just been this issue about the trees. I guess I've talked to other people in the City, on the City Council and they believe that up in those trees, those trees shouldn't be taken down so I've been hedging and saying that this is an exception. I want my city to make an application. Met Council says they can't do anything until our City Staff makes an application to them. e Ernmings: What's your understanding? Olsen: What's happened is that there has been a... Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 6 e Brian pike: A block. Olsen: A communication block. What I've been saying is we need, for us to go to Met Council, the only way that they're going to accept it, that Land Use Plan Amendment, is if there's no way that he can provide septic sites so I've asked the applicant some information to confirm it. He has been under the opinion that maybe we don't even need to do that. Emmings: It's pretty clear to me though, what needs to be done here is you have to identify the two sites that you propose for the septic. Get your soil borings in so the staff can look at them with our consultants and we can make an informative decision then as to whether or not we've got sites here that can be used for the septic system or not. Batzli: I think what he's trying to say is he submitted one set of borings and if that area is not acceptable, he doesn't want to have to go and take a second set up in the trees. I think what he's actually trying to ask the staff is, have they examined those soil borings so is there at least one primary site available. Brian pike: Because Met Council says if there's not two, then we are a hardship case. They've also mentioned another thing to us about a land swap that they're willing to do and that we weren't informed of until just the other day. e Emmings: It seems to me that all this stuff ought to be done before we look at it. It seems to me that that can't be resolved at the Planning Commission. Ladd, I'm going to ask for your guidance on this. It would seem to me that we're looking at issues that we don't normally look at. This stuff usually gets ironed out before we get it and that's further evidence to me that the thing ought to be tabled until everybody has their act together and then we can look at it. What do you think? Conrad: Yes. We need the two separate sites. Brian pike: We're asking to go hook up to the Metropolitan Council. We're saying that the septic sites to us aren't necessary and they're not necessary because, as we look at the site and as she went and looked at the site, it is a site that is a hardship case and it would be considerd as an exception. Emmings: But then go convince them that you should be hooked up and then bring your plan back and that's fine. We won't worry about the septic sites. Brian pike: Convince who? Emmings: The Metropolitan Council. e Brian pike: It's these two that I have to convince. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 7 e Emmings: Okay, staff first and then Metropolitan Council. You'll have to do that but we can't do anything. That's preliminary to coming in here. Headla: You've got to do step 1 before you move to step 2. Dacy: The soil borings need to be done period. Conrad: We don't know if the first borings are good or bad and you're saying that you don't want to do the second ones until the first ones are in and I think we need to see both. We can go to Metropolitan Council and say it's a hardship. I guess I would have a hard time saying that there's a hardship if you have to take down a tree and I think we're as sensitive as any community in the Twin Cities when you talk about taking down trees. We want to preserve trees like you do but if you were asking me if taking down 1 or 2 trees or something is a hardship that would require us to go to Met Council and say this is a real hardship, I think I would have a hard time saying that. If you said we have to level 4 acres of property, that may be a hardship but I'm not hearing that. you're not giving us enough' information to make any kind of decision. You're not providing staff with the minimum that our ordinances require for us to process anything so I think it's just best, before we set direction and say we agree with you that it is a hardship or we disagree. I think you really have to get all sets of information into us. e Brian pike: I guess when they asked us for two sites and we looked at all the disturbed property from Metro Council's line going through, we couldn't see two sites and so that was the basis for applying to Met Council for a variance. Conrad: Our staff is saying there are. With their technical advice they're saying there are two sites so I think between you and your, whoever's helping you do the engineering and the city staff, I think you've got to narrow in on that. Jim Dalhart: I'm working with the church. I couldn't find in the zoning ordinance but I believe it does say that you need city approval to remove trees in the forested areas. You basically answered that you look at 4 acres as large quantities? e Conrad: No. I made that stuff up. Don't hold me to the actual words that I used. The key, and we spent some time making sure that in the unsewered area we don't want to pollute. Therefore, our new ordinance, and it's relatively new, requires two alternative sites. A primary site and if that one fails somewhere down the line, we want to know that there's a secondary site. We don't want to encourage pollution. Whether it be from a house or a church or industry. That's the reason for that ordinance and it's relatively new and we're doing things that I think deserves the environment that your church would like and the community likes. That's what Chanhassen is asking for right now. We have to know if there are those alternative sites. Once we know that, then we can proceed. If we know that there's not a secondary site available, we can react to that but right now we don't know and that's why we're saying we can't even provide you any advice right now. We need to know if there's a Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 8 - secondary site. That's sort of the next step that you've got to go through with our staff and your engineering people and come back to us again. Jim Dalhart: Part of the church's concern is simply... This is the first unit building and a site in the trees they would have to pump probably up to it. That's another reason the church was relunctant to go that way. Emmings: You have to only identify it on the site. You don't have to use it but you have to identify it. Conrad: But you would be forced to use it if the first system failed. Brian pike: According to Met Council, then they would look at it if our first system fails. Is that right? Is that what you read on that letter? Olsen: If your system fails and there's an alternate site, I believe that they would wish that you use that. Emmings: You don't know how they're going to be looking at that. Met Council doesn't exactly stay constant on issues either and you get 10 years down the road and you have a failure in your septic system, they may have a whole different idea that yes, they would accept you as an exception at that time. Maybe at time you'd be pushed out even further but there's just no way to know. e Headla: Why are we spending so much time talking about Met Council? We aren't even part of it. Until they satisfy the staff requirements, you don't do anything so listen to the staff and then they're going to work with you and if there isn't a site available, then you've got their total support in going to Met Council. But by doing an end run on them, I think you're just delaying the activity. Brian Pike: Sir, we're not trying to do an end run on them. Headla: That's what it appears when they say you've got to do these things and Met Council says you've got to have their support. Brian pike: The way this thing proceeded was, I was told to come up with a letter from a soil consultant that said there isn't two sites. I went and brought a soil consultant out there. He looked and he said, well there isn't. So I sent the letter in and they she went out there with the City Engineer and they looked over the property. They didn't do I believe any test. No tests so on his opinion, it came down to two opinions and I can understand taking the City opinion. I wasn't trying to do an end run. The guy, my person that I was willing to pay to do the soil borings said there aren't two sites out there. You said your City Engineer said there are. ~ Emmings: Did he base his opinion on borings? Brian pike: He based it upon, no. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 9 e Emmings: You can hire an expert to say anything. Brian pike: We hired him to come out and do soil borings and he said where? He said all of this is disturbed land. Emmings: Maybe by coordinating with our consultants and staff, maybe they can identify the likely sites and your man can do the borings. Communicate with the staff and get them what they want. Brian Pike: We did and she said probably the end result of this is having your guy and our guy going out there on the property and look it over. A lot of this communication has been in the last week here. Emmings: I've got one question on this. From time to time I've heard about the extension of Lake Lucy Road out to TH 41. Where does that come in relation to this property? Olsen: We have only an approximate location. Brian pike: Nothing's been set in stone from what we've been told. Olsen: The approximate location is in here. e Batzli: Are you going to be reserving the right-of-way? Olsen: As an easement? We are reserving it at this time but there's nothing to prevent them from building on it at this time. Jim Dalhart: The church couldn't build on there? Olsen: Not if we don't have an official right-of-way. Dacy: We wouldn't recommend it. Emmings: First of all, does anyone else have any other comments on this or is there a motion? Conrad moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission until the applicant provides the required soil boring data acceptable septic sites on the property to the City Staff. favor and the motion carried. table this item locating two All voted in Headla: Do you know what the Met Council is doing? They just keep playing hardnose? It seems like this would be an ideal situation. , Dacy: The Lake Ann Facility Agreement has a lot to do with that. To allow one property to hook up, you can have a lot of implications from the Met Council's standpoint for all of the properties along the MUSA line there. Number one, there's no acreage available to land swap. Number two, the City has to do a parcel by parcel analysis of the entire MUSA line if we want to add additional acreage in so it's going to be a Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 10 e timely process with no guarantee for any applicant to get acreage added. Headla: So it isn't just the aye or nay, there's a lot of other things that affect it? Dacy: Yes. PUBLIC HEARING: REPLAT OF LOT 6 OF SUN RIDGE ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS (2.5 ACRES AND 39.8 ACRES) ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE~SAC OF SUN RIDGE COURT, 1/2 MILE NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD ON AUDUBON ROAD, ROD GRAMS. Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item. Emmings: Barb, just one question. If he add the 20 acres out there to the 40, he can only put two houses on all of that 60 acres, is that correct? e Dacy: That's correct. There's one existing house here so he'd be allowed one here and then one still on the big lot. Emmings: He could divide it up anyway he wanted to but... Dacy: He gets two more units and that's it. Emmings: Is the applicant present? Dacy: I don't know what happened to him. Although he does, he is the anchor for Channel 9 so he's probably at work. Emmings: Are there any members of the public that are here to comment on this. It is a public hearing. Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: There's a driveway coming off of Audubon. Can you show me on the map where that would be there? Dacy: As part of the original plat approval, I think that was right here between these two lots. The road entrance is just to the north of that and there is a driveway to an existing house to the north of this site. Headla: There's a couple of homes there isn't there? e Dacy: Yes. The existing house here. There's that huge house that's being constructed here and then this lot is built on and this one too. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 11 e Emmings: Isn't there one more further to the west? Dacy: Yes. I think that one is too. Headla: I thought there was a driveway exit off the road to the south of the last home. Dacy: To the south of this one? Headla: The last home that's there. Dacy: Another one of those lots is right at the base of Lyman and Audubon. There is the street and the two driveway accesses. That was approved in the original plat. Headla: Okay, I just want to make sure. When I stood in that driveway I wasn't really sure. They said silos on this one drawing we got and I started looking for silos and I wasn't quite sure that I was right where I should be. Dacy: The drawing is referring to the existing house up over on the east side of the property. e Headla: I didn't have any notes here so, I don't have anymore. Batzli: I was going to ask about condition 4. The developer agrees to extending Sun Ridge Court. Wouldn't this be the type of thing where we reserve a right-of-way over Lot I so we can extend that? Dacy: That already is of record. Batzli: There is a right-of-way over Lot I? Dacy: Yes. Batzli: It's just not shown on the, I guess there's a dotted line. That's already reserved, that right-of-way? Dacy: Yes. There's a 60 foot easement. Batzli: I saw the dotted line there. I didn't know that was already reserved. I thought that was like contemplated type road. That was my only question. ElIson: It looks fine to me. Conrad: Barbara, the reason we can not require the applicant to put a road into the 39 acres is, when there is potential access in the future and/or we're designating it as an outlot? What is it that you hang your hat on to say we don't need access to it at this point? Ie I I Dacy: We can hang the hat on a couple of hatracks. One being, the ordinance does allow a private drive for a landlocked piece in the rural Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 12 e area. I didn't refer to that but that's possible. Number two is that by conditioning this to be an outlot and to remain unbuildable until an access situation can be resolved with the acreage to the east, we can require extension of the street at that time. Conrad: Good. No other questions. Emmings: I just noticed when we were out there in the circle of the cul-de-sac, the sides were washing, probably from the rain we just had. I just wondered, do they have to put curb around? Are they required to do curb out there? Dacy: In the rural area, no. Emming s: comments, I don't have anything else. is there a motion on this? Unless anyone else has any other Dacy: I was just thinking of Mr. Batzli's idea. I guess it wouldn't hurt to make a statement conditioning to rededicate the 30 feet on Lot 1 just to make sure. Batzli: Who has the lot to the west there of that line on Lot I? .. Dacy: . not. I don't know if that's still under the subdivider's ownership or Batzli: But that's already platted too? Dacy: Right. Just to clarify it so it doesn't get lost. Emmings: So you're asking that the motion be amended to include in paragraph 4 the statement that the existing easement what? Dacy: The existing 30 foot future street easement along the west lot line of Lot 1 be reindicated on the plat of the 2nd Addition. Headla moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission approve Subdivision Request #87-25 based on the plat stamped "Received June 17, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the recommendations of Mr. Machmeier and Mr. Anderson. 2. Redesignation of proposed Lot 2 as an outlot. 3. Dedication of the final plat of a 75 foot utility easement over the Williams Pipeline. 4. The developer agrees to extending Sun Ridge Court to the southerly property boundary of Outlot A if an application is pursued for Outlot A. This extension of Sun Ridge Court shall be at the sole expense of the applicant and shall be consistent with the City's standards. The e Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 13 - existing 30 foot future street easement along the west lot line of Lot 1 be reindicated on the plat of the 2nd Addition. 5. The applicant shall supply the City Engineer for approval a grading, drainage and erosion control plan for each lot as part of the buildingt permit process. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 18800 WEST 78TH, LYMAN LUMBER. and SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 30,000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AUTOMATED BUILDING COMPONENTS BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 18800 WEST 78TH STREET, LYMAN LUMBER. Public Present: - Name Address John Waldren Dwight Larson Alan Nordby Applicant BRW Eden prairie Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on both the Conditional Use Permit and the Site plan Review. Ernmings: One thing it said that kind of confused me. It said they're going to move a fence and somehow that reduces the amount of coverage on the site? I don't understand how that... Olsen: One of the original plans, the fence was located up into here. Ernmings: The point is Jo Ann, isn't coverage the amount of impervious surface taken as a percentage on the amount of land. Regardless of where the fence is, there wouldn't be more land. Olsen: No, they are removing lot coverage. They're moving the fence into an outdoor storage area and moving it up into there so they are providing green space. Emmings: So they are converting some impervious area to open? - Olsen: Technically impervious is still debatable but yes. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 14 e Emmings: Is the applicant here? Do you wish to add anything to the staff's report or have any comments on the conditions that have been imposed by Staff in their report? John Waldren: I'm with Lyman Lumber Company. The only thing that I might add is that somehow we are viewing this as a continuation of development that we originally talked to Chanhassen in 1975 when we located here. The actual construction started in 1979. For your information, the building that's going to be added on to the ABC building is going to be exactly like that. It's going to be painted the same color. Same precast concrete. All that. This one shows the landscaping that is required and that's not what we're proposing to do. What Jo Ann showed you up here and double the trees that are on there. I think it would be good for Dwight Larson from BRW to show you the landscaping plan that we've been talking to Jo Ann and Barb. I've added a few to that because they said they'd probably like it better if we could do some clustering of the trees and have some evergreens in there and things like that. Dwight can show you that. I don't know if you want to get into it. There's a couple of conditions on there that we had questions on. Emmings: Why don't you go ahead. e John Waldren: Dwight can go over the landscaping and then there's, where the parking is, it calls for curb and gutter and he wanted to talk about whether that really does impede the drainage flow there because it's right next to the gravel storage area. Basically it was just to show you the clustering and your access in. Dwight? e Dwight Larson: For the record my name is Dwight Larson and I'm with BRW. I don't think I need to dwell greatly on the landscaping because I think it's pretty well covered. I will just say, as Jo Ann has said, along this side, the south and the east side of the site, the applicant is pretty much doubling the amount of plant tree material that the ordinance requires and at the request of staff, we have used a mixture of conifers, Black Hill Spruce in this case, with Red Maples. Also at their request, instead of simply having a line of trees, we've clustered them as shown on this plan. with that I would like to move along to condition 12 on the site plan recommendations which has to do with curb and gutter along the edge of the parking area. As this run shows, the applicant is proposing to pave this parking area which is required by the ordinance and use a gravel storage and staging area. Condition 12 in the staff memo recommends that curb and gutter be placed along the edge of the parking area. Normally when curb and gutter is used, it's used for one or two reasons. One is as a barrier or two, to help drainage. In this case, since there's no sidewalk along here. There's no street. There's no area for pedestrian would normally would be walking or an area that we need to protect like landscaping, it doesn't seem necessary that we would need a barrier at that point. As far as the issue of drainage, the drainage scheme for this entire area is for the runoff to surface flow, sheet flow in this direction to a detention pond and an inlet in this corner. By putting the curb and gutter along here, we would actually be interrupting that normal flow and instead of having sheet flow across the staging area, we would have a situation where the flow would be concentrated down in Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 15 e this area which would produce more potential for erosion and those sorts of problems. So on behalf of the applicant, I would like to request that the item 12, that that one be deleted so as not to require that curb and gutter be required along the paved area. John, would you like me to discuss the fencing issue also? Okay. The conditions in both the special use application and the site plan application have required and the applicant is providing a wooden fence that's completely opaque all along the east and the south sides but the applicant is concerned a little bit with vandalism. with a wooden fence the slats could easily be pulled down and people could more easily get through a wooden fence than a chain linked fence. The applicant would like the sections, I believe it's item 3 in the site plan memo and I think it's number 2 in the special use request that have to do with removing the chain link fence. The applicant would like to have a chain link fence immediately behind the wooden fence so that it wouldn't be visible from outside of the site but yet would provide the protection that he needs for all of the merchandise that he would be storing. Ernmings: So the height of that chainlink fence would be 6 feet also? e Dwight Larson: Is that right John? It would be the same height as the wood fence but it would be behind the wood fence and not visible from the street. I would like to look at the sight lines that will be provided with the fence that the applicant will build. The top drawing would be the view from 78th Street from the frontage road and you can see from the 3 1/2 foot eye height on the road with a 6 foot fence and an 8 foot stack of lumber or whatever they would be storing in here, even if it were moved over immediately adjacent to the berm that the applicant is proposing, you could see that stack clearly would not be visible from the street. The same situation applies on the east side of this site. Ernmings: Are you representing to us that 8 feet is high as any lumber gets stacked? John Waldren: The designated use for that area is a staging area which would be the loads are put together to take out to the job sites and those have to go on the truck bed and the highest they can go is a 8 foot level. So that would be out in that area. In the area that's to the north where we're screening a lot of the east side, you will, if you drive up there, you will still see some of the tops of the bunks of lumber back in through the yard there. It's just that as the yards and trees mature, you'll see less and less of that area but out front, yes it will be what fits on a truck and that's 8 foot high. As Dwight is showing, if you put it right to the edge and that would be the last place we'd put it because then we wouldn't want to go any further down the staging area with it. Where the trucks get loaded is at the other end of this. Dwight Larson: Unless you have any questions for John or myself, I believe that's all that we want to present. e Ernmings: Before we open it up to any more comments, do you want to react to the two proposals that they've made. Number 12 on the curb and gutter? Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 16 e Olsen: I'll defer that one to Larry but as far as the fencing. fine with us. That's Brown: The curb and gutter, after being reviewed from the City Engineer, he had stated that the curb and gutter, number one will help maintain the pavement end from disruption. Number two, the plans show a storm sewer system, a manhole is shown about in the middle of the driveway for the proposed parking area and it was the City Engineer's feeling that the drainage could be directed from this parking lot area to that manhole so it would serve as a catch basin. Instead of having sheet flow across the staging area, have it picked up by that underground storm sewer system and route it through that system. That was the reason for the curbing. This also would, as Dwight eluded to, we felt that it was an advantage to have a curb there. To have traffic flow concentrated so they would have a defined area and not be free to enter the staging area at any particular point. That was a strong recommendation. Alan Nordby: I live in Eden prairie on the north side of the lumber yard. My question I guess is, is this going to increase the volume of traffic? There will be lumber and so forth in that area beyond what it is currently. As to the letter that you received, we too have concerns about the amount of light and the amount of noise that we had at night particularly and obviously do not want that to increase and would prefer to have it decreased. e Emmings: Is there traffic from this? Alan Nordby: No, the traffic within that. What they're doing is they're moving that lumber with the forklifts and so forth and at 4:00-5:00 in the morning we hear this bang, bang, bang, crash, bang. This type of stuff that has a tendency to make it hard to sleep. That was my concerns. If they're going to increase the noise level of traffic in the interior. Emmings: Maybe Mr. Waldren, could you address that? John Waldren: The hours that we do work there vary because we're supplying the construction industry and it's a seasonal business. The copy of the letter suggested to restrict the hours from 7:30 to 7:00 p.m. at night. For an example what would happen, number one we probably would lose a lot of customers because all our competitors are able to be on the job site between 6:00 and 7:00 in the morning so we wouldn't be able to give the service to our customers. Number two, if we didn't start work until 7:30, at that time of day on TH 5, the traffic is backed up all the way to Chanhassen so it would be 10:00 by the time we got to some job sites. Emmings: His question, as I heard it was, with the addition that's being made here going to increase the amount of traffic or the amount of noise coming out of that over a level that it is now? e John Waldren: I don't know exactly what you're asking because in one case we're cutting down the yard space toward that end of the yard. At least we're knocking 30 to 40 or 2% of our lot coverage we're knocking off in Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 17 e that direction of the yard which will put it up in the front part of the yard. We're using it for a staging area so the trucks are getting loaded in the morning and you're going to have the most work traffic right there because it's going to be loading a whole bunch of trucks. Emmings: So some of your forklift guys will in fact be moving to the TH 5 end of the site? John Waldren: Some of them would but I honestly can't tell you exactly which way it's going to go because we're doing this expansion because the place is getting more towards capacity with what's there right now so there will be some increased business that's coming out of there but the delivery times are limited. We can't go onto most of the job sites before a certain time in the morning with the delivery activities but there are going to be times where the contractors want to have their, most contractors want stuff out in one day. If we can't get it, they go someplace else. I can sympathize with you guys right across the way but I don't think we're doing anything that's against the use of that site. Emmings: I think we can also assume that they're not increasing the size of their building so they have less work to do. e John Waldren: We're increasing the size of the millwork building, the lumber yard part of it. The millwork building is actually the facility that's at capacity right now. This looks like the last development on that site because we're at maximum so we figured we as well do it all at one time and we're done with it. not might Emmings: Anyone have further comments here? Is there anybody else here that wants to be heard on this from the public? Batzli moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Out of curiousity, the original site plan was approved, we granted more impervious surface than we should have. Olsen: It's not really clear why. We did check all the Minutes in the file... Conrad: But it looks like the applicant is doing some things that I think are appropriate to fulfill the intent of that ordinance. I guess I've got two concerns. In terms of the drainage and the curb, I'm not sure yet. Larry, in your mind, is it a real strong conviction that we have the curb there? Brown: I guess I would say that it's not a real strong conviction, no. Normally, as Dwight pointed out, the curb is normally essentially for safety reasons. The reasons that are stated are still valid but if that curb was not there, it's certainly not... e Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 18 e Conrad: Do we improve drainage by having the curb there? Do we improve anything by having the curb there? There are ways to engineering to engineer the water through the manhole and off to the holding wherever but are we improving the drainage? Brown: By having the manhole that's shown on the plan, turned into a catch basin and having that drainage picked up through the storm sewer system is no longer having to run over that gravel staging area. Conrad: And is that good or bad? Brown: That is, in my opinion, good because once the water has a tendency, we've all seen the tendency of pavement to be affected by water due to freeze-thaw cycles and therefore it's better to get that water as soon as we can into a storm sewer system and have it conveyed through the storm sewer system versus having it run over land into a gravel surface into or along side and have it puddle alongside the edge of the bituminous and go through the freeze-thaw cycle and have a ragged section of bituminous. Normal practice would like to get that into the storm sewer system as quickly as possible. Not that we have 25% slopes out here that are going to cause an erosion problem but we usually like to see it in the storm sewer system. e Conrad: The second and only other issue is the noise. I do emphathize with the neighbors and even though they are in Eden prairie they still are very close to Chanhassen. Eden prairie folks work in Chanhassen. They do a lot of things here. They spend their money in downtown. I'm concerned with their impression. I think the noise is a factor to me. I guess a 5:00 construction site across from homes is a problem. I don't know that this application is going to change anything yet it's also a time that we can take a look and say should we do something about that noise? Because it is, they are doing what we deemed that area can do, I think the applicant is on fairly sound ground yet on the other hand, hours of operation is certainly within our control. When there's not much of a transition area, you can only have railroad tracks there. I'll ask the neighbor, what kind of noise are you experiencing? Are you talking about, is this a frequent occurrence? Is this every morning? Is it during the summer I suspect? Alan Nordby: It's typically during the summer, the noise. I would say practically every morning. Conrad: And when you say 5:00, do you mean 5:00 or are you exaggerating? Alan Nordby: No. Generally it's somewhere inbetwen 4:00 and 5:00 that it starts. I would say at least 3 days out of the 5 it starts by 5:00. Conrad: Barbara or Jo Ann, I suppose the only thing that we have at our disposal to change this would be berming or limit hours. e Olsen: It's real low in the back. It is heavily vegetated down there. Conrad: So berming's out? Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 19 e Olsen: Berming would prevent sound more than the vegetation... Conrad: Probably not practical. What are our standards for industrial area in terms of hours of operation? Do we have any? Olsen: We usually limit hours to the contractor's yard where it's a conditional use. I don't know that we have limited hours in the industrial... Conrad: Annette, go ahead. I'm just going to leave it there for the time being. I don't know Steve. I don't know what to say on this one. I think 5:00 noise is a problem, in my mind and although this particular request I can't say is going to change so I don't know that this application for expansion should be held up. Yet on the other hand, it's the only thing that we can review noise as it affects neighbors and more than likely I'd like to hear what other people are thinking in terms of the impact of the noise in the neighborhood to the north. e ElIson: I think you're probably right although I think the time to have asked him was when he originally came and wanted a site in Chanhassen. I don't think you can after, what was it 1975 or something, when they started and we said, go right ahead. Be a lumber yard. Be in Chanhassen. You know the builder's requirements and to come back 8 years later and say, by the way we don't like the noise that comes with your business. I think if you're really concerned with that, it should be right when they come in. If you want a lumber yard in Chanhassen, say 7:30. Now do you still want to build here or not? I don't think we can say, build here, give you all these four phases approved and then later on come back and say... Conrad: And there weren't any neighbors across the railroad tracks at that time either. ElIson: That's another thing I was going right next to the area where it is zoned else, that's also their responsibility. To look into things like that too. to say. When someone builds from residential to something Who are going to be my neighbors? Conrad: But empathize with the neighbors who moved in and they're not going to check and say do you work at 5:00 in the morning so on the other hand, buyer beware is something they should be aware but really, are you going to go over and say, what kind of expansion? Are you going to really work at 5:00 in the morning? e ElIson: I think they probably were right from the inception. Being a lumber yard, that's probably year round so I can't see limiting their hours. I think that'd be terrible business for them. It'd be awful of us to come back and say, now cut off 2 hours in the morning and 4 hours at night or something like that. I think they've been a good industry for the community. I'm impressed that they've gone above and beyond some of the fencing because I don't like the wire fences much and they're putting in the opaque fence. They're doing extra trees and landscaping and they Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 20 . seem to be following everyone of the staff's recommendation as possible. Here we just had somebody who fought tooth and nail in not trying to cooperate with us. I've seen their history and it's very cooperative and I like their plan. I'd like to see it go and that it's approved. I can see allowing the curb and gutter. If the City Engineer thinks that that's important, than I would think it's important. I would waive it if it wasn't a very strong conviction on his part. Batzli: I think we need a 35W type traffic noise barrier, is what we probably really need but since that's not going to happen. I don't know what to do about the noise. I can empathize because I live in a neighborhood that's being built and every morning, all summer for the last couple years at about 6:30, which isn't as early as this gentleman is being waken up, but the graders start grading and the carpenters start pounding. I'm kind of going to miss them I think when they're gone but in the meantime it's aggravating and I empathize with that and I don't know what to do about it. I can't help you Ladd. I did have a question about condition 11 for Larry. He wants to see details for the proposed control structure on the southeast corner of the proposed staging area. I didn't know what he was talking about there. . Brown: The plans show, if you look on page 2 of the plan set, the plan shows the ponding area, a proposed control structure, a catch basin with restrictive plate. My motive there and I made reference in one of the other conditions, they are hooking into the existing catch basin system along the frontage road and I'm real concerned about the capacity of the downstream line that goes out to TH 5 ultimately. Since that is the case, I need more detail on that structure to find out what kind of flow is going to be going through there. Batzli: Does the applicant here know what he needs to see by this language? Dwight Larson: Yes. Batzli: Because I didn't know. I guess I'm all in favor of allowing them to put a chain link fence hidden behind their wooden fence that they're required to do. I think that condition 13 of the site plan should not only comply with the conditions of the Building and Fire Inspector but applicable law and those are my comments. Otherwise I think it's a good plan. I like the fact that they're finally putting maple trees in there and I then I noticed that the staff wanted to put something else in too, but okay. Headla: I don't want to restrict their working hours. We wouldn't do it for the Press. We wouldn't do it for DataServ but I'd like to work the problem in a different way. Ladd, you asked the question and I never heard the answer to the gentleman from Eden Prairie. What kind of noise do you hear? tit Alan Nordby: Typically what I hear is the clanking and banging of the forklift tractors and I don't know if it's dropping the large pallets of lumber or what. There's banging and crash type of noises that I'm Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 21 e assuming it's the dropping of large pallets of lumber. Headla: You know some way you could work that problem to reduce that type of noise, assuming they're dropping their loads of lumber? Is that a reasonable thing to do? Is there someway we could work out that problem? John Waldren: Probably where some of that is coming from, like say a rail car is sitting there and they've got make sure they're got it seeded on the forks good so they hit the side of it. It's not too often where you're dropping the lumber. You want to get it in as good of shape as you can but usually what they're doing in boxcars like that... They might be, they stop to do something and the forks go down to the ground because it's a hazard to leave them up. So every time you get out of the forklift, they drop their forks down. I'd have to go and walk around the yard and listen to the noises and see exactly what somebody is doing. Headla: I really think that's a much better way to work the problem and maybe it's just if the operator's aware of the noise. Training of an operator. You might get more results, minimize the problem that way than putting up your berm or whatever. I'd kind of like to see that looked at. See some operator training if you feel the operators can reduce that type of noise. . John Waldren: Is the worse problem at 5:00 rather than at night then? Alan Nordby: Typically, because it is so early and there are no other noises, railroad traffic or anything else, that it's more obvious at that time of day. Headla: Is there any reason that we couldn't have them put some landscaping in the back? Some of the trees there? Even some maples. Something that grows fast and they give you quick cover. Olsen: There are some existing... John Waldren: The only part that's not covered right now is to cover the railroad where it comes onto the property. Headla: How high is that? Olsen: It's mature vegetation. It looks like what's up in front. Headla: The one thing I think should be in there is your lights are awful high. I can see why you would put them that way at one time but now I'm wondering if you wouldn't lower them on the poles. I think you could get the same effect. John Waldren: We're planning on doing is any lights pointing in that direction, we're planning on either moving them to the other side and put tit them south than end up putting lighting on the far side. Headla: So there shouldn't be any visible then to the north? Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 22 e John Waldren: We're willing to change that around. We weren't aware that it was causing a problem. Alan Nordby: Typically it's in the wintertime when the foliage drops off the trees that it's a problem. Headla: And that's when the lights are on most the time. John Waldren: We keep the lights on for security. Headla: That's all I have. Emmings: I would like to, if it makes sense, I would like to add a condition to the conditional use permit number 3 that we grant the conditional use permit as long as there's compliance with all the conditions in the site plan. Just so those two are tied together. Does that make sense to do that? Headla: I did have one more question. Does the Fire Department require any additional equipment due to this structure? Brown: No. e Emmings: I guess I basically feel like the noise is unfortunate and I don't know what to do about it either. I don't think their hours of operation should be curtailed. I know there are mornings at my house when 11m awaken by traffic on TH 7 where I wished people wouldn't drive down TH 7 and this may be a little different than that but I think Annette is exactly right. I think the time to look at this was when this first carne in. He's got a huge investment out there and they're probably operating now pretty much the way they were back then and I don't see that this is going to, it's not like they're doubling their business out there or the outside business that makes the noise or something like that. It's not that big a leap. I just think it's just awfully hard to deal with this and I think Dave is exactly right. If they can be a little sensitive and I think they've shown that they are. They'll move the lights. They're putting up two fences which I think is pretty extraordinary that they're willing to do that. If they could be sensitive to their operations in the early morning hours to curtail some of that noise, that would be the best way to solve that problem to the extent it can be solved. . John Waldren: Can I make a couple of comments? I don't know how much responsibility we have to the residents over there. Maybe they should talk to Eden praire because typically, Eden prairie had this whole site, this industrial site next to a residential site within their domain and they probably require some kind of sound buffer but yet they let a builder in Eden prairie build something without a sound buffer...so I would sort of suggest to you that...to Eden prairie to have a sound buffer put up because it drops way away. Like Jo Ann says, it would be awful hard to put a berm there but on their side it doesn't drop away. It's on the higher side of the railroad tracks. Maybe, I don't know if Eden prairie would end up doing anything at this date in there that would help from that end. In the lumber yard, covered storage is at a premium so you Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 23 e don't usually put them all in the building. A lot of times you put them around the outside. There is a very good possibility that at some point in time in the future that we would do some more covered storage or something like that. We will be sensitive to the neighbors on that side and the first place that we can look at is putting the lumber... We are sensitive. We try to be good neighbors to the 30 or 40 people that built on that side. When we originally built there in 1979, we went to considerable expense to put up a nice berm at the street level area and then with this 10 foot retaining wall type of thing where the City went in when they were putting the road and took the fence down and took all the dirt from the berm that we put up and used it to construct the road. When they put the fence back right along side the road. Now we're taking and moving that fence back where it was originally so we can get the lot coverage that we had before. So, we're trying to be good neighbors. Conrad: What do you think about the curb? Emmings: I think that should be negotiated between them and I have no way to even think about it. Conrad: Let's ask the applicant what they think? Is that a hardship to put that in? Tell us more. . John Waldren: We're willing to do whatever the engineers says at the time we submit the plans for approval. If he says you've got to have it, we'll do it. If BRW talks to them in the meantime because they haven't had much time to go over it. He was busy and they're busy so if they get something to it included in there that says we need it, we'll do it. If they talk and they say we don't... Emmings: I guess my impression would be, since it's from our City Enginer, we ought to put it in there and if they can talk him out of it before it gets to City Council, then they can... Conrad: That's a good way to do it, if you can talk him out of it. Emmings: motion. Anybody else have more comments? Let's take the site plan The first motion that appears in the packet. Conrad: I'll make a recommendation that the Planning Commission approves the Site Plan Review #88-9 as shown on the plan stamped "Received July 6, 1988" with the conditions listed by staff with a revisions to point number 3 where we might reword it that would say the applicant shall, instead of the word replace, the applicant shall cover the chainlink fence with a wood fence to screen the existing outdoor storage. And with the addition of point 14 which would read that the applicant shall submit a proposal as to how they feel they can limit noise between the hours of 5:00 and 7:00 p.m., possibly through the use of on-site signage or other training type of things that could be done within their own company. . Batzli: I'll second it. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 24 . Conrad: Under discussion, all I'm doing is saying, I think what I heard here was really right. I don't want to impose anything on these folks. They're doing some things that I like and I think what they can do is take a look at their operation. Even something just as simple as a sign for some of the new opeartors saying watch the noise level. Be careful. That seems simple but I think that type of thing out there makes some sense of the fact that there may be some people sleeping. What I'm asking for is simply a little letter by the time it comes back to City Council that says we recommend that we will implement these type of things to help our neighbors in Eden prairie out. I think that would show the good faith effort that I know you can do. Emmings: Another thing along that line too Ladd would be, Mr. Waldren said they need to load up materials to get them out to job sites and then he also indicated some on loading rail cars. Maybe if it is from unloading rail cars, maybe they don't have to do it at that time. I don't know but if they could look at whether or not they do. Batzli: What were the hours that you said? Conrad: I said between 5:00 and 7:00. Batzli: Are you just talking about the morning? e Conrad: Yes. Batzli: So you don't mind that they're unloading and loading at 11:30? Conrad: I could back that out and just open it comments that I might have if you'd like me to. hours that bother me the most and that's what I had some other recommendations. up to just general I guess those are the heard. I think maybe they Batzli: I was comfortable with that. I was just curious that we're intending to genrally limit the noise outside of an area where we consider regular business hours. John Waldren: You guys are getting into a touchy subject when you mention any hours at all because we are willing to do, it's not a problem to do signage or training. We do regular safety meetings about every 2 weeks so these sort of things we end up bringing up. The next meeting will be one of the things that's brought up. I'll ask the manager of that operation to go and I'll probably go with him, to see what exact noises are there and to see if we can do something about them. I'd be willing to write a letter that the first place, there's going to be more outside storage, not covered storage, the first place that we would consider would be along that back fence to act as a noise buffer. At 5:00 to 7:00 in the morning in the summertime is the prime time where if the contractor wants his load, it's got to be in that time. ~ Emmings: I think all he's saying is, take a look at what you're doing during those hours. If there are things that are noise genrators that you don't have to do at that time, maybe you could tell us about that or if Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 25 . there are little things that you can do to make it quieter, tell us about that or tell us that you're going to put up signs. He's just saying, look at your operation in those hours. See what the noise generaters are outside that the neighbors are hearing and get back to the City about what you might be willing to do about it. Conrad: I'm not asking you to change your operation but I am asking kind of to reemphasize your training program and if that's a little sticker that goes on the horn of the forklift truck that says neighbors are still sleeping, something that simple. Those are the types of things that I'm looking for that I think you can do. I think that's just good management and I think you'd want to do that. That type of stuff. Headla: I've got a question. Does that When he said signage, I was thinking, I sheets of plywood on the back wall now? terminology there and I understand what meet the sign ordinance Barb? thought, are we putting 4 x 8 I had trouble with the you want and I think that's fine. Emmings: Is there any further discussion on the motion? Headla: Yes. I don't like the timing. Emmings: Elaborate. e Headla: I don't like any time restrictions on that. Emmings: You mean to diminish noise at those times? Headla: Submit a plan as to how they might minimize noise during the whole 24 hours. Emmings: Do you want to amend the motion and see if you get a second? Headla: Alright. I'd like to amend the motion that we do not specify time but that we ask the applicant to work on a plan that will minimize noise during the full working time. Emmings: Is there a second? The amendment fails for a lack of second. Conrad moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #88-9 as shown on the plan stamped "Received July 6, 1988" with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide an amended landscaping plan which provides evergreens interspersed with the proposed maples and additional landscaping on the east and south side of the proposed expansion. 2. The applicant shall provide a plan which moves the chain link fence, located on the east side of the existing outside storage area, approximately 30' to 40' into the site and shall sod/seed and landscape the increased setback area to maintain 74% lot coverage. . . . 8. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 26 3. The applicant shall cover the chain link fence with a wood fence to screen the existing outdoor storage. 4. The applicant shall redirect or relocate the lights on the site away from the residential district to the north. 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District Permit. 6. The applicant shall provide the City with calculations which verify adequate capacity for the existing water and sanitary sewer services. As an alternative, the applicant shall provide the City with details for the installation of new services for the proposed building addition. 7. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer for approval calcuations which verify that the existing storm sewr system along West 78th Stret will adequately handle the additional capacity due to this application. These calculations shall give detailed flow values for the proposed site and the capacity for the existing site to the end of the outfall. Erosion control shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading, and once in place, shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer shall be responsible for making periodic checks and repairing any damaged erosion controls promptly. 9. Details regarding the pavement section for the parking area and the proposed staging areas shall be submitted to the City Engineer as part of the final review process. 10. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval a typical section for the proposed curb cuts and bituminous paving which is to occur along the access of 187th Avenue prior to final site plan review. 11. 12. 13. .14. The applicant shall submit details to the City Engineer for the proposed control structure shown on the southeast corner of the proposed staging area. Revised plans which include curb and gutter along all sides of the bituminous parking area shall be submitted to the City Enginer prior to final site plan approval. The applicant shall comply with conditions of the Building and Fire Inspector. The applicant shall submit a proposal as to how they feel they can limit noise between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., possibly through the use of on-site signage or other training type of things that could be done within their own company. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 27 Ie All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried. Headla: I think we ought to be in effect for the whole working period. Emmings: Is there a motion on the Conditional Use Permit? Headla: I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission approve Permit Request #88-8 with the recommendations of the Planning Staff. Batzli: I'll second it for discussion purposes. I think there were some changes. Emmings: I had proposed a number 3 that said that we include a condition of compliance with all conditions of the Site Plan approval and I think if we put that in as the only condition and wipe out these two conditions that are down here, we'd really have everything wouldn't we? Because both of those are included in the site plan. Olsen: Yes. Headla: Say that again. e Emmings: If we took out I and 2 in the staff report and just had one condition and that condition is compliance with all the conditions of Site Plan approval. In other words, they have to do all those things in order to have their conditional use permit. That's all we really need. Headla: That's what this is about. Aren't these the two deviations to the Site Plan requirements? Batzli: No, those are in the Site Plan. Headla: Or the builder's requirements. These are the only two exceptions in what we require. Emmings: NO, they're not exceptions. They're just conditions that are imposed on the conditional use permit. I guess what I'm saying is, why don't we just make sure they comply with everything that we've already imposed on them and then let them have their conditions. Batzli: Or would you just like to make it a third condition? Emmings: I don't care. Headla: I'd feel more comfortable with it as a third condition. What's the disadvantage to doing that? e Emmings: Because I and 2 are already included as conditions under the Site Plan approval. That's all I was looking to be more efficient but if you want to add it as a third one. I'd just like to see them tied together is all. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 28 - Batzli moved, Conrad seconded an amendment to install a third condition which reads, the applicant shall comply with all conditions established on Site Plan Request #88-9. All voted in favor of the amendment and the moiton carried. Batzli: Do we want to make condition 2 to correspond to the condition that Ladd proposed in condition 3 in the Site Plan regarding covering of the chain link fence? Emmings: To be consistent we should do it that way. Conrad moved, Batzli seconded an amendment to change the second condition to replace the word "replace" with the word "cover". All voted in favor of the amendment and the motion carried. Headla moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-8 as shown on the Site Plan dated "Received July 6, 1988" with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall screen the proposed outside storage with 100% opaque wood fence and with the proposed landscaping. 4It 2. The applicant shall cover the existing chain link fence on the east side of the existing storage area with 100% opaque wood fence and provide landscaping along the fence. 3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions established on Site Plan Request #88-9. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT LOT 3, BLOCK I, PARK ONE 3RD ADDITION, WAYTEK, INC. Jo Ann Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report. Emmings: There's nothing in our staff report that tells us what you folks do. Olsen: Storage of wire. Emmings: Okay, I'd like to know what's going on here. ~ Wayne Larson: I'm Wayne Larson, president of Waytek. We're a wholesale .., distributor of wiring, wire fasteners, covering material. Anything kind of hardware related. We sell strictly to industry. We have only, as you see on the plans, inside storage. Basically we're a pretty clean operation. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 29 e Emmings: It is all indoors? Wayne Larson: 100%. Headla: What kind of wire and insulation? Wayne Larson: The wire would be wire that's used in construction or in automotive or trucks, trailers, battery cables. We've got a trailer cable. We have all different types of wires. UL approved wires. Things of this type. Fasteners. You see these little types of fasteners that go on the ends of the wires. All items that you buy called Scotchlocks. 3M manufactures them. Things of this type. Cover material, look at the hood of your car, you see that corregated looking material, we sell an awful lot of that. Emmings: Are they right across the tracks from this residential area in Eden prairie also? Wayne Larson: Yes. Emmings: You heard what went on here just now. Is there anything about your operation that you think neighbors across the track would find objectionable? Lights and noise? Hours of operation? e Wayne Larson: Our hours of operation are from 7:30 to about 5:00. Emmings: And again it's all indoors? Wayne Larson: The only thing is we have the semis that back up and that would be on the west side. We have some noise loading and unloading. Emmings: Have you had a chance to read the staff report? Wayne Larson: Yes. Emmings: And you're aware of those? Wayne Larson: The builder is here. Craig Larson: I'm Craig Larson from LL White and Sons. We're the designer and contractors of the project. We agree really with all the conditions with staff and the additional screening requirement, I think we can reach agreement with what additional is needed and we're in agreement with that. The other conditions really don't have any problems. You brought up the question too of the residential area across, as far as the construction period, I don't see that we'll have any problems either. We very seldom would start anywhere before 7:00 in the morning and typically only work until about 5:00, maybe 6:00 in the night so I don't think you'd have any disturbance there. e Emmings: Has the staff looked at this from the point of view of a residential neighbor in Eden prairie? Looked at the proposal. Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 30 e Olsen: Yes, and it is a very quiet industrial use. Emmings: This is not a public hearing is it? Then we'll just see if we've got comments. Dave? Headla: measure On condition 5, give me a yardstick of how you're going to that? Brown: When we reviewed the plan and most of the conditions that have been stated, such as condition 6, takes the utmost care in trying to keep the construction outside of the newly laid street. From what the plan shows here, there should be no reason to disturb the bituminous mat out there. It was simply put on there as a notification to the applicant that we will be watching that street out there because it is a newly constructed street. The cross gutters, construction of the concrete cross gutter is probably one of the most sensitive issues as far as anything that would come close to disturbing that street. Construction of that can be done without, hopefully without causing any construction to Quattro Drive. Headla: I thought you were after that they just break out your roadway of Quattro Drive. Is that what you're really asking? ~ Brown: What's that? Headla: Do you have some way of really measuring that? In case they do, unintentionally but in case it gets broken up for one reason or another, do you have any recourse? Brown: I doubt that we would have any recourse at this time. It's simply to notify the applicant that we will be watching. We do have the power to shut the operation down if we do see damage occurring. Headla: So that's what this really gives you? Brown: Correct. Headla: Okay. That's all I have. Batzli: You indicated that you wanted to delete items 8 and 9. The financial sureties and the utility easemnts? Brown: Correct. Batzli: I don't have any questions. ElIson: I think it looks good. I've always said we need a good wire distributor in Chanhassen. So welcome and I think it looks good. I. Conrad: One comment here in the staff report analysis. Those areas of heavy vegetation, this is all someplace else on the southwest or I don't know, another portion. The building pad, is there much that needs to be '-, Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - page 31 e removed from that area? So it's pretty clean. You're not concerned with that? Olsen: What we're saying is they're working around a lot of these. Conrad: Because they have the fortune to be on the agenda with the previous applicant, that's kind of the kiss of death, to take one subject into the ground. In this case we're not too uncomfortable, I'm not uncomfortable that they're going to disturb the neighbors but in future cases if they sell, expand or whatever, do we need any kind of, are we concerned with a building going in and how they impact the residential neighborhood? I didn't see in the staff report anything talking about the direction of lights on the building. The sodium vapor lights. Can we just assume that that's taken care of? How do we monitor those things Jo Ann? Olsen: The lights, they have to be shielded... Conrad: Is that in a building code or is that in an ordinance? Olsen: It's a commercial site plan requirement would be shielding of lights. e Conrad: And does Larry go out and make sure that happens? Olsen: It's the Building Inspector that does it. Conrad: In terms of noise in the future, do we care? Olsen: Sure we care. Again, we don't have any specific regulations but as far as site plan approval and conditional use permit... Dacy: Everything will be indoors. Conrad: Yes, right and that's why I said, what about the future. Let's say they expand. Dacy: outside storage, than a conditional use permit would be required. Emmings: As far as the noise too, I'm aware of it. A case I was involved with at one time where the PCA came out to where these big loaders...and the neighbors, there were some neighboring houses and they came down...and they shut them down. Olsen: We do have that control and if it's thought it dangerous and Public Safety is working on a new noise ordinance... Dacy: We're currently purchasing a decimil meter. e Emmings: I don't really have any comments. I keyed in on the same one Dave did, number 5. I didn't like the language that says they'll take the utmost care. Well, baloney, they'll do it. I'd just reword that to say the applicant and contractor shall keep Quattro Drive intact throughout -- - 5. Ie Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 1988 - Page 32 the construction process and let them know that that's a condition. But I don't think that's a big point. All and all, I think it's a good application and unless there are more comments, maybe somebody would like to make a motion. Batzli moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #88-8 as shown on the Site Plan stamped "Received June 13, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. City Council approval of the ordinance amendment regarding parking and building setbacks adjacent to railroad tracks. 2. Additional landscaping be provided along the southwest side of the proposed docking and parking area. The additional landscaping shall include evergreens for year round screening. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District Permit. 4. A standard concrete cross gutter shall be installed at the intersection of Quattro Drive and the proposed 24 foot driveway. This cross gutter shall be installed as per the detail enclosed with this report. (Refer to Attachment No.2). 6. The applicant and contractor shall take utmost care in ensuring the City that the newly-constructed Quattro Drive shall remain intact throughout the construction period. The storm sewer plan shall be revised to show the connection to the existing storm sewer stub along the westerly right-of-way boundary for Quattro Drive. 7. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final site plan review. 8. Meet the requirements of the Public Safety Director. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner prepared by Nann Opheim