The URL can be used to link to this page

1 General Mills ExpansionCITYOF C HASSEN 7700 Markel Boulevard PO Bo,',: i47 Chanhassen, MIl 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 Fa>:: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone; 952.227.1120 Fa;:: 952.227.1110 Recrea~.ion Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.11i0 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone; 952.227.1300 Fa',,',: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.i125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site ,,,,-,,,,,-,,,,,. c i .chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director DATE: March 26, 2003 SUB J: Site Plan Review for General Mills Expansion PLANNING 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 dated 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 concerns 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 1st. Finding of Fact remain as stated in the original staff report. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 45,600 SQUARE FEET AND A 730 SQUARE FOOT BUIIJDING 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, GENERAL MILLS. Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Public Present: Name Address Ron Miller 9141 Inverness Circle, Ramsey Chris Hall 2442 Ponds Way, Shakopee Lonnie Malikowski 3402 Highlands Road, Brooklyn Park The City of Chanbassen · A gro,,ving communit), ,,',ith sl.ean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work. and p!ay. Planning Commission March 23, 2003 Page 2 Mark Wasescha 1795 Fairview Avenue, SL Paul Jack Warner 3721 Impatiens Lane, Brooklyn Park 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 permit for development within the 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 carded 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: A. '~l'he Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #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 conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property." '~I'he 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: . 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, -typews/-ze, class, and slope, and Planning Commission March 23, 2003 Page 3 4. Any off-site grading will require temporary easements. 5. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. 6. Add a storm sewer schedule. 7. Add a note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be core drilled." o 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. Planning Commission March 23, 2003 Page 4 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 storm water pond. 11. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure the existing storm water infrastructure is maintained and functioning properly. 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 Natural Resources, 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. · IV. Th ....... ,-,-,.,,4 ,-..-,.- +1.,,~; ......... +,-,+;-,,,~ ,-.,h,~ll -..-.-,,~+ ,,.,,;+h ,1.,,~ T ..... +;,-,-,.,,-, I~;,,;,-,;,---,', ,-,,-, ..... o -,-,,-,o,-,;{-,1,:,, +,-. ~t;,-,,-. ..... 1,-,-,-, -,-,~,;4 ...... ,4 .,.~.,..,-,.,;+ ..... ,4 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 are 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 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 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. 8 CH IGORY WAY ~~ 9 POPPYDR ~ ~ ~ ~.1 10 BLUE SAGE LN E J~?'l II I I I I ll-=l 12 LADY SLIPPER I..~IE ~-T']'TT"T'"F'Ct~ H 13 BUTTER C~IP CRT ~ I~,~--I ~4BLUES~GE L, W - [-F'I~ 15 WATERLEAF LANE W 16 81'~.PDRAGON DR Coulter Blvd n Dr 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 AN DREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 ALFRED A IVERSEN PMT CORPORATION 1500 PARK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8200 ANDR,EW 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 CR,EEKVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7418 CAMPBELL PROPERTIES LP II C/O ARAMAR,K 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 & KAR,EN 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 & CEZARY WERNIKIEWICZ 8348 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7417 DAR,CI L ECKERMANN 1938 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 DARYL L & TRACY L SNADER 1910 BLUFF VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7421 DAVID & TONYA WATTS 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 PETER, SON 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 HAD I AN BARG HALAM I & SOODI PESSIAN 8381 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7417 HAROLD E & BEVARD M SCHR,UM 8297 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 Smooth Feed Sheets TM 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 JANNA 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 ZlTZEWITZ 1930 BLUFF VIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7421 MATTHEW 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 SheetsTM Use template for $160® 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 C/O CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR 600 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 CHANHASSENMN 55317-7409 STEVEN B & PENNY J STORO 8244 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSENMN 55317-7414 STEVEN D & SUZANNE R KLOOS 8258 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7414 TAMRA S ADAMS 1973 ANDREW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7409 THE PILLSBURY COMPANY C/O 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 CHANHASSENMN 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 C/O 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 Slagle 7411 Fawn Hill Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kate Aanenson C±ty of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 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, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for a land use amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density, Rezoning 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 5 to 0. This item was tabled and the applicant was directed to work with staff on preparing a more complete application and plans to address the 50 conditions in the staff 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. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 45~600 SQUARE FEET AND A 730 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING 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~ GENERAL MILLS. Sharmeen A1-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, LiHehaug 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 permit for development within the 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 access on Coulter Boulevard and parking. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK PUD STANDARDS TO PERMIT PERSONAL SERVICES AS A PERMITTED USE AND A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW FOR A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AS AN ANCILLARY USE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 9,800 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY BUILDING LOCATED AT CORPORATE PLACE AND CENTURY BOULEVARD~ HELSENE PARTNERS~ LLC~ AND STEINER DEVELOPMENT~ INC, CENTURY BOULEVARD COURT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. The following four motions were made after discussion. Al 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, Arboretum Business Park 2na Addition and Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Be SaCchet moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission 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 4th Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. C, Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 4/2003-1, plans prepared by Steiner Construction Services, dated February 14, 2003, revised March 12, 2003, subject to the following conditions: The developer shall enter into a site Plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. . 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. Facade transparency on street frontages shall maintain 50 percent of the wall area to the top of the brick. Planning 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.) Blackowiak: 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 tonight. Any commissioners have any other feeling that we can't get it done in an hour, tell me now. Otherwise I'm holding you guys to this. An hour? Okay. Alright, items 4 and 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 45,600 SQUARE FEET AND A 730 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING 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, GENERAL MILLS. 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 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. A1-Jaff: 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? A1-Jaff: No. Slagle: Okay, so the western property that we see on page 2 is not being touched at all? A1-Jaff: That's correct. 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 there or not, but anyway I think I would be very encouraging if you will to have the mailings be sent to that neighborhood because basically you' re going to have semi trailers now on, albeit the north side, much closer than 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 I'm not watching TV tonight, I might be a little interested to see what's happening when the bulldozers 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 comer, what would be the material on that portion of the comer? The exterior. A1-Jaff: EIFS. Lillehaug: That is EIFS. A1-Jaff: It will be 2 percent. Lillehaug: Say again? A1-Jaff: 2 percent. Lillehaug: On the existing portion of the office building. AI-Jaff: On the existing portion? Lillehaug: Do you know what that material is? A1-Jaff: No I don't. Lillehaug: I mean it appears to be EIFS I guess. Mark Wasescha: It's a pre-cast concrete that we specified the EIFS to be a really fine finish to match the flat appearance of the pre-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 of the 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? A1-Jaff: That would include the parapet. Lillehaug: So when you say the building height, your 21 feet doesn't include that, is that correct? A1-Jaff: It 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 addition will be 24 feet. Are you saying that should be 34 feet? A1-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: More numbers Sharmeen. We're sorry. Lillehaug: Yep. A1-Jaff: Yeah. I didn't write this one, can I explain that. Lillehaug: And a one foot parapet wall, it doesn't appear that, if I were to scale the elevation drawing, I wouldn't get one feet there. So what that's telling is, and correct me if I'm wrong, does that mean there's only one foot of wall that would cover or screen the roof equipment? A1-Jaff: 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? A1-Jaff: 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? A1-Jaff: 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 impervious 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. A1-Jaff: Yes please. These are engineering issues. Lillehaug: And you know, let me follow up on that because in the next paragraph it says, it appears the existing stormwater infrastructure may not be functioning properly. So if we have a non-functioning storm sewer infrastructure, and then we can't increase or we need to maintain that existing runoff rates, it appears that we have a problem, and I know you say, you're indicating that you'll address this with the applicant. A1-Jaff: 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 that we're going to be reducing the number of trucks coming into the site because, I mean, and I'm insinuating that because it says the 40 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 noise is going to be reduced. Is that accurate that the number of trucks coming to the site is going to be reduced? I'm just not putting that, putting 2 and 2 together on that. A1-Jaff: 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 traffic calming one. A1-Jaff: I tried. Lillehaug: Okay, I'm done. Blackowiak: Okay thank you. Uli, questions. Sacchet: Yes, a couple of quick questions. What's a terminal oil building? Is that an applicant question? A1-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 A1-Jaff: 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. A1-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. A1-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 storm water infrastructure 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 Coordinator, Loft, and she is doubting like to put because they did not submit the sewer sizing so we can witness if they are sufficient or 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 confmn that it is sufficient for the addition. Sacchet: It has to be confirmed. 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. A1-Jaff: The applicant will be able to address this. Sacchet: They will address that one, excellent. A1-Jaff: 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? A1-Jaff: No it wasn't. Sacchet: And therefore all this screening, view screening 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 these pipes and grates and mesh and what have you. A1-Jaff: That's correct. 42 Planning Commission Meeting- March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Has any consideration been given of how that could be screened, either with tilt up panels or berming or anything? A1-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 concern. Little more over there. Okay. So that is a berm there? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Yes, a little bit of a berm, okay. But no consideration of possibly having tilt-up's or something there so far? Doesn't look like, okay. That's a clear answer. So this, that's an applicant question. 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 further activity that we're aware of there? The reason I'm asking 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. Sacchet: That's all my questions, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay thank you. And I just have a couple questions regarding entrances. Track entrance. I'm assuming that the trucks will have to be going west on Coulter Boulevard to enter at this extreme angle, and can I make the same assumption that they could only make a right turn onto Coulter Boulevard. Are they going to exit the same way or are they exiting in a different way? A1-Jaff: 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 I. A1-Jaff: Driving out. Blackowiak: Okay. I didn't see any condition about a right turn only. AI-Jaff: Okay. Mak, do you want to add to this condition? Sweidan: Yeah we can add that as a fight. 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 fight. 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 appears to be perhaps even a smaller area than the existing one. Blackowiak: 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 sheet. Jack Warner: Currently the truck and car entrance is one entrance and it's directly north of probably the northeast corner of the new expansion. So I think there 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 this is the existing. Blackowiak: Okay. I can see that a little bit better now. Okay. Alright, those are my only questions right now. Would the applicant or designee like to make a presentation? 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 AMEC. We're an engineering firm working for General Mills for this project. 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 comments 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 Chanhassen will now be gone. They can bring in full trucks. 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 run partial trucks back and forth which means a lot more trucks are running 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 questions. 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 gentlemen 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 or 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 track traffic. Slagle: Exactly. Jack Warner: Oh okay. I was talking car traffic, sorry. No the, well let's see. With 5 loading docks, there's no, there shouldn't be any issue of tracks having to park someplace and then be waking to unload. With 5 docks and the frequency of the deliveries with the large full track loads and the fewer partial track loads, we don't feel we need to have a parking area for tracks. 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 comer. 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 track parking. Slagle: It's gotten better. Jack Warner: Yeah. They have provided a lot of track parking along the south side so they can park the trucks, the trailers. The tracks can then leave and then they have their own dolly to move the tracks into position once they're ready to load those out. The full ones are just brought up and then the track 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 Wamer: 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 Jack Warner: On the north side. Slagle: On the north, yeah. 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 truck or one sugar truck at a time. There wouldn't be 3 or 4 trucks 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 certainly 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 areas. 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 trucks could stop and park. On the south side getting off of Audubon Road. 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 resident could expect? Lonnie Malikowski: We're still probably going to be in that 16 area but what we'll do is we'll eliminate the traffic coming over from Eden Prairie so right now we're presently around that 21 area, back and forth. What we can really focus on now is trying to eliminate 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. Blackowiak: The flour trucks. Slagle: And I live 3 miles north, in all seriousness, 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 true. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Oh I know, I've heard them. I knew exactly what it was when you said that. Okay, Uli. 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 Wamer: 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 Eden Prairie facility is going to close on October 31st and the operations are consolidated here. And the two warehouse functions, 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 generally about vehicle and truck service. Observations was made about the doors and the nearby developments over here across Bluff Creek. I should point out the existing doors are here 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 improve 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 there are views which is really quite a tremendous view to the southwest. So we see this as an extension and reinforcement really of a plan 47 Planning Commission Meeting - March 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 important I guess to see the shaded area which shows the new impact on parking. We are adding relatively little new impervious 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 engineering 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-treatment 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 structure, 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 northwest 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 tracks, 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 those? 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 tracks but they're not supposed to be trucks. Mark Wasescha: No... Truck service is right 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 comer 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 this, you don't see this. 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? 48 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 impact 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. Jack Warner: If I could address the roof top equipment. 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. There 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 from that side. Mark Wasescha: Which addresses your question of air, but it's important 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 order 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 freezer 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 there 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 refrigerated 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 jump in at this point? Blackowiak: Sure. Your turn. 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 referring to thatl That has nothing to do with what you're currently trying to do. The reason why I'm referring to that is because 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 considering 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 currently 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 simple 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 street, Coulter Boulevard, it's very visible and it's a combination of tilt-up there and maybe berming to the north could be done, I think that would be excellent. Mark Wasescha: Just 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 kind of structure could be kind of problematic as there.., small structures 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 things 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 walls in there 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? Jack 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 rooftop equipment. I don'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 definites. Mark Wasescha: I think we could make that statement because again it's just purely a storage. It's an S1 building and we have some discretion to the scale that we could place those rooftop equipment is primarily smoke relief vents. In board and they will be low enough in the structure 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 I'd like to talk about the concrete tilt-up panel for the exterior of the building. In the southwest comer 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 pre-cast concrete but it's just a horizontal panel rather than vertical panel. It doesn't have the ribs like that. Lillehaug: So it appears, texture wise it looks like stucco/ElFS. Jack Warner: Right. Lillehaug: Alright. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Jack 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 because 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 functions 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 familiar with really any ordinances that even remotely address anything like that. I mean other than being their business standard 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 support 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 Manufacturing Practice which basically encourages or demands that the surfaces be wiped down. 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 framed, 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 infestation areas and things like that. Mark Wasescha: As an extension of that idea, the roof structure 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 structural like that. Lillehaug: Okay. Let me move on with my questions here. There's going to be maybe a minor insignificant loss of parking through this construction. Is that. Jack Warner: 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 Warner: No. They'll have sufficient space on site and there's, as was mentioned earlier there's a temporary parking lot that's been constructed for the contractor's use and that will also be utilized as needed during the construction so we don't feel there will be any parking issues with, during the construction. 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 speak 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 start? Lillehaug: I'll try to make this quick. 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 hard for me to put 2 and 2 together. For example I wanted to measure the spacing between these driveways. I can't even figure out the scale on this drawing. So it's lacking items that city ordinances 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 important 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 there. Because it does provide screening from the development to the west of that area. Let me try to shorten 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 create a hardship. It doesn't really create a hardship but it's a reasonable request. It's certainly applicable to any other building that has an addition of 15 percent or less. I do agree though that we requiting to hold them to the standards is inappropriate. 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 different 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 for. 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 west. 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 ponding or the. Sacchet: That's stormwater ponding? 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 3rd. Lillehaug: I don't think this applies. Generous: The conditional use permit does. A1-Jaff: They do need a conditional use permit. Generous: Oh, this is for DayCo. Sacchet: 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 comments. 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 applicant 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 importantly, in addition to needing a complete application, I would request, require, however you want to state it, that all of those property owners along the east side of that road. You know I'll give you the guidance or the flexibility as to how far south you go, but I definitely think they should be part of a next public hearing. That's it. 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 rooftop equipment. 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 important. 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 tight 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' 11, whoever makes the motion can do that. And I do also agree Rich about the mailing to the neighbors. Not only Stone Creek 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 tight now because when it does go to City Council, it will not have a public hearing 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. There 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 heating or here. 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. Blackowiak: 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. 54 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 clarification? Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: What's the timeline? Is there a timeline... Blackowiak: May 25th 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 understand the current situation, but on the other hand, you know I mean I just, I think we've got to have the residents. Jack Warner: 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 sorry, I'm getting 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 further 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, LiHehaug 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 permit for development within the 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. 55 Planning Commission Meeting -March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Do you want to hear why I'm opposed? Blackowiak: Yes I would like to. Sacchet: I sympathize 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 council at this point and then at council these things would be addressed. 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 important, and I realize that there is the duress 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 fkst on the agenda. Whatever evening that happens to be so we can hopefully have residents. I hope somebody comes and says something after 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: Aanenson STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: 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 on property zoned Industrial Office Park 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 AMEC Midwest Plaza Building 800 Marquette Ave., Suite 1200 IJ.I PRESENT ZONING: Industrial Office Park 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial ACREAGE: approximately 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 heating has been mailed to all property 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 whel~her 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 proposed 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 ordinance. 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 standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. BACKGROUND CouEer BlYd 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 McGlynn 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 extended the southern half of McGlynn Road west to Galpin Boulevard and renamed it Coulter Boulevard. The northern half of the loop road remains as a cul-de-sac (McGlynn Road). Since the original McGlynn development Pillsbury bought the property 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 property to the west which has a combined acreage of approximately 60 acres. General Mills now owns the property and is proposing an addition because of consolidation of the Eden Prairie plant. The additions to the structure include a new receiving building and a thermal oil building. The receiving building is adjacent to the existing receiving 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 southwest comer 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 current design standards. The applicants are requesting 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 than 2 percent. The city ordinance allows a maximum of 15 percent EFIC. There are two lots under separate property identification numbers. Staff is recommending that the two lots be combined as one lot. This will ensure the impervious surface ratio be maintained as it is being calculated using both lots. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a new raw 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 ½ inches) be continued on the addition. 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 reduce the track 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 south side. Two drives are proposed along Coulter Boulevard. One driveway will be for the semi track 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 impervious surface is being calculated using both lots. The impervious surface is less than 30 percent. The ordinance allows a maximum of 70 percent. The applicant requires a conditional use permit because 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 storm water pond, via a sump manhole. Storm water calculations need to be provided. General Mills March 18, 2003 Page 4 Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with the architectural variance and the conditional use. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE 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 V2 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 comer 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 general 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 future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. 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 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 circulation, 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 staff's conditions and approval of the variance to the city design standards to permit the concrete panels to be used. 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 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. General Mills March 18, 2003 Page 6 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. Storm Water Management 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 infrastructure is sized adequately for the drainage area. Manholes with two-foot sumps should be installed as the last road accessible structures prior to discharge into the storm water pond. It appears that the existing storm water infrastructure may not be functioning properly. 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 conditions 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 site 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 site. Type II 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 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 the proposed building expansion area. The proposed 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. 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. 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 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. STREETS 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 spaced 520 feet apart which is greater than the 300-foot minimum spacing requirement. Due to the configuration of the northeasterly 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 turning 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. 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. Successful General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 8 screening will require the use of berms 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 accommodate the two new driveway locations. Additional wall pack lighting will be placed on the new receiving building over the 6 doors and the 3 doors.. The light will be down cast 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 Ordinance General Mills Building Height Building Setback 4 stories / 50 feet N-30' E-30' S-30' W-30' 1 story / 34 feet N-60' E-60' S-400+' W-250' Parking stalls 305 439 Parking Setback N-25' E-25' N-60' E-60' S-25' W-25' S-40' W-170' Hard surface 70% 27.7% Coverage Lot Area 1 acre approximately 60 acres VARIANCE FINDINGS As part of this application, the applicant is requesting a variance from the material standards. The ordinance prohibits tilt-up concrete panel that are ribbed or corduroy in appearance to be used in any visible exterior application. This material can only be used if permitted 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 V2 inches) be continued on the addition. When the McGlynn 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 function of the addition is warehousing of deliveries. In reviewing the addition, staff concurred 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 unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue 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 property 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 constructed before the street was extended. A requirement of complying with the design standards does cause some undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to properties in the lOP zoning district. However, the existing development of the site for warehouse dictates the architecture and materials of the addition. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase 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 reduced. The additional storage space will reduce the track trips between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. The intent of the addition is to improve efficiency of the plant's operation. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-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 standards. 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 parcel is located. 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 impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase 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. 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. CONDITIONAL 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 welfare 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, constructed, 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 area. Finding: The proposed use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance 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 disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. 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 structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools. 6. Will not create excessive 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 excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The expansion enhances the city's economic welfare. 7. 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. Finding: The proposed use does 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. The proposed expansion is intended to reduce external impacts site operations, i.e. reduced truck traffic. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed use has vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The proposed use does not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, 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 proposed redevelopment of the site will continue existing architecture. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The proposed use meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. The development complies with the site plan requirements and the conditional use standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: A. '~I'he Planning approves Conditional Use Permit #2001-2 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 permit a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition 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. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review ~4)3-2 for a 45,600 square foot Office Warehouse Addition and a 730 square foot Thermal Oil Building with variances with the following conditions: o o 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, 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. . 10. 11. 12. 13. Any off-site grading will require temporary easements. Maximum grading side slope of 3:1 is required or a retaining wall must be built. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. Revise sheet title from "Site Plan" to "Utility Plan" showing all existing utility sewers in dashed line and proposed utility sewer in bold line. 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. 22. 23. 24. Relocate the existing street light and add a new one at the two proposed access locations. 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. General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 14 25. 26. 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 Resources, 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 provided.- 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 Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. Applicant shall screen views of truck loading/unloading area and parking lot. General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 15 34. 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 road. 5. Location of Bluff Creek Overlay District. 6. Letter and application. 7. Memo from Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator dated March 7, 2003. 8. Memo from Mak Sweidan, Engineer dated March 7, 2003. 9. Public hearing notice and property owners list. 10. Site plan General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 Page 16 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of General Mills Company, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review On March 18, 2003, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of General Mills for a conditional use permit variance and site plan review for the property located at 8800 Audubon Road. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed use, preceded 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 appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. General Mills Addition March 18, 2003 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 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. 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 property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. The proposed use natural, scenic or j. The proposed use k. The proposed use 1. The proposed use this article. Section 20-110 (Site Plan): will not result in the destruction, 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 grade 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 features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: ao 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; Co 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 do 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 amount of parking. (6) Protects 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. 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 reasonable 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, 2003 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 pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance is the minimum necessary to develop the site as originally contemplated as part of the Chanhassen Business Center development and preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-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-created hardship. The lot was platted prior to the Bluff Creek Overlay ordinance, so the hardship is not self-created. 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 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 increase 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. o The planning report #CUP 2003-1 and Site Plan Review 2003-2 dated March 18, 2003, prepared by Kathryn Aanenson, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION 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. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: BY: Its ChailTnan z o~. ww SN 0{.I.33~T1(] .O-.t:.go~ .o-,~t _1 SITE' PLAN" DATA: " -. MAXIMUM'EMPLOYEES/SHIFT' =. ,..505 NUMBER'.OF "PARKING SPACES REQUIRED ' 505 .-. . NUMB:ER SPACES PROVIDED. - '459 .. " ADDITION' ..-'4-5,.600'- SF ':' TOTAL..:...359-1'420' SF. · SITE "COVERAG'E TABU LATION: BUILDING- ' AREA - 359-,429 SF .PARK'ING. 'AREAS' 362,1000 SF TOTAL. HEIGHT/NUMBER 'OF STORIES = 54'/1 .STORY, ~0'. ALLOWABLE " ' EXISTING--. 'BUILDING' - '3i3,82'0- SF . · 7.2.1:1420' SF .- TOTAL" . 'S ITE .. AREA - 2,606,.683' sF .IMPERVI'OUS AREA '-27..7% VICINITY 'M AP · o z A2 L. AK~ RD R RS R12 NO. 5 I L-____~ oo. o o 0 c --I 0 ........... ROAD. ~' -' j, ) 0 6~.7o I I I J .5~ I-- o 78th Street M~Glynn Dr I Coulter Blvd Bluff Creek Overlay 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 Prairie 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 entries 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. Lighting will be kept to a minimum on the building exterior 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:\Documents and Settings\KateA\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\GMl--3703.doc AMEC E&C Services Inc. Midwest Plaza Building 800 Marquette Ave., Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel (612) 332-8326 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 @ ame¢.com. Sincerely, Mark S. Wasescha, AIA Chief Architect encl cc: Tammy Ziegenbein, GMI Lane Paolocci, GMI Lonnie Malikowski, GMI Chris Hall, GMI Con Blake, AMEC Jack Werner, AMEC File J744 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHA$$EN, MN $$317 (612} 937-1900 ,. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION , /?. T~' ~=PHONE (Day time) OWNER: ' ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: t ~ Cc)nd'~onal Use Permit lnlerim Use Permit ~__ Non-cc, x,~rrning Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Re. zoning Sign Permits ,Sign PJan Review ..../"~ Site PLan Review' Subdivision" Temporary SAles Permit ._ .._ Vacation oi: ROW/Easements Variance , Wedand Alteration Permit . . Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment ,.~_. Notification Sign ~ 175~ ~ Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNA~AP~etes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 5138 feet of the Boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. ~luilding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size f_olded copies of the plans must be submlffed, Including an 8Y2" X 11" reduced copy of .,l~,,,=~z;~-: ~ch plan sheet. .,. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE -'When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. WETt-ANDSPRESENT ~ YES _~_._NO ,_ - :P, EQ~ ZONING ,~,'~~ ,,,~./-/-, _: - . · _ ~j ~ ~' ~. ~QUE~ ~ND USE DESIGNATION .. .~~~_ / =- - ____ m ii Thls application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by ali information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions, Betore tiling mis application, you should confer w~th the Planning DeparL~ent to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application, A determinaIion of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written x~ot. Jce of application deficJencJes shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of applica~on. · . 'Th'~ is to cert~y that ! am making application for the described action by the City and that i am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom 'the C~y should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this ~pplication. i have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of. Tide, Abstract o1' Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make 1his application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myseff informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additJonal fees may be charged for consulting fees, feaslb~ity stucfles, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed w~th the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of ,,, 'The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing 'requirements and agency review, Therefore, the city is notifying the appllca~t that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review ex--ns are approved by the applicant. , ~pplic~on Received on Date ~/z8/o:~.,. . Date · Fee Paid_ Receipt No.. The appTicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting, If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to. the applicant's address, ' CITYOF CHAN EN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Ohanhassen. MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fa;:: 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 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 Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site v,',,a,:.ci.chanhassen.m n.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Loft Haak, Water Resources Coordinator ~ March 7, 2003 SUB J: General Mills Site Plan Review Upon review of plans prepared by AMEC 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 proposed 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 Management 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 infrastructure is sized adequately for the drainage area. Manholes with two-foot sumps should be installed as the last road accessible structures prior to discharge into the storm water pond. . ~ p,,~c~, to live. work, and play. The City of Chanhassen ',' A arov,'ino community with c~ean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, ,,vinding trails, and beautiful parks. A gneat '" ." Kate Aanenson March 7, 2003 Page 2 of 2 It appears that the existing storm water infrastructure may not be functioning properly. 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 conditions of approval. SITE PLAN REVIEW: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Calculations should be submitted to ensure the existing storm water infrastructure is sized adequately for the drainage area. 2. Manholes with two-foot sumps shall be installed as the last road accessible structures prior to discharge into the storm water pond. 3. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure the existing storm water infrastructure is maintained and functioning properly. 4. 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 conditions of approval. G:XENG\LoriXAdministrafionLPLANNING\General Mills PC.doc MEMORANDUM CITYOF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard 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 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 Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site ~,,~w;.ci.chanhassen.mn.us TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Mak Sweidan, Engi 9 ~'-~'~/l/7 March 7, 2003 '~ Site Plan Review for General Mills Building Expansion Land Use 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 the addition. This information must be provided prior to City Council site 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 site. Type II 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 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 the proposed building expansion area. The proposed 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 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 the plans to show all existing and proposed utilities. The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great 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 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. STREETS 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 spaced 520 feet apart which is greater than the 300-foot minimum spacing requirement. Due to the configuration of the northeasterly 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 turning 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 o Submit storm sewer sizing for a 1 O-year, 24-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. o Show a minimum rock construction entrance of 75 feet in length per City Detail Plate No. 5301. 4. Show the existing sanitary sewer. 5. Show the proposed watermain and storm sewer pipe, type, size, class, slope, and length. 6. Show storm manhole rim and invert elevations. o 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 temporary easements. Kate Aanenson, 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 $1,440 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. 26. Staff is recommending that a sign be posted at the northeasterly access stating "Truck Traffic Only". c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer g:\eng\projects\general mills\building expansion plan review.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, General Mills, is requesting site plan review for 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 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 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 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 SheetsTM Use template for 5160® CREEK FIVE ASSOCIATES CIO LAND GROUP INC 123 3RD ST N MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 OSMONICS INC 5951 CLEARWATER DR HOPKINS MN 55343 PRN MUSIC CORPORATION 7801 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALFRED A IVERSEN PMT CORPORATION 1500 PARK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CAMPBELL PROPERTIES LP II C/O ARAMARK EDUC RESOURCES 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 CHARITIES 7801 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALFRED A IVERSEN PMT CORPORATION 1500 PARK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THE PILLSBURY COMPANY C/O GENERAL MILLS TAX DEPT POBOX 1113 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 Laser 5160®