Loading...
4 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 1, 2003 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik, Rich Slagle, Steve Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, and Uli Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive 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 Rick Gorra 8201 Doug Peterson 8369 Jim Pensyl 1972 Mark Zitzewitz 1930 Mark Pollman 1954 Mark Wasescha 1795 Jack Werner 3721 Stone Creek Drive Stone Creek Drive Andrew Court Bluff View Court Andrew Court Fairview Avenue, St. Paul Impatiens Lane, Brooklyn Park Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Rick Gorra, Doug Peterson, Jim Pensyl and Mark Zitzewitz expressed their concerns during the public heating about truck traffic and speed on Coulter Boulevard, screening, lighting, and noise. After commission discussion, the following motions were made and passed. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit g2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the following condition: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Planning Commission Summary. Minutes -April 1, 2003 Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review//2003-2 for a 45,600 square foot office warehouse addition and a 730 square foot thermal oil building as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003, with variances from design standards, with the following conditions: . , . . . o . 10. 11. 12. 13. Submit storm sewer sizing for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event and pond design calculations. Add the latest City standard detail plate numbers 1002, 2202, 2203, 3101, 3102, 3104, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, and 5302. Show the proposed watermain and storm sewer pipe, class and slope. Any off-site grading will require temporary easements. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. Add a storm sewer schedule. Add a note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be core drilled." The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street improvements. However, the sanitary sewer and water hook up charges will be applicable for the new addition. The 2003 trunk hook up charges are $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hook up fees may be specifically assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building additions. Two additional signs shall be posted, no left exit and no left turn. Manholes with two foot sumps shall be installed as the last road accessible structures prior to discharge into the stormwater pond. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure the existing storm water infrastructure is maintained and functioning properly, including any necessary improvements such as increase in pond volume to accommodate any increased runoff rates. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of National Resources, Army Corps of Engineers), and comply with their conditions of approval. Building official conditions: a. The addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. It is evident that the proposed addition will create exiting and high pile storage issues in the existing building that must be examined. Planning Commission Summary Minutes - April 1, 2003 14. Silt fence shall be removed when construction is completed. 15. Work with staff to select possible alternate evergreen over the Colorado Spruce. 16. Place at least 2 more evergreens on the northeast in front of the cooling units. 17. Work with staff to consider screening to the west. 18. Work with staff to check lighting compliance. 19. The parapet will be increased in height as necessary to fully screen the rooftop equipment on the addition as required by ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission added 6 conditions, which are highlight in bold expressing their concerns. They felt traffic and speeding were items the City Council would have to discuss. Commissioner Slagle wanted to compliment the applicants on the work they had done since the last meeting addressing the Planning Commission's concerns. Commission Lillehaug added a concern with the screening on the west side. He felt it was important to define screening and increase the berm elevation, which would help reduce in the noise projecting into that adjacent neighborhood. ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS. Feik moved, Sacchet seconded to adopt the Planning Commission By-laws as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR. Claybaugh moved, Feik seconded to appoint Uli Sacchet as Chairman of the Planning Commission. AH voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried with a vote of 4-0-2. Slagle moved, Claybaugh seconded to appoint Bruce Feik as Vice-Chair for the Planning Commission. All voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Feik who abstained, and the motion carried with a vote of 4-0-2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Rich Slagle noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission dated March 18, 2003 as presented. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION VERBATIM MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 1, 2003 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik, Rich Slagle, Steve Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, and Uli Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive 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 Rick Gorra Doug Peterson Jim Pensyl Mark Zitzewitz Mark Pollman Mark Wasescha Jack Werner 8201 Stone Creek Drive 8369 Stone Creek Drive 1972 Andrew Court 1930 Bluff View Court 1954 Andrew Court 1795 Fairview Avenue, St. Paul 3721 Impatiens Lane, Brooklyn Park Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff at this time? Sacchet: I have two .questions Madam Chair. First of all, so basically all the conditions that were crossed out were taken care of? Generous: Things that were resolved, yes. Sacchet: One thing that was crossed out was the requirement for silt fence number H, that it must be removed after construction's complete. Is that because the silt fence is shown on the plan now? Generous: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Sacchet: So we still would want to make sure they take it down after they're done. Generous: Exactly. Sacchet: And then the other question, you mentioned that additional berming to the east side along Coulter, that you may recall was one of my concerns last time. Is there any planting planned on that? I'm trying to see whether there's, I didn't notice. Yeah, there is one here. Do we know what these plans are that are foreseen there? Is it all coffee trees and Colorado Spruce? Is that pretty much the outside is the Kentucky and the inside is the Colorado? That's how I would read the drawing. Do we still have an issue with Colorado Spruce? Because I remember in the past the forester was trying to steer us away from the Colorado White. Generous: Blue Spruce? Sacchet: Yeah, Colorado Blue. Generous: Yeah, I think we're taking that out under the proposed revisions to the landscaping. Sacchet: So we may want to maybe, or ask them to do something else to be consistent with what we' ve done in the past. Generous: Work with staff to come up with... Sacchet: Now that planting on that berm, would that provide about how much screening of that gear that is screened only from the east approach, not from the west approach. The gear to the north that is on the ground level. Do we have an idea? Is that going to provide, between the berm and those plantings, is like 100 percent screening? 50 percent screening? Do we have an idea? Generous: I'm not sure. You could ask the applicant. Sacchet: Maybe I'll ask the applicant that. That's my only question, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? Commissioners, do you have questions Steve? Lillehaug: Yes I do. Two questions. One would be on the grading plan. Maybe engineering could confirm this. I assume that this is 100 scale plan. 1 inch equals 100 feet. And when I scale off the truck driveway, it appears, first what would be the maximum grade allowable for this driveway? Is it 6 percent? Sweidan: For driveway 10 percent maximum. Lillehaug: 10 percent. Then I don't have a question for that. My other question would be, I hit on this at the last meeting, and I guess it still hasn't been addressed really, and this would be, in the previous report it was mentioned that the proposed development is required to maintain the existing runoff rates. How is this being handled? And I guess what I'm getting at is I want to make sure it's clear to the applicant that the specifics on the requirements to maintain existing runoff rates and provide additional ponding is clear to them. I realize it says work with staff but I want to make sure it's clear to them. So my question would be is how do they, how can they maintain the existing runoff rates? Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Sweidan: Not necessary to maintain that existing runoff for grades because due to the additional.., and they have submitted the storm sewer designing for the existing and with the addition so we would need to extend the, or I mean to enlarge the existing storm pond. Yes, they do have to do that. But .... submit a storm sewer and that's why we put the condition to meet that. Lillehaug: Okay, so two things. Because of the increase impervious area as well as the existing storm water infrastructure maybe not functioning properly, it might be a specific requirement to add that the pond may need to be. Sweidan: Maybe but we cannot until we see that calculations. Once we get them, I mean we can make sure that they do need to enlarge the sizes, either the storm sewer size or the pond size. The difference according to calculations. Lillehaug: Okay thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Any other questions commissioners? Claybaugh: I don't have anything new to add? Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. At this time the applicant or their designee can make a presentation. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. And it can be short. It doesn't have to be really long either. I want to put you on the spot. Mark Wasescha: I'm Mark Wasescha, architect with AMEC, 800 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis and in addition to the information you've got in front of you, we produced this drawing that shows a cross section through the site... Slagle: Mark first of all, if I can, what's happened? Are you okay? Mark Wasescha: No I'm fine. It looks worst than it is. But in discussions with Kate Aanenson, she had requested that we produce a drawing which describes I guess what the relationship is between Coulter Drive and the parking area in the building and this is going to be longer than... piece of the building. So the top of the berm is about 983 that we're proposing along Coulter. There is a retaining wall here and then at the edge of the building addition it's 965 so we're only 18 feet differential there. So we think this will be pretty dramatic landscaping and berming which will help to screen the area. The elevation of the road here is about, it varies obviously as you're driving along here but it's around 974, or in that area, and obviously changes as you go to the west but we're about 10 feet difference so we think that as you drive near here, the view in there is going to be minimal. There's three rows of landscaping. There's some shrubs which are called for in the staff report. We've got those right near the retaining wall. And then the spruce or whatever...put in there as a result of this meeting and then the large coffee trees so our application's been amended to incorporate all the recommendations of the landscape staff. That's about all, if there's any questions on that. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Uli? Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. The question that I posed to staff and how much screening do you expect that will give to those machineries that are on the further to the east. Mark Wasescha: We do have...same condition. It's going to go to the east... I think the report called for 26 of these large coffee trees so only about 18 of those are...the addition. The rest of Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 them are going to be towards that refrigeration complex. I think that was your concern. The stuff on the ground. Sacchet: Right, right. Mark Wasescha: The rooftop equipment on the, we've looked at it again after the meeting last time and it's pretty minimal. Sacchet: Yeah, my concern is just all that on the ground, yeah. Mark Wasescha: This condition is...we're proposing to extend pretty much to the east also. Sacchet: So you would expect this to be pretty fully screened? Mark Wasescha: I think it will be, yeah. It's about as steep as we can make it. We're about 4 to 1 slopes. We really can't make it any higher. Sacchet: Would it be possible to maybe add a few more of the evergreens further towards where that drive inlet is? Mark Wasescha: Yeah. If you refer to the landscape plan, it's pretty, the grading plan actually is pretty aggressive. Sacchet: It's pretty steep? Mark Wasescha: Yeah. I think the grading's actually going to screen most of this. It really can be, you can see how close the contour lines are here. You really can't push it much higher and I think with landscaping we are proposing, particularly if we have some kind of an evergreen tree, it will be pretty much a mask... We realize your concerns about the refrigeration... The top stuff here isn't really bad. Actually it's the concrete where it's kind of gray and stuff on the roof is kind of gray and it all kind of matches and it's pretty low so, it's the stuff on the ground I think that we'll be addressing with this revised plan. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Questions? Any other questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah. I was trying to find some information on the height of the parapet wall on the addition. MarkWasescha: Let's see. Claybaugh: They just call out the elevation as 134 for the top of the parapet, but I don't have an elevation for the roof top. Mark Wasescha: We're projecting it's going to be about a foot high, but we kind of discussed this in the last meeting. There's not going to be a lot of refrigeration or air conditioning in this building. We're basically going to try to support the temperature of 55 degrees. It's just a warehouse, so it's not going to be air conditioned. We'll probably just have like smoke relief vents up on the roof, in a real small area to take care of the trucker's lounge area we're creating, Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 which is a very small air conditioning so we think we can control...it should be pretty much invisible. Claybaugh: Could you qualify small? Mark Wasescha: Probably in the order of like 3 by 3 by 1. One foot high type of things. Jack Werner: Not much bigger than a household. Claybaugh: It's almost like a residential scale, okay. Mark Wasescha: Yeah, because there's a lack of HVAC in there. Real HVAC. It's space heat. It's basically like space heaters hanging in there. Claybaugh: So with the revisions to the berm, road elevation, roof top elevation, what is the vantage. How much of that will be seen? You know it's... Mark Wasescha: Yeah, I think because the height of the building is 34 feet. It' s not going to be a lot. I think you have to, the addition will be tall enough that from most ground...you won't see anything actually. Claybaugh: And you said previously, if I understood you correctly, you can justify some of that equipment a little more to the interior of the roof area rather than up towards the front there. Mark Wasescha: It's our anticipation that it mostly should be somewhat...to function properly because it's...in the warehouse so it should be inboard mostly. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Unless anyone else has something to add, I'll open the public hearing. I don't know if anybody else from General Mills wants to say anything or. You know what, we're going to have a public heating in just a second so I just want to make sure General Mills has their chance and then I'll open it up for general, for comments from the public. So if anybody else wants to add, otherwise we'll just move forward with public hearing. Okay, I'll open this item up for public heating. This is a time to get up and ask your questions and make your comments. Please come to the microphone and please state your name and address for the record. Rick Gorra: My name's Rick Gorra. I live at 8201 Stone Creek Drive in Chanhassen. I've got a question on the, my house directly looks at your property so I can see it from my back window. The 730 foot, it says some kind of thermal building. What's it called? Mark Wasescha: Thermal oil. Rick Gorra: What does that mean? Jack Werner: It's just a heating. It heats up oil that's used to bake the products, so it's an edible oil that's heated up in this small building, and it's pumped over to the ovens where it's used to heat up the ovens so it can bake the muff'ms and stuff like that. Rick Gorra: Does it smell? Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Jack Werner: No. It's a cold system. There's no exposure to... Lane Paolocci: Actually a mineral oil is what it is. Jack Werner: So there is no odor to it at all. Rick Gorra: Well how about the, well it heats up the oil. What kind of furnaces are you using for that? You said there was smoke release vents. Jack Werner: That's for the warehouse. In case of a fire in the warehouse we have a release the smoke through vents. It's a state requirement. Rick Gorra: So it's not always going to be pumping smoke up? Jack Wemer: Oh no. Only in the case of a f'ge, then those will release it, and in the case of a fke the smoke...that's the reason for the smoke vents. The thermal oil is just a gas heater that heats up the oil so the only thing would be...so there shouldn't be any odors at all. Rick Gorra: You would say it emits about the same as if you'd put a 30 unit apartment building there or something like that? Jack Werner: As far as the amount of natural gas? Rick Gorra: Yeah. Jack Werner: Oh, I'd say less than that. It doesn't take a lot to heat up the oil once it's in the system... Mark Wasescha: Our calculations of getting the whole system up are about 755 gallons of fully loaded, so that's the maximum amount at any given time. Jack Werner: ...the exhaust. That's stays within the system. Rick Gorra: So how about when you get fid of it, does it stink? I'm worried about smell. Jack Werner: No. No .... change it out but if we ever do then we just take it out. There's no smell to it at all. Rick Gorra: Okay, so you're going for a variance. Now are you going closer to the property line than what is allowed? Blackowiak: You know what, yeah. Can you come up to the microphone too. You know if you guys could share so that everybody can, make sure we're all heating this. Jack Werner: The thermal oil building is fight here. It's 36 by 20...that's it right there. It's like a small building. But that's it. This is the addition we're talking about. The thermal oil. Rick Gorra: And where's the warehouse? Jack Werner: The warehouse is this building. Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Rick Gorra: You're going to pump it from here to there? Jack Werner: No. This is used for the process... This is just strictly for raw materials for the warehouse. This has nothing to do with the process... This is basically a boiler to warm up the oil so we can cook the muffins... Rick Gorra: Those are my questions. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Doug Peterson: Hi. I'm Doug Peterson and I live at 8369 Stone Creek Drive, and my concern, I guess I've talked to quite a few of our neighbors in the Stone Creek, or in the Creekside neighborhood there along Stone Creek Drive, and especially the ones that back up towards the General Mills property. And the biggest concern I think that I've heard from neighbors is that as the building is going to be closer to our houses, as they move with this warehouse facility further to the west, it's just, you know it's just a sight issue really. I mean it's a very large building set up on the highest point of land in the entire community, and so from anywhere around it, you can't miss it. I mean it's the dominating feature of our neighborhood, especially from any of our back yards. And I particularly live at about a 45 degree angle, up this way from the whole complex and so we see it kind of from the west and from the south side, and on both sides the screening, the landscaping screening is very inadequate. There's obviously been an attempt to plant some trees there and they're spruce or some kind of evergreen tree, but they just take decades to get to the point where they really do very much good. So as that expansion continues now as the building is going to continue to expand further to the west, particularly those neighbors right down at the north end of Stone Creek Drive, I know their concern is that they hope that the city would require additional berming to the west and additional planting of some very large trees because it's just, I mean you should just come out to one of our decks and sit in our back yard sometime and take a look to see how dominating that is, and you know it's just a beautiful area. They've got the wetlands right there and we've got some nice open space and so some additional trees to kind of screen that, it would really help a lot. I think it would make a big difference. That was probably the most significant thing that I heard as I talked to neighbors in our neighborhood. A couple other concerns that they had, and some questions that we didn't know the answers to were, are there currently any restrictions on the hours of operation that the trucks can operate? Blackowiak: You know what, I'm just going to kind of jump in and ask Bob, can you speak to that? Generous: Not currently, no. Blackowiak: Not currently, okay. Doug Peterson: That might be something that would be appreciated if there were some limits on the hours of operation so they weren't coming in late at night when we're all trying to sleep. And the second issue that, I don't know if this is even related. It's probably not related to the expansion at all, but there's a lot of banging of noise during the night and I think it's dumping of. Blackowiak: You missed our last discussion. At the last meeting we were laughing about that. It's the flour trucks. Planning Commission Meeting- April 1, 2003 Doug Peterson: Yeah, we have no idea what the noise is but it's very loud and it happens during the night. Like middle of the night. Yeah, so if there is any restrictions that the City could place on them for that kind of operation, I mean they have noise restrictions for builders. You can't be banging, pounding nails in the middle of the night, building a house and so it just seems like it's kind of funny that there's no restrictions on operations that create loud noise that carry across that entire wetland very easily. So that was another question that some neighbors had. And then the third question is, is there any plans for future expansion beyond this? That was I guess another possible area that we were concerned about if they're going to continue. I know they own the property further to the west there which is now a corn field, and as it gets closer and closer to the back yards of our houses we are a little concerned about that. Blackowiak: Understandable. Okay, why don't we answer your fa:st question. Bob, can you talk a little bit about screening on the south and west sides, and do we have any options in terms of adding any more conifers or something to, for the screening. Or talk to Jill, or I mean. Generous: Yeah, you can always add additional trees. It's the problems that if you get them too close. Blackowiak: Too close to the wetlands. Generous: Too close together then they don't grow very well. And unfortunately it does take time to grow trees. Doug Peterson: Well the concern right now is, if you look at those trees that are planted, it' s just one row of conifers and usually when they do it for a screening purpose, you have a couple of rows so that they' re staggered. Blackowiak: Staggered. Doug Peterson: Staggered, yeah. So it fills in the open spaces and so another row to space inbetween those would help a lot and you know there are other trees that don't help in the winter but are conifer trees that grow very large. You know maples or something that would fill in a lot more so at least 7-8 months of the year we'd have a little more screening. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Would someone from General Mills like to come up and take a stab at some of these questions. Future expansion plans, and I think we talked a little bit about that at the last meeting but just for the people in here this evening. Hours of operation. Noise. Somebody. Who's brave tonight? Lane Paolocci: I wasn't at the last meeting so... Blackowiak: Go right ahead. Lane Paolocci: I'm Lane Paolocci, the plant manager of the General Mills facility and from the perspective of the noise. We feel like the addition of this warehouse, along with the berming on the north side of the plant will actually shield quite a bit of the noise. Looking at the drawing here, the flour trucks are in this area right here and by adding the warehouse along with the truck docks right here, and the berming on the north side, the trucks will actually be down in a pocket. That's one perspective. The other one is, we'll continue to work with the flour companies to get their drivers not to pound on those trucks after hours. The reason they pound on the trucks is because the trucks don't empty all the way and most of their customers require them to pound on Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 the trucks so that the flour that they've purchased in those trucks, gets delivered to the plant. And we've talked to them several times in the past about not banging on those tracks and saying that we will take the financial burden of missing that 1,000 pounds of flour to keep the area quiet in after hours. We can continue to do that. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I think that will be good for the neighbors to hear. Lane Paolocci: From a perspective of future expansions to the west, the land to the west isn't necessarily where we would want to build. If you think about the facility on the north side, this would be the area that we would practically want to move to for the next expansion and we actually already have a variance to bring the building out to be equal to the walls of the condenser units on the southeast comer, and what is now flour receiving on the northwest comer. As far as moving to the west, it doesn't match up with the rest of the facility so it would be a completely separate building which wouldn't necessarily make any sense. The reason that we purchased the property is to stop the expansion or encroachment of residential property up to the facility, because we knew there was going to be these issues with noise and 24 hour operation. That was the only reason we purchased that property. Not for expansion. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Okay, this item is open for public hearing for any of the neighbors or general public. Come on up. Jim Pensyl: Hi. I'm Jim Pensyl. I live at 1972 Andrew Court. The townhome development just to the west of the General Mills facility, and I echo the concerns and questions of the previous citizen and I hear the track banging. I thought it was someone's performance review going on, but apparently not. So that is a concern, and I'm not so sure the plans to buffer that sound would address the townhome development just to the west because the berm would seem to funnel the noise downward across the ravine and into the townhome complex where it's quite loud fight now. But the benefit of course is that we smell blueberries quite often and that's a pretty good fragrance. I like that. Most of my concerns have already been addressed. I'm wondering how many employees would be added to this facility, and I'm starting to think of traffic load on Coulter. Blackowiak: Okay. And do you have any more questions or shall I, I'm just going to. Jim Pensyl: I'll ask more questions, okay. How many employees, and I haven't really looked at this plant. I wonder if there's an additional driveway entrance going to be carved out so that it empties out onto Coulter and if so I would be concerned about that. And I would also like to appeal to General Mills to perhaps get, put on driver awareness training for their employees. We get a lot of road noise in the evening, or at all shifts from people speeding and the faster they go of course the more road noise from the tires. Let's see. I think, I would wonder if General Mills would consider, let's see. This has already been addressed. More shrubbery to the west, so I'll skip over that. Any possibility of working with the City to get additional speed limit signs put up as well on Coulter? And I think, oh one other concern. Tractor trailers using Coulter going west bound. I have observed a number of tractor trailers pulling out of General Mills and using Coulter going west bound. That's a concern. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. General Mills. If somebody would like to come up and talk a little bit about employees. Driveway entrance. Driver awareness training and then I'll talk to Mak about speed limit signs. So those three issues. Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Lonnie Malikowski: Lonnie Malikowski, 3402 Highlands Road, Brooklyn Park...for the use of the warehouse so, which is definitely a plus. The entrance for the trucking entrance, as you can see right here, will have a right turn only so there will be no traffic on the west side of Coulter Boulevard. Everything will be from Coulter out towards the Audubon Road. So we'll be putting a right hand turn here. Right hand turn sign only. Blackowiak: Okay. And driver awareness training. Is that something you do or can we, you know? Hey, I'm just passing it along here. Lonnie Malikowski: Well we've had the same issues in our parking lots. Blackowiak: Oh I'm sure you have. Lonnie Malikowski: We've put speed bumps in our parking lot so it's kind of like once they're out, they're out. Blackowiak: Right. Lonnie Malikowski: I think maybe if you add a few. Blackowiak: Just a continuing effort. I think that might help. Okay, thank you. Mak, can you talk about speed limit signs on Coulter. Is there a standard set by the City for spacing of signs? Sweidan: There is a standard for spacing of signs but we have to take a look to see what's available over there and if we do need more speeding signs. Because as the applicant has no additional car numbers, so that means... Blackowiak: So this might be a separate issue, right. Sweidan: Yeah. Blackowiak: But I think just in general if we could look at that and, because I know that. Sweidan: Sure, yeah. We can look at it and see if we need it or not. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, thank you. Anybody else like to comment or have questions this evening? Mark Zitzewitz: My name is Mark Zitzewitz. I live at 1930 Bluff View Court. Also in the Stone Creek neighborhood and also, my back yard overlooks this property and without repeating what's already been said, this is the dominant property in the neighborhood and as much as I hear about screening along Coulter, I don't hear a lot about screening to the neighborhood. There isn't anything on the other side of Coulter to this property to worry about screening so much, but on the south and west side there is no screening. We look directly at this building with an additional building to the west. And I reiterate the concerns that have already been stated. The one thing I haven't heard, the other concern that I have is in the lighting. On a cloudy night you can sit outside at 2:00 in the morning and read a book because of the amount of lighting that comes from that property. I don't know what the additional lighting for this warehouse facility will be but that is a concern of mine and I would also, since I've got the microphone reiterate the problem with speed on that road. It may not be at all related to this property, although there are a number of cars coming in and out of there. This is a road leading into a residential area with an 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 elementary school and rec center on it. I don't blame General Mills for all the speeding on that road but it is a constant concern of mine as well as the rest of the neighbors. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. So again we're hearing screening and I think that maybe staff can, we'll just have to look into it and see what we can. Generous: As far as lighting, all the new standards require that lighting have a 90 degree cut off angle so we don't have the glow going up. Blackowiak: Right. Generous: And there's a limit to the height on the light pole. Blackowiak: The standards. Okay, and speed. Alright. Anybody else like to make comments? Okay, seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Now's the time when commissioners can make their comments. Anybody? Start with you. Claybaugh: Quite obviously there's a lot of issues that have been raised tonight that aren't necessarily directly relevant to this project but I understand why the neighbors want to use the opportunity to state their opinions. And I agree with Chairperson that certainly things that staff needs to look into. The one resounding theme that I heard that I think is well within grasp is possibly berming to the west. And I'm not sure with respect to how General Mills has worked with the staff, if that has actually been addressed head on or if that's a new issue, but if staff could shed any light on that, that would be appreciated. Blackowiak: Okay, well maybe an issue that staff, we could make sure that staff brings forward to council when it goes at that point. Claybaugh: That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. We'll justcontinueon. Steve. Lillehaug: I would like to thank and commend the applicant in the revisions made to the plans from the previous submittal. I think they've come quite a ways and they address more of the issues that they should have. Especially increasing the berm, as well as adding trees to the north side so thank you there. Before I make another comment, can I ask the question to staff. What variances are we actually looking at here? Generous: From the development design standards for commercial and industrial and institutional buildings. They don't have the fenestration on the street frontage and the use of materials. Lillehaug: Okay. So with us granting variances, that would be, the materials on the building are kind of, I'm not seeing the hardship and I guess I'm not kind of agreeing with staff's findings on a few of them, particularly A and C. And I guess for me to buy off on that I think there should be a trade off as far as obviously the residents see as berming and screening on the west side of your property is important, so I think that that would be a good trade off. So I don't know the earth work balance on the project but I think it'd be easy to accommodate additional berm on that west side so I think that is a condition that I would like to add. I would also like to address screening on the roof. I think that a condition should be added that the parapet would be increased in height as necessary to fully screen any rooftop equipment. I don't know how extensive that would be 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 but I don't think it would be too much. And then I think we should also add a no truck traffic and maybe limited to a certain tonnage beyond the north truck driveway, and is that a possibility? I'm not sure what the rateage of tonnage is on that road but it appears that up to a point to that truck entrance, it lessens after that truck entrance. Sweidan: Well as a boulevard, I mean it does take that tonnage of trailers they are going to use, but you know if we need to limit that we have to see actually like what is the maximum they are using. Lillehaug: Okay, and I think that's doable I guess. And I think that would be it, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce. Feik: I wasn't here last meeting but I do have a couple minor ones, real quick. Bob, the zoning to the west and to the south, with the exception of the very low area to the southwest, what is the zoning of that? It's industrial, is it not? Generous: Yes, it's industrial office park. Feik: The same thing on the north side of Coulter, south of McGlynn. East of the church. Generous: That's correct. Feik: And those would all have access via the road for trucks. Generous: Correct. Feik: So even if we were to limit the trucks for the General Mills, the next applicant who comes in who wants to build adjacent to the church, they have to have an access. Am I not correct? Okay. As relates to the berm on the west side, I see that as given the zoning of the parcels surrounding that, I understand the residents concerns but that is a band-aid. That's a temporary fix because there will be, it may be 2 years. It may be 10 years but you will have additional commercial development, odds are to the west of that building and to the south of that building. So I'm not sure, given the amount of changes I saw from the last meeting, I'm not sure whether or not it's fair to add additional berming to the west for what I think might very well be a temporary measure. That's it, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Uli, comments? Sacchet: Yeah, a couple of comments. First of all when we say these variances, that's a question for staff. When you say these variances, can we be more specific and say these variances, can we be more specific and say these variances from design standards? Is that basically what we're saying? Generous: That's exactly what we're saying. Sacchet: Okay. Then to address some of the comments that were raised, we actually went quite at length into the odor question. One of the gentleman had a concern about odors. We went quite a bit into the odor question last time and were very much reassured also that there was no concern with that oil building. Traffic and speed limits is really a separate issue. I mean that is not related to what's in front of us, and I would encourage the neighbor, to neighbors to register their 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 complaints. I would think probably goes to the sheriff' s department first of all, that they do more checking there. And with the City to consider more, additional signage potentially. Lighting as far as I know is following the standards so I don't see an issue. There are a couple of additional conditions I'd like to bring into this. One is that we leave in a condition that says the silt fence come out when construction's complete. That we ask that the applicant work with staff to select possible alternate evergreen in place of the Colorado Spruce, just to be consistent with what we' ye done with similar situations in the past. I would like to see 2 more evergreens there by that cooling building. I think there's enough room to the east on that berm to put 2 more evergreens in there. And then ask that the applicant work with staff to consider some more screening to the west side because I don't think we're in a position to really nail this down, but it's something that I'd like to make sure council is aware of when it comes before. Blackowiak: You mean the screening on the west specifically. Sacchet: Towards the neighborhood across the wetland. That's my comments. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Rich. Slagle: I just have a few. Question for staff before I begin. The gentleman from General Mills mentioned they have a variance approval for expansion to the north of, perhaps some additional warehouse plant. Is that going to affect at all what we're talking here with our berms and so forth? Generous: Like he said, it's to align with the existing protrusion of the building so it would be to the south of any of that. And they're proposing the use of a retaining wall in there. Slagle: So from your standpoint things will be okay. Comment and concern exhibited by the neighbors about lighting. Are there any, are there current lights that they have that don't meet the most recent updated requirements? Generous: I'm not certain. I'd have to check on that. Slagle: Okay, can we check on that and to the applicant I only ask if there are some that are not, maybe we could make them. I'm in agreement with one of the commissioners about the additional berming and screening to the west for the neighbors. Obviously I think we're going to be expanding some parking to the west, so I'm just wondering if we can do that, and I guess I would ask that the way I see the landscape plan now, there are no evergreens to the west. Again, that might be helpful. And then let me just see here. There was talk about the screening of the rooftop. My only concern there, and I agree that we need to do that but at what vantage point, what elevation are we talking about for a sight line because Coulter has got the hills and I mean if you drive on 5 and you look down at Instant Webb as an example, you can see all their roof so I mean it might not be a doable item. And then lastly, just a housekeeping note, and I don't know if this is the applicant or if it's the City. But the sidewalk to the east of your building is in somewhat disarray with lots of cracks and holes. Just as an FYI if you haven't noticed it, to the east of the building. That' s it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I don't have many additional comments. I'd just like to thank the neighbors for coming tonight and thanks to General Mills for their patience. I hope you understand why we felt the need to table this last time so we could get the neighbors comments on the record and make sure that they're being heard and address their issues. But again, thank you. Thank you all for coming this evening. I see some decisions that we can make tonight. We 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 can vote. I think the City Council has a few decisions to make too in terms of the noise, the screening, the lighting. You know we talked a little bit about trade-ofFs and that's not our decision tonight. It really has nothing to do with the issue before us but that's something I would hope the council would kind of look at, sort of in general and sort of see what makes sense for this and how can we help buffer the neighbors, and I do disagree with you Bruce. I mean I realize that something may happen to the west but I think short term we've got to put some trees up and, but that's my personal opinion. For what it's worth. Feik: For what it's worth. Blackowiak: For what it's worth. So with that, could I get a motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit number 2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the following condition number 1. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the 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 condition: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Blackowiak: Another motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan review number 03-2 for a 45,600 square foot office warehouse addition and a 730 square foot thermal oil building as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003, with variances from design standards. I'm adding from design standards, with the following conditions, 1 through 13 with the addition of a bunch more conditions. Number 14. Silt fence shall be removed when construction is completed. Number 15. Work with staff to select possible alternate evergreen over the Colorado Spruce. Number 16. Place at least 2 more evergreens on the northeast in front of the cooling gear, or how would we call that? Blackowiak: Cooling units. Sacchet: Cooling units. And I think looking at the landscaping plan it should be clear where those go. They go to the east, far east side of it. Condition number 17. Work with staff to consider screening to the west. Number 18, work with staff to check lighting compliance. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Been a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Can I make a friendly amendment? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Blackowiak: Sure can. Sacchet: Do we need a second first? Lillehaug: I second it. Sacchet: Thank you. Lillehaug: Friendly amendment? Sacchet: Yes please. Lillehaug: To number 11 I would like to add to that and say including any necessary improvements such as increase in pond volume to accommodate any increased runoff rates. Sacchet: That's acceptable. Lillehaug: And add number 18. Sacchet: 19. Blackowiak: 19 1 believe. Lillehaug: 19. The parapet will be increased in height as necessary to fully screen the rooftop equipment on the addition as required by ordinance. Sacchet: That's a little tougher. I accept it with the notion that this is going to be a council item to look at. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, this motion's been moved and seconded. Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review g2003-2 for a 45,600 square foot office warehouse addition and a 730 square foot thermal oil building as shown on plans dated March 24, 2003, with variances from design standards, with the following conditions: 1. Submit storm sewer sizing for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event and pond design calculations. 2. Add the latest City standard detail plate numbers 1002, 2202, 2203, 3101, 3102, 3104, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, and 5302. 3. Show the proposed watermain and storm sewer pipe, class and slope. Any off-site grading will require temporary easements. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. , o 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 6. Add a storm sewer schedule. 7. Add a note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be core drilled." . The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and 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 watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hook up fees may be specifically assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building additions. 9. Two additional signs shall be posted, no left exit and no left turn. 10. Manholes with two foot sumps shall be installed as the last road accessible structures prior to discharge into the stormwater pond. 11. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure the existing storm water infrastructure is maintained and functioning properly, including any necessary improvements such as increase in pond volume to accommodate any increased runoff rates. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of National Resources, Army Corps of Engineers), and comply with their conditions of approval. 13. Building official conditions: a. The addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. It is evident that the proposed addition will create exiting and high pile storage issues in the existing building that must be examined. 14. Silt fence shah be removed when construction is completed. 15. Work with staff to select possible alternate evergreen over the Colorado Spruce. 16. Place at least 2 more evergreens on the northeast in front of the cooling units. 17. Work with staff to consider screening to the west. 18. Work with staff to check lighting compliance. 19. The parapet will be increased in height as necessary to fully screen the rooftop equipment on the addition as required by ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Blackowiak: This item goes to City Council on April 7t~. No? 14~h, okay. I'm sorry, I was looking at my old date. April 14m. So any residents interested in following this to City Council, April 14th meeting. Agenda is on line if you want to go see City of Chanhassen's web site. It's all there. Commissioners, do we want to make any additional comments for City Council? Or summary. We approved the motions. We added 6 conditions. Sacchet: I would say the conditions pretty clearly express our aspects of concern. Maybe the only thing that would be possibly speeding, the traffic situation. Blackowiak: Traffic, screening. Sacchet: The screening, yeah. Blackowiak: Just some of the trade-off's that council will have to decide. Sacchet: The different screening aspects, definitely. Slagle: I think also just some verbiage complimenting the applicant. Blackowiak: Alright. Well thank you. Lillehaug: And I'd like to add one thing with the screening on the west side. Just to be elaborated on a little I think it'd be important to define screening, to increase the berm elevation, which would really help reduce in the noise projecting into that adjacent neighborhood. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you everyone for coming. ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS. Blackowiak: This is kind of a housekeeping item. Each year the by-laws need to be adopted by the Planning Commission in the first April meeting. That's tonight. So does anybody, any commissioners have comments on by-laws. Lillehaug: I do. With the attendance. See I don't have a problem with my attendance I think since I've been here I've been present 100 percent of the time but. Blackowiak: Thank you. Lillehaug: I don't see any problem with the original verbiage there. I don't see it necessary why that should be revised. Blackowiak: Okay, any other thoughts on that issue? Feik: We still serve at the discretion of the mayor and the council, irrespective of what this says in the by-laws. Blackowiak: True. Feik: So to what degree does it give either commission members direction in addition to what we have, or to what degree does it give control to the City Council? I'm not sure where the benefit is either way. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Sacchet: How did it read before? Blackowiak: It's just the strike out, it struck out, it says failure to meet this minimum attendance requirement, in other words not being at 75 percent of all meetings, or missing 3 consecutive meetings, shall be cause for removal from the commission by action of the City Council. That was the prior. New is, it just says will result in removal from the commission. So less discretion, more immediate. Lillehaug: Why be immediate? I mean leave the discretion to the City Council. I mean that's how I feel. It's not a big deal either way I mean, that's my opinion. Blackowiak: Anybody else? And I know that this, this actually, I think this verbiage, Bob correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't this inserted in all commission by-laws. Not just planning. Generous: I'm not certain on that. I know they worked on them. Blackowiak: Yeah, I think Kate told me that that was one of the reasons that they were trying to be consistent and it was more aimed at commissions that did not necessarily meet twice per month. So for what that's worth. Lillehaug: That's fine then if it' s. Blackowiak: I don't have any strong feelings otherwise, so as is on that item. Any other comments on? No? Alright. Then we will, I need a motion and a second so we can vote to adopt the by-laws. Feik: I move that we adopt the by-laws as drafted. Blackowiak: Is there a second? Sacchet: Second. Feik moved, Sacchet seconded to adopt the Planning Commission By-laws as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR. Blackowiak: I will not be seeking the Chair position again, and at this point I'm kind of on an interim basis until we can appoint some new commissioners, so I feel that it's not right for me to apply for the Chaff position again so we'll see some new faces up here. Discussion. In fact I'm going to stay out of this one too. I'm not going to vote because then it will be a 5 person vote and there will be no, no chance of it tying. So I'm just telling you right now I'm not voting on this one. So does anybody have any comments or nominations or discussion? Claybaugh: I would like to nominate Uli for the Chaff position. Slagle: I'll second that. Feik: I can live with that. Do we need to vote? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 1, 2003 Blackowiak: Actually you do need, there does need to be a vote. You have to vote, there has to be a majority of commissioners who vote for the Chair, and then also for the Vice Chair, and we could do it on a single ballot if we want to, or we can separate it. Slagle: Well let's get the first one done. Blackowiak: Okay, we'll get one done and then have one under the belt, okay. So I'd like a motion and a second then for Uli, and with that a vote please. Claybaugh moved, Feik seconded to appoint Uli Sacchet as Chairman of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried with a vote of 4-0-2. Blackowiak: Okay, now Vice Chair. Sacchet: I was abstaining too. I didn't vote. Blackowiak: You can vote for yourself. It's okay. Okay, We'll say 4-0 then. Excuse me. Feik: 4-0-2. Blackowiak: 4-0-2, yes. Okay, now Vice Chair position. Volunteers, nominees. Slagle: I'll nominate Bruce. Feik: That's just to get me to come more than 75 percent of the time. Blackowiak: That's a tactic now isn't it. Claybaugh: Giving you responsibility might bring out the best in you. Feik: I make it more than 75. Not much but. Blackowiak: Okay, any other nominations? Okay, is there a second to that nomination? Claybaugh: I'll second it. Slagle moved, Claybaugh seconded to appoint Bruce Feik as Vice-Chair for the Planning Commission. All voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Feik who abstained, and the motion carried with a vote of 4-0-2. Blackowiak: Okay, so now we have a new Chair and guess what, I'll finish up this meeting. I guess we're almost there. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Rich Slagle noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission dated March 18, 2003 as presented. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 19