Loading...
1988 07 20 e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 1988 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Elison, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City planner and Larr Brown, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION OF 7 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT AND TO CREATE A NEW 64TH STREET CUL-DE-SAC ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 64TH STREET AND HWY. 41, REED ADDITION, GARY REED AND HSZ DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name 4It Gary and Jan Reed Roger Zahn Address 2461 West 64th Street HSZ Development Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report. Conrad: Just a quick question Larry. It was stated in the staff report like it's a standard for water retention on site. Is that a City standard? Brown: Yes. That retention pond, as Barb mentioned before, will accomodate a 100 year storm event or, not only for the Reed property but for the HSZ property. I should also add that the pond will also help in the drainage problem that's occurred in the past on the Reed property from drainage that flows underneath TH 41 from the Minnetonka school. Conrad: I think it's a good standard. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. e Gary Reed, 2461 West 64th Street: The holding pond, I haven't discussed this with Mr. Zahn yet but I don't know if it would make a difference whether it went in one or another place as far as the location of whether it be, I've done some test drilling since I last talked to Roger and we found one lot that the bottom would be pretty low and hard to build on so we thought that would be a better location for the pond. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 2 e Conrad: So you feel there's a better place for the retention pond? Gary Reed: Yes. They had it in Outlot A here that we had kind of located the pond and this is the lot that I was informed on that it would probably be low so if... Headla: Could you put that slide up Larry so we can all see? Conrad: I don't know that we care right now but we would direct staff to be working with the applicant to find the right location and whether engineering feels it's appropriate. Gary Reed: and. . . ...it's just a matter at this time, it's kind of preliminary Conrad: And possibly would you have that information ready to discuss with Larry and staff within a week so they could take it to City Council in two weeks from now? Gary Reed: Yes. I think the test report should be back. Conrad: It'd be nice to go with that kind of firm agreement between you and staff before it gets to City Council. Anything else besides that? e Gary Reed: As far as the rest of it's concerned, I think we're all... Roger Zahn, HSZ Development: I just wanted to maybe alert the Commission to the fact that the additional length of storm sewer that we've been asked to add to our earlier proposal, we've gotten a preliminary estimate on the cost of that and it turns out to be about $25,000.00 over and above what we had proposed to do before. We were looking at some othere alternatives. Possibly a study as to the topography or something. I'm sure our engineers have talked to Larry. You might study it a little closer and find that the earlier proposal might actually work but we want to find something that does work. This one alternative certainly does but it's an expensive alternative too. We just wanted to alert you to that. If you can find something that works as well and is a little bit less expensive than that. Conrad: Barbara, here we have two cases where we have a retention pond and we have some concern with how we run the water off and it seems like the applicants are asking for some time. Do you have a suggestion to us? Dacy: I can't believe that the applicant really wants this thing tabled because the original approval on this was that the storm sewer issues and plans and specs had to be approved prior to permits and I know they want to get going on the shopping center. These issues do need to be resolved as quickly as possible because if there are any changes and we change the plans... In order to keep your schedule going, there's going to have to ~ be some decision made. Roger Zahn: I understand. Just to clarify. I only got that number today and it's a big number. The bottom line is, if we had to do it that way, Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 3 e we would. If there isn't something that's clearly suitable, that's less expensive, that's... It's sort of a recent development. We don't want to slow down. Emmings: It seems to me that the storm sewer question is a condition of the approval that's already been given. What we're looking at here tonight is just a replat of the Reed property and it doesn't matter for what we're looking at in front of us or am I wrong about that? Dacy: The first part of your statement is correct also. Part of this plat is the creation of the pond on the Reed property which does handle the run-off from the HSZ property. Emmings: Is it in there? Where do I see that in here? Is it in here as a condition? Dacy: What's that? Emmings: The creation of the holding pond? Dacy: It's indicated on the drawings. On the right hand side and number 6 of the conditions. . Emmings: But resolution of the drainage problem is a condition of the other approval that's already been made. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: On the page 2 of the staff's memo, it says the property owner should be made aware that upon replatting that a different street or utility plan may be required. Are the applicant's aware of that? Did you get this part Barb? Dacy: Yes. Both Mr. and Mrs. Reed and Mr. Zahn received a copy of the report. Headla: What are we really supposed to be voting on tonight or considering? Dacy: Tonight you're approving a preliminary plat creating the creation of an outlot and two single family lots. The creation of a cul-de-sac on 64th Street into the Reed property. You're reviewing the utility and drainage plans for the construction on that street of a proposed trunk sewer system. Headla: We don't have that will we? e Dacy: Yes. Shown on the plans is creation of a pond and a pipe from that pond along 64th Street and then down Oriole Lane. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 4 e Wildermuth: Independent of the storm sewer system and the street right? Oacy: I don't think there's storm sewer out there. Brown: There's a paper street right now. Oacy: What you're seeing is an improvement over the existing situation. That's going to handle existing and... Conrad: Of this whole site, water is an important consideration and on paper it looks like it's been resolved but the applicants are finding a little bit different alternatives. Headla: Maybe r'm confused but on number 2, didn't you pull that out before on one of our motions? Brown: That the applicant shall enter into a development contract? Headla: Yes. Brown: I'm sure that we probably have, yes. Headla: What determines if it's in or out? 4It Oacy: He's referring to the Waytek plan I'm sure. Brown: Usually anytime that there's a...we require the applicant to enter into a development contract because there's a platted public right-of-way that the City then has interest in with creating a street. The other plan that you're referring to is the Waytek plan filed at the last Planning Commission meeting which was a site plan only. Headla: And... Brown: Correct, because we really did not have a public interest in any of the platted right-of-ways. Wildermuth: From the engineering standpoint, wouldn't you want to run some kind of a storm sewer line down the cul-de-sac to tie into that other line that's shown at a right angle line? Otherwise it's just going to run down the cul-de-sac right? Brown: You're saying run a storm sewer system down this direction? wildermuth: From the cul-de-sac down going north to the other line. Brown: I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand. Wildermuth: How are you going to drain the cul-de-sac? ,e Oacy: Going down the south of the cul-de-sac. Gary Reed: Are there catch basins on the cul-de-sac? Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 5 e Brown: There are catch basins down at this point here and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the street grade runs the drainage down to this point here. Wildermuth: So you're just going to let it run down the surface of the street? Brown: In the gutter, correct. wildermuth: Is curb and gutter required here Barbara? Brown: Correct. It's urban section. Wildermuth: It still seems like it's going to be a problem there without running some type of a storm sewer down from the cul-de-sac to tie into the other sewer line. Brown: Normally we try to use the criteria of limiting the gutter run-off to approximately between 500 and 1,000 feet. It depends on the severity of the grades. Obviously we'd like to have the storm sewer system immediately available but if the grades aren't very steep, then we usually make a greater allowance for letting it run-off the gutter. e Gary Reed: If I could make the comment just about the existing conditions. There has been a problem with water coming down the street. ...it needs regrading and so on... ElIson: I don't have anything new. I think it looks fine. Emmings: I basically think it's fine and as far as the location of the pond, I think what we should do is perhaps go ahead and if the people are so inclined to approve this plan with the pond where it is, then again, just leave it up to them to show the City that they want it a different way before they get to the City Council so it moves it out of here. Erhart: The...is such a minor detail that I think the staff can look at it. Emmings: It's a technical issue. Conrad: It's a technical issue and we don't understand it. Barbara, just one quick question going back to the property to the north. The plan is to vacate 64th. Show me now the roads work. Can you do that? The point from the cul-de-sac and the point of vacating the roads. Refamiliarize me with that. e Dacy: From here on out, this is where 64th Street now exists. Right along here. Once this is constructed, this portion of 64th Street into TH 41 will no longer exist. They'll remove the pavement. Regrade. Council required construction of an 8 foot bituminous trail so that will meander through this area as well. There will be no connection between 64th Street back to TH 41. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 6 e Conrad: And they'll have their own internal turn into that property? Dacy: Yes, the cul-de-sac will just be able to turn. Conrad: And how do you get to the cul-de-sac? Is it anticipated that that property will be, how do you get to the cul-de-sac? Dacy: turning Council here on The way that you would be able to get to it is from TH 7 either right into Oriole or left into Oriole. Another condition of approval was that the applicants construct that left turn lane TH 7 to make a safer left turn movement into Oriole. up Conrad: So is it thought that that's going to be residential area? Dacy: I think what the Reeds and maybe you'll want to comment but they are looking at residential around the cul-de-sac with potential application for commercial. You might want to verify that. Conrad: You're comfortable with the cul-de-sac alternative here? Dacy: City Council approved that on May 31, 1988. Staff did have another recommendation. 4It Ernmings: The Commission and the staff I think both wanted to see 64th going through but I consider that a dead issue. I still think it should be. Conrad: I just want to raise that point. I think there are other alternatives to that cul-de-sac arid obviously we have a disagreement with the City Council. I hope they pay attention to what that's doing. I have no other comments. I think it's wise to move it out to give the applicant some time in here so if they do want to change to anything, they can work with city staff. Whether it be drainage, retention ponds, sewer and I think it's really wise to do that between now and City Council so that the City Council can see what we approved and then can see if there are any variations to that based on your agreement with staff. Is there a motion? Ernrnings: Could I ask a question of Larry before we make a motion? This plan shows the location of a pond in the spot that we talked about but does it also show the storm sewer going down, like on that drawing you showed us, going all the way down onto the City property? If we approve what's in front of us, will we be approving it with the storm sewer going all the way down onto City property? Brown: For clarification, the plan does not directly show that and if the Commission so chooses, they can make the condition that the storm sewer be extended all the way down to the Herman Field Park. e Dacy: The plan does show it. That's the plan dated July 13th. Emmings: Okay, where do we see that? e _1. e Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 7 Dacy: This line here running all the way down. Emmings: It doesn't show where it goes though does it? Dacy: What it's showing you is that it's stopping and discharging at the corner of that property. It's not the trunkated version. Was that the one that you're referring to? Brown: No, I guess I was agreeing with Mr. Emmings that it was a little bit unclear to whether it just stopped there or where it went from there. Emmings: And you're telling us that in your opinion, at least at present, it's necessary that that pipe be extended all the way to Herman Park? Brown: Correct. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-17 to create one outlot and two single family lots in the West 64th Street cul-de-sac as presented on the plat stamped "Received July 13, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: Reservation of a 25 foot trail easement over the proposed 8 foot bituminous trail in the vacated 64th Street right-of-way. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of this improvement. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 4. utility easements located over the proposed sanitary sewer and watermain between the existing West 64th Street right-of-way and the proposed cul-de-sac right-of-way shall be shown on the final plat. These easements shall be 20 feet in width minimum. 5. The applicant shall provide the City with a temporary easement agreement which will allow entry onto the Reed property for construction of the cul-de-sac and ponding sites. 6. The proposed ponding site located at the southeast quadrant of the proposed intersection of West 64th Street and the proposed cul-de-sac shall be located such that a 5 foot buffer exists between the existing utilities in West 64th Street and the 100 year high water elevation for the ponding site. 7. A temporary construction easement will be required from the Minnesota Department of Transportation such that grading may take place within the right-of-way owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation located adjacent to the northeast corner of the parcel. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 8 e 8. All erosion controls shall be in place prior to the commencement of any construction, and shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer shall periodically inspect the erosion controls and make any necessary repairs promptly. 9. The plat shall maintain the 64th Street street name. All voted in favor except Conrad who opposed and the motion carried. Conrad: And my reason for opposition. I like the subdivision. I do not like the cul-de-sac. I don't think it's the best plan. Having the cul-de-sac there for future use. PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 76.5 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS OF 66.5 AND 10 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 775 WEST 96TH STREET, TIM ERHART. e Conrad: tabled. It is my understanding that Mr. Erhart has asked this to be Erhart: Before we do that, let me explain the reason for this is that in purchasing the land on a contract for deed 8 years ago, the contract is up next March and with the help of Mr. perpich, in order to get, because of the new foreclosure laws, whereas banks will not mortgage properties larger than 10 acres because they can't foreclose on them anymore. If you want to get a mortgage, you've got to have a lot size of 10 acres or less. Therefore, I'm required to get a mortgage to subdivide and plat out 10 acres around the house. So anyway, we didn't get a chance to meet with staff on some issues and I felt there were some clarifications to be made so I asked that we postpone. I've got until April. Headla moved, ElIson seconded to table action on Subdivision Request #88-18 per the applicant's request. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR SUPERAMERICA STATION, INC. TO CONSTRUCT AN 80 SQUARE FOOT PYLON SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED AT 615 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, ROMAN MUELLER. e Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. (There was a malfunction of the tape at this point in the meeting.) Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - page 9 e Conrad: When we allow a conditional use, as staff has directed us so many times when we have developed ordinances, we need to know what those conditions are that we're looking for. Olsen: You have the basic conditions of a conditional use. ...we looked at that and we added that you should add an additional condition... Conrad: So staff is real comfortable that this is not setting a precedent? That this is in conformance with the point of a conditional use and that it meets the conditional use criteria that the ordinances lay out? Olsen: Right. Conrad: Okay, good. Wildermuth moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #88-12 for an 80 square foot pylon sign for SuperAmerica on Highway 212 with the following conditions: 1. The height of the sign cannot exceed 20 feet. e 2. The new sign must be located in the exact location of the existing sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 70 ACRES INTO ONE INDUSTRIAL LOT AND TWO OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED rop, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND AUDUBON ROAD, MCGLYNN BAKERIES. Public Present: Name Address Mark Koegler Mike McGlynn Mr. and Mrs. Bert McGlynn Representative for Applicant Applicant Applicants JoAnn Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. e Mark Koegler: Let me make a couple of introductions and then brief comments. To my left is Bert and Mike McGlynn. Obviously, of McGlynn Bakeries. ...Just a response to a couple of things that Larry brought First of all in terms of the overall plat, the attempt is, as shown as 1 and Block 1 will be retained under McGlynn Bakeries' ownership. The up. Lot I '-- - Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 10 e e eastern side of that, as you'll see through the next item of the site plan is where the first phase probably will go. Ultimately there will be a second phase going essentially to the west of that. It will be kind of part of a campus type environment that will exist there. The only issue that really has surfaced of recent is the right-of-way requirement from MnDot along TH 5. We had a couple of concerns initially. One was the useability of what I've shown as Outlot A. We don't have any major concerns in that regard because the property is between about 420 and 490 feet deep right now. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 feet, hopefully no more than that, is not going to impact that. We get into another issue about what is reasonable for MnDot to require withour them actually providing compensation back to the owner but that's not really an issue to this body this evening. We were satisfied after meeting with Evan Green from MnDot yesterday that we can work with that. We will provide him with some additional grade information which is going to have some impact on the appropriate right-of-way that they need. With regard to the intersection setback from TH 5, as Larry mentioned, the MnDot standard is 600 feet. We have 590 feet. Again, ...prefectly adequate for putting in an intersection there so our intent is to get that loop road in. The reason that 590 foot point is set is because, I'm sure you notice that lines up with Paisley Park's center line right-of-way just right across the street which is obviously a very good site in terms of us. That's likely in the future, at least from MnDot's thinking, could be the primary entrance to paisley Park. If the City follows their recommendation and puts a median in Audubon, it would shut that first entrance effectively off for any left turn movements in so... Other than that, the recommendations in the staff report are perfectly agreeable. We are certainly willing to work with the City and the consultant on the Audubon Road project to make sure everything falls into place. If you have any questions of me, I'd be glad to answer them or the owners. Wildermuth moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Comments on the subdivision only right now before we get into the site plan. Anything? Headla: I'm looking at sheet 2 and I still don't understand the 600 feet and Mark has said something with the 585. As I look at this one drawing, I think I'm looking at the right one, I don't come close to that. What am I reading wrong on it? Mark Koegler: The dimension that we're talking about is essentially center line to center line. TH 5 to what is labeled now as Buttercup Road, this entrance point. That is the distance that on this plan is 590 feet and that's the standard that MnDot says should be around 600. Headla: Larry, on sheet 2, doesn't that look like 335? e Mark Koegler: That's the frontage just to this point right here. Headla: Right and then you've got half the road. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 11 e Mark Koegler: And then you've got out to the center line so you've got... Headla: About another 60 feet there. Mark Koegler: It's 590 on our scale and on MnDot's scale. Brown: Center line to center line. Headla: Oh, to the center line of the highway? Mark Koegler: Yes, that's how we measure. Headla: Okay. My questions were directed to that. I don't have any others. Wildermuth: I have no questions on the subdivision. ElIson: Nothing here. Emmings: I have basically no questions. I'm just a little confused. When I look at sheet 2, just because there's something called Block 1 and there's nothing called Block 2 and there's something called Lot 1. Is that all of Block I? I can't tell where things stop and start and why it's done exactly the way it is. e Mark Koegler: The reason it's set up, Outlot A and Outlot B will subsequently be subdivided at a later date. Emmings: I understand those I think. Mark Koegler: It will become Block 2 of Lots such and such, in the case of B. All of Block 1 eventually will wrap around, unless we have some interruption that we don't envision right now, this will become Block 2 in the future. Right now they're platted as outlots. We essentially have one lot and one block for this entire parcel. Emmings: Okay, so the fact that Lot I is written inside that easement doesn't mean that you're... Mark Koegler: That line is right there. Emmings: Yes, and goes where from there? Mark Koegler: Lot 1, Block 1 is all this. Outlot B is this piece and Outlot A is the piece that wraps around here. Emmings: So right now, just so I understand, Lot I and Block 1 are... 4It Mark Koegler: Correct. Erhart: The intent here is that we're going to put an entrance sign similar to the one just to the east Larry? On Audubon Road? Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 12 e Brown: An entrance sign? Erhart: Or a little median in there with an industrial park entrance sign or what was the island you're referring to? Brown: At this point there is not a proposed island written into the feasibility. However, if traffic volumes were to increase due to the future development, an island is certainly something that we shouldn't rule out. \ Erhart: But didn't you mention an island in your presentation? Brown: I did. As I stated before, if the future traffic volumes do warrant an island, we would certainly have to consider that and because that is still a possibility in the future, we wouldn't want to set up a plat here that would limit, if we could at all help it, a full movement intersection into the park so that was staff's concern. Erhart: Okay, and that's the purpose of having it directly across from Paisley Park? e Brown: Correct and maintaining the 600 foot distance that we use as a guideline. Erhart: Where does Park Road enter from the opposite side? Is that relative? Brown: A little bit south. Erhart: The applicant owns the entire parcel correct? And like in the Opus, the other industrial park, who owned all that property? Mark Koegler: Originally that was owned by Dunn and Curry prior to the time that Opus bought it. There may have been a series of property owners. Erhart: But generally when it was developed into a park, Opus owned the property. Who did the streets in there then? Did they do that or did the City do that or was it shared? Mark Koegler: I don't honestly recall. Erhart: Who's paying for the street improvement here? e Mark Koegler: That's to be determined by the feasibility study. The proposed, at least the thinking right now is that a certain portion of that cost would be offset by the economic development district. A portion of that cost would be assessed to the properties thinking that's what...in the study. Audubon obviously is a road that has many functions and that makes assessments not quite as clear as a residential street. L. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 13 - Erhart: The thinking is that the City will somehow pay for some of this street even though it may be the intent of the owner to sell some of these...sell some of the areas to other businesses? Mark Koegler: The feasibility study itself, as Larry says, the exact...is being defined right now but what it appears is you have a series of priorities. Priority number one is to get Audubon Road improved and hopefully to get that southern lane of Buttercup Road into the entrance of McGlynn as a part of one public improvement project. From there the alternatives are to put in additional utilities and streets. One option might be, not necessarily as a part of that same funding mechanism but part of the same public improvement project... That hasn't been determined yet but in the third tier is the utility connections to go down to the south. Whether or not those will be put under the same contract... Right now it's just being defined as kind of a hierarchy and see what the costs are. Erhart: Okay. So in looking at this proposal tonight, actually the street isn't that concrete. That's all the questions I've got. Conrad: I have no comments. Larry, because things are not absolute, what are you going to be doing between now and when this hits City Council? Will you have tied down the thing, the need with MnDot before it gets to City Council? e Brown: Right now, yes we are hoping that MnDot will give us a prompt reply over the next week here and by the time these plans hit City Council, we hope to have the feasibility study complete and that will address all these questions. Conrad: Jo Ann, there's nothing in the motion right now that really, in terms of the subdivision, that talks about the openess of roads and where the streets go based on... Olsen: Number 2 I think states that they will be required to meet whatever... Conrad: Okay, that covers it. Olsen: As far as TH 5, I don't know. Conrad: When this gets to City Council, we've got 5 conditions right now. Are there going to be more that staff is going to recommend between now and then or is there something that you'd like us to word in ther now? Brown: I'm sure there will be a couple more conditions added once we find out MnDot's position. Conrad: Jo Ann, when you send a staff report to the City Council, under e what circumstances can you add conditions that we haven't seen? Olsen: If there are conditions to be added in, we have an update. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 14 - Conrad: So right now, there's nothing in the recommendations talking about the concern with TH 5 and the 80 foot right-of-way versus 60, it will be a staff update? Olsen: Right. Conrad: Any other questions? ElIson: Is that a problem? Conrad: Well, I get bothered when I don't see what's going to City Council. I'm comfortable sending this along because I think people know, I think we know what's going on here. It's not that we need to clarify anything any further. McGlynn folks have their opinion and MnDot has theirs and I think City Staff will arbitrate this thing and take care of it. I don't think I need to see it anymore. Emmings: Sort of like the storm sewer situation in the last one on the Reed property. It's kind of a technical issue that has to be resolved somehow. e Conrad: It's got to be resolved and all I do here is I make sure that we always have the alternative to bring it back. So we see exactly, we have that right to see exactly what goes to City Council. In this particular case, I'm comfortable personally that we don't need to see this. That things can be resolved between now and then but typically I'd like to see what's going there. Olsen: If they ever change the plat, if they need the 80 foot right-of-way or whatever and they would have to rearrange the road or Outlot A going into there... wildermuth: What would you do there Mark? Let's say if MnDot said they needed the full 80 feet, would you slide the whole plat, the whole subdivision down to the south? Mark Koegler: No. There is adequate depth there still for the type of uses we potentially... Conrad: The big concern would be compensation. Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #88-13 as shown on the plat stamped "Received June 13, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of these public improvements. e 2. The applicant will work with the City to provide the necessary easement or improvements which are required as a result of the feasibility study for the upgrading of Audubon Road and McGlynn Park. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 15 e 3. All stormsewer systems shall be constructed of reinforced concrete pipe to be in accordance with the City's standards for urban construction. 4. The plans shall be revised to show pond skimmer details. 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 161,700 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR OFFICE AND FOOD PROCESSING ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND AUDUBON ROAD, MCGLYNN BAKERIES. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: This is not a public hearing but Mark, is there anything that the McGlynn folks would like to say, any comments to the staff report? e Mark Koegler: The site plan is generally the same as the previous one. The modifications were made to reflect the change in building in the manufacturing operation. I would ask at this point, if you have questions on the buildings, we have representatives here or on the operation itself, we'll be glad to handle it in that manner. Conrad: What product did you change from? Before the site was intended to produce what versus what is it producing now? Bert McGlynn: Originally it was going to be part retail stores for the area which we also have a frozen operation...is the fastest growing segment of our business... Conrad: Corporate headquarters will be where then? Bert McGlynn: It will out here. Conrad: I'm sure happy to have you out here. Tim, do you want to start? Erhart: I don't really have any questions. Ernmings: I don't either. ElIson: I loved it. I like to see when people go above and beyond. Those that put in extra screening and things like that. I thought about the Lyman thing when I was reading this, about having a dock here and they seem to be doing more than is required. . Wildermuth: I see part of the building designated as freezer, are you going to be using liquid nitrogen for freezing? - Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 16 e Bert McGlynn: Ammonia. Wildermuth: compressors? An ammonia system. So you're going to have large Are the compressors going to be outside or inside? McGlynn's Architect: Some out. A portion of them will be outside... Wildermuth: There isn't going to be any special noise requirement is there Jo Ann? I like the layout. It is like a campus. Headla: What color is it? Is it going to be like the White Castle. McGlynn's Architect: They'll use primarily... it will be natural colors. Headla: More like MTS's in Eden prarie on TH 5? Is that the type of structure you're thinking of? McGlynn's Architect: It won't be bone white but it will be a very light color, natural concrete... Headla: It's going to be pretty well seen from the south. McGlynn's Architect: The precast will have... e Headla: Jim brought up a point. I see the Fire Department did not review this or I missed the letter in here. Olsen: They did review it and it met all the conditions. There was an original memo from the Fire Inspector and he had stated a lot of requirements that will be met with the Building Inspector when the building plans come through so the Public Safety Director wrote another memo which removed all those and said they weren't necessary at the time. That he meets the UBC Code. Headla: On your refrigeration system, how many ton are you talking about? McGlynn's Architect: I'm not sure we've got that totally figured out yet. Headla: Give me a ballpark. Are you talking 50 ton? McGlynn's Architect: In the ballpark of 300 tons. Headla: And you use ammonia? If they have a fire in that building, shouldn't the Fire Inspector, or how do you handle that? If you've got 300 tons and you've got ammonia in there, and a fireman's going in to fight a fire, they've got a real problem. McGlynn's Architect: ...refrigeration piping...the pipes will be on the outside attaching on the roof so the outside of the building handles it. e Headla: So Larry, do you look at that type of thing with the safety people? Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 17 e Brown: This will be reviewed again by the Public Safety Director. To the best of my knowledge, as Jo Ann has eluded to, right now it only has to be concerned through the site plan review. They will however, have concerns when it goes through the actual building permit, constructural review. Headla: So this might be a little premature for them to get that involved? Brown: Correct. Part of the new system that we are starting up will address some of the concerns of the Public Safety Department, are that a reduced sets of plans will be submitted to the City indicating any danger zones such as the one you've just mentioned and we will be kept in a command vehicle so if there is an emergency out here, they will have that information readily available to them. Headla: Okay, that's fine. Mark, before I thought you did a good job on that landscaping. I tried to get a little bit, not trying to put in some of the Arboretum stuff, how do you feel about the recommendation l(a)? Do you think that's appropriate? Mark Koegler: We don't have any problem complying with that. e Headla: That's too bad because I've got problems with it. I though you'd go the other way. Deciduous isn't a dirty word and I really would like to see deciduous trees there. I think they've got a lot of aesthetic value and they can... Olsen: We like them too. It's just the ordinance requires 50% opacity. Headla: How did you measure the cross section of a deciduous tree? That really breaks it up too and I don't see, you can go to one type of conifer and that's got a different opacity than another one. I'm not sure you're measuring that right. ...and I think it should be deciduous trees. Olsen: All deciduous trees? Headla: No. I think what Mark has in here now is great. I hate to see it go to anymore conifers. You know where you talked about putting conifers around the parking lot. I'd like to see that deciduous. I think that would be very appropriate. Conifers aren't really native to this area as much as the others and I just think deciduous fits in much better. If you can make them maples, that's all the better. Conrad: I don't understand that. you're screening in the wintertime is what we're talking about and you're saying deciduous greens and I don't understand that at all. Headla: You can't look right through it. You're looking through all those branches. e ElIson: Especially a young one. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 18 e Headla: You know, a young conifer that high. Ellson: Six feet is what's required. Headla: In 10 years from now, do you know how high they grow? Conrad: We're talking wintertime. Headla: I just think that's, there's a long value there. Then, I think you talked about working two 8 hour shifts? Olsen: I think they're going to be open 24 hours. Headla: Did you notify the people around there if there's any real concern? Olsen: They were notified that the property was up for subdivision. They weren't notified of the site plan. The trucks, it's all going to be internal and the truck traffic, from what I've heard... Headla: That's what you wrote but with the lights going and everything, I just wondered, I really don't see a problem but did you really look at it good? Are you satisfied that there's very little probability of a problem? e Olsen: Yes. . . Brown: If I might make the comment. In sitting through the last meeting with Lyman Lumber and now I hear the same issue coming up regarding the noise. The Commission should be advised that the Public Safety Director has recently put in for an order for a decimil meter and is working on the Noise Nuisance Ordinance, that's what it's been nicknamed right now. I think if these problems do crop up at inappropriate hours, then people are obviously going to complain to the Public Safety Department. They're going to go out there and have a meter, have a way of monitoring it and take appropriate actions from there. Conrad: I don't have any questions. I think it's a good plan. I think McGlynn and staff have done a nice job. It's fun to see plans like this where we have very little comments. This is not typical. This is not typical at all so this is a real pleasure. Is there a motion? Wildermuth moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of site Plan Review #88-3 as shown on the plans stamped "Received June 13, 1988" and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan addressing the following issues: e a. The applicant either provide additional evergreens for landscaping or replace some of the deciduous trees with evergreens to maintain 50% winter opacity. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 19 e b. The applicant provide additional screening along the southerly and easterly border of the employee parking area and around the service drive located on the north side of the building and that the screening include evergreens. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the installation of these public improvements. 3. The applicant will work with the City to provide the necessary easements or improvements which are required as a result of the feasibility study for the upgrading of Audubon Road and McGlynn Park. 4. All stormsewer systems shall be constructed of reinforced concrete pipe to be in accordance with the City's standards for urban construction. 5. The plans shall be revised to show pond skimmer details. 6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the watershed District permit. All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried. e Conrad: And Dave, you don't like... Headla: The l(a). The rest of the plan is great. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Headla moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 6, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Headla moved, ElIson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 13, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor except Erhart and Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried. OPEN DISCUSSION: e Headla: On the north side of my property we have Stratford Ridge Development. The builder there has been working with the staff, as far as I know. As you go by there now, he has literally racked the land. Brought in bulldozers, he's got huge piles of wood, the land is totally stripped. 21 year old Austin pine has been cut down. 50 to 60 year old Black Walnut. Serveral Red Cedars and they're the oldest Red Cedars in that whole area and we have our Red Cedar Point where we have hardly any Red Cedars. He's totally changed the character of that particular part of Minnewashta Parkway. Those Red Cedars and the other stuff on the west . Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 20 e side of the road... Are more a part of it than the maples just to the north. I don't know how we approved it but I find that Eden prairie has got a policy where if a builder comes in like this and he cuts down these types of trees. Let's say he's got Black Walnut and let's say it's 24 inches in diameter. He would have to replace 24 inch equivalent of that 24 inch tree. 24-1 inch caliper trees. 2-12 inch. I don't see how we can change Stratford Ridge but I don't want to see anybody else go through the damn racking of the land like I've got on the west side of my property. Conrad: When did this happen? Headla: It's going on right now. Conrad: Didn't we have a tree removal plan on that? Olsen: On the beachlot. Conrad: Only on the beachlot but not back. Dacy: What we need to do is go back and look at the plans and specs and go out there and review the site to see because the grading of the streets and the road construction and utilities. We can go out there and review what was approved to see if they violated anything. e Erhart: If I remember that right, that one came in here and basically the report was that on the west side of the boulevard the term low quality trees which I assumed to be Box Elders but on the lake side there was high quality trees so we only applied the tree removal portion to the lake side. The conclusion we had was that this was a bunch of Box Elders. Now you're telling us it's Black Walnut and Red Cedar. Headla: Yes, I've got some neighbors that are really ticked off at it. It's surprising, well, they all noticed the Black Walnut but those Red Cedars, they aren't really a picturesque tree but it's so much character along that road. Conrad: That's too bad. Would you do me a favor and review the Minutes of the meetings where that came in with staff? Do you have time to do that and see what we did? Headla: I'm going to be traveling heavy this next week. Dacy: We'd be happy to. Conrad: Yes, why don't you take a look and see if we did what we did and see if we should... Olsen: I remember visiting that site with the Forester and we walked and looked at those trees... e Headla: You're right. Right up there those were Box Elders. Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 21 4It Olsen: The trees right along Minnewashta Parkway... Ernmings: I think they're being removed on higher ground than where the pond area is. Headla: Oh yes, but he's just going through with a bulldozer. Conrad: Do you think they're doing what they weren't allowed to do? Headla: I think we did not look at that correctly. I'm suggesting we review what we looked at but also that we look and see if adopting the Eden prairie policy of having the builder replace comparable coverage or caliper. That's a very logical way to do it. Conrad: Can't we already do that? Can't we do that right now if somebody does something contrary to what we granted? Can't we go back and force them to recreate? Ernming s: I don't think that's what happened here. Ellson: That's what he's saying but he's saying now for the future have something in place to prevent it. Headla: I don't think we can control it but I'm looking out on a barren land now for a long time and it's a shame that if we don't learn from that mistake, it will make the next one a lot better. 4It Conrad: This has happened before and we've put in some things with staff's help in terms of a removal plan and we just didn't want it to happen again and here's a case where I guess we haven't. I'm not pointing the finger at anybody. I think we didn't take a good look at it. Headla: Also, I'd like to see this policy, if everybody agrees, implemented before they start work on that beach. Looking at those oaks, I'm scared to death that if they bring a very good size Bobcat, a 610 or bigger, running around down there along the oak trees, sure as heck, in 2 years you're going to see a lot of those oaks trees dying. Conrad: Since you're motivated on this one, would you stay in touch with staff and see what they're doing and give us a quick review on it the next meeting we have. Erhart: I think that's really a good point. We've talked about trees but there's something that we've missed here and that is damage to oaks during construction will surely, they'll get the wilt disease because I've seen it down in my area. You build a house in these beautiful oaks, they think they have a beautiful yard and 2 years later they're half gone. Olsen: We did go out with the Forester with the developer to show him where construction should be. When they show up... e Erhart: Is there anyway, I know the City now has an enforcer in terms of piling junk, Scott Harr, the Code Enforcement and maybe this is the Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 22 e opportunity we have to use that position to help us enforce more of this tree removal thing. Maybe what we need is to arm him with some more ammunition. Dacy: It would be nice if we had some more staff. I'm serious because they get on the builder...and they get going and a little stake and a rope isn't going to hold them back. Erhart: Could Scott Harr help you out in that area? He comes out with a gun doesn't he, so to speak? Dacy: He's a full commission officer. Erhart: Is there something we can do to help you and Scott together to better enforce? Dacy: It always helps to have those specific conditions of approval because then we can show them the piece of paper but if the trees are gone. Ellson: But then the consequences too. It's one thing to say you can't do it and then he does it and right now we don't have anything to fall back on. e Erhart: Maybe what we could do is to ask staff in a future meeting to describe to us what Eden Prairie's ordinance is because Barb and I have talked about Eden prairie's ordinance. I think we've agreed that it's good. Dacy: They are sending a copy. Erhart: Maybe we can take some time at a future meeting to kind of go over that and see if and what part of it would be applicable. We can also improve on it and perhaps focus on oaks and construction. Wildermuth: I was looking at the ordinances last night and I didn't see anything in regards to service roads around plant buildings and industrial areas. I talked to you about the service road, talking about the gravel type service road. I would think that the Fire Department would be very interested in the large buildings such as this McGlynn Bakery. It's going to be 28 feet tall. From a fire equipment standpoint, I would think they would be very interested in having a service road at grade level to tie the gravel around the building. Brown: The Public Safety Director has been examining the fire lane safety codes and the Uniform Building Code and he recently found out, as long as there are some trade-offs in having the building sprinklered and once the building has this facility, all they really require is a paved surface on one side and an inpass just to the sides of the building. You don't necessarily need it all the way around the entire building. ~ Dacy: We just adopted the sprinkling system last year so we have seen... t Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 1988 - Page 23 _ Conrad: Chapter. I see under Open Discussion, Comprehensive Plan, Implementation What does this mean? Dacy: This means that it will be on the August 17th agenda. Mark and I just miscommunicated. ElIson moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City Planner prepared by Nann Opheim e '.