PC Minutes 11-21-06Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006
minor arterial collector. It's supposed to move traffic regionally. We're seeing impacts on our
local streets. Bluff Creek Boulevard for example takes a lot more traffic than it should right now
for our local and that just costs the City more to maintain those type of infrastructures. Those
roadways too so we want to try to keep the traffic on regional and arterial collector roadways
where it should be. So, and MnDot's, that's MnDot's.
Keefe: So their traffic projection, 2020 includes essentially an access across the river.
Oehme: Correct.
Keefe: Yeah, okay.
McDonald: Thanks Paul. We'll wait for further developments on this.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CUSTOM FAB SOLUTIONS, LLC-REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR
EXPANSION TO EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 7600 QUATTRO DRIVE,
ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, IOP. APPLICANT, CITIES EDGE
ARCHITECTS/CUSTOM FAB SOLUTIONS, LLC., PLANNING CASE 06-36.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Does anyone have any questions for staff before he goes off? Nope? Okay. Is the
applicant present? Okay. Would you come on up and state your name and tell us what you think
we need to know to help us make a decision here tonight.
Colin Evenson: My name is Colin Evenson with Cities Edge Architects. We have the owner
here also.
Bill Braunwarth: I'm Bill Braunwarth. I'm the Director of Sales and Marketing.
Colin Evenson: I guess we'll be happy to field any questions.
McDonald: I don't believe we have any questions for you. Okay, at this point then I would open
this up to public comment. If anyone wishes to come forward and address this particular issue,
please come up to the podium and again, state your name and address.
Katie Vickerson. I am a resident that backs up to that business, one of them on there, is why I'm
here. And I guess I just received this so I would, personally I would like to see some visuals of
what this expansion might look like and how this property, whether, is it going up? Is it going
out? How is this going to affect the properties that are the residential properties that are on the
other side of the tracks as far as visually. These are all questions and concerns and maybe that's,
you have all that. I just, I'd like to know more information because this is all I've received and
what I've heard here to me is not enough for me. I don't feel comfortable with saying I approve
of this without knowing more information at some might our neighborhood.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006
McDonald: Okay staff, is this something that you're prepared to do or is this something you
would want to take up at another time?
Generous: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. There is a conservation easement on the back side
of this property and there's mature trees. This development will be preserving all those trees in
that easement area. The building will be no taller than what it is now and if you look at the
topography there, it goes up and then you have the railroad tracks and then it's back down on the
other side. The majority of this building won't be seen. If anything this should be an
improvement because there's a loading dock area on the existing west side of the building and
this will add additional separation if you will from the residential properties to the north. The
building is, like I said, the top of the parapet is 20 feet 8 inches so it's well under the 50 feet that
our ordinance would permit. We think this expansion to improve the operation of their business
and allow them to do more things internally. It complies with all ordinance requirements. Like I
said, we're preserving the trees that act as a buffer now so those won't be, those will remain. And
the back of this building is actually built into the hill so it's like a retaining wall, and
unfortunately our overhead's not working.
Undestad: Can you show her the, these…? Normally you can see it up here.
Katie Vickerson: No, that's fine.
Generous: So this is the existing building and the expansion, the 7,000 square feet to the west.
This is the tree line and the railroad tracks.
Katie Vickerson: Okay. And so will this, this build up will remain the same height?
Generous: Yeah.
Katie Vickerson: It will be built into?
Generous: Yeah. They'll dig it down and that will act like a retaining wall and it will meet the
grade on this side.
Katie Vickerson: Okay. And all the trees will be maintained?
Generous: Yes. There's no change there and then there's some shrubs that will come out with
the building back in here.
Katie Vickerson: Okay. And then this will be, I'm assuming that this is a straight brick wall…
Generous: If you can see it now, it will maintain the height of it.
Katie Vickerson: Okay, thank you.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006
McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay seeing no one
come forward I close the public meeting and I'll bring this back before the commissioners for
comment. Let's start.
Keefe: Yeah, I've just got a couple questions just on the conditions. Number 5. Roof drainage
must be discharged on the north side of the building. It says to the maximum extent practical.
What is that? That's kind of non-specific.
Generous: Right. And we'd like the majority of the water going back into the grass and then
coming around the side of the building.
Keefe: Is there a way to be more specific on that or not?
Generous: Not without having, actually maybe Alyson can.
Fauske: Commissioner Keefe, staff's recommendation with that one was just, without driving
the roof design for drainage to the back, to the north there, we just wanted to direct the applicant
to push the roof drainage to that north side for the exact reasons that Bob had mentioned. And
we can certainly look at some stronger language but we just felt that, given the .7 cfs increase in
runoff, that they projected is fairly, it's insignificant as far as the storm sewer design is
concerned. So to become any more stringent on that we felt was excessive.
Keefe: Okay, because he called it out in here I was wondering whether it was more significant.
Fauske: Staff doesn't feel that it's very significant.
Keefe: Alright. Okay. And then the other one is number 10. Just all rooftop equipment must be
screened. I mean are there.
Generous: That's an ordinance requirement.
Keefe: Yeah, I mean screened with what? I mean is there a building, sort of direction or code or
anything to the screening? I mean the screening I presume, air conditioning equipment or, yeah.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioner, yes. Our ordinance specifies that it has to be screened
from the property line from a, for a person 6 foot tall and so the parapet height we believe will be
able to provide all the screening that's necessary.
Keefe: Okay. So the parapet height will be tall enough. Alright, good enough.
McDonald: Okay.
Thomas: I'm okay.
Larson: Well I see no problem with this. It seems pretty straight forward so…
7
Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006
Undestad: No questions.
McDonald: I have no comments either so at this point I guess I would be looking for a
recommendation.
Keefe: Sure, I'll make a motion. Planning Commission recommends the City Council or the
Planning Commission, City Council approves the site plan for the construction of a 7,002 square
foot office warehouse building expansion for Planning Case 06-36 for Custom Fab Solutions as
shown in plans dated received October 20, 2006 and revised on October 26, 2006, subject to
conditions 1 through 10.
McDonald: Okay, do I have second?
Larson: Second.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the site plan for the construction of a 7,002 square foot office warehouse
building expansion for Planning Case 06-36 for Custom Fab Solutions as shown in plans
dated received October 20, 2006, and revised on October 26, 2006, subject to the following
conditions:
1.All trees and shrubs shown to remain on plans dated 10/20/2006 shall be protected during all
construction activities with tree protection fencing. Any trees or shrubs lost due to
construction damage will be replaced after the construction has been completed.
2.Foundation plantings for the expansion will be 3 pink spire crabapples and 24 Japanese white
spirea.
3.The applicant shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the City and receive staff
approval of the erosion and sediment control plan prior to commencing work on-site.
4.Building Official Conditions:
a.The building addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c.Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until
further information is provided.
d.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
5.The roof drainage must be discharged on the north side of the building to the maximum
extent practicable to increase the time of concentration to the existing storm sewer system.
6.A building permit will be required for any retaining wall four feet tall or higher.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006
7.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
8.All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed
and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity
in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
9.Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be
submitted.
10.All rooftop equipment must be screened.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHANHASSE HIGH SCHOOL, REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE
SITE IN PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH
OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN
RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK, ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
DISTRICT AND REVIEW AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW
WORKSHEET. APPLICANT, ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC./
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112, PLANNING CASE 06-35.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Are there any questions concerning this environmental worksheet?
Keefe: Yeah, I'm not clear on the difference between the EAW and EIS. EIS is a little bit more
involved?
Generous: It's a lot more, yeah. They look at the more specific details. They'll go into, well
what will happen is this would act as what's called a scoping document. It will point out an issue
that needs to be studied further. Let's say that there were some you know ground water
contamination or something that would result of it. You would have to look at that further as
part of the Environmental Impact Statement.
Keefe: So negative declaration of the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
Generous: It says you don't, basically we don't need an EIS.
Keefe: Okay, but do we know that at this point?
Generous: That's, based on our review the three issues that have come out are those traffic,
storm water management and the wetland impacts, and those were issues that the city
customarily addresses and we do a pretty good job on those.
9