Loading...
1h. Planning Commission Minutes Dated May 15, 1996S JA ' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ' MAY 15 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, Nancy Mancino, Bob Skubic, Jeff Farmakes, and Don Mehl ' STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; and Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II ' PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 51, PLEASANT VIEW AND A PORTION OF VACATE ROOK PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY (1.08 ACRES) INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 19.478 SO. FT. AND 27.659 SO. FT. AND A VARIANCE TO THE RIGHT-OF- WAY WIDTH REOUIREMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6630 HORSESHOE CURVE. ROOK PLACE. MICHAEL ' LYNCH. Mancino: I just have a couple questions. Can you put that back up please? The existing garage is being used right now. Al -Jaffa Correct. ' Mancino: In use. And the applicant is proposing to add onto the house and put in a new garage. Al -Jaff: True. ' Mancino: Correct. And is there some way so that the existing garage can stay there during the construction of the new garage? I mean if it's in use and they need something. If the ' applicant needs to put their cars in the garage. When I saw it, you know there were other things in the garage besides cars. Is the applicant, is there some way that they can keep that edifice up and use it while they're building the new one and then once the new one is built, then take it down? Al -Jaffa It becomes a non - conforming situation once they record the plat so. Mancino: Can it stay non - conforming for a period of time? If you put a time limit on it. ' Al -Jaffa You could make that a condition. You could put a deadline. What we have one in the past, is we've put a deadline when a structure has to be removed but at the same time we've required that the applicant put up an escrow to guarantee that the structure be removed ' by a certain time. If they didn't remove it, the city can go in and perform the work. Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: The reason that is, the only leverage now to make sure we get compliance is that before the subdivision is recorded. I think if that's your preference, I'm not sure what the applicant wants but certainly that could be an alternative. If they want to keep the garage, if they're going to put up some security to make sure that it does get removed so it's not non- conforming, we'd be willing to look at that condition. Mancino: Okay. My other question is, upgrading Horseshoe Curve. I mean you know for those of us who have been there. I don't know if everyone went to the site and you look at Horseshoe Curve and you go, if you upgrade it, which you know I don't know what the word upgrade. To me it means that maybe it needs to be resurfaced. That's upgrading. I don't know how you upgrade it to make it wider because of the existing way that area has been built. Meaning that there are many garages which are just right off Horseshoe Curve. There is topography change. There is, I mean there are structures right there. So when I hear you say upgrade, I'm interpreting that to mean that that means keeping the, width the same and maybe having to resurface the road when it's in bad shape. And if you're going to do that, do you need to take more right -of -way than what's already there is my question. Aanenson: It may be necessary for utility easements. Storm water easements and that sort of thing. That doesn't necessarily mean the asphalt width is going to change but it provides opportunity for other utility easements on either side. Mancino: Now don't we already have, isn't that, aren't there already sewer and water and everything there? Aanenson: I don't believe there's storm sewer out in that area Conrad: No, there's no storm sewer. Aanenson: There's no storm sewer. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: So that's why the 40 foot came. There's 30 right now and that's why the engineering department had recommended just the 10 foot additional just to get it to 40, which would provide the additional easement. Mancino: So if they got 10 additional feet, they would be able to put in storm sewer? EA P n 1 LJ 7 7 J Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Aanenson: We're just looking long term. What other things could we be looking at? Storm sewer would be one issue. Conrad: Is that possible? Aanenson: Well it's one of the areas we've identified as far as water quality issues, you know for Lotus Lake. Conrad: So that's not a blue sky type deal? It's possible? Aanenson: Sure. Sure. Mancino: And does that change, going from 30 feet to 40 feet, does that change what the applicant can do to that lot as far as where the building can go? Does it make a difference or not? Does it still give the applicant enough area to put the building pad where common sense should go? Al -Jaff: Yes, and actually the more staff looked at this. Originally when I had met with the applicant I said we would need a 30 foot setback but in reality all they needed was a 10 foot because this is sort of like a corner lot. It sort of has that double frontage so they could actually get an additional 20 feet of buildable area. So they could set that home back another 20 feet and get a larger pad than what they are proposing right now. Mancino: Okay. Okay. Good. Al -Jaff: Very workable. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions? Mehl: I have one question on that right -of -way. Where is the, where does the 30 foot dimension start? Or where is it, from where to where? Al -Jaff: Center of the street. Mehl: Center of the street onto the property. Al -Jaff: And then 15 foot on each side from the center of the street. Mehl: Okay. So you're asking for an additional 10 to be dedicated by the applicant? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 AI -Jaf£ Correct. Mancino: Just on that one side. Mehl: On the one side. Now when the street is eventually upgraded, are you going to then increase the right -of -way the entire length of the street? By an additional 10 feet. Al -Jaffa What will happen is right -of -way will be acquired potentially for a total of 50 foot right -of -way potentially. That's what the engineering department would like to see. So it would be 25 feet from the center of the street. The width of the right -of -way I do not believe. I mean the paved section. I don't believe that will change. But the total right -of- way would eventually come up to 50 feet. Mehl: Okay. Can there be structures such as garages and so on within that right -of -way? Al -Jaffa No. Mehl: Okay. So if you go an additional 10 feet on each side of the road then, if there are structures, are they going to be required to be taken down? Al -Jaffa Or moved. Or maybe at that portion we'd just have reduced right -of -way. Mancino: Because they're relatively new buildings within 5 feet of the street, it looks like. I mean I didn't measure. Mehl: So it's possible you could have an inconsistent right -of -way meandering from lot to lot then through the whole length of the street? Aanenson: The only way we can address that, there's unfortunately someone from engineering not here, it's always the city's opportunity when somebody subdivides to try to get future easement if we believe that the opportunity exists to provide any necessary improvements such as storm sewer, which may be in the future. Can we anticipate what's going to happen all the way down and the timing of that? No, but we know that there may be a possibility of possibly doing some storm water projects in the near future so engineering always makes the recommendation that if we have a substandard right -of -way width, to try to at the time of subdivision, to gain the necessary easements at that time. Mehl: Okay, thank you. 4 I 11 H [1 1 C 0 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Mancino: Any other questions for staff at this point? Thank you. Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Mike Lynch: Yes. ...many people had a chance to go through it. Mancino: Could you please give us your name and address? Mike Lynch: Mike Lynch, 6630 Horseshoe Curve. We've been there about 25 years now. Actually the part of the property that I'm going to subdivide, or want to subdivide was the neighborhood dumping grounds for the '64 -'65 tornado. The way it's been used all... we moved in. This is color keyed and even though I understand that there may be sometime, somewhere, somehow, some potential for widening this road. If you've been down through there and seen the structures that are there existing now, that's what I'd like to run through and see if you think it's viable. I really don't. There is some selfish interest on my part because if you saw it, that is a triangular lot and the less width across the triangle I have, the further into the corner the house has to go. The topography of the lot is even more pronounced than what you see on the screen. This is a definite flat spot. Right exactly where my hand is, and this is quite a steep grade and a steep grade there. That's the parting line was drawn there. My property's about, my present house is about 30 feet over, backwards. It's a straight down drop off and it drops off here to this house. Drops off there to that house. The next house here must be 250 to 300 feet in that direction. The next house here is located about, well you can see a corner of it there. Probably would be 200 and some odd feet away. But there's a definite two layer shot. The street, again on that lot or at the same level. Originally that was a Swedish Covenant Church Camp and in the 1890's it was sold. Sold out past that time and then most of our houses are little cabins is where it all started. As this would actually be south. My property right here. Garages. You see in the squares, measured from the edge of the road, the number of feet from the road. 5 feet, 10 feet, 8 feet, 8 feet. These are new structures within the last 5 or 6 years. 20 feet. 20 feet. 15 feet. This is my old garage. It's... feet. 15 feet. I believe this is your property Ladd right here. And nothing else around here. Now as you look at some of the other structures, what you have here is, what I call a 20 year hedge. In fact the city comes around every once in a while and cuts our hedge back with some sort of a Toro thing because it grows into the road. So that's the green stripes. These are mature lilac that's just kind of basically been there since before I moved there. 20 feet tall. Most of the privacy in the neighborhood is generated by those hedges. The road noise, the level of traffic we get, it does cut it out. I think all of us that live there, those hedges are quite important. The red lines are steep grades. Now we're talking 30% plus right off the edge of the road. So this is down. That's up. This is up. That's down. The purple are existing new quality retaining walls that are... structures but new ones that have been put in somewhat recently. I've done an informal survey of the neighborhood and everybody would be ... against any kind of change in the road pattern. All the utilities 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 presently run right down the center of the road. The gas and the sewer and the water. It's rough terrain, if you've been there. This is a very steep hill right here. A long hill there and the road surface is in good condition now... adding new or different underlay on it. I think that's it. What you see right here and what you have seen on the map there is the old road that was platted and since divided by my neighbor and I into ... the original plat. Now I don't plan to build on the lot myself. I simply will be selling the lot to an individual or developer so there are quite a few things that I have hoping addressing staff, I marked up some of them. I don't know what to do with this. For instance, I was interested in when I got to take my existing garage down because I have a number of cars and lawn mowers and both of my sons worldly possessions. They... so that's a massive storage which with the new garage would take the place of it but I don't know what I'd do with the stuff in the meantime. Tree preservation, fencing and there's another note about revising grading plans to show proposed paths and levels of the house. Without a house plan, how am I to know? The one, item number 6. Tree preservation, reforestation. If the house really goes where it should go on the lot, from an aesthetic viewpoint, a practical viewpoint, it should be right in the middle of that, where I put my hand. And due to, well Sharmin's given me a change today that I hadn't heard before. The fact that I could get it closer to this lot line. So the more easement I give up and the further away I am from that lot line, obviously it pushes me to this corner and I have six walnut trees back there that I planted 25 years ago. A nice maple. Then this entire area is open. And if you notice on the, I think it's right in here, or aren't I focusing with my bifocals here. There's a mature and dying white birch tree that's about 50 feet tall and that's really about the only tree that should have to come out. There's a small western pine here that might but otherwise there's plenty of room in there to get a massive house in. Lots of other trees on the lot and somebody ... I'm sure with those existing trees, there's probably closer to 50% coverage on the lot right now. It's heavily wooded. I lost quite a few elms out of there originally. Before I couldn't grow grass. So that's the program. I'm not really, I really don't have any problem with any of the other suggestions by staff. My old garden house needs to come out. That infringes on my neighbor's lot line probably by 6 inches in that corner and that's a plan to take out anyway when the new garage goes in so that's certainly not a problem. So I guess 1, 2, 3. I really don't want to give that easement away here and of course I have to give it away on this side as well. I would rather not give the easement away because the more easements that occur in the neighborhood, the more chance that someday, someone may feel that we have to do something with it and due to our plantings and the other large trees that have to come out in that 10 feet, I'd be really upset. And I would like to be able to get enough room in here to move that house down. Other than that, that's... my feelings at this time. Could I answer anybody's questions? Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners? Mike, what are your plans about the garage? Are you going to be starting the new garage soon? Or are you waiting? IN ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Mike Lynch: I'd like to sell the property. Get the money and then start with that... process. ' Mancino: And you're hoping to put the lot up for sale right away? Mike Lynch: I'd like to this summer, yeah. ' Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. ' Mike Lynch: Thank you. Mancino: We'd like to open this for a public hearing. Do I have a motion please and a ' second to open this for a public hearing please. Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. ' Mancino: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please do so now. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. ' Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Craig. ' Peterson: Question for staff. The talk about the easement seems to be probably the primary issues. I'm a little confused and need some clarification. If all the other homes in the area, the existing ones are at 15 feet, and this is kind of in the center and doesn't have, a well ' established neighborhood. Even though our current standards are at 60, we're considering lowering it down to 35 I believe. Is that even logical? If everybody else is at 15, I mean I don't want to have 15 feet and then all of a sudden 30 -35. You can't do anything with it ' anyway. Are we, should we go back to 15 I guess is my, I'm looking for logic in going higher than 15 if everybody else is at 15. ' Al -Jaff: We have an opportunity at this time to take the right -of -way. That's why the engineers are asking for it. ' Peterson: But I'm asking. A] -Jaff: Is it logical? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Peterson: What's the probability? I'll put it that way. What's the probability of ever using. Aanenson: I don't think it's the desire to go in and widen that whole street. I don't think that's the program. The only reason you get additional easement is if there's an opportunity for some other utilities or like that that you don't have to acquire additional easements. I don't think it's on the city's plan to go in and put a 50 foot street in there. That's certainly not the city's intention. Peterson: My reaction is I think that the staff has done a fine job in looking at and maintaining what the city needs to do. I look at the neighborhood and the feel of the neighborhood and try to prognosticate what will happen down the road and I just don't see us needing that, that much of an easement and I think because it will affect the placement of the house, so I would approve everything with the exception of the easement. That would be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and recommend that it be maintained at 15 feet. Aanenson: Do you have any comments on the garage once this is, how to work that? Peterson: Well, I empathize with the need to have A before B happen. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with supporting the applicant's position of prior to the actual build out of the property, that he has the opportunity to sell the property and build out. If we can integrate that into some kind of reasonable motion. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I think the issues are 1 and 7 in here. Obviously I'm a neighbor of Mike's. I think you've done a good job. I don't have really any issues. I'm probably a little bit biased in the neighborhood. I don't mind right -of -way for good purposes and I do like storm water systems. I'll always vote for anything that says we can improve the water quality. In this case it's just tough for me to believe we've ever going to do it. I just can't imagine it will ever be done in my life time so it's I guess all I can say. I just, if you've been through the neighborhood, it would be a terrificly expensive project to go in there and put a storm water system in, as much as maybe it's needed. But it'd be huge. So I have a tough time dealing with the additional right -of -way and I think I'd like to somehow word number 7 so that the garage can stand until there's some sort of construction or before construction on the second lot that Mike's splitting off. Those are my only comments. Mancino: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: Basically the same thing. I think staff did a good job. I think they're looking forward here. I can totally understand where they're coming from but it's a beautiful neighborhood. 0 J ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 I'd just as soon leave it the way it is and I think it would have an affect on the way that house is placed and I worry about those trees. All I looked at were trees. Those beautiful ' trees and any way we can save one tree, let's do it. And I'd like to accommodate the property owner if possible. I think an escrow account is a good idea Kate so let's try to do it that way and work it in. ' Mancino: Thank you. Bob. ' Skubic: Yeah I share the sentiments of the other commissioners. I visited the site and it's hard for me to envision how it would be beneficial to increase the right -of -way given the ' proximity of the dwellings in that area and I'll favor escrowing... Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. ' Farmakes: No further comments to make. ' Mancino: Don. Mehl: Yeah I agree with what's been said here also. I agree with Ladd, it would be very ' expensive, and I might add that I think it could be very disruptive to the whole area if we put in a storm water system. It very likely would change the character of the street and so I really have nothing more. Mancino: I have no other comments either. I agree with what the other Planning Commissioners have said. Is there a motion please? Peterson: I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Rook Place Subdivision #96 -9 as shown on the plans dated April 13, 1995, subject to the conditions 1 through 8 with the changes to 1 being that the right -of -way would be maintained as the rest of the neighborhood, 15 feet. And that item number 7 would be changed so that the existing garage does not need to be removed prior to construction ' beginning on the lot being created by the additional subdivision. Mancino: Is there a second? ' Joyce: I'll second it. ' Mancino: Thank you. Any discussion? Is that clear Sharmin with number 7? Al -Jaffa So you just hold building permits? We basically won't issue building permits. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Conrad: I believe that would be a good way. Mancino: That would be a really good way to do that. Aanenson: We'd have to check with the attorney's office because we're creating a non- conforming situation so we'll just, we understand your intent. We'll just make sure that we can do that and send that onto Council. Mancino: Pass it onto Council with our intent. Thank you. Peterson moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Rook Place Subdivision #96 -9, as shown on the plans dated April 13, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. The right -of -way for Horseshoe Curve shall conform with the neighborhood. 2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required for Lot 1, Block 1 at the time of building permit application. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management Fees accordingly to , local ordinances. Currently the single family rate is $2,780.00 per acre. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 4. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with city ordinances. 5. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of all grading limits near trees before grading can begin. Applicant will submit to the city proposed tree fencing locations. 6. The applicant must submit tree preservation plans or new canopy coverage calculations taking into account the additional loss of at least six trees. Reforestation may be required. 7. The existing garage does not have to be removed until after construction of the new garage. The shed setbacks must also be brought into compliance prior to recording of the plat. 8. Building official conditions: 10 ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 a. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and ' garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading or construction ' on the property. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously. ' PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, RICE LAKE MANOR INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT 8591 ' TIGUA CIRCLE. RICE LAKE MANOR ESTATES, BARRY MCKEE. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. ' Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point? Peterson: The only question I would have is, do you have any sense of Parcel A that is reserved for future development, how many lots can go on there actually? ' Al -Jaff: Our ordinance requires 15,000 square feet per lot. There is an issue of frontage. How do you serve those properties? And you have a limit of four homes off of a private driveway. Now in this case we already have two homes that are served from that driveway. t This entire subdivision there are a total of 8 lots and they're steep, wooded. They back up to a lake. Really the only way you see those parcels served, as they split, is probably private. This is a perfect case when a private driveway would be used. 1 Mancino: Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Do they wish to make a presentation? ' Kevin Thompson: My name is Kevin Thompson... Just a little background. Initially the conceptual plan for this division was actually a 4 or 5 lots to the existing home. After review and went over it with staff, we decided that for aesthetics reasons, in order to keeping with the character and the nature of the neighborhood, and also for economic reasons, that putting ' a public road in ... probably would not be very advantageous. We decided to go with ... simple lot split. Just divide it into a simple two lots. Into two very sizable pieces ... sell that lot as a single family home .... If this is approved... Basic lot split. There's a number of conditions. ' Quite a number of conditions... The only question ... is on item number 11. The removal of the I1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 fence or portion of fence that is non - complying with city code. That's the neighboring property and ... We had a difficult time connecting with them prior to this meeting... I suspect that would be... Mancino: May I ask a question about that? Isn't that people who own the fence that's encroaching, isn't that house up for sale? So it would be new neighbors that move in there and a lot of times, this has personally happened that the new neighbors who move in think that that's their property line and they get used to it and in the future there, kind of sometimes down it would be a problem because they look at it as their own because it's in their fence. Kevin Thompson: ...showing their outline that it crosses the property line ... they actually brought it up to see what we could do so I suspect we're not going to have any problems. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? No. Thank you. May I please have a motion to open this for a public hearing, with a second. Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this preliminary plat, on this metes and bounds. Seeing none. Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Don. Mehl: Yeah, I agree with staff. The private drive is the only logical way. There's no other way to really access the property. It's kind of boxed in. I guess I really don't have anything else. I guess I personally wouldn't have a problem with saying he'll show, or the staff condition shall remove the fence. I think it could be changed or as an option to move it to a location that would be in compliance. Mancino: Move the property line? Mehl: Pardon? Mancino: It would be in compliance with? Mehl: With the codes. I assume that would be off of the property. 12 I P P I Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: Pretty straight forward. No comments. Mancino: Okay. Bob. Skubic: I support it. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: I'm fine. Conrad: Nothing new. Mancino: Craig? I have nothing new either. I do think that this is the opportune time to put the fence in the right place and at the property line because it can create in the future problems and I just think that it would be much easier to have it resolved for the applicant. I think it's clean, straight, and this is the best time to do it. So I do support the staff report and all the conditions. May I have a motion please? Conrad: Yeah, I'd like to motion Planning Commission recommends approval of the metes and bounds subdivision #96 -8, Rice Lake Manor Estates as shown on the plans dated Received April 12, 1996, subject to the conditions 1 through 11 of the staff report. Mancino: Is there a second please? Joyce: I'll second that one, yeah. ' Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Metes ' and Bounds Subdivision 496 -8, Rice Lake Manor Estates, as shown on the plans dated Received April 12, 1996, subject to the following conditions: ' 1. Tree preservation fencing must be installed around the perimeter of the building site, 20 feet from the proposed pad, before grading or excavation begins. No trees will be permitted to be removed except those within the building pad and 20 feet from the pad. Also one tree will be required in the front yard setback area. 1 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Tract A, a detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. 3. The applicant shall dedicate to the city drainage easements over all wetlands and drainage ditches. The drainage easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management fees pursuant to city ordinance. 5. Extension of sewer and water service to the new lot will require a permit from the city's building department. 6. The new lot will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hook -up charges pursuant to city ordinance. 7. The private driveway should be upgraded to meet city ordinance. Cross - access easements shall be conveyed to benefitting properties. 8. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with city ordinance. 9. The applicant shall remove all structures that encroach onto the city property located east of the subject site. 10. The neighbor's fence located north of the subject property which encroaches onto Parcel A must be removed. 11. Building Official's conditions: a. Remove fence or portion of fence which is non - complying with city code. b. Determine construction period for structure at the northwest corner of the property and work with Inspections Division staff to obtain permits and inspections, if any are required. c. Remove the structure on the east side of the dwelling, or obtain a permit to alter the structure to meet building and zoning code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 14 ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 ' PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 10,000 SOUARE FOOT RETAIL FACILITY ' ON 1.06 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 501 WEST 78TH STREET, HIWAY 5 CENTRE, ROMAN ROOS /MIKE RAMSEY. ' Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. ' Mancino: Any questions at this point? Mehl: That green space over there. I understand about the leasing of it to get additional area ' and reduce the hard surface but we aren't really gaining anything. The applicant really isn't gaining anything is he? Because to the bystander, the person driving down Highway 5 ' looking at it, nothing has changed. You've still got a certain hard surface area. We aren't reducing, really visually, the hard surface area by doing what's being proposed. You know in reality. Mancino: That's true. ' Aanenson: It is open space. You're correct in that matter except what we're recommending, that this proposal is that we actually landscape it and integrate it with the parcel because right now it's probably, it's open space. It's providing impervious surface. Water can run through the property but what we're saying is that it could be developed more intensely landscaped to provide more aesthetics value. That that would be intent of the city. More aesthetic value. Are you going to see physically, the utility wouldn't change except the aesthetic value would. ' What would be the negative side is in order to achieve the ratios, that they would have to reduce the size of the building. We believe that this is a high quality building and that based on the design, it may make sense because this parcel was originally a part of that and the ' HRA hasn't to date done much with it. That this is an opportunity to give more aesthetic value to the property. Also add enhancement to the project. Instead of trying to put the patio where they're showing it now, pushing it to the side makes it a better project. Mancino: It allows one not to eat on Highway 5. ' Aanenson: Right. They can eliminate the patio and still achieve it, sure. Mancino: ...now that doesn't mean you couldn't push the building a little closer to Highway 5 ' and have your patio on the 79th Street where it's a little quieter and at least it's not a four lane Highway 5 also. So there are other positions it could go. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Aanenson: Right. Farmakes: The issue of a shared sign. Refresh my memory on pylon signs. We're looking at 64 square feet or, is that split between four tenants? Al -Jaffa That is split between the four tenants, yes. Farmakes: Is there additional space for changeable type or specials of the week or whatever? ...that 64 square feet. Al -Jaf£ I don't believe so. Farmakes: I'm thinking of a very similar pylon sign down... that just deals with the mall but it also has moveable type kind of thing. Aanenson: Are you talking about changeable copy or readable? Farmakes: Changeable. Aanenson: Change out is permitted. As opposed to a reader, electronic. Farmakes: The issue of three, is reduced to two, elevations for signage is, is that sort of a fielder's choice or are you recommending a direction? What I'm wondering is, once these buildings get in and they're there, I'm thinking of banners and temporary type signage and how that's going to be positioned against Highway 5. How do you intend to... I'm thinking current frontage now is in a parking lot that accesses the Inn. I think our current ordinances deal with the level of signage but it's on existing street frontage. City streets. Can you just explain? Al -Jaff: We've talked briefly to the applicant about this issue and there's going to be landscaping along Highway 5. But there will be a pylon sign along Highway 5. If there is temporary signage that they will need, they would have to meet ordinance requirements. It is permitted for a limited time throughout the year. And they would have to come in and apply for a permit for it. Signage should be limited to two elevations only. Farmakes: So temporary type signage on the property that extends out towards Highway 5 is a situation that, I'm trying to remember the ordinance. It's been a while since we've been involved with it. We're not going to be having push carts out there lit up with banners hung on trees and things of that nature. 16 I 1 F C I P Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Al -Jaff: No. They would have to meet ordinance requirements in the ordinances. But rather than each tenant, the ordinance as far as temporary signage allows temporary signs three times a year for I believe it's 10 days at a time. Rather than each tenant in the building being allowed that privilege, it would be the entire building. So ... tenants in the building will be allowed. Mancino: 30 days max. Farmakes: Of the four tenants, are we looking at the future subdivision, is that what we're looking at? Al -Jaff: Future subdivision of? Farmakes: Larger square footage. Al -Jaff: Correct. Aanenson: That's tentatively how they have laid it out with the lease, yes. Farmakes: Now is that their decision then? If they want to subdivide that again. Aanenson: Well ultimately we ... if there's adequate parking, sure. But there's a threshold of how many square foot when you subdivide it ... probably the same square footage. So unless it becomes something of a higher use. Farmakes: But it allows them additional signage as well as some additional. Aanenson: Right now there's four tenants proposed. Mancino: So if they would subdivide it ... two more, they couldn't have two more signs? Al -Jaff: The sign criteria that we have outlined here is really more restrictive than what the ordinance permits, and we've talked to the applicant in regards to this. It is restricted by square footage as well so they couldn't exceed the ordinance requirements. Farmakes: They have a square footage and percentage so ... and they added two more stores. Aanenson: It'd get smaller, smaller and smaller, right. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Al -Jaffa And we're saying each letter may not exceed 2 feet in height so if there was one strip where, or one sign band where all the signage could go. Joyce: I'd just ask. I assume the patio's part of the development in itself and not a tenant? Al -Jaffa Correct. Joyce: Okay, so I'm sure you have a tenant picked out here originally but... Al -Jaffa Correct. Joyce: Thank you. Mancino: Is the applicant? Would you like to present to us please. Roman Roos: Good evening. My name is Roman Roos. I'm the developer for Mike Ramsey, the owner of the ... I see one familiar face. A lot of change. What you see before you is an attempt to take a 47,000 square foot site ... First of all I should clarify. The owner of this site is a different owner than the Prairie House Restaurant... and so it became an issue that could be addressed on this site plan approval process. At any rate, the building is a 10,000 square foot building that right now is 60 foot deep by the length giving it a 10,000 square foot dimension... the minimum width of that building gives you 1,500 square foot tenant space. ...spaces inbetween. Another space would be a sporting goods store. That would be ... business in the city of Chanhassen... Next to that would be Dominoes Pizza. We have soft ice cream going in in this location. In the process of negotiating the deal with a bagel operation. That may or may not be the case in this space. Talk about an ideal world, that's the way we would like to have it but that is not a final approval at this point in time. As a fallback to that we ... so it's quite a broad range then... so as time goes, negotiation... right now ideally we're going in that direction. The bagel operation that I had set up for that has elected not to go into that space. That would be a 3,000. This is a 4,000 square foot center with a coffee shop being 1,500 square foot and 2,500 being the bagel operation. At this point in time that is not real. There have been changes as of yesterday. So I'm back in the leasing mode on... Also individuals coming in for a soft ice cream or a coffee operation... cup of coffee. Whether that patio's here or here is really wide open. Ideally we'd set it down on this end again with the bagel operation in mind. Buy a bagel and have a cup of coffee and sit down ... and take off. I'm hoping that will still become reality but regardless there will be a patio operation and we're in the process of working with staff to authorize that... The building, well first of all I should talk about the parking effect. When this piece of property was purchased out of bankruptcy there was quite a negotiation on a cross over easement... at this point in time so that the... and this lot would in essence become one parking operation. 18 I I I Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 ' Mancino: So you would take out that median that is still... Roman Roos: Yeah, we'll do something with that little curb effect that you saw there and the grade elevations that you had the Prairie House will be coming down... elevation off of that. So that whole scene, which can be a very smooth transition. At the same time we've got a grading plan that... But that covers, we had 55 spots on this... enough parking for any building... so a cross over easement, I think we've addressed that issue. The green space, ' again the amount of hard surface, impervious surface that we have now is what we had before with the Prairie House... What we tried to do is enhance it somewhat. We had the idea of using this space to supplement it ... and if the HRA sees fit to go that direction, and... aesthetic ' value of the site. Not necessarily a part of the site but ... so we've yet to see what the HRA will do but... In looking at the elevation of the dropping and also the sight distance from the highway. What we've done basically is we've taken the ... maybe go along with that same idea ' in mind. This is a standing seam roof going all the way around the unit and wrapping around the back side so when you look at the property from, going westbound on Highway 5, it's going to look like a finished building so you won't see the back of the building so to speak. By the same token, on the front side of course is the entry to the west side of the building. Again a sporting goods and of course these smaller tenants and... We're going to be using a rock face, pre - colored block. I have some samples. These are pre- colored rock faced blocks. ' Now we're using a banding effect in what we call a round face and a rock faced flat stone. It would be these two. Basically it's a double band in effect with the same ... tied in to that. ' Mancino: How high up does this go? Roman Roos: That would be the full column. If you look at the texture, the rock faced ' would be the lighter color... Then the standing seam roof. The sign band's going to be what we call a synthetic stucco. It looks like stucco. It's really not a stucco but it's a sign band per se. There would be a lighter color again to accent the signage. The signage being... all around the building. This ... the standing seam metal again on spire tops ... east corner of the building. The line of sight from Highway 5 will end up, typically like most commercial buildings... with some HVAC on the roof. Everything around that of course with some kind of ..but you can see the Highway 5 signage, or better screening from Highway 5, you can see that we should not see from the highway the roof top units but they will be screened ' regardless. We couldn't make our parapet any higher to make that so you couldn't see over this roof top portion... I'm open for questions I guess at this point. ' Mancino: Any questions at this point? Farmakes: What is the connection between the southern section of the parking lot and the patio... sporting goods? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Roman Roos: The sporting goods is on the north end. Farmakes: Or excuse me, who's on the south end? Roman Roos: The south end would have been Bruegger's Bagels... Farmakes: Right. So is that your intent to still make that a consumable area? Roman Roos: Let me, if I can clarify. We have a Dominoes and a soft ice cream operation in there. And we've reviewed it for that approach. If I do put a bagel shop, bagel operation in there, that would be fantastic ... but right now I do not have a bagel operation under lease for that building. It is my intent to go that direction. I don't have that done yet. What I'm saying to you basically... they would fit that patio quite well. Aanenson: I guess the staffs position on that was, we didn't really talk about it. When we saw it we were kind of excited about it because the applicant's indicated there is a bike path there. It's kind of got the aesthetic, kind of a warm kind of a look if the building is done right. We've talked about originally when we first saw this, was putting up a fence to make it more inviting, but visually from the highway that doesn't, you see the fence and not the building so we just thought it needed a warm kind of place. If you look, drive along the road, looked over there and saw a patio kind of thing. If it was done right landscaping wise, that it's not loud but it was next to the bike path so we thought it would be a nice enhancement. Farmakes: I think the intent is nice. The question I have though is it taking away a landscape area to shield them from the highway? Roman Roos: It's not a massive patio area. Aanenson: No, it's not very big. Roman Roos: Very small. Two tables. It's not a. Aanenson: I guess that's why we'd recommend pushing it to the side so you could still have the landscaping. Farmakes: In conjunction with that I'm looking at the road turn around. It goes off to the other side. Basically that development comes very close to the highway. Either it's... Roman Roos: Are you saying Highway 5 is ... I missed your direction. 20 1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Farmakes: Well, to the road area. Mancino: The parking? Roman Roos: The actual highway. Farmakes: Right. Mancino: Where the parking lot comes south towards Highway 5. How far away is that...? Aanenson: It's moving away from that property. Mancino: From Highway 5. Aanenson: Quite a ways. Mancino: How far away? Do you have an approximate distance? Farmakes: In looking at it, I mean as far as I know there's nothing there at this point in time. It's cut grass. Mancino: Right. You're correct. Farmakes: So my question that I'm wondering what is being served say with that road turn around. Let's say that that was landscaped... what is being served there? Aanenson: That road turn around. Mancino: Having this as a turn around right here. This area. Correct? Farmakes: I'm looking at this area and I'm looking at this area and I'm just wondering what is being served. If for instance this. Mancino: You can't have green space there. Farmakes: That's correct. Say for instance this is not a restaurant, what is being served here? Roman Roos: If that's the case, this portion, this ... will disappear. If we move that around there to the right of there. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Mancino: So this patio will come over here. Be relocated over to the east. This will become green space. And the other thing, is it possible to continue this green space all the way here. All the way here because you're not using parking, etc. and then to have this whole part green space which would also maybe pull the trail system away from Highway 5, because you'd have more surface area. Aanenson: That's a MnDot trail. We'd have to check on that. I think part of it is, that's where the service delivery is going to be. All that service delivery comes down that, in the front of the building. Mancino: Right here. Aanenson: Correct. Roman Roos: In regards to the... and you can go out this way or this way and we just didn't want to have any single entrance to the parking. Far But then that'd be still the case if we came down and turned through there. I'm just wondering, it goes into another parking lot. Mancino: Maybe eliminate a couple spaces or else use some from the motel. Can't they give them some multi -use for the motel parking? Aanenson: Sure. I don't think that's, I guess what my concern would be the circulation of the, when you've got deliveries being made in that area. Where you've got trucks blocking that entrance... Farmakes: No, continue down and just turn before you get to the tree. Roman Roos: Right there's a parking area? Aanenson: Landscape further in here and eliminate those stalls? Mancino: Yes. Al -Jaffa There's another issue that we need to point out. Currently the green space or the parking setback is 12 feet. The ordinance requires a 25 foot setback. The applicant should meet that setback, there's potential to lose some additional parking spaces. One of the alternatives that we talked to the applicant about was actually sliding the building further to the south. Closer to Highway 5 because you do have room to do so and meeting that, the 22 I ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 ' setback, green space requirement. But again, it will impact the parking. The number of parking spaces and that's why I'm raising this issue at this time. If we take any additional ' parking area and landscape here, to the south of the property and then do the same thing along the north property line, we might be short on parking. Right now we're right on. Mancino: I'd rather give up the... Farmakes: That's what I'm saying. Isn't our intent to shield from the highway? Either by a large berming or certainly more than one row of trees. Not to obscure the building but isn't it our intent to do creative landscaping along the front. Aanenson: Right. I guess that's what we're. ' Mancino: To keep this and allow this to be a variance or whatever. Aanenson: Right. You have to back up and understand that what we were saying is that, I'm ' not sure. What we're saying is, instead of looking at a wall of landscaping and not seeing the building, wouldn't it be nicer to have some soft landscaping with something people pleasing, a people place. And that's what we were trying to encourage. Okay now, just so you understand that. That was our perspective. I understand what you're saying. You'd rather see the wall landscaped but we were taking a different approach on that. That's what the recommendation is. Farmakes: As I understand it, you're intending to have a people place dependent on having a tenant who will do that. Aanenson: He's already got two people there that are going to use it. Roman Roos: ...I'm trying to get the right mixture of tenants. The patio... Aanenson: And the bike trails... Farmakes: Okay, but your current tenants for food consuming would be Dominoes, which is primarily take out. ' Roman Roos: Ice cream. Farmakes: And ice cream meaning Dairy Queen? ' Roman Roos: Correct. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Farmakes: Okay. So are these people, are these restaurant operations really something that you're going to walk down to the end of the building and consume the food? As I understand, this is a sporting goods, is this sporting goods or what? Mancino: Sporting goods. Farmakes: Sporting goods company. Certainly the retail of that area is going to come out. Roman Roos: I guess I'm losing what you're driving to Jeff. The idea of a patio was a service idea. If you're going to go over with the kids and have an ice cream cone, you'd go down to the patio and sit down and have an ice cream cone so I guess I'm losing your direction, okay. The intent of the, my intent on this project was for a small seating. Not a big ... small seating area where at the original time Brueggers Bagels, a coffee shop and soft ice cream operation would use that seating area. It's going to be, it's only 10,000 square foot. It's not a very big building and the distance from either one of those stores ... into that area is not very large. That was the intent. That intent is going to stay there. Mancino: But it certainly is a ... pizza or you could take out. Roman Roos: It's a 15 minute operation. You go down and eat ice cream, you go and you leave... tracking here. Farmakes: What I'm looking at is I'm looking at the proposed use that's on the southern end of that exposure. Does it work with the benefit which is taking that additional area for landscaping. This is an issue that's been before here... Mancino: And which we can certainly do... Roman Roos: This is what I'm saying to you, we can move this around... Mancino: We'll move the patio here and you will get additional landscaping there. Aanenson: Right. Mancino: Now can you also, the question came up, can we also have a setback be what it is here and give a little more additional... Aanenson: Right. What the ordinance requires is that you put it be screened. Have the berm 5 feet to screen the cars. Right. 24 i Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 I Al -Jaffa If you do the reduced setback. ' Aanenson: If you do the reduced setback, right. So it can be accomplished. Mancino: So it could be accomplished and in fact this is, I mean we don't want to screen the ' building as much as we're concerned about the parking anyway. So that could work, okay. Aanenson: Yes. ' Mancino: Does that answer? ' Farmakes: Yeah. ' Mancino: Any other questions? Mehl: Is the sporting goods store going to sell live bait for fishing? ' Roman Roos: It's strictly universal sports. ' Mehl: Okay. Because sometimes the live, if you offer live bait you've got, suddenly you've got boat trailers in there. Could you turn that drawing over? Looking at the rooftop equipment, it would appear that that car is shown in the westbound lane immediately south of ' the building, which means that the car is as close to the building as it can get and your sight angle is quite large. In other words that angle going up to the rooftop is fairly steep. What happens when the vehicle is say eastbound and is 100 or 200 yards west of that location and you're actually looking toward the corner or the long side of the building, in which case the vehicle is much farther away from the building and that sight line is flatten out significantly. ' Roman Roos: Very simply put, there's no way that I can design a building where I'm going to hide all the rooftop's. It can't be done. Screening. That's what the screening ordinance is for in the city of Chanhassen. I helped design that ordinance. What I'm saying to you is ' we're trying to minimize the sight distance as much as we can but we still will require some screening. On any building along Highway 5 that's going to be required. You just can't build a parapet high enough and make it look pleasing to do that. So the intent, we took our sign banner, or our sign board and made it as high as we could. We understand we're not going to conceal those five rooftops ... and will be screened. Screen something to reflect, whether that ' be 1 x 6 cedar or going to a standing seam metal. That's something we'll work out with staff but it's going to have to be screened because the ordinance says it has to be anyhow. But what we've got to do is minimize it Don the best we can. That's all I'm saying. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Mehl: Okay. Mancino: But it can be the same colors as the parapet. Or the band around it. Roman Roos: It probably would be. Probably this color. What I'd called the... Joyce: I think you already asked this question. It's going to be retail sporting goods? There won't be any boats for sale? In the parking lot. Roman Roos: No boats. No bait. No worms. Joyce: Okay. Conrad: Roman, while you're up here, and maybe I'll ask staff to interact with this question The pedestrian access is primarily through the trail and not through a sidewalk system. Aanenson: There is a sidewalk on there. Conrad: Is there? On the north side? Aanenson: It's on the other side. Conrad: On which side? Mancino: I didn't see it on 79th. Aanenson: Well it would be across to Applebee's. Then you go by our portion. Then that's, that's right. From Americana over to this property on the north side. So you could cross then. Mancino: So you're going to be able to go from Market all the way over to TH 101 on a sidewalk on the north side of 79th? Aanenson: Well it's not in front of the other building. Mancino: There isn't one in front of Cheers, in that area yet. Aanenson: No. No. Mancino: Is that going to happen? 26 I i Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 ' Al -Jaffa It continues here. Mancino: And there isn't one in front of the motel at this point. Aanenson: But the plans that we have show it on this side, but we'd have to double check on ' that. ' Peterson: While they're looking at that, I've got another question regarding signage. On the upper area, what's the plan for the type of signs? ' Roman Roos: They're going to be uniform. We're still selecting the color on the signs but they will be uniform. There was a question earlier about a pylon sign. Identification sign only... identification sign and not a, our special of the week is such and such. If you look at ' the other signage, I don't believe you have, the drawings did not have the pylon signs on it at the time but that's why I set this up when you were having the discussion. You can see that we're going within the sign ordinance. Less that 16 foot high. And these will be the ' identification... I can't think of a particular sign but it would be, for example if it were a Dairy Queen, it would be back lit with the Dairy Queen logo basically and that would be true for all these. Somebody also asked the question, how many more tenants can go into that space. The 2,500 ... is minimum space where it gets 60 foot deep and about 1,500 square foot. That's a small... Ideally it's going to be ... worse case scenario. I can't imagine that ... But again the two signs would be complimenting the building out of the same material that we're talking ' about. Banding, back lit. They're a fluorescent type. Little identification signs within. And this here would probably be lit also. The Hiway 5 Centre. We just had this... ' Mancino: Will we see it back again with the signage? Roman Roos: You will. The signs, yes you will. ' Conrad: Roman, tell me how you're integrating this parking lot with the motel parking lot. ' Roman Roos: Well if you remember the motel Ladd, it needs some work. There is a median. It's a curb of sorts. Okay. That curb will have to come out. Now we talked with ' Zamour about that. You run into a little problem Ladd with your cross over easement is ... you will do this. You will do that. It doesn't work that way. So he wants, Larry Zamour who runs the motel and wants a smooth transition... also patrons of the motel. And so there's got ' to be some work done on that matter but I'm assuming the median's going, that concrete curb will disappear and we'll... 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Conrad: I've got more problems with their parking lot than I do here, because the real issue, you know, I don't know what. We're solving some smaller problems I think. What kind of leverage do we have as you negotiate getting rid of the curb, which I think is a good, and I like the cross easements but also I'd like to do, well. Is there any leverage at all? Roman Roos: You can't control something that... responsibility. I mean I can't go to them and say hey Larry, you will do... The soft shoe effect and maybe an idea of upgrading this parking lot. Maybe another wear course on it. I don't know. But I'm assuming all of that might be possible. But I can't imagine any... Conrad: There's no benefit to them? Roman Roos: As long as they don't get an ice cream cone... Conrad: It's too bad we can't break through his parking lot. What'd you find out about sidewalks? Aanenson: This plan shows it. I've got to believe there is a sidewalk ... we did put it on the Americana and it' going across the city's property but I don't believe it goes across... There's a facade treatment. Conrad: That's really bad. Roman Roos: Ladd, you can't put... Aanenson: We'd have to take something out to put the sidewalk in. You'd have to either ... or something to put a sidewalk in there. Mancino: Well then there's room between the motel and the... Aanenson: Right, what I'm saying is... Mancino: But it's not there but there is room. So I do think that we should keep land then so that the city at some point in the future... decides that, it thinks it's good for a sidewalk to go in on the south side of 79th... Anyway, so that we have the right -of -way here. Is there right -of -way at this point so if we do want a sidewalk, that we'd able to do it? Roman Roos: It's kind of like that previous... Mancino: Well first excuse me, I was asking staff. 28 I I I Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Aanenson: There's always... ' Mancino: You'd lose some of the parking. Aanenson: Right. So I guess we'd have to look at what the joint parking situation is. ' Mancino: Okay. ' Peterson: ...trying to get cross traffic over to TH 5 so that the sidewalk is... ' Mancino: And as we keep building together, keep making it more dense, I would hope that... pedestrian traffic and sidewalks... ' Peterson: There's an Applebee's going in there where the hotel traffic could walk to there. Conrad: One last question. How did we get into this impervious surface problem? ' Historically I mean, and I don't want a real long spiel but. Aanenson: At one time the HRA wanted to buy it from Mr. Kornowski ... securing it and they ' did not ... so they left it green. So there's an opportunity again to improve the aesthetic value... Conrad: It just makes sense then. ' Farmakes: So will that area be landscaped...? Aanenson: That would be our condition. Mancino: But it first has to be approved by HRA. Aanenson: It's all contingent upon basically what the HRA, that's correct. If not, then it will probably be back here. ' Mancino: Any other questions at this time? Did you get your answer Ladd? ' Conrad: Yeah. ' Mancino: I do have one more question. On my drawings, and I first will make the statement. I was concerned about the east elevation, and that is that this roof line goes all the way across the east. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Roman Roos: ...this is what it looks like. Mancino: But you can see the east side from Highway 5. So this just looks like the back of a building. Roman Roos: We don't have any... Mancino: Okay. But that's what finishes off the building is that roof line. Roman Roos: ...it's the mechanical unit... Mancino: It's an aesthetic one for our community because we're going to be on Highway 5 and that's what we're going to see ... you don't really have a back door. That's hard when you have that much frontage on Highway 5. Roman Roos: And if I located ... I'd have a real problem ... and in order to not have a back door, how do you face it? Well we try to... Mancino: Well I would like to see more of the aesthetics on the east side also because I do think that's very, very visible from Highway 5. Roman Roos: All I can tell you Nancy ... and what I'm doing is I'm doing a trade - off... The only thing I can is ... my history, my record in Chanhassen... there is an economic trade -off. I've been on both sides. I understand what you're saying... Mancino: Okay, thank you for answering that. Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please? Skubic moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Craig, comments. 30 I I ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Peterson: I'm confused. I like the building, in and of itself. I think the issue of the patio can be addressed. I don't really have a strong feeling of whether it's towards the south side or the ' east side. I think it's, you know preferential I guess it would be on the east side, giving more landscaping to the south. What I'm concerned about and what I don't know if I can have answered tonight by staff is that, the idea of a sidewalk I think needs to have our attention ' drawn to it, more than what we have presented here tonight. I think as I shared before, I think the idea is that we want to create a downtown that we want to integrate more of the ' areas within the city, specifically being Village on the Ponds across Highway 5. We've got an area now on 78th that's got sidewalk and part of it doesn't on the other part. I guess what I'd like to get a feel for is whether or not it is potentially feasible that we get sidewalk along t that whole street. If it's not feasible, then I wouldn't recommend we delete those 10 parking spots and put a sidewalk even in there. So I guess what I'm formulating here is a question to staff that is it reasonable for us to have a sidewalk along that whole street sometime down the ' road. Aanenson: We can look at that... If that's going to be part of your recommendation to pass that onto the City Council to see how we can achieve that, sure. Peterson: With that in mind I would make a, I would move to approve with that exception, ' or that caveat. Mancino: Ladd. ' Conrad: I like the site plan. I think it's nice. I don't have too many issues with it. The patio is neat. I like your involving people and buildings so I don't have the same concern ' with the screening. I think we should. It's an opportunity to screen but again I'd really like staffs direction on bringing patios and people into Chanhassen and into our buildings, which we don't do much of I think what I see is good for screening. The parking lot, I just think everything's okay. The issues that I have, I agree with Craig. The public access. Pedestrian access is an issue on that whole street, so I don't get it right now so I think point number 17 or someplace, we have to direct staff to review that and advise us. I think taking parking spots away from the applicant will hurt the project. I don't know where that ends up. The integration, if I can say that. The integration of the parking lot again is another issue and I don't think we have any control over it but it seems like an opportunity to fix some problems ' there so that's, Madam Chair, those are my only comments. I think staff has summarized their points very well in the staff report. ' Mancino: Thank you. Kevin. I 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Joyce: My biggest point was once again the sidewalk. Incorporating this project into 79th Street. I think that hasn't been looked at as much as all of this ... be from Highway 5 but let's get 79th Street in there too. I think a sidewalk is really just major... work that in as Craig said, I think it's a great project. But let's get 79th Street, let's get that sidewalk in. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: Everything was basically said I think in reading through the staffs report and basically...I would like the sidewalk on the north side. I understand the... we have to be real careful... Mancino: Jeff, Farmakes: I'm more concerned about the south side because I guess because I have yet to see too many pedestrians in Chanhassen, even though we continue to build sidewalks. Through a pragmatic sense, I think when we look back through all the work we've done on Highway 5, this is an opportunity to continue that. I think a patio aesthetically would be much better to the southeast which could be surrounded by whatever the city does as far as landscaping goes. Also it affords more of a room opportunity to create more of a layered landscape. The parking spots that were talked about, these are short term retail stores. There's pizza type stuff that they're picking up and taking off again. There's adjacent parking lots right next to it. Certainly a couple of parking spots there with a south extension where that turn around is... There's an opportunity there to extend that landscaping up without really creating any additional loss. I think the city should look at that. Certainly if our tenant on the south end is a sporting goods store, there's certainly room there to extend that. I hope the city can hopefully work that out in the ordinance and look at that option. I think that would be in line with what we've asked other applicants to do. That's it. Oh excuse me. I have one more item on here. I think that your comment about extending the roof extension on the east side and perhaps looking at ... windows is something to look at because of the nature of that, it's almost a peninsula going out into the highway. It has sight lines everywhere so, and it is I think a valid point. Mancino: Thank you. Don. Mehl: Yeah, I think bringing that patio around to the southeast or east side here would, maybe with some heavy landscaping or something around that east side and the patio would help to improve what I think is kind of a plain appearance on that east side. I think that could help a great deal. Aesthetically I think the building is pretty well done if you do something with the east side. Other than that I agree pretty much with the comments. I don't have anything additional. 32 a 11 ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 Mancino: Thank you. I agree with the comments also made. Specifically I would like to see a sidewalk on the north side. If to me that means pulling down the building to the south a ' little bit, allowing for a sidewalk because I can see pedestrians or cyclists wanting to be on 79th Street cycling, not on Highway 5 right next to the highway. But it would be much safer, much more of a charming street to go down 79th Street than on Highway 5. So although I ' would like to keep the landscaping on Highway 5, the building come down a little bit, but make way for a 4 foot sidewalk on the north side. That seems to make sense to me. And also I do like the idea of the patio on the east side of the building. That's great. It's welcoming as you go down Highway 5 to that area. And I would also like to see the east side of the building, because it is a view. That side of the building is going to be viewed by all of us that go west on Highway 5, to see what architectural enhancements on that east side. Whether that be an extended roof line. Whether it be something done with that patio space. Whether it be something done with landscaping, but not landscaping that's going to look good in 10 or 20 years but right now. And so that it is attractive. That's our public space for Highway 5 and the views from that public space should be aesthetically pleasing because we're on it a lot. Those of us who commute all over the city. What else? It would just be ' wonderful if something could be worked out with the motel and the parking lot. Again making that, an incentive for the motel people to want to come over to this wonderful retail space and eat and carouse and whatever. If there's something that can be worked out there. I guess no other comments. We will see signage Sharmin. That will come back in front of us? Al -Jaffa I can bring it back. Aanenson: If you wanted to see it, sure. Mancino: Yeah. We would also like to see it, when it does comes back please, with the materials again so we can keep it top of the line with the materials being used on the ' building. May I have a motion? Conrad: Sure, I would make a motion Madam Chair. One question, and maybe help staff ' before I make a motion. It may help staff and the applicant figure this out. Would you give up impervious surface to get a sidewalk in? Probably. That's probably what we would do. So there's going to be a motion in here about reviewing the sidewalk but I guess the point is, that there's a plan. That there should be a sidewalk there. It's just sort of, I'm just amazed we don't have that planned. That a sidewalk goes down there. But there has to be a plan and if this fits that plan, then it should be, then we should make it happen and we probably as a commission would agree with an addition to the impervious surface ratio. Madam Chair, I make the following motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site t plan review 996 -4 as shown on the site plan dated April 12, 1996 subject to the conditions in 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 the staff report, 1 through 16 with the addition . Point number 17. That the staff is to review the impact and the merit of a sidewalk on the north side of the parcel and make it's recommendations to the City Council when this gets to the City Council. Number 18. That the applicant would review the architectural, would consider, would present architectural enhancements to the City Council and the planning staff for the east side of the building when this does reach the City Council in two weeks, I assume. Point number 18, which is an invalid point but it will, I'd like to make it anyway is to have staff and the applicant somehow figure out to make sure that when we integrate the parking lots with the motel, that we do the best job we can to do that integration and also to maybe soften the view of the parking lot at the motel. And I understand that we have no leverage whatsoever but I'd like to put that in there as a point. Mancino: I'd like to add a friendly amendment to item 19 and that is that the applicant supply the staff and City Council with a detailed landscape plan of the patio area. What that patio area is going to look like. The materials used. The landscape material used and how it will, what do I want to say, screen from Highway 5 and be aesthetically pleasing. Conrad: Yeah, I'd accept that. I'd add that to point number, condition number 15 in the staff report. Mancino: Is there a second? Joyce: I'll second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review 06 -4 as shown on the site plan dated April 12, 1996, subject to the following conditions: The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. 2. Signage criteria: a. All businesses shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of each wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet. 34 7 I I 1 n 1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. f. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. g. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. i. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16 feet. j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be posted on each driveway at the exit points of the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. ' 3. Applicant must provide one landscaped peninsula in the parking lot. Screening of the parking lot and the east elevation must be increased. Screening may include berms, ornamental, and evergreen trees. 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 5. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 04 -1991 (Fine Department Notes to be included on site plans), copy enclosed. ' b. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 07 -1991 (Pre- Fire plan), copy enclosed. ' c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992, (Premise Identification), copy enclosed. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 d. Comply with Inspection Division Installation Policy No. 34 -1993, (Water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed. e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 36 -1994, (Combination domestic fire sprinider supply line), copy enclosed. f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 40 -1995, (Fire Sprinkler system), copy enclosed. g. Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on the water service line. Location must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 6. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 7. Relocate the two required accessible parking spaces along the center of the building. Relocate the accessible curb cut to one side of the planting area shown on the west side of the building as discussed in the attached Building Official memo. 8. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. 9. The applicant shall supply the city with detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event. Depending on these calculations, additional storm sewers may be , warranted. 10. The grading and utility plan shall incorporate erosion control measures throughout the ' site. 11. Utility installation will require permits through the city's building department. Gate ' valves will be required on the water line to isolate the motel from the proposed building. 12. Cross - access easements should be required for joint use of the parking lot /drive aisle. ' 13. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the City HRA approving the lease of the ' land located east of the subject site. 14. The hard surface coverage of the site may not exceed 65 %. ' 36 ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 15. The patio area may be moved to the east of the subject property and onto the city property pending approval of the HRA. The applicant shall supply the staff and City Council with a detailed landscape plan of the patio area. 16. The parking lot must maintain a 25 foot setback along the north and south. ' 17. The staff shall review the impact and the merit of a sidewalk on the north side of the parcel and make it's recommendations to the City Council. ' 18. The applicant review possible architectural enhancements and present to the City ' Council and the planning staff for the east side of the building. 19. The applicant shall try to integrate the Hiway 5 Centre parking lot with the motel ' parking lot. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: Just one reminder that the... Coalition, if any of you were interested in going on the 29th. It's on New Urbanism. It's only 2 hours over the lunch hour. It's downtown Minneapolis... ' Mancino: Who's speaking Kate at that? Do you remember? ' Aanenson: An architect on new urbanism from California. I can't remember his name. Mancino: Okay. Downtown Minneapolis, I'll go. Aanenson: Pardon me? He's downtown, yes. Okay, I'll put you down. ' Mancino: Downtown. Put me down. I'm downtown. Aanenson: That's all I had for new business. ' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 1, 1996 as presented. 1 37 Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: Thank you. Final plat approval was given for the Oak Ridge subdivision. That's the one on Minnewashta. Just north of the Harstad development. North of Kings Road, the one further. The Hallgren property. CSM. The one on the corner of Dell Road and TH 5 was given final plat approval. Technical Industrial Sales site plan approval in the Chan Business Park was given site plan approval and City Hall was also given site plan approval. Mancino: Okay, thank you. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: The draft for Bluff Creek will be heading to the committee at their next meeting and hopefully back before you yet this summer. Probably in June. End of June, first part of July is set for public hearings. Mancino: And how will that be presented to us? Will we have some work sessions on that first? Aanenson: Yeah... we'll get you up to speed before you hold a public hearing. Mancino: Okay. And will that be presented to the Planning Commission, the work sessions from task force members? Aanenson: I think it'd be helpful to have the technical people that are working on it. Bonestroo and Diane ... and some of the technical people, if you want them there. Mancino: I had requested some revisions on the By -laws for the Planning Commission. Aanenson: Sorry, I didn't know that. Mancino: Okay, well we can talk about that afterwards. It's just a concern that I had about the dismissal, etc. That there weren't any grounds for that. The Planning Commission adjourned the public portion of the meeting and held an informal open discussion on the Villages on the Ponds. This poifion of the meeting was closed at 8:50 P.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim ' 38