The URL can be used to link to this page

1f. Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 1996.' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 3, 1996 Vice Chairman Farmakes called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Bob Skubic, Jeff Farmakes and Don Mehl MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino and Mike Meyer STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I, Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern ' OLD BUSINESS: JOHN KNOBLAU.CH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10 %; AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12• PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL. f Public Present: ' Name Address Jim Emmer 6321 Yosemite Avenue Charles Pickard 1215 Lilac Lane Marc & Linda Simcox 21600 Lilac Lane Randy & Diane Schwarz 1377 Ithilien Mike Preble 1352 Ithilien John C. Knoblauch 16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie Joe Knoblauch 13017 Maywood Lane, Minnetonka ' Bob Hanson 1344 Ithilien Joey Johnson 1275 Lilac Lane Jane & Eric Danser 21640 Lilac Lane Tom & Jennifer Wilder 21740 Lilac Lane Martha & Walter T. Cleveland 6185 Apple Road Jim Donovan 1375 Lilac Lane ' Bob Generous presented the staff rep oil on this item. ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 , Farmakes: Do the commissioners have any questions? Is the applicant here? Would you like to come forward? Would you like to come forward and make any comments? John Knoblauch: I didn't have any comments... Farmakes: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion? , Conrad: To open the hearing? Is it a public hearing? I Aanenson: It was a public hearing last time. It was continued based on the fact that we were at the Rec Center and we had to be out of the building. So if you so choose to take comments, certainly that's an option. Farmakes: Does anybody wish to make any comments that's here? I Eric Danser: My name is Eric Danser and I live on Lilac Lane. My wife Jane is also here and we both feel the same way about this project. We've lived in our house about 18 years now and the reason we moved into this house is because Lilac Lane is a dead end street. We have two young children and we're concerned that if this road is tapped into the Donovan property to service it, there's no doubt in our mind that at some point it's going to be connected to Lilac Lane and then Lilac Lane will be a thru street and it will pretty much nullify every reason we moved into the neighborhood in the first place. And I know I speak for quite a few neighbors along Lilac Lane and in the Ithilien development as well. I think we're all going to be affected and none of us really wants to see this road go in to make it possible to connect it. Even though, I don't know his name but the gentleman that was speaking earlier said that it could be a cul -de -sac in the Donovan property if it should ever be subdivided. I have a gut feeling that there will be no such thing as a turn around in there or a cul- de- sac... connected to Lilac Lane and I, for one, do not want to see this happen and I would appreciate it is you'd consider this project through the eyes of the neighbors ... so you can see what situation we're dealing with and not see it as ... definitely subdivided at some future point. Right now Mr. Donovan has a beautiful home and pond on his property. It's all, it's basically an estate and we can't figure out how you can even consider that it would ever be developed into 15 homes. I don't know how many of you have seen his property and the way it's laid out but it's pretty impossible to turn that property into a track home ' development as you suggest it might be. So all I'm asking is that you see it from our point of view and for what it's worth, that's our, my opinion. My wife's opinion and also I spoke with my neighbor next door tonight, and she's not able to attend the meeting and she feels the same way we do so, do you need to know her name for the record? Farmakes: Sure. 1 17j I n Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Eric Danser: Her name is Stokes, S- t- o- k -e -s. And her name is Linda and her husband's name is Larry. Thank you very much. Farmakes: Thank you. Any further comments? State your name and address please. Jim Donovan: My name is Jim Donovan. I live at 1375 Lilac Lane and would you put up that. Since the meeting in December, my property is the property that is being discussed here for a possible, potential future road. Since the meeting in December ... I have taken it upon myself to have two very reputable real estate companies appraise my property on the present basis and on the basis of what the Planning Commission is wanting versus what the developer has planned. I also had a certified appraisal firm come and do an appraisal of my property on the basis of what it was now and what it would potentially be. They all, the consensus of everything was that the loss in value of my property really, would you please put up that other one like I asked. So the road abutting into my property there, and a potential service road running from east to west along the northern boundary of my property and the southern boundary of the now proposed Knob Hill development there, the loss to my property in value would be inbetween 15% to 18% on a present day basis. At would substantially reduce any potential sale of my property inasmuch as lessening the number of people and the price that people that might be interested in buying my property in the future, except for developers who would in turn know that they were the only group that would potentially be able to do something with this property versus an individual like myself who has lived there and built it into what it is now. Another person buying my property would not want to buy it with a potential for an abutting road to the property plus a potential road going through part of the property over my existing driveway right now and connecting up to Lilac Lane. Across the service road runs right next to my property so it would substantially reduce the value of my property. I have talked to two legal opinions... and they said that I would have a good case, they thought that there would be substantial evidence available that I would have a good case to press my feelings on it. The idea that the city would bring a road up to the property and potentially at a future time when I passed away or something happens to the property, run a road through it would destroy the beauty of that piece of property. There is a lake, a pond right where that word is right there. There's a driveway that comes right up along the lot line there leading up to my house. The driveway is approximately 1,000 feet long. There is an underground sprinkler system. Underground electronic detection system in the ground there. All for the privacy of that property. In addition, on ... I do have a 50 foot permanent road easement. This easement, the Planning Commission said was a private easement. I've had two legal opinions that it is not a private easement whatsoever. That could legally be used in the future. If and when it was needed. The easement extends right from the dead end of Lilac Lane from the eastern part of the line. 50 foot ... In conclusion I'd like to say that none of the neighbors, nobody in our area would like to have any kind of a road coming up to the property ... land that the developer developed with a cul -de -sac in the middle of the property. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 With the access road running in front of the houses that would border on my north border and his southern border. This is what the neighborhood would want and we would hope that you would see to our wishes, thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Before we proceed, would you like to respond to the issue of public or private easement, Dave? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairperson. As I mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting, the easement documents supplied to the city was an exclusive private road easement from Donovan's to another individual, or vica versa for their sole use. It's not for general public use. Solely for those two individuals. That right could be passed onto a future property owner if they sell the property but not the general public interest. Farmakes: Thank you. I'm sorry. Would you like to come forward and state your name and address please. Joey Johnson: Joey Johnson. I live at 1275 Lilac Lane... I'm here also because I am... My property was heavily impacted by the ... Ithilien... It appears that should Lilac Lane become a thru street... expansion of the road on the Chanhassen side will heavily impact these residents of Ithilien Way and myself. May I also ask why ... It seems to me that Apple Road, which is a thru street, provides more than adequate access to Route 17, Powers Boulevard, Lake Lucy Road... provides adequate ingress and egress to future residents... The suggestion and speculation that Mr. Donovan's property someday may develop is not an issue at this time and I was a realtor...and I know Mr. Donovan's property as well a neighbor and friend and the way it is set up, it's truly a private estate. A developer would have to... I employ you not to force Mr. Donovan to put in this connector road to further serve Lilac Lane which will impact the quality of life plus the safety... Farmakes: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to make a comment? Please come forward. Mike Preble: Can you turn the overhead back on? Hi. My name's Mike Preble. I live at 1352 Ithilien. I live right there. The northern part of my property borders on ... western part of my property borders on Donovan's property and I calculated approximately 40 -45% of my property would be taken if Lilac were improved to a standard city street as Mr. Hempel suggested for an appropriate width and then the turn there to go up to the Donovan property. My house sits fairly close to the Donovan side and the thru street that apparently the part of the Planning Commission is wishing to propose would put a corner of my ... approximately 17 to 20 feet away from this street and with that being a, I would guess it being a stop ... turn for the properties going down... I'm concerned about traffic ... air pollution. Air movement basically through the northwest and across my property. I am very much in favor of Mr. 4 1� Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Knoblauch ... property as he has proposed with a cul -de -sac coming onto his property from Yosemite. I'm also in favor of Mr. Donovan being able to keep his property as it is without trying to make him look at developing it because of what the streets... change his property character. So I would appreciate the Planning Commission approves Knoblauch's plan. Thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Any other comments? Does anyone want to make a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: Comments. Ladd. Conrad: Boy, I think the staff recommendation to us is probably what we always do in Chanhassen in terms of development. Give future possibilities to access to sites that right now claim they don't want to develop but usually in Chanhassen they do. And what we find is when we don't have the foresight and we say well that person's never going to develop, there are very few that, and I've been here for quite a few years. Most land in Chanhassen does develop. The money is there. The potential for subdivision is there and when somebody says I won't, in a few years they do. And that's kind of too bad because my preference would not be to have it develop. My preference would be to keep things as pristine and as they were. But practicality is, that just doesn't happen in Chanhassen. So I respect what the neighbors are saying. If I were them, I'd be here asking the same thing. And Jeff, to be real honest I wasn't sure, I think staffs recommendation is appropriate to give the flexibility for that street expansion. That's what we do and I just can't recall any cases where we go against that, unless it's really harmful to the environment. Unless there's a really significant problem so, but I did hear some comments from property owners, owner, that said maybe were this road would go in is not in the right place in terms of how it would impact his property. So that concerns me a little bit. My opinion would be therefore, I think staff has given us probably the right direction. I'm not real wild about the plat that I've seen before us from the developer. It's sort of clunky. It's got a lot of variances and we typically try not to allow variances in Chanhassen. There are rules and sometimes when you go beyond those rules and you say there's extenuating circumstances, I don't see that here. I just don't see the extenuating circumstances for the variances. It's a lot of land. It can be developed properly. But I guess I'm not sure that I have Jeff the direction to go in tonight because I did hear a few concerns about where that alignment would be. The road alignment if we did it. So bottom line for me would be, I'd like to give the potential for a cul -de -sac that would probably give the land to the east access, if that person decided to subdivide at C Id Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 some point in time. I don't want to force that. That's his decision but I think we'd probably remiss in not allowing for that alternative in the future if he decides to sell his property. Farmakes: The issue of access, you're talking about cul -de -sac situations? The issue of variance, I think we got a 10% street grade variance request. You don't think that there's a case for that. Craig? Peterson: Couple questions of staff first. Have we ever done anything in the past with the situation with the Donovan property as far as having covenants between the city and the landowner not developing or sell or how do you ... sale of potential properties ... Is that possible? Aanenson: I don't believe so. You're saying on an adjacent property that they couldn't develop? No. No. Peterson: Could it be granted to the city in some form or fashion? Aanenson: No. That's the $64,000.00 question. That's the - hard job that we're struggling with is to predict the future and we talked about as much options. We're concerned with the gentleman that lives on the corner of Ithilien and the right -of -way. Mr. Donovan says that there's a road access there. We'd be concerned about the impact to that neighborhood. If they believe that that's the access to serve that property, that would concern us. That's why we've taken the position that we're trying to provide the most flexibility. We're certainly not advocating that you develop at this time. We try to provide the most flexibility in the future that there are options instead of saying this is the only option. That may not be the one that they want, that's their first choice either. So nobody's trying to force development. We're just providing options. Try to look at the future and that sort of thing and no, we cannot say he can't develop. Who's to say what's going to happen in the future financially or whatever. Conrad: It's illegal? Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: As far as easements... land to the city. Aanenson: You're just talking strictly now about the easement? No. As Dave had indicated, you have to have a public street if you're serving more than two properties and we believe that that is just for one driveway. Beyond that you'd have to have a public street and that's what we're saying. Actually that easement goes over the corner of that property there on Ithilien. That lot and we would be concerned that it be that close to that's gentleman's home. 1 �J J J Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1, We certainly wouldn't want a public street right there. So that's why we're looking at some ' other options of how that would be serviced. Peterson: Well, with that in mind, my thoughts clearly parallel Ladd's in that, I certainly wouldn't want to force development on anyone but I think we do have to ... and I would ... favor of what the staff is recommending along with denial of the street variance. J Farmakes: Bob. Skubic: I also have a couple questions of staff. Could you point out the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet that you are proposing for the street right -of -way. Generous: That would be to provide 30 feet along the corner of...property. Skubic: Okay, but under 60 feet wouldn't get you anywhere near the proposed road coming off the Knoblauch property, is that correct? Generous: Correct. Skubic: Would the access, the road to the Knoblauch property, would that need to be developed? Could we just have an easement or it could be used for future development? Hempel: Maybe I can address that one a little bit. It's not that uncommon that the road would fall short of the property line, say 10 -15 -20 feet. To give some buffer to that adjacent property owner so there would leaving some vegetation. Something like that... When the road is extended in the future, that property owner that develops is responsible for the cost of extending the road which could add up ... $150.00 a linear foot. Plus utilities. But that would be the developer of the Donovan property as far as... Skubic: So it is possible where they're having the road run close to the Donovan property, to have an easement say between Lots 5 and 6? Aanenson: Right, they wouldn't have to... Hempel: The road right -of -way would be dedicated with the plat. The road be help back say 15 -20 feet from the edge of the property. Temporary cul -de -sac. Skubic: I also share the comments on Ladd and Craig regarding the variance for the grading. I know staff has recommended some alternatives and I would like to see something some with 7 !J Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 that and I would be in favor of tabling this until that can be worked or denying their request as it's written. Farmakes: Okay, thank you. Don. Mehl: I just have a couple of notes here... substantial property value ... Some discussion regarding traffic... versus the cul -de -sac. I guess I can speak for my own experience. I live on a cul -de -sac and I've lived on a thru street as well. We get an awful lot of traffic down our street, even though it's a cul -de -sac. A lot more than just the residents who live down there. I don't know what they're doing down there. They're either just curious or they're quackers or they're looking for trouble or something. They come down there of course and then they have to turn around and go back so the people who live up 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 houses, get to see that car go by twice so ... cul -de -sac forces people to turn around and cars go back ... versus a thru way where they can continue on. I'm in favor of voting for denial of...I would agree with... Farmakes: Thank you. My comments on this are, I would like to see something worked out to the access and egress of these properties. It disturbs me when we get into this situation where there isn't really a solution. The city to run efficiently has to have an infrastructure. It can't be a city of dead end streets. But we have people that move here and they want dead end streets. They want cul -de -sacs because, a couple of reasons. One is the perception of why they move out to the, what they perceive as the country. And builders of course like to build cul -de -sacs because they can charge more for it. On the other hand you have services that are provided by the city and for other infrastructure services, delivering mail, emergency services, picking up kids and dropping them off, school buses and so on. Obviously if you have a city of dead end streets, it makes it difficult to efficiently egress areas of the city. And Ladd was talking about what we've done in the past. We've tried to maintain a direction here in looking at these issues. The problem that I have with this, that often we have old Chanhassen bumping up against new Chanhassen where we're looking at development. And you have a situation where we have the criteria for a warehouse type of development and it butts up against what I would define as more of a large lot type of situation. The problem also that we have as planners is that often we see in front of us situations that occurred 30 -40 years ago where you're seeing old Chanhassen butting up against new Chanhassen but the problem of course is now with this development that was 30 -40 years ago, it doesn't fit now. We can't access a particular piece of property or we can't make the new development fit with the old development. So I'm, there isn't a real ready solution for this kind of thing and I would like to see something worked out. Normally how we attack this sometimes is having some leniency in cul -de -sac situation where we try to avoid long cul -de -sacs but the issue about a cul -de -sac in the future, egress into the other property, it's not my intent nor do I think is it the intent of the city to try and penalize property owners or people who have been 3 I I E Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 here. I'm pretty familiar with that particular part of Chanhassen and as it stands right now, it's a beautiful piece of property. I'm familiar with the streets that are there now and a very low type of travel. But we also have to look at the future here so I'm, I'd entertain a motion here, the issue of trying to work out some of these things. Does somebody want to make a motion? Conrad: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the 10% street grade variance request. Farmakes: Is there a second? Mehl: Second. Conrad moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial for the 10 percent street grade variance request. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Farmakes: Does somebody want to make a motion in regards to the remaining of the staff recommendation? Conrad: Yeah staff has, for those of you who are here. Staff really gives us a lot of information and you're probably not looking at what we have but basically, and for sure you're not looking at what we're looking at. And this is, because there's so many points on, and I think what we want to do is table this and see what the developer can do. Kate, there are 25 points here. 29 points, and I guess that's not necessarily how I want to table it. Those are things the developer should look at but to be very honest and candid, I haven't assessed each one of those 29 points. It's real important to me that we not force the property to the east to develop. It's real clear. I don't want to do that. But it's real clear that if they do, that we have the road structure capable of servicing it. That's real clear in my mind. There's just no doubt. That may concern some of you here but that's what you've got to do if you run a city the size of, if you run a city. But anyway, my point to tabling would be, for the developer to come back and solve some of these problems. That's specifically the 10% street grade but Kate, is there a reason the 29 points are in the tabling motion? Usually when we table we say, hey we table it. Come back and fix this. But these are not necessarily, is this your report Bob? Generous: Yes it is. We put it in in case you wanted to approve it and then you could take out. The real condition was realigning the roadway and changing the grading plan so that you would see an accurate depiction of that alteration. If you didn't go along with that issue and you went with their plan, then you could just drop that one. M J Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: Okay, I hear you. Okay. So if I made a motion, excuse me, for chit chatting here but if I made a motion just to table, what kind of direction, without the points, which I don't want to have in there, do we have enough direction based on what we said? Aanenson: In summary, the two points are street grades and future access. Trying to resolve that and I think that's the direction you give us, or the applicant. Conrad: Okay, then I'd recommend, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend tabling the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95 -20 for the 12 lots and whatever so that staff and the developer can come back and resolve the street grade issue as well as the future access issue to the property to the east. Farmakes: Motion's been made. Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Conrad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission table the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95 -20 so that staff and the applicant can resolve the street grade and future access to the property to the east issues. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR OAK PONDS /OAK HILL SITE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD, JUST NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET. Public Present: Name Address Drew Clausen Dean Johnson 7717 Nicholas Way 8984 Zachary Lane .Till Sinclair presented a slide presentation and the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Did we ever get an answer in regards to the public safety issue? Sinclair: Yeah. I talked to Bob Zydowsky, the public safety officer, and additionally to Steve Kirchman in the building, and there are no rules or regulations pertaining to safety treatments of walls. It doesn't matter how high the wall is. 10 1 d J G I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: But do we take a position of common sense. Obviously if we create a 30 or 40 ' foot wall with no barrier to it in a residential area, common sense would tell us that that might be a danger. Ll 1 1 Sinclair: Sure, although their point was if it's on private property, it is their responsibility and it would be the applicant's responsibility to use common sense to put a wall on his property. Farmakes: So as in the report, it's a fielder's choice situation? Sinclair: Basically. Farmakes: That might be grounds for something future for us to look at. It's a little concerning. This is a continuation of a public hearing. If the applicant wants to make a statement, please feel free. It's a continuation and we've already done it once so if you could keep it as brief as you can so we can continue on to the other items. Dean Johnson: My name is Dean Johnson. I'm the builder and developer of the Oak Ponds project. I talked before you approximately 2 -3 weeks ago... At that time they asked us to, the commissioners asked us to do a couple renderings to give you an idea of what the wall would look like and possibly change... There is a bit of difference between what you saw on the slide and what's being done on the drawing there. The drawing is a little bit incorrect. I don't think that really impacts as much out on the front. The nose of the wall here, the curve is actually out in front of where the wall would be 4 to 5 feet. But as you go along Nicholas Way here, the wall, in order to not or to take the minimum amount of-would have to be tight to the curb so one difference that I noticed in the photos that were up, were in fact all of these walls were set back from the trees... change grade going up from it. There'd be plantings in front which you're going to be able to take away some of the impact of this tall wall, like... Here we end up with this situation of not trying to take ... end up building this wall just flat up against the curb. It's going to be straight and then we're going to be going straight up ... so in a Keystone wall here ... 10 foot high wall which I think we'd pretty much agree that that's the height that is needed. You would have ... layers of Keystone. The alternative is to take and round the hill down. I showed layouts to the artist ... artist that actually lives in Chanhassen and this is kind of what he came up with. He didn't place the trees per anything. He just knew that we had to do at least caliper inch replacement so provided that it was 29 inches, he drew in what he felt was 4 to 6 inch trees on top of this... So that's the difference between this wall here and the trees. Also too the wall is done ... Maybe not quite coming up Santa Vera where Jill's picture showed where... sidewalk along the south side of Santa Vera... I guess I do want to comment as the landowner on it, I do want to comment that even if I'm the landowner on this site ... I really want to make sure that whatever I do on this site, that I... I think that's all I have to say. Any questions? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 Farmakes: Any questions? Okay, thank you. Since this is a continuation of a public hearing, are there any other people wishing to make comments in regards to this issue? I Come forward and state your name and address. Drew Clausen: Good evening. Drew Clausen, 7717 Nicholas Way. It is a continuation. I ' will be brief. I'm President of the Oak Hills Townhouse Association. As a matter of fact, I don't know how easily it would be to take that last slide back up there. There you go. That's practically the view out from my deck so not only am I president, I'm also affected by the view. There was another photo that showed the tree in total, and I just want to speak to a couple of key points. There you go, even though it's fuzzy you can see the right hand side, the lower main branch going out to the east. Last year that main branch had no leaves on it. ' One of the reasons why I noticed it is that I have a 10 year old son. Who here has ever been 10 years old? I think all of us. Dangling from that branch playing Tarzan. The reason that Dean is here today is basically because of the people, the residents. I think he was prepared ' to build whatever kind of wall was mandated here about a year ago and we asked him not to because we took a vote as an association, and by a vote of 2/3, of roughly 3 to 1, we decided we didn't want a wall. A lot of people have children. Most of us moved in this past summer and that whole island there was filled with children. It's a great place to play but we also have to make it safe. Jeff, you spoke the most brilliant thing I've heard all night. Even though there are no city ordinances, no safety regulations, no state laws, let's talk about ' common sense. Again, how many people have been 10 years old? This is an open invitation to climb and everything else and somebody's going to get hurt. There isn't any cushion below ' There's no, there would be practically no slope. Somebody here also mentioned on a previous issue we had to look 30 -40 years out. I don't know how much an extra 5 foot cut would cause that tree to suffer but somebody 20 or 30 years from now is going to look around and have to take that tree down and say you know, who did this? And I think it would be just as beautiful, just as ecologically sound, environmentally sound if we took down the tree, sloped the hill down, replaced it with the appropriate trees that 20 or 30 years from now will be just ' as beautiful, if not more beautiful than the existing tree. So I think it's a safety issue. The residents there are really would like the issue resolved and I think that Dean is working cooperatively with the city and we'll hope for a resolution to the issue. Thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing. , Peteison moved, Conrad seconded to close the public healing. The public hewing was closed. Farmakes: Comments. Don? I 12 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Mehl: Yeah, I've got some comments. We've got a tree here that's probably older than the Gettysburg Address. Been around a long time. If it's been, some things bother me too. This tree has been an important feature in the community in that it's, number one it's old. And number two, it's on probably one of the highest points in the county. But for whatever reason it's suddenly not, the tree is located where it was supposed to have been and the elevation heights are different than what the elevations were supposed to have been. So suddenly we're faced with you know, what are we going to do with this thing. I went out there and I sat there and stared at it today and tried to envision that wall and I question whether this drawing is proportionally correct. My recollection of what it looks like is that wall would actually appear a lot higher than what's depicted on the drawing here. I believe at the last meeting somebody already mentioned that instead of fence up there we could put some shrubbery and on the surface I think sounds good but unless you make that stuff thick enough and prickly enough, you know kids are going to get into it. And that wall I know is going to be vertically 11 feet tall and sloped is probably about 13 or 14 feet of surface on it. And I agree that there's an unseen sign here that says, climb me. I've raised two kids and my son, he's busted two collar bones and broke a thumb and gotten two concussions because he's done things that he shouldn't have been doing you know. And I can see somebody climbing from the bottom up on this thing and it's a long ways down when you're skidding down on your face. And I've got a problem from a safety standpoint. On the other hand, I look at this drawing and I've got a problem with that too. That surface area I don't think is big enough to support all those trees that are shown. What happens when those trees fully mature, you know. They can't be that close together. So I've got a suggestion I'd like to run by you. First of all I think from a safety standpoint, I think we have to remove the tree. I really do. What I would suggest is that we would build a Keystone wall 3 or 4 feet high, at it's highest point, which would be in the southwest corner here because I think the Keystone wall looks kind of neat. And if we were to continue that around it would of course gradually decrease in height because the, around to the north and east you've got an increasing street grade elevation. And then shave off the top of that hill with some low creeping junipers around the upper edge. Back those up with some 3 to 4 feet tall ornamental shrubs and then junipers and perhaps in the center of it with 2 or 3 ornamental trees like an elm or an maple or something like that who would get nice fall colors and... foliage and fast growing. In doing all this you still have the wall, which I think kind of looks neat but if it were scaled way down like this, we're not going to have the safety problems and I agree, I don't know how much longer that tree would survive up there. Those are my thoughts. Farmakes: Alright. Bob. Skubic: I have a question of staff. Are we convinced that there is not sufficient room between the curb and the beginning of the cut to do any terracing to say break it at 5 feet at one elevation? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 , 1 Sinclair: Do you remember what the distance is between the curb and bank? Was it 8 feet? Hempel: That's correct. I Skubic: Excuse me, did you say 8 feet? I Sinclair: 8 feet, yeah. Skubic: And whatever wall we put up will require most of that for a p itch. Hempel: The Keystone wall design, for like a 10 foot high wall, would require 3 to 4 ' geogrids tied back into the earth 5 to 6 feet, at 3 to 4 different levels in the wall. So if you build it at the face of the curb you have 8 feet back to the existing bank so essentially you're ' not taking any more roots of the tree. If you do start back say 3 feet behind the curb, then you're right at that 5 foot zone. You may even have to encroach another foot into the existing bank. So maybe there may be some flexibility to leave a foot or two behind the curb , before the wall starts. This street is a private street. The city doesn't maintain it. The homeowners association does. So from that standpoint I guess, we don't have to ... snow storage standpoint... I Skubic: My thoughts are to start it at the curb and build it up to 5 feet and then put a terrace on to say 3 feet back so you have two 5 foot sections there. Make it, improve the safety of the wall and perhaps it terraces also. Hempel: That may be a possibility. I'd have to consult a designer of a Keystone wall to see ' if that was feasible. Skubic: Thank you. It's unfortunate it didn't turn out as planned that the cut is so close to ' the curb and that the cut is 10 feet high. It doesn't appear to be any obvious, there doesn't seem to be a good way of fixing it at this point without creating a hazard or further endangering the tree. And I appreciate the photographs you brought in Jill. That helps ' considerably to visualize this better. The photographs show some, I think some real good looking walls. However those walls are in most cases several hundred feel long and quite a bit, not as tall as this one. I think the aspect ratio of this one is going to make for a seemingly very tall wall so I don't think appearances are going to be very sightly either. So unless this can be terraced to decrease a safety hazard, I guess I would vote for removing the tree and I think Don had an excellent idea there. How to set... ' Farmakes: Thank you. Craig. 14 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Peterson: One more question for Jill. If we were to put a Keystone wall in as depicted here, if you had to make an educated guess as to how much that would lower the probability of a tree lasting or ... can you tell me that percentage point? ' Sinclair: If you started the Keystone wall at the curb and went up, what kind of step were you looking at from bottom to top? ' Hempel: Well it's an 8 foot set back from the curb 10 foot so it's, 1 to 1 approximately. Sinclair: It would affect it very low percentage because you wouldn't end up cutting back ' any further than it is and you know, the foot or two that we may have to go in, it's already been exposed to dry soil and stuff so. I Peterson: It could enhance it because we build around it and keep the water back. Sinclair: Yeah, if you started at the curb... Peterson: Well, I struggled with this one too. I went out there gg t e e and stared it at for a while myself. And I'm not comfortable with the wall being as it is from a safety perspective, and I f think from an aesthetic perspective it just doesn't do it for me either. So I was hoping Jill would say that it wouldn't lower the probability of the tree ... she didn't do that so it makes my decision harder but I think it still would offer the opinion that we would remove the tree and ' do some type of replanting... ' Farmakes: Okay, thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I'm not going to vote on this Mr. Chairman but I'd just ask the Planning Commissioners, you know my perspective on this, it's too bad we've got the situation but the solution is not very attractive. In fact it's a strange solution. Plus it creates some other problems so I guess I'd just request that you spend your time thinking about the right fix in terms of how it looks. In terms of the size trees, and I'm not sure this, you can do that but I don't think the developer has presented exactly what I'd like to see there. I think it's good for comparisons but it's not what I'd like to see so I think this is a prominent feature of the plat, or the project. It's not going to be there so I think you should take the opportunity to make it a real cornerstone of the project. Farmakes: So you feel that the option that city staff was suggesting is not adequate? Conrad: The retaining wall in any form, and I like what Jill did but it looks ridiculous. It's way out of, it's a monument to a tree that's just real strange, you know. It's too bad it's been 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 there for a year and a half. When you drive through the property, it's,real bad looking. Let's fix it but putting a wall there Jeff, I don't care if it's boulders or something we all like, it's not going to fix the visual. It's just not going to do it. Farmakes: I was referring to the, under the recommendation or the alternative if we remove the tree. Conrad: Yeah, I think it was on a caliper basis but again, I'd look for some, I don't know. I guess I'd look for some green, something green there year round. I'm just not sure how it should be but I'm not real sure that in the staff report that's what I wanted. I guess I'd like to see at least 8 big trees there. Farmakes: Putting in larger trees to replace it? Conrad: Yeah, but I guess again I'm not sure what I'm talking about and again, I'm not going to vote on this one so you know, but I guess I'd prefer to spend some time, or direct staff to make sure that what we get is something that's really attractive. Farmakes: The reason I'm trying to pin you down is that, we all seem to have a different opinion here so far. Are you done? I'll make my comments on this. I have no argument with what was just said. It seems the alternative would be, it almost looks like a monument to a tree. If there were other trees or the area was larger, then I think the solution would be maybe more obvious. Apparently tonight we're not going to have any obvious solutions to anything. I'm concerned about the safety issue. I'll bring up the reason why. Normally we don't deal with safety issues or talk about that. We try to stay clear of that because nobody up here, at least that I know of, is a safety expert but I do know that the city, it's on private property. They comment they were saying, well it's on private property. The city makes safety requirements all the time on private property. If I build a deck out the back of my house, it's 30 inches off the ground, the city requires me to put a very specific type of railing on it. But the idea that if you inhabit this particular area, you might fall off or somebody that comes into your house might fall off that 30 inches. In some of these cases we're looking at areas... in a landscape area but they're in an added area and it, they're part of an engineering situation. It's not a natural event. And certainly if there are children playing up there and looking at boy, I'd be scared to death if my kid was hanging off one of those branches above that area. My daughter, when I got out of a parking lot over by the Vikings office, there was a Keystone wall, and it goes up about maybe 15 feet. She was just making about 12 when I turned around and noticed her stepping up on top to get up to the top and I have real concerns about what I see here. This maybe is pointing out something to us in regards to these walls that we should be a little bit more concerned about, in some cases, in the area what type of slopeage we're looking at or how we terrace them. I know on some issues we 16 r n lu Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 have looked at that where we've terraced them but I thought maybe we'd have more to define t that requirement on that and I see that we don't. I'm not sure what to proceed here. I guess my thoughts on here is that, I'm not sure that there's any solutions to save this tree. Or a logical solution. One of the commissioners feels that if you were to reconfigure, or look at ' reconfiguring. A few others feel that maybe there isn't a way to save this tree but anyway, we'll put that out I guess for a vote. Does somebody want to make a motion here? ' Peterson: I guess I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the approval or request to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds subject to the conditions 1 through 5 with, how do we amend that? Subject to the condition that staff work with the applicant in providing a more aesthetic and safety minded resolution to what is currently being presented. Is that too vague for staff? t Sinclair: Kind of ' Farmakes: I don't know if it's appropriate for me to make a comment while you're making a motion but it seems to me we're looking at two things. Either we remove the tree or we don't remove the tree, and then one or the other, how do we deal with the issue of the landscaping. ' And I know that one was a part of your other motion and I'm not sure if the staff has a recommendation, if we want to modify that, then we should modify that recommendation. Peterson: I'll just leave the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of removal of a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds without conditions. And then add under the motion, as far as specifying, staff can work with the applicant to develop a new replacement ' plan for the tree. Essentially that may even be tabling it and bringing it back with another option but... Farmakes: I'm not sure without conditions that we're giving them any direction on what to do once the tree has been removed. We still have the abutment and, we could table it. That's another issue so I'm not sure if we'd be voting, cutting the tree down is only part of the issue. Peterson: I think the only concern I have with this is, outside the motion now, is the necessity of the conditions or that staff is recommending that the replacements be a specific type and 14.5 inches, and a 1.5 inch caliper minimum. I guess I would simply like to see a better alternative than what is being presented and whether that is, as one of the previous engineers mentioned, a lower retaining wall with more of an evergreen style on top so that it ' is, it does have a feel, it does have a presence within the area. Farmakes: So you'd like to see them review 2? Of the recommendation. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Peterson: Yes. That probably is the closest we can get tonight. Farmakes: 1, 3, 4 and 5 then as is? Peterson: Yes. With that I would approve the motion with the exception of number 2. Farmakes: And then that would be that the staff review that issue to look at alternatives for evergreens working with that, is that correct? Peterson: Yes. Farmakes: Okay. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Mehl: I'll second it. Peterson moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to remove the 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds with the following conditions: 1. The applicant is to replace the required twenty -nine inches of plantings with species native to this area. A replacement planting plan must be submitted for approval. 2. Staff work with the applicant to get a mix of conifer and deciduous trees for the replacement plantings. 3. Spacing of all deciduous or evergreen plantings shall be a minimum of 25 feet. 4. Grading limits shall not encroach upon the drip lines of the surrounding trees. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the grading limits. Erosion control fence, Type I, shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits and maintained until the site is fully re- vegetated. 5. All disturbed areas shall be sodded. All voted in favor, except Skubic who opposed and Conrad who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1 and 1 abstention. Farmakes: Would you like to make any comments? 18 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Skubic: Yeah, I just would feel that terracing it should be explored a little bit under the ' remote chance that we could come up with a plan here that preserves the tree and also provides for a safer environment. Farmakes: Alright, thank you. Drew Clausen: I know maybe I'm not supposed to say anything but what was just approved? ' Farmakes: What was just approved was that we made a recommendation to the City Council, based on the staff report. We have 3 to 1, with 1 abstention voted on the second issue of the ' recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend the approval for the request to remove the 29 inch oak. We modified 2 to, you'll have to check the exact Minutes. Off the top of my head explaining to you that the mix of plantings be modified than what is ' recommended here and that staff work that out to basically mix some evergreen situation with the deciduous trees. This issue will go before the City Council then with our ' recommendation and then they have the final decision. -If you want to check with that, check with staff as to when that's going to City Council, we'll let you know. TED DELANCEY FOR A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.9 ACRES INTO 9 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 7505 FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS GLEN ' Public Present: I Name Address Andrew Hiscox 7500 Erie Avenue Ted & Kathy deLancey 7505 Frontier Trail Charles R. Stinson Minnetonka Dwight Jelle Eden Prairie Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Does anyone have any questions of staff? Peterson: How substantially would the houses have to be moved away from the bluff ..? Generous: It was just a quarter of that one on Lot 4, is it? This lot right here, that was in the setback area so they couldn't—And otherwise, all the other building pads were outside of that side area. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: Anyone have any further questions of staff? Alright, this is a continuation of a public hearing. Comments have already been made but we'll hear further comments if anyone I wishes to make any. From the applicant. Ted deLancey: I'm Ted deLancey and we'd like to make some brief comments here if we ' may. In trying to prepare for tonight's presentation, we were here the first week in December and there are two members on the Planning Commission who were not here at that time so they were not able to hear what we had to say at that time. So I thought well this is no t problem. They'll just review the notes. The Minutes and I have done that and all of the comments that were made by our team are not there because there was a mechanical failure so if you'll excuse me, the three that are here, I won't belabor it but I want to make a few ' quick comments if I may. First of all, what I want you to know is that we are not commercial developers. We are landowners just like yourselves. We want to stay here. We've been here. My parents bought this piece of property in 1939. I bought it from them. ' As I pointed out in the original meeting, my father was a great tree lover and he originally set the first dimensions of the property by I'll take that tree and that tree so we drew incorrect lines to get it. So our interest in the trees and our interest in the property goes back a long ' time. We, Kathy and myself, who is here, it is our intention to stay on this piece of property. Now Ladd Conrad said earlier, it seems that it all comes around sometime. People with land develop their property and there's a stimulus to do that. And our stimulus is that we have to , do something in repair work for the property that we have and it could be substantial so I said, if we can trade the land for a new home with a, in a perfect world, zero increase in expenditures, that's what we would like to do. So that's what we're trying to do and I wanted you to know that we are going to stay here whether we get approval or not, we'll just leave it the way it is. Now I would like to, we've got part of the reason this piece of property is ' unique is the topography and the trees that are on it. It has been my feeling for a number of years, this is a piece of property that requires somebody who has a deep appreciation for the aesthetics of the property rather than just coming in and developing a piece of, a flat farm field. So what we have done is, we've looked around for years and we liked this particular architect but we're not choosing him to be involved with the land because of the homes we like so much as the fact that we were very impressed a few years ago when we saw a piece ' of property that he did and how he nestled and gently built the property right into the topography of the land. And right adjacent to it, at the same time where they came in and just clear cutted and brought a bulldozer and put up a very, very nice home, but certainly not ' the appreciation for the land. When we saw that we said, we've got to get in touch with this man and have him try and develop our property. So with that as a brief introduction, I'd like to turn the meeting over at this time to Chuck Stinson, who is the architect and have him ' carry the ball. And then also Dwight Jelle, who is a principle in Westwood, will follow up on technical questions and if I may, after they are through, I would like the opportunity to address you again for just a moment. Is that possible? ' 20 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: That's fine. Ted deLancey: Thank you. Charles Stinson: Hello. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm an architect and ... as a land planner. My office is in Deephaven. Just to kind of go back. As Ted had mentioned, we started working together, and some of you know that. I think it was 3 or 4 years ago, in working with the city along the way and we've had several meetings. Some very preliminary meetings some time ago. The unique thing about the project I get involved in a number of different projects in Minnesota and some occasionally out of state. And it is rare to have a project that it isn't, what do you do to get maximum density out of the project, and the only time I don't do that is when someone's, or when I have a chance not to do that, I'm not forced to it, it's when someone has a real identity to the project, that's going to stay there, which in this case the deLancey's do, if we can make it work out. But financially to do that, the plans that he had before that, with the density where I think they are trying to put 23 lots on there and Ted and Kathy didn't like that because of what it did to the property and the respect they had. So we took, we really took our time here and I don't know how many hikes going out there and coffee and donuts you know at the house and with realtors and with builders because it really, it has to work from a lot of different ways. It has to work financially because the other way was a no brainer. Getting the lots in... Doing it this way, it had to be a consistency of architecture. A clientele that's a small client base that kind of follows the work that I do with Streeter and Associates, but there had to be a continuity and they had to know that there's going to be control of all the neighborhood and that there's going to be a real consistency and respect for the nature and for the site. So after hiking it for a long, long time, and being that we had the meeting Frontier Trail at the bottom. Access at the top. And the topography, this being, if I stand away can everybody hear me? Is this being kind of a natural low area here. This being quite a bit higher on the top and as, you know we had roads going through here. For a long time we tried to get a road going through here and it was just so devastating because... created a catch area here for the retention area ... and along the site can actually slope so as studying this, I started thinking of it not just from the engineering and how do you get the lots, etc, but from the point of view of the architecture so I created architectural small houses actually of different variations that I've done before just because I knew how they would work. Where the public areas were. Private areas in relationship to the garage. Living areas, kitchen and light and the views. Trying to create a, like every house was the complete house even whether there are any neighbors or not. When it was completely built and everybody showed a privacy. So entering the site was a sense of kind of a, not a monument but a change in the pattern of the pavement going across a couple small fins and stone to have a, to work with the architecture. It seemed, this is the site that Ted and Kathy live on now and they're connected to it so that's where their house would be. Then breaking off the higher lots, all houses going across here. This one sliding in the, kind 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 of the inbetween but having private areas. Looking out here and across the property and these being a high ground, there's existing fill that's been here for years. In coming up here allowed this house to look towards the pond, up into all the trees we're saving here. This one is a well series of drives, coming in and hooking here and to the back undeveloped area. And we looked at very seriously, from our last commission meeting, what it would be like coming in through the bottom. It could be the amount of trees we left and the fact that these homes then would be looking onto another driveway and reflection of the cars coming and going, and we looked seriously at the extra cost of doing a pre -cast garage so we could raise up the grade and we wouldn't have to manipulate the ground very much. We came back and feel ever stronger that this is what we like. I think it's great that we have a flexibility in case someone may feel different about it in the future but I think this is the most sensitive to the piece of property. Again, you know given the zone that we have with a bluff line here, which we do, we are respecting that and with everything said and done, the houses will just slide in ... undisturbed. Up at the top piece of the property, we'd like to do some landscaping here. Leaving a natural buffer for the homes here and then into the last one, the sensitive one. When we did the studies and as we were involved in the earlier meetings with the city, each of our plans actually had the house in this location which to me was actually another 30 feet down the hill, which probably would be, excuse me. This is a little hard to see but this is a drawing that shows the, if I can get the orientation the same way. This is that same lot showing the property... back in here. There is a neighbor here with a house that's very close to that property line and there's a lot that's been approved that actually is probably about 15 feet farther down the bluff line than where we're proposing to do it here. Maybe off a little bit but that idea. The concern we have about moving it off, as part of it is the value of the property, it's a fine line to try to make this all fall off and these are the most valuable. The other thing is by moving the house, because of the shape back to that point, and if it would just go to the bluff line and not exceeding it but just using the setback area, we keep more of a distance away from this piece of property. We do it within architecture sites that I do all the time. And we've never had any erosion problem and actually instead of having the house sitting out kind of jammed in this triangle, closer to this, we're doing a house that's kind of sitting out in the middle of this area looking towards the woods instead of trying to do natural architecture where the architecture and the woods really integrate together. So it actually it will disappear from the neighbors and be a much more desirable piece of property. And I guess that's about it. If you have any questions about any of the land planning or locations. Conrad: I like what you said Charles but based on what you said, does that put you at odds with any of the recommendations in the staff report? Charles Stinson: The recommendation to turn down the variance. Where we see what's been determined as the bluff, we've moved it back to respect the actual bluff line. What we'd like to do is build that point of the architecture into the bluff setback area. That gets us beyond 22 i� 1 1 IJ 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 the neighbor's houses, the lot lines, etc. And there's a ton of trees there and what we'd be ' adding in front of it and around it, at least there would be a transition of heights ... new ones. Big ones... ' Peterson: If you moved it back to what the staff is recommending, do you have any sense of how far you'd be from that current house? Charles Stinson: Well, the amount that we have left over, and you can see it from this one, is a relatively small triangle. It would be forced to put it very close to that property line. I think our setback, we're only required 10 feet or something. And that house, I believe the ' neighbor's here, but do you know how far your house is from that property line? Andrew Hiscox: It depends on which part. Part of it's 20 feet, part of it's about, it comes in ' at an angle so it's hard to tell. Charles Stinson: The closest point it looks like about 7 to 10 feet. Andrew Hiscox: Yeah. Charles Stinson: So it's very close. And I think from both, it's a win /win for both parties to get the living spaces away from each other. In this case, you know to back in. And again ' we will still be farther up the hill than the house, than the lot that's just been approved this, I think this last year. Ted deLancey: If I may. Andrew has a piece of property right adjacent to the home which cleared Planning and Council in February of '94 and had an extension. The last extension was in August of '95 and at that time there was no bluff consideration. My understanding, if ' I may, there was a bluff ordinance but what I was told was, that the staff and city was not enforcing the bluff ordinance north of Highway 5 at that time. They are now enforcing the ordinance north of Highway 5. What we're asking for is simply to be able to place that house ' in exactly the same location that Andrew has his building pad that has not gone ahead as far as building the final plat is supposedly... Farmakes: Ted, if you have comments we need to have you come to the podium so that we can, we're recording these issues and it makes it much easier for us to make the Minutes if we follow that criteria. Ted deLancey: I'm sorry. Okay. I apologize. ' Farmakes: Continue if you have a comment. 23 J Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Charles Stinson: No. Any more questions? Farmakes: Any comments from the commissioners? Peterson: One more question. One of the items we brought up last time was the buffering on ' the northerly edge there. Between the houses. The current houses and the new ones off the road. Has any discussions been made relative to that point? Charles Stinson: No. I think it was, the comment was brought up by staff and the Council last time that it's going to be obvious that whoever builds here is going to want to do something. I think it's a very difficult thing to try to say, do this type of-when they may ' want to do something else. I think... landscaping is a large project that doesn't get thrown out at the end. I think we can clearly say that something will be done and it will be substantial and that's all. , Farmakes: Thank you. ' Charles Stinson: Thank you. Farmakes: Does the applicant have anything further to present? ' Ted deLancey: Yes. As I said I want to, and actually I apologize for making it so long but that was one of the comments that I wanted to make but the fact that we are asking to locate ' the home on that Lot 9 at the same level as the home which is 80 feet to the east of this which was approved, as I said, Andrews property was approved in August of last year. The property on the other side of us, which is right, where am I? Yeah, right here. The old Forcier property. If you will recall that property. That also was approved for final plat in August of '95 and there was no bluff situation taken into consideration there and the ' topography would indicate there's a bluff. I would also like to say, just for your information, in the many revisions we've had on this, between Lot 4 and 5, which is in question because of the bluff as Bob pointed out to you. We dropped a home in this area because of that , consideration and of course as you know, those get to be a costly project. The home that Andrew has at 958, the instructions from the city, you people, was not to build below 958 and that's what we're asking for so we can move away from his. If I may, I'd like to just say ' one thing while I have the opportunity and I know this is going to sound like I'm trying to sell too hard. I'm asking Ladd Conrad to back me up. The only time I was ever, that I recall, in front of the Planning Commission, and I know Ladd's been on it as long as I've ' been here almost ... quite a length of time. It's when I was representing the city when Kate was handling the lake access thing and I made the statement then, as I do now, and that is that I really want to express my appreciation and our appreciation, as well as I think the other ' 24 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 people's appreciation, for the time that you people spend which is not compensated and I really think that those of us who are member of the community owe you a big debt. Now I will say that even if you don't grant us the variance but that's what I ... meeting some years ago. Okay, thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Are there any members from the public who wish to come forward and make any comments on this? ' Andrew Hiscox: Sure. My name's Andrew Hiscox. I've been referenced here a couple times this evening as the sort of approved lot that's 80 feet away from where one of the houses is. ' As I said last time at the school building, I think this is a great plan. I think they've done an excellent job. They've obviously spent a lot of time trying to make it aesthetically pleasing... I applaud their efforts, as they could have done something quite a bit different and probably ' gotten it approved. That may not... I do however have an issue and that is the same one I referenced last time and that is, if you look at these houses, they all look really nice. They all fit in very well with the topography except for one and that's the one next to my house. If ' you look at all the other setbacks and where they are compared to the lot lines, they're all pretty far away. Look nice. There's lots of room except for right here and this corner, my ' house is literally right there. I mean we're 20 feet away. Or I should ask, how far do you think the house...? Charles Stinson: This corner probably would be 20 feet from the property line plus whatever distance your's is. That's just the corner. And the other way, the whole house would be 10 feet away. Andrew Hiscox: ...variance. Charles Stinson: But the other thing just, again this is Charles Stinson talking again. This is, originally we wanted the house, over the last few years to be down the hill another 30 feet. This is the biggest parcel that we have on the property with the tightest restrictions. So it is ' the largest piece of property. Andrew Hiscox: Okay, thanks. Can I get maybe staffs comments on this? How do you feel ' about it, and I guess I'm talking about ... where you think that house should go because, and I have a personal interest here. I'm trying to figure out, can we make this happen so that I don't have to look at this house where I didn't have to look at it before and they don't have to ' look at me. And if it means giving them the variance they're asking for, I guess I'd say let's do that. I've got a vested interest, right? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Aanenson: I'll try to separate my opinion from fact but when you build a house in this community it's pretty rare that you can build a house without looking at somebody else. I mean that's just the way it is. I think they've gone extra measures to try to prevent that but if the two property is zoned compatibility, technically they can be 10 feet along, as Mr. Stinson indicated, be 10 feet parallel. So we'd have 20 foot separation. That's standard throughout the city if you go through normal subdivisions. I think they've gone through, gone the extra effort to try to minimize the impact to you and to themselves too by angling the house. The concern that we would have, obviously is what that does to the slope setback. As Dave indicated, they're not in the slope itself but they're into the setback. Is it better to have the homes closer together? Again this is the largest lot. Or is it better to try to push it away from one property owner and into the slope protection area. That's a hard one to gauge. Obviously our preference was to try to keep it away. And certainly they want to minimize the impact because there's price and value associated with trying to minimize the impact to you and to everybody else. Just to clarify one thing. I know Bob wanted to clarify too what Mr. deLancey said. When we extend a plat, preliminary plat such as the Forcier, and your's included, any new conditions that, or any new ordinances that are passed, they are bound to. So even though those two plats were approved, when they were extended, there's a condition that says any new ordinance, that they would have to be in compliance with. So they do have the same conditions that this plat would have as far as the setback. That's something that the staff is bringing to the Planning Commission for consideration. What do you think is more important? Protection of the slope or the impact and maybe, you know again we're back to that square peg in a round hole. Maybe that style house doesn't necessarily work and as a representation, who's to say that someone buying that is going to do that exact house. And again unless you put a condition on there that says the setbacks are 10 feet. Okay, unless there's an agreement mutually acceptable that says we agree that we're going to put it 20 feet, if some homeowner comes in and that lot's approved and they want to put it 10 foot from the property line, there's nothing we can do to prevent it as long as they're not in the setback requirement. You would have to have mutually acceptable covenants or something that said we, under a covenant agreement, are agreeing to go beyond that. If they come in for a building permit and they meet the underlying standards, we approve it. And that's when the problem comes in and you with expectations that this is what the house is going to look like. There's no guarantee that that's, whoever buys that lot is going to build that home. So I think you have to be aware of that. Andrew Hiscox: That's kind of interesting. You brought something up that I guess I'd like to clarify. It's a little bit off the subject. I'm approved... What I just heard you say was, I haven't gotten the final yet. I'm supposed to do it in February, and we might actually have to ask for another extension based on some legal issues. Am I understanding that I can't build it on...? L L L �1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Generous: Well we'd have to review it to determine that you meet the bluff ordinance, which is now in effect city wide. Andrew Hiscox: Where, if the bluff ordinance, I didn't meet it or whatever. If it went the wrong way for me let's say, what would happen? Generous: You may be required to have a bigger setback from that 952. It might be, you might not meet the, the technical definition is that 30% slope and at 25 foot of grade or elevation change. You have to have both of those conditions in place before our bluff protection ordinance kicks in. At the time that your plat originally came in, that ordinance didn't apply to your property. Now it does. Aanenson: Right. That's the problem if you don't, you've got one year where the rules apply. After one year, you know that's kind of your grace period you need to record it by. Back to this issue, does everybody understand what I was saying on that as far as, unless there's mutual acceptability, unless there's restrictive covenants, they go with the underlying zoning. The underlying zoning on the RSF on the side yard setback is 10 feet. So unless there's some other mechanism to insure that that's the representation on the bluff, you would give the bluff setback so I just wanted to make sure that that's clear. Andrew Hiscox: How would you propose then that you protect the intention? If their intent is, it's a plan like this that is not... Aanenson: Sure, there's two tools. One is if they wanted to do some covenants or secondly, ° if they're mutually acceptable that say we agree on this lot as a minimum, as long as it's mutually acceptable, we can put it in the conditions of approval. Andrew Hiscox: Mutually acceptable to which parties? Aanenson: To the Planning Commission and the applicant. Farmakes: Are you finished? Alright, thank you. The applicant's architect would like to make an additional comment? Charles Stinson: Yeah, Charles Stinson again. Well if we could get the approved variance on the top one, we'd be willing to put it that we would keep the, with that variance, that our house would be at least 20 feet away from that neighboring setback. Farmakes: Okay. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Aanenson: Did you want to make that a condition of the variance? Farmakes: Is that an acceptable situation to the city? Aanenson: Yes. Farmakes: Is there anyone else that wishes to make comments at this time? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Peterson moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hewing. The public hewing was closed. Farmakes: Comments. Bob. Skubic: I'm not going to start with the bluff area because I'm not, I haven't digested that and haven't formed my feelings on that yet. Farmakes: Before you start Bob. We're actually voting on two issues I believe here. One is the preliminary plat and private street, is that correct? Generous: For a private street, correct. Farmakes: And there's a bluff setback variance also. So if you can comment on both. If you have any comments. I won't make you. Skubic: I favor the private drive, the second private off Frontier Trail. I think it fits the topography nice and I think it works out well. It's a good plan there. And I think that versus having a private drive run across the lowland there. And also I wish I had more assurance that there will be buffering between a private drive on the eastern property line and the adjacent development there. Aanenson: I think you can probably make it a condition. Generous: You may add conditions that a landscape buffer be provided along the eastern property line. Skubic: That's all I have. Farmakes: Okay, Don. 28 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Mehl: I wasn't here in attendance at the last meeting and I'm still trying to figure this out. I'd like to pass. Farmakes: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Well I think it's a real good plat. I like it. I like what staff has done. The issues that we've been talking about. And boy, that's a tough one. To tell you the truth, 10 to 20 feet is, there's still going to be a house real close and I suppose 10 -15 feet additional would help but boy, it's still close so we could probably do that before it set in but, what I'm struggling with because I haven't really dealt with the bluff ordinance, is criteria to move that house, keep that house away and I don't know what I'm giving up when I allow a variance to that bluff ordinance. I really have a tough time on that one and I don't know if Kate or Bob, if you can help me on that one. Generous: The bluff ordinance basically is protection for erosion control is the biggest issue. When you build right up to that line, there's a potential, we find out that generally 15 feet beyond the edge of the house, you're doing construction so you're digging that area and taking vegetation up. He's probably right. There probably are techniques that they can do to control that and special construction technique. Conrad: So potentially, given the purpose of the bluff ordinance, we could put some real tough constraints in on developing Lot 9? Aanenson: Sure. If you are leaning towards the variance, then that certainly would be something you should consider. Conrad: Yeah. Do you think that these lots, again I, for some reason have a good sense as to how they're trying to work this as a sensitive developer, architect, what have you, planner, and that sort of counts with me. But could you see any lot lines changing to solve any problems? 7 � Generous: You can change the house style. That's the round peg in the square hole. What happens if that house gets smaller? You get the separation from the adjacent property. It moves out of the bluff setback line. But if that second house in moves to the end and that house moves to that spot. There are alternatives that comply with code. Aanenson: I guess that's what we're trying to say. Be careful not to be too caught up into the individual house plans because there is a building envelope and each homeowner as they buy those lots is going to try to slide within that envelope to maximize their individual needs. Now if they've done their best to represent what they think what home works best to site and 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 n views and that sort of thing but again, when you get individual homeowners, they're going to have specific needs and they're going to push to the envelope that they can. That's why we would be concerned to make sure, if you are leaning towards the variance, that there is specific criteria to mitigate any impact that would be, even though we're not in the slope or in that setback area. Conrad: Yeah. If we don't grant the variance, it will pull the house pad back, of course and so what do we gain? We gain, we didn't grant the variance. We put the houses closer together. Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Potentially. Conrad: Potentially, yeah. Aanenson: Even if you didn't do it at this point, I mean certainly if a homeowner comes in at a future date and has a specific plan and then you're looking at a specific plan, that's always a potential in the future too. I mean they're going forward with it now. ' Conrad: I won't take any more time Mr. Chairman. Tough one for me. I think the plan, the plat overall is really neat. It's really integrated. I think staff and the applicant have done a good job. The issue is Lot number 9 and you know, I'm not sure how to handle that. They certainly can build on that lot and build it within the ordinance. It's just whether the trade off for allowing a variance is worth it. Farmakes: Thank you. Craig. Peterson: I, as it relates to the preliminary plat... I agree with the staff recommendations. As it relates to the setback, I'm more biased towards I guess keeping the homes farther apart. I think granting the variances would, as we've discussed earlier, would put restrictions on the , building of the home as it relates to potential erosion problems that might occur and putting those into the motion. ' Farmakes: Alright, thank you. My comments are, I like this development. I think we're looking at I think conceptual homes than we are looking at real homes at this point. I think that's fine. That's what this is. I think some of the problems that occur here, we're arguing ' these concepts, or conceptual homes. In talking about 10 foot variances and setbacks and so on, it disturbs me a little bit that we would create some sort of precedent for that. Ladd had an idea perhaps for a solution to this. This is a, some of that could be dealt with at the time 30 ' [i L' Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 that these homes are looked at or they come in for an actual ... in looking at the criteria for some of these variances, usually we look at those when there is no solution or no common sense solution. So I don't see that in this case, although I like this development a lot. I'm still concerned about the rationale that we're using for a second entry area off of Frontier Trail. I'm still not certain as to, we kind of glossed over the explanation of why we don't need that or why that one would be preferable and it was pretty much, which view comes out of the house and I'm, Dave do you want to make a comment on that at all before I continue on here with my comments? Hempel: Well the applicant's engineer has supplied us with some more information and looked at the location of the driveway. It is, we feel a safe location for a driveway and the access onto Frontier Trail. And from this point as you to continue to the north, the slope on Frontier does increase. So I was comfortable with having a shared or common driveway ' access point at this particular location to minimize the access points and due to the slope of Frontier Trail, this was a much preferred location. I was comfortable with this design. 0 Farmakes: Alright. On the issue of the bluff, the variance itself. The same comments that I made pertains to that as well. That being said, does anybody have a motion as a wonderful solution to this? Conrad: Oh sure. Farmakes: Excuse me. Don, did you want to make any further comments on this? Did you want me to come back to you? Mehl: Well the only comment is that I went out there and I stopped on Frontier and I spent some time looking over the area. There's some tremendous contours and changes... going to be a beautiful area. Really nice development. I guess I also have to agree hearing the points and so on, I would recommend denial of the variance to the bluff setback. Farmakes: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion? Conrad: I will. Let's see where this goes. I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Lotus Glen, Case #95 -22 SUB of 8.9 acres into 9 lots, two outlots, a private street and a variance to permit 5 lots to be accessed via one private street subject to the conditions in the staff report, 1 through 28 with the addition of two other conditions. Number 29. That the applicant submit a plan for the eastern part of the property line to protect the neighbor to the east. Boy, that's real open but that's the way it's going to be. Number 30. Staff to develop strict criteria that would allow for building a home 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 r I F I L�� on Lot 9 that would negate the impact of building on the bluff due to our granting a variance to the bluff setback requirement. Farmakes: Motion's been made. Do I hear a second? Skubic: Second. Farmakes: Second being made. We'll vote. Comad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat for Lotus Glen (495 -22 SUB) of 8.9 acres into 9 lots and two outlots for ' private streets and a variance to permit five lots to be accessed via one private street subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit street names to Fire Marshal for approval. 2. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1. 3. Approved turn arounds must be provided for fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet. Re- submit plan and dimensions pursuant to 1991 U.F.C. Sec. 10.204(d). 4. Additional fire hydrant will be required by Lot 6 and at the entrance off Frontier Trail. 5. Entrance signage must comply with City Code requirements. A separate sign permit I must be submitted for any signage. 6. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 7. Dwellings on slopes exceeding 25% and dwellings with 102" or more of unequal fill will be required to be designed by a structure engineer. 8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the city for review and formal approval. 9. 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 32 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 II u Handbook. The applicant shall contact the Natural Resource Conservation Service for a seed mixture that will be effective in wooded areas. 10. The applicant shall field verify and document the bluff areas on site. The applicant shall relocate the buildings pads on Lot 9 up away from the bluff to meet setback requirements. 11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The ' applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm shall be based on Walker's Pondnet ' model. The city will be contracting review of this work to Bonestroo. 12. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control ° Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the utilities and ponding areas. 15. The applicant shall have a wetland delineation report prepared for the site. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities ' and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 16. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level. 1 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 ' 20. The public utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the city utility 17. Existing wells and /or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to city and Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations. 18. The proposed single family residential development of 8.7 developable acres is ' responsible for a water quality connection charge of $6,960.00 and a water quantity fee of $17,226.00. These fees are payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat. Credits will be given to these fees based on the applicant providing for the city's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final plat review. 19. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found i during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City ' Engineer. 20. The public utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the city utility standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The ' plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the city's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 21. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary right -of -way to achieve a 30 foot wide strip of land lying east of the existing centerline of Frontier Trail. i 22. The applicant shall enter into a cost sharing agreement with the City for reimbursement of the ponding improvements. ' 23. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. 24. A fifteen foot tree removal limit shall be established around all building pads. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to excavation and grading. Tree removal limits shall be shown on all building permit surveys. 25. Applicant must use a trench box for the installation of the water line in order to minimize impact on canopy coverage. 26. Applicant must submit revised canopy coverage and removal calculations as well as a , revised survey showing the appropriate coverage and removal area. 34 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 27. Park and trail fees are required per city ordinance in lieu of parkland dedication. 28. The bluff area shall be shown on all building permit applications for this subdivision. 29. That the applicant submit a plan for the eastern part of the property line to protect the neighbor to the east. 30. Staff to develop strict criteria that would allow for- building a home on Lot 9 that would negate the impact of building on the bluff due to our granting a variance to the bluff setback requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Y Farmakes: We'll now vote on the bluff setback variance. Do we have to do this as two issues or just group it as one? ' Conrad: I incorporated something that would negate to vote on it. Generous: Well I had it as a separate motion but he added. Just to clarify you might want to take. To clarify it you might want to address the second motion or the variance for the bluff setback separately. Farmakes: Alright. Would you like to make a motion separately for the bluff setback variance itself? Conrad: Could your friendly amendment be attached to that? ' Farmakes: Sure. Conrad: Okay. I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to the bluff setback requirement on this particular case. Skubic: And I would like to make an amendment to that. That the whole setback on the eastern side of Lot 9 be 20 feet. Conrad: Minimum of 20 feet. ' Skubic: Minimum of 20 feet. I Farmakes: Is that acceptable? 1 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: Yeah, that is. Farmakes: Okay. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Conrad: Discussion? Can we have discussion? Farmakes: Sure. Conrad: And probably this is discussion that reflects back on the first motion too. Aanenson: We'll integrate them. Conrad: What? Aanenson: We'll integrate the two. Conrad: Okay. Just so the staff understands. It's sort of a, I'm looking for no impact. Aanenson: Right. And I think we wanted that criteria before it goes to Council. Make it stricken from the motion. Conrad: Okay. Hey, they can build without the variance and they're not penalized. I'm looking for your wisdom and if it's not there, you know, then they shouldn't be allowed to it so that's sort of the underlining thought that I've got. Farmakes: Alright. Motion's been made with an amendment. We'll vote on it now. Com -ad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of tt variance to the bluff setback requirement based on the valiance findings contained in the s report relative to the bluff setback variance request, and subject to the following condition: 1. The setback on the whole eastern side of Lot 9 be a minimum of 20 feet All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. W do aff L Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 AN AMENDMENT TO THE CM CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES AND GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Don Halla Mark & Kay Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail 770 Creekwood John Rask presented the staff repoit on this item. Farmakes: Any questions? Mehl: I've got a couple of questions. Or maybe it's just is one. Confirmation verify fy some things in my .own mind. Interim use would allow -them to expand their business or ' increase their sales with merchandise that is permitted under wholesale retail nurseries, is that right? Rask: Yeah. They'd have to come back through the interim use permit process and apply for that. Mehl: Okay. And would it then, I assume that interim use would also allow them to construct either a temporary or maybe even a permanent greenhouse type structure... Rask: Correct. Again, we'd go through the process. We'd look at the standards and the conditions that would go along with it and if they met the conditions, and the timeframe we would. Mehl: ...retail activities out of that. Rask: Correct. Mehl: The determination here for, on the interim use, who determines what that time frame is, if it is a time frame? It may be an event such as moving the MUSA line, that sort of thing. Who determines what that is? Is it something that's discussed with the applicant? Is it something that is negotiated with them and mutually agreed to by both parties, or is it a forced issue or what? 37 t Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 Rask: It ultimately will be set by the City Council upon recommendation from the staff and Planning Commission. And comments from the applicant. I don't know if we would come to agreeance on a date but it certainly would be something we'd try to work with the applicant on to find a suitable timeframe in which to terminate the use. Mehl: Okay, thanks. r Farmakes: Is that it? I Mehl: That's all. Farmakes: Alright, thank you. Does the applicant wish to make any comments? Come up to the podium. State your name and address. Mark Halla: Hi. I'm Mark Halla. I live at 770 Creekwood, Chanhassen. In reading the staffs memorandum dated November 29, 1995 I have the following comments. Staff has plainly stated that Halla Nursery is a non - conforming use. They also have stated ... non- conforming uses, Section 20- ...states that, and I quote... elimination of non - conforming uses, lots and structures or a use that impacts on adjacent properties. Halla Nursery is not interested in eliminating or having eliminated our business. We come before you in hopes of legalizing our business... staff made Halla Nursery a non - conforming use when they adopted their new code in approximately 1990. In changing their code, thus making us illegal without so much informing us, much less inviting our input. We think they made a mistaken when they adopted that code and we're simply trying to correct a mistake. Staff has recommended Halla Nursery be allowed to legally exist only under an interim use permit. They say that all interim use permits must have termination dates. It's frustrating for me to hear this from staff. We're operating a third generation, 53 year old business. Does anybody really believe it's fair for the city to put an end date to that business? I have no interest in becoming an interim use. Halla Nursery is and will remain a permanent business for the city of Chanhassen until such time as it's shareholders decide otherwise. We're not interested in becoming an interim use. During our previous discussions Halla Nursery has proposed correcting staffs mistake on ... A2, Agricultural Estate district allowable uses to include... what I think the amendment should be. All retail nurseries and garden centers currently operating within the city of Chanhassen as a part of the A2 zoning from whatever date prior to 1990. We believe this change is the best way to help the city and Halla Nursery to resolve the zoning issue. In fact, ' the amendment would make Halla Nursery an acceptable legal use rather than a non- conforming use. Another suggestion we have is simply rezone ... BH, the business highway, rather than the A2. This also would make Halla Nursery an accepted legal use and actually bring the city a higher tax base. Just as we wish the city to have more flexibility in resolving these issues, we realize we too much be flexible. We're willing to accept any ... legal accepted I 38 1 1 ' A Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 use... In addition, I have some rhetorical questions for you which I think may help you realize the ... and that by allowing those uses to continue but preventing us from doing the same is inconsistent enforcement. The Arboretum sells retail gifts to the public. Is it consistent to allow them to do so but try to prevent us ... Arboretum has and continues to construct additional greenhouses. Is it consistent to allow them to do so and not allow us? Holasek sells both retail and wholesale. Is it consistent to allow them to do so and not to allow us? Holasek continues to construction additional greenhouses. Is it consistent to allow them but ' not to allow us? Wilson's Northwest Nursery and Wholesale sells retail and wholesale, and even offers... design and installation services from a supposedly wholesale only establishment. Is it consistent to allow them to continue doing business that way? Yet try and force us to ' stop. Prairie Market expanded their retail area. Constructed additional greenhouses, enlarged their parking, remodeled and added to their retail building and has over half a dozen additional signs. Is it consistent to allow them to do so and not allow us? Is the city ' prepared to force all of the above business to become interim uses? Set an end to their businesses. My point is simple... businesses in any way, shape or form are not absolutely consistent with ... but simply legalizing the existing retail businesses that were in operation at the time that you changed the code. Any questions? ' Farmakes: Any questions for the applicant? Mark Halla: Thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Any further comments? Kay Halla: Good evening. I'm Kay Halla and I live at 770 Creekwood in Chanhassen and I just wanted to put ... my feelings. I would like to see you consider recommending ... and the A2 zoning again to be consistent... I'd like to see those be permitted, allow as permitted uses and ' when I looked over the list which the staff prepared of nurseries that were, nurseries and garden centers that were—business highway such as Lotus and ... but the two that if you changed the zoning to allow the retail in existence prior to the zoning change, that would really involve two ... involve Halla Nursery and possibly Holasek... I understand they definitely have ... and I know they've been around for a long time so I'm assuming that they probably sold retail before the zoning change also. And I think since it only involves two of these ' properties, for instance if you add the interim use and retail to the existing zoning, that won't involve a lot of properties and then you'll also have the option for nurseries that have just in wholesale, to add retail space and you'd be encouraging more retail that way. And I think by ' just amending it the way Mark and I have suggested ... and as far as the future, I would be, if a structure is being built today, and I know that's a concern ... I know Don planned his development and there's only so many things you can do after you develop. And another ' concern the city, or the staff had mentioned is that if the nursery, if were to sell down the 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 road and let's say we were a permitted use and we were to sell down the road, I believe we would still have to sell to somebody who was going to have a use that was a permitted use in A2 zoning. So we couldn't sell to somebody who wasn't permitted in A2. I believe you have to sell to somebody who could operate legally in A2 as opposed to someone who might want to run a car wash or something like that. So I think if that's the way that is, that he or she... because if we decided to sell 100 years down the road or whatever, I think it would have to be somebody... Any questions? ' Farmakes: Any questions? Thank you. Don Halla: Good evening gentlemen of the Planning Commission. This is a dilemma for us ' as much as for you. I don't relish being in your shoes and I don't relish being in the shoes that I'm in. It's a problem. We're here because I've requested a zoning change out of desperation because I was being told that I couldn't put up a greenhouse so it would... code to permit it. The Planning department says no because it's ... and that's not really true. We have 9 acres of retail area that has been retail use since the early 1970's. We sold...take people in the area and they buy trees... We're actually... developing, we thought we had an agreement with the city that we would reduce our size and not have the conflicts and problems... By doing subdivision that allows the retail space to actually be reduced from approximately 100 acres down to 12 acres. We have called the city on several occasions and asked whether we , needed a building permits to build the buildings and we were told by the building department, no. That it was not necessary. We followed those rules. In each occasion of building or adding a building... and in fact the rules and regulations that we tried to follow. Now you're ' down to probably the most unpermanent structure that we're talking about, the greenhouses. Greenhouses are not permanent structures. Other areas in the city, other people in A2, have been permitted and allowed to because they're not current. They're not required. They just ' go put them up. We again tried to follow the rules and we wanted to say ahead of time this was our intention. We wanted to be able to do something. And we were told no, even though you don't need a permit and so forth. That's intensifying the use. Certainly there's a ' different definition on our point as to whether we feel we're protecting our crops ... our total area from 100 acres down to... I do have a son and daughter -in -law involved in the business. Third generation and a son they hope will go into that business also. We don't want to be shut down at any given date or time ... You heard from Mark basically about the other people that have built greenhouses and so forth ... that's all we want to do, is put up greenhouses. I ' don't think that we're getting complaints from our neighbors around us. In fact, in doing our subdivision we have a couple of major builders who find that they feel that the nursery in the center of the development is very much of a big plus to them, to the community. Those people being Charles Cudd Developers. Also Jyland is interested in our property. They wanted the whole thing for development, except the retail area. They liked the area of our nursery in the center. They felt it was a plus. So these people who build half million dollar ' 40 1 L Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 plus homes think that it's possible, and yet we're here discussing it. Trying to come up with a solution that works for everybody. Maybe one simple solution to our dilemma would be for... or direction from you gentlemen to direct staff to say, let them build their greenhouses... that is not creating any problem. I don't have a crystal ball... solution perfectly for everybody. All I know is that we're looking to ... looking at half a dozen greenhouses right away so that we didn't have trouble in the future. Well that's not what we want to do. We don't want to do that. We'd be forced to do that because it says in the future that we have to stay 300 feet back from our property line if there's houses. So if we sell the lots and they build houses, we have a restriction and problem back there. So it is a dilemma. I don't know what is the best solution. I hope everybody's crystal ball works and... thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else that wishes to make a comment? Not seeing any, I'll entertain a motion to end the public hearing. Skubic moved, Peterson seconded to close the public healing. The public healing was closed. Farmakes: Comments from commissioners. Don. Mehl: I was just looking through the conditions. You had talked about ... I really think the interim use is the way to go. Sooner or later that area is going to become residential... Farmakes: Okay, thank you. Bob. Skubic: I appreciate the staffs position that we need to regulate and yet accommodate the businesses. The nursery here and interim use seems to be the most legitimate way of accomplishing that. However, if I was in business I would not like to have a termination date set that tells me that I cannot continue business. I think it's not a very good burden to carry around. It's my impression that that's the major point of, major issue here. And I think we talked about the alternative conditional use and the concern there was, that there is no termination date. However, are there not controls, conditions that can be set up that would permit the use for nursery purposes and still enable the city to control it so that it's ... for whatever future developments there are. There's probably a difficult task to do. I don't know how you would construct that. You probably can't make it water tight. Aanenson: The difference between the interim use and the conditions use is that you cannot deny conditional use. The only thing you can do is attach conditions to mitigate that. So the reason we had a concern with that is, you may get it in an area where it may not be an appropriate place to put it. With the interim use you can say, it's not appropriate. That area's in transition. But what you're doing is again you have to go back up and because we're talking specifically about this site, you can't just say only this property can, or this applicant 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 has the right to that. It opens up for all A2. So in making it a conditional use, anybody has the right for that use. All you can do is attach conditions to mitigate it. You can't say they ' can't have it... On the interim use you may say it may be appropriate here, it may not. Or you can say, well a shorter life here because this area seems to be turning over faster or those sort of things. So you've kind of locked in to perpetuity in that in all A2, that they can ' have... That was the concern of the staff. Skubic: And staff is concerned that the conditions wouldn't be sufficient to find for future development, future evolution? Aanenson: Well you can architecturally attach conditions you just you know, those sort of ' things. You can't say you can't go there. For the interim use permit you can say, one year and that may be enough for someone to say, well I'm not going to invest that kind of improvements in the property if I only have it for one year. And it may be in an area it may ' be appropriate for 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, 30 years. But under conditional use, it's there forever. So that person's going to put more investment and again you're looking at uses that are probably not going to be there for the... See we can't isolate this. It has to affect all A2. ' That's the dilemma. It affects all A2 property, which is a significant amount in the city. You can't just make it for one person. That's, herein lies the problem. It's all A2. , Skubic: Thank you. I hope that some of my fellow commissioners have some wisdom on this. ' Farmakes: Thank you. Ladd. ' Conrad: Well I think the good news tonight is that we should get this out of here and you can take it to the City Council. I think what staff has presented to me is probably appropriate for Chanhassen. The interim use permit I think for A2 district is the logical thing to do. I think the ordinance has been soften a little bit. My perspective is that it is a penalty. ' Obviously it's going to be. It's going to restrict the Halla's operation but to a degree but on the other hand I think it gives them some flexibility. The key is in the permitting process. The conditional use. And that's what will be specifically for them of interest. And in regards to that, what is the process for the interim use permit. Does that come through us? ' Aanenson: Sure. They would have to make an application. There'd be a public hearing and that's again, that's where the ... and we've raised that before and the opinion of the city attorney if we expand. I mean to say there's a cloud over it, because it's an interim use, there's a ' cloud now because it's non - conforming. They've admitted it's retail. It's non - conforming so there's still a cloud over it. And we want to acknowledge the fact that there's retail and try to legitimize it inasmuch as we can and allow them, and whatever time frame they put on and ' 42 1 F Li f Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 7 they come back and everybody thinks it's been wonderful and we extend it some more, ' certainly. I mean nobody wants to say that, but we do want that control that if down the road there's problems, then it's not there for perpetuity. ' Conrad: How do I know, how does somebody who reads the ordinance Kate, know what the process is? They come to you? Aanenson: Yes. There is an interim use in the ordinance and I believe we've given that to you to explain that they get an application. Go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and City Council for the ultimate approval. ' Conrad: Where do I find that? Aanenson: It's in the City Code. Conrad: Oh, it's in the code. Okay. So any interim use has a standard form and there's a process associated with it. Are the guidelines set? ' Aanenson: Yes. Rask: Yes. We've proposed additional guidelines here. Aanenson: In the staff report. Rask: That would apply specifically to wholesale and retail nurseries. In addition to the other standards that you would have. ' Aanenson: Right, and they've raised legitimate concerns. What we've brought up before. Some of the setbacks... and I think that's where we need to apply some flexibility in this specific case. Conrad: Okay these are not, what I see, that's not what I meant by guidelines. Guidelines would be in the permit itself. So this is the overall rule but now the guidelines come in. ' Now we have the interim use permit itself and what are the guidelines to do stuff? Aanenson: We've imposed some, as John has indicated on page 5. We tried to, and that's ' why the Halla's are saying there is a couple of problems that don't fit. And we agree. Again, because they're existing and the setbacks on some of those, they may not work. We talked about the hours of operation. Again, there was some concern about Saturday, Sundays. ' Obviously on holidays a lot of people do go out and do their landscaping. 1 43 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: Let me, again. My point would be, guidelines for length of interim use. Things that I don't see on this page but are there guidelines that are necessary? Or do we just approach it one at a time? Aanenson: I believe on that one we felt that that's something we'll just have to look at, depending on where it's location is. Conrad: Anything else in that process that's not covered. You know that's not covered on this page. And again I'm using the word guidelines. Standards might be a word. Aanenson: Sure. This is a criteria specifically for the nursery. There is also criteria for an interim use permit. So this would be directly, what we put in this report is specifically geared for the nursery, retail /wholesale nursery criteria. So then there's also the criteria for interim use permit which talks about the length of time that it'd be permitted. Compatibility. Those sorts of things... Conrad: Okay. Those are real important because I think if I were the Halla's, I wouldn't want willy nilly, and you know you'd like to have some kind of support up front that directs us in terms of how to put in some numbers. So when you fill in the blanks, how do you do it rather than grab something from mid -air. Okay. That's all my comments. Farmakes: Thank you. Craig. Peterson: I'd love to be able to send this back to staff and have them come back with a creative idea but I think we've done that about half a dozen times now so I'll refrain from making that recommendation. I, along with everybody else, is frustrated and I have been frustrated we can't find a real happy medium between the two parties. I think as the other commissioners have stated, this is probably the best recommendation we can do. It doesn't totally negatively affect the applicant and certainly... negatively affect the city in other A2 areas. I think one point that the applicant I think needs to at least be somewhat aware of, that the interim use isn't, that at the end of the interim use, that the intent of the city is that we have to dismantle the operation. We clearly, speaking on behalf of the city I guess, the intent is to certainly not do that and continue the interim use as long as it's feasible for both parties. I think that's what Ladd, you're trying to get a date out of, in many ways a date or the length of time. At one of the last meetings we talked about the fact that it's a renewable thing. If we set it 5 years or 10 years and we come back Kate I believe and ask for an extension, that go on in perpetuity. So I think the risk of having a business go out, going under because of lack of renewal is probably very low risk so with that, I'll concur with the staff recommendation. 44 J J n u 1 J I I� Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: Okay. Conrad: Can I make a quick point Mr. Chairman? Farmakes: Sure. Conrad: My point Craig was, what you like to do is put down criteria that makes it less willy nilly when this permit comes through. So it's like the guideline would say, renewal is acceptable under these conditions. So right now in what we have here, you don't see any of that. You don't know. I don't know when renewal is acceptable and if I were somebody coming in, you'd kind of want to know what that is, and that was my point before. Aanenson: Right. And what we're doing at this level right now is deciding whether or not we want to make retail an interim use component in the A2. Then they may never come through. But we are providing that opportunity as a mechanism for them, if they do choose to do that. And then we would develop the permitting process, again based on that criteria. Conrad: Thanks. Farmakes: My comments on this issue are, I think staffs done a good job in outlining this. I like the intent statement. A couple of the issues specifically, the time. Some of the definitions concern me a little bit. However, within those recommendations there are correction capabilities within there. So if they are a problem, the City Council could act on that. And I'm comfortable with that. The whole basis of when we were discussing this issue is, it begins with grandfathering and then it becomes the interpretation of whether or not it's an intensified use. We're really not set up here to legal definitions. The City Council has the lawyer at the meeting. Certainly if they were to get into arguing definitions and intent of ordinance and federal, state, county, municipal and so on, that's kind of out of our review. What we kind of look at here is that, as the city grows, what kind of legal precedence are we setting for these older businesses and what type of capabilities are we allowing them to compete while they're there. It seems to me that this use that's proposed by the city staff is a good one. I agree with Ladd that perhaps that needs to be defined better for the applicants since they are running the business and are concerned whether or not it's going to be closed down if a neighbor happens to move next door and makes it a point or so on. But I think that the city has, as I said, has put self correction mechanisms within here and allows some latitude for the business and allows latitude for the city to act if that becomes a problem. That's the end of my comments. If somebody wishes to make a motion. Peterson: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to amend Sections 20- 576(7), 20 -1, and 20 -257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries 45 F� 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 in the A2 district as an interim use as outlined in the staff report dated November 27, 1995 with the amendments read as submitted in the staff report. Subject to the conditions 1 through 9. Farmakes: Is there a second? Mehl: Second. Peterson moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council amend Sections 20- 576(7), 20 -1, and 20 -257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries in the A -2 Dishict as an Interim Use, as outlined in the staff report dated November 27, 1995, with the following conditions to apply to the wholesale and retail nurseries: L� 1. The site must be on a collector or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan. I 2. The minimum lot size is five acres. 3. All storage and yard areas as well as buildings must be setback fifty (50) feet from public or private road right -of -ways, and three hundred (300) feet from an adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty (50) feet from a side lot line, whichever is greater. 4. All outdoor storage areas must be buffered from adjacent properties. Buffering may be accomplished using berms, fencing, landscaping, natural topography, or increased setbacks. The City Council may require storage areas to be completely screened by one hundred (100) percent opaque fencing or berming. 5. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The City Council may further restrict hours of operation if the use is located adjacent to property guided residential as identified in the comprehensive plan. 6. Light sources shall be shielded. 7. No outside speaker systems shall be allowed. 8. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Prior to the permit expiring, the applicant may request an extension to the interim use permit by submitting a new application. The / n C' I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 renewal application will be subject to all city ordinances including any new ordinances ' enacted after the original approval. 9. One wall sign not to exceed ninety (90) square feet, and one monument sign not ' exceeding twenty -four (24) square feet in size or eight (8) feet in height shall be permitted on the premises. The Council may further restrict the size and location of signs if the use is located adjacent to property guided residential as identified in the ' comprehensive plan. All voted in favor- and the motion carried unanimously. ' PUBLIC HEARING: A SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SECTION 20-267, REODUMG INDIVIDUAL DIMENSIONAL LETTERS AND TO ALLOW A SECOND WALL MOUNTED SIGN LOCATED AT 7901 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. , GARY BROWN. Farmakes: I have a conflict on this issue so I'm going to turn this over to Ladd to act as Chairman. Farmakes left the room at this time. ' John Rask presented the staff report on this item. ' Conrad: Are there any questions of staff? Public hearing. Let the applicant come forward or a representative. I don't see Gary here. He's a chicken huh. Where's Gary? Any other public comments on this issue? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Peterson moved, Skubic seconded to close the public healin g g. The public he, in was close d. P ' Conrad: Comments from the commission. I'm not going to go around. Any comments in general on the staff report. ' Mehl: I assume the reason the applicant put the, I went out there and I kind of looked at both ends of the building and if there were, I know if there were a sign just on the north end of the building, the only way you're going to see it is if you're southbound on Great Plains Boulevard. If you're in the area of Highway 5 or northbound off of TH 5 onto Great Plains, you wouldn't know that that's a car wash building unless the door opened and a dripping car was coming out. But on the other hand it's going to be, it's probably just going to be local ' people that are going to use it ... whole lot of traffic off of Highway 5. I guess I don't see a problem with the... I Conrad: But hearing northbound, which is permitted if it's done properly. 1 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Mehl: Exactly. Conrad: Even though it says entrance? Rask: We allowed that display message. I guess what we were proposing is as long as he's got reduced signs to pull off the entrance. He could do, put it small and say entrance or exit or whatever it is. Conrad: This is what he should do. Rask: Yeah, so we're suggesting he pulls it out and do some more appropriate directional signage. Conrad: Yeah. What's the sign. Aanenson: Yeah, at eye level. Conrad: Bob, anything? Craig? Anything? I sure think the staff report's appropriate right now. I think Gary should come in and talk to us if he has a difference of opinion but is there a motion? Peterson: I recommend the Planning Commission deny the request for the sign variance #95- 12 based upon the findings in the staff report... Conrad: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? Peterson moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the request for sign variance 995 -12 based on the findings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with a wall sign. 48 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 The variance request is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion caiiied unanimously. Farmakes returned at this time. ' PUBLIC HEARING: A SIGN PLAN REVIEW TO REMODEL THE EXISTING CHANHASSEN BOWLJFILLY'S AND A PORTION OF THE FRONTIER BUILDING INTO AN ENTERTAINMENT ' CENTER A VARIANCE TO ALLOW WALL PROJECTING SIGNS IN AN AREA ZONED BG GENERAL BUSINESS AND CBD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD ' AND SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET CHANHASSEN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER LOTUS REALTY. Ll 1 Public Present: Name Address " Brad Johnson Vernelle Clayton Karen & Robert R. Copeland Truman Howell 7425 Frontier Trail 422 Santa Fe Circle 14 Cooper Avenue, Edina 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Shaimin Al -Jaff and Dave Hempel pirsented the staff repot on this item. ' Farmakes: Anybody have any questions of staff? Okay, ones from the applicant. Vernelle Clayton: Good evening. My name is Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle here in Chanhassen. I'm very happy to be here to talk with you about this proposal... I think that from the reaction we've been getting from folks that have seen this proposed plan in our office... As many of you know, although some of you are new, we did sort of a show and tell on a preliminary basis in ... August perhaps. Although perhaps a little bit earlier. The Planning Commission... to show you what we had in mind to do with this property... we then ' went back to the drawing board and more importantly went to the HRA with a similar plan, with the same plan and because there are three... approval and we have spent some time now working with builders and ... set a plans that are somewhat the same but ... and easier to understand. Just briefly for those of you that are new and haven't seen that plan, it was... number of years of planning by a number of folks, including the city, for a number of proposals to use that property. And when it became apparent that the city was not going to develop it as either a rec center or community center or conference center, we got together EEO 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 ' �I with the folks that owned the ... Pauly has it's own set of needs to move. He's planning to be and have a new Champs style restaurant... 9,000 square foot large restaurant in the area which ' is now Filly's ... We like to keep 60 year old businesses in town if we can and the other is, to... We appreciate your commitment to public service and taking all the time. I know it... We have with us a couple of future owners, the Copeland's ... and they will be one of the owners. , Bob will be participating in the development and the construction next year. He'll be one of the owners of the cinema. We have with us too, Truman Howell. He was the architect... as well as earlier we met with all the other owners ... you may have seen Dan Dahlin, who owns , the bowling alley. And the rest of that building was here in this building for a while but he decided he couldn't make ... as well and we met with a couple... and update them on the status of things. One of the things that they all want ... is there is a certain amount of urgency now ' that we have the plans to meet the time frame, time schedule that both Pauly's and the ... very doldrums of summer ... So they would like, if possible, the best time for opening a movie theater would be in May and we're going to do what we can to meet that time frame. It's ' going to be really tough. Site plan approval is what we're here for. In our experience and your... Chanhassen is a fairly new and growing town ... site plan applications like our's. Mostly we're talking about how we would locate a building on a site and how we work around all of , that. In this case we've got the buildings and we're dealing primarily with the site and how it works and so forth. Typically one might say why is that. Why do you need site plan approval? As you know... change in use, there are permit requirements for site plan approval , and so we ... essentially now changing the use ... but rather we're changing the use and going with the current ordinance... However we felt it was important to the overall look of the ' project... and we have therefore come up with a plan that ... the facade, boardwalk and the parking lot and the landscaping that goes along with it. The facade is changed since the last time we have shown it to you. As I mentioned earlier, it's much simpler and easier to ' understand. The materials are primarily brick and the ... drivit which was the material used on the Americana Bank building. The boardwalk is much the same as when we first showed it to you. It's been intended all along that that be the element that adds the most to the pedestrian friendliness and character of the project, and... And some of the other problems... The challenge was to fit everything in with the existing architecture of Chanhassen... different look to this project. We chose the old style, the downtown look ... the extent of public ' sentiment for this type of-and developers who have ... to reach back and get that for all of us. The sense of stability and a sense of community that we all feel is a part of that look and apparently we are all missing in society today and we're ... new urbanism and that's a term that ' Truman Howell often uses and ... so with that I'd like to introduce Truman Howell. Truman Howell: Thanks Vernelle. Good evening. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the Planning t Commission. I'm Truman Howell. An architect. My office is in Wayzata, Minnesota so I get down here quite frequently and in the recent past few years have worked on several of the ' projects that have either come before you or to your predecessors so I'm ... back again and 50 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 would like to give you a quick review of the project and what we feel is an exciting solution to a problem. A visual problem, if nothing else. We're also revitalizing a part of the... This is a drawing that is done by a civil engineer showing the existing site, which you probably are all relatively familiar with but just in review. Basically this is the Filly's bar area. The facade along here has the entry to the bowling alley and then the warehouse in this area. And the Frontier building over here. This is the bus park and ride area and Pauly Drive along there. What we attempted to do was create an image for the area that would deal with the problems of...in terms of a, hopefully create an exciting facade ... and we think that we've, one of the, using the problems of the site, we think we've developed something that will do that. The first element was the development of the raised streetscape. I know it's been referred to as a boardwalk and in some cases there may be some boards there but primarily it will be a raised portion around the faces of the new townscape that will allow pedestrian access through. Through stairways. Through handicap ramps. To the various locations along the facade. This being the Frontier building here. Will be connected with a walkway over to a ramp coming up the 4 feet. As you know this alley has quite a ... grade as you come down the ' hill and that's what develops then the difference in the floor elevation between here and the existing parking lot. We bring people up onto this approximately 4 foot high in most all of the areas here. So it would be a raised platform. As you sit in your car here, you'd be ' looking up at the buildings. Obviously handrails along the entire area. We would have planters and on the streetscape itself also with large boxes that we'd be planting trees, shrubs, that kind of thing, and some along the faces of the building as well. We would install classic glass, so that the entire area is lit at night. We would put lights on the building itself. Shining up on the building and also then of course in the parking lots we would have more conventional lighting that would be the shielded type so that we could have pedestrians walking in the parking lot safely at night. It's a great place for small gatherings of people in the summer playing cards at tables. Outdoor dining near the restaurant area. We have even some bike stands that are up there so we can hopefully control that activity as well. This is basically the format that we chose to ... to the new facade. The new activity. The bowling alley access is in this area. The retail area is here. The theater is between 5 and 8 individual theaters. And the initial here would be a retail area. Actually probably professional offices along that eastern side of the building. Down here of course would be the restaurant, as was indicated earlier. As a part of the development of the streetscape we would use, as I mentioned before, the handrails similar to this. The base of the raised streetscape would be ' with a keystone and concrete topping. We would have then the more classic light fixtures and this is just an indication of what a building behind there might look like. The drawings that I will show you now are basically, well first let me show you the actual construction of ' how we're going to do this. As you know on the faces of the building now we have a pre- cast, approximately 8 inch deep fins on a pre -cast wall and those extend up to 25 feet of the total height of the building. We're building this streetscape up 4 feet on that building to ' match the existing interior floor. The green that you see here is a pre - existing panel. We'll 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 be cutting openings in for windows and doors would be handled in a similar fashion. We would then extend above the existing panel to cap off the top and we'd develop a facia or a face along here on the front of that existing building. It would be either a brick or effice, which is the generic term for such products as drivit, which we do have a sample for here. And that would give us the opportunity to do various types of patterns and undulations in the face of the building. We then will use a reinforced fiberglass material to form cornices along the tops of some of the buildings and also in some cases some of the columns that you will see on the building. That will be attached to then a back -up material that will provide the , level facing from which to build the brick and the stucco or the drivit material on the face. So that basically gives you an idea of what ... This then would be the appearance that you would see of the buildings above the 4 foot elevated streetscape. On the end would be the restaurant area that would literally go from this location over here. If you recall, the existing facility now, we have an existing roofline roughly in this area and it pops up and goes across fairly consistently across the face of the building at that point. This was the place to then break the building into 5 different pieces and develop character for each one of the buildings on an individual basis, much like what would have happened in the 1930's, 20's, 40's as downtowns developed. This building here is brick. This building is brick. This building is brick and this is a effice material, as well as is this. As the primary material. Those two basic types of material is what we're planning to use on the buildings themselves. This would be the entry into the bowling alley and into the video game area. These four locations here are the entrances for the retail store... clock tower element here that can be seen from Highway 5 so that everyone needs a landmark as they go by and I think that this will become one as people drive back and forth along TH 5 and they'll see what time it is in the morning or ' evening. This is the theater going from this location down to the corner. This would be the marquee. These would be backlit elements up higher. Now behind most of these things, as ' you probably have guessed, there is no second floor in this area. These are fake windows. However we can do that as such that they will appear as though they are in fact windows. The same with the elements on this project in this building right here. Other images ... as we go around the building. Because the theater is actually, has an angle entry to it, you're actually seeing here the front at an angle. As you look straight on to here, this would be what you'd see. Reminiscent of the grand old theaters of, well maybe you folks, some of you aren't old enough to know but I certainly remember going to the theaters such as the Orpheum and those kinds in downtown and I guess they're revitalizing... Then we were interested in looking at, what do we do with the alley. As we turn the corner and go back up this incline. ' Well we decided that probably the best use of an alley is to make it an alley, only a nicer alley and so what we did there was to turn the corner with the theater so again now you're looking at an oblique angle in the front. This would be the side of the theater and then we ' turned it into basically, obviously clean it up and repair any of the problems with the face, if there are some now, if you've noticed, and this then would be the entrance for either the use or some small retail the A look then back the If , professional along side. on west. we go 52 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 back to the restaurant area. The west side of that. It will be a continuation with not only the streetscape, the picnic tables and that kind of outdoor activity there as well. And also we have the delivery area and the refuse area, which are behind the wall and enclosed. And then the Frontier building, which would be in brick with the reinforced plastic cornices at the top. Now I'll show you briefly the material. Obviously for presentation purposes these colors seem a little bright and intended to be so such that each building would stand out, probably stronger than they will in reality because of materials unless we use glazed brick... quite that ' yellow so I'll show you the materials we're looking for. This is the efflce material, which is basically on a backer board as we have here. Then the styrofoam reinforcement. A scratch coat, a brown coat and then a finish coat. A variety of textures and probably close to 1,000 different colors that we can use. And in the bank building, I mean sorry. In the theater building, as you can see the stones in there could be insized into this material so in fact it did look like large stones on the building itself. The brick. This would be the center building. The clock tower building. This would be the second building in with the prairie looking building. And this would be what we've the term, we call the bank building and the one with the entry to the bowling alley. So these are the materials for the facings. Farmakes: You're showing contrasting g colors. Those colors you dust showed us are for the ' larger mass of the building and then the detailing would be. The colors that you just showed us are for the master part of the building and then the detailing would be in a contrasting color...? Truman Howell: Right. ' Farmakes: Okay. Truman Howell: Then the ... this is reinforced fiberglass and there are an incredible number of various designs of cornices that would go on to the face at the tops of several of the buildings here. This one would be brick right up to the top and then we would put over a metal siding. But these are the kinds of materials that we would use to accomplish that. This then material ' here is the keystone material which would be used on the actual streetscape. It would basically be a retaining wall... So those are the basic elements of the project. How we're going to put together and an idea of what materials we'll be using. If there are some ' questions, I can show the variety of colors that are available. I think they're, what we're shooting for is basically the colors that you're seeing in the materials here. We do have, for example, a variety of options. We have more than one ... but we're not confined I should say to any specific tone. It's pretty broad. And the same is for the cornices as well ... have been used on other buildings. These are just some examples... and they too have a variety of colors that one can use. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: I have a question on the expanses that we see on the left or right of the drawing. The back lit glass area in front of the entrance to the marquee area and to the theater and the opposite end of the stream on the far left side. On my left. It sort of looks like a TV set with a ball inside of it. Can you describe. Truman Howell: That would not be the ... logo I'm sure. Farmakes: That is the restaurant logo? Truman Howell: Yes. But no, it is not. I'm saying it's what I put on there. I don't know what their logo will be. It might be ... for the restaurant. He's not indicated what that is to me, other than what I'm proposing here is a large backlit sign. Farmakes: So it's more like a pylon situation than a, incorporated into the wall as opposed to... Truman Howell: Yes. This actually sits out away from the building. The structure is away from the building. A two sided, or three sided, well it's literally four sided but the short side is going back. Comes out. Wraps around the building and goes back into the building. It is backlit, yes. Farmakes: ...or is the entire square backlit? Truman Howell: This portion on two sides is backlit. Farmakes: Alright. So the area that's yellow right now is. Truman Howell: All lit. Is the backlit portion. Farmakes: Alright. So it's a marquee type. Truman Howell: And the same down here. These up here are not signs as such. They are lit, backlit with a soft color. Farmakes: An adjustable plastic letters go in on that? Truman Howell: No, no. No, no. Down here, yes. But not up here. 54 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: Alright, okay. Is there any lighting on this situation that, other than the street lighting, that we're unaware of? Is there lighting or neon or lights up at the top or anything that we're not seeing in the drawing? Truman Howell: Only the options that were allowed through your ordinance, in terms of backlit lighting. We've indicated I think the locations of the lights. As a matter of fact, there's a sign which are indicated here... Now those are not all backlit signs. We're talking about sandblasting wood signs. We talked about some neon. What we tried to locate here is basically where those things can take place. Farmakes: Okay. So what is being proposed is that come Christmas time, running lights may not necessarily be running along the top of the roofline and then left up there? Truman Howell: Oh, no. Not necessarily... Skubic: I have some materials questions. What is the effice made from? Truman Howell: Well it's a plastic material. It's a stucco really. The only difference is that when, in years gone by we used to use lath and this is just a way of doing a plaster. Not using lath and what it does is, the advantage of that is, that will allow you to change the shape of this so you can get some variations and shape. Considerable variations. And I can show you an example of that. I don't have any particular one selected but as you can see here, there's a variety of things you can do with the materials... and columns and all kinds of shapes. As a matter of fact, one of the most interesting... is the Universal Studios. They ' literally built a town out of this material that looks like stone, like brick, like any number of different materials. It's really a very plastic material so you can do virtually anything to big projection and gargoyles. Whatever you can carve in this, you can virtually do with that. Vernelle Clayton: ...that we aren't going to do gargoyles but what you might have seen recently around town... American Bank and what they call the 79th Street Place does a thing like that. ...I think that Perkins has it and probably... Truman Howell: All of the Perkins that look like Taco Bell's in the front, that's all ... and a lot ' of them are remodeling their's to re -do that. I've done several of those remodeling. One in Jackson... Skubic: Thank you. Farmakes: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing. 1 55 �J Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Vernelle Clayton: Excuse me, I wanted to come back. Farmakes: Okay, you wanted to come back. Vernelle, go ahead. Vernelle Clayton: I had talked with Sharmin and she suggested that we get some additional... and I will pass them out. It relates to a couple of comments that she made with respect to the, first of all the restaurant building, with the little arches that they have and the canopies that were built over the windows and how that picked up and relates to the hotel behind it. The larger picture above is the arches that they have in that building. We also ... but it's also picked up in the old City Hall building, which is ... and then the elements added at the top here, the pitched elements are found on ... with respect to the clock tower, we have other clock ' towers in town and some pictures of that we can take a look at. The thought here was a feeling of the same sort of thing. It's the same period. It's not the same style of architecture but it's ... and while it's different elements here, it's the same idea. Same concept... Another comparative element here is the ... and we have one other building in town that still reminds me of it. Kind of a take off on the prairie style... Then we, Sharmin had met and the building which is the Applebee's has the element of the ... block and we have the same thing actually going on down at the stores that are a part of the Byerly's complex. So the reason for having the Americana Bank building ... is not the style of architecture but rather than materials in the exterior. And then ... and what we're trying to do is show that there are some similarities ' around town... to get an idea visually of what you'll be seeing. This is coming north on Market Boulevard. By the time you leave Highway 5 and the moving on... This is a lesser important view in that it's coming from the east and every place where you can see... it's right through here and it's ... Applebee's and Tires Plus and so forth so whereas you can see the whole view all the time now ... when that project was completed. This will be continuing as a , view. This is what I ... I'll tell you, you can't slow down on Highway 5 anymore. I understand there's some 30,000 cars to 35,000 cars that go by every day. I saw quite a few when I was doing this but anyway, this is as you leave the, coming out from behind Festival. You're coming from the west and just past Festival and ... and as you can see, it's fairly small. It gets a little bit bigger as you move along. Still a little bit bigger and the next one, a little bit bigger yet but still... scale drawing of the elevation that you have on the front copy ... same size that this is. Give you an idea of what you'll see as you move along. And then as you move closer to the corner, now you're in the left turn lane. The American Bank building is back here at the corner ... at the crosswalk. Except you see it on the other side of the Frontier building. So that's kind of what... I'm going to take out and show you something that we haven't talked about yet but one of the conditions and that's what I wanted to talk to you about briefly and that is that, Sharmin in her report suggests that we ... and do something with this ... Our architect's recommendation is that we paint this, but that we use a bland color. We want this to kind of recede and not be ... because our message we want to be on here. This has never been a part of our overall proposal. It was... presented to the HRA or earlier we , 56 1 t r L� Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 recognized the need to do ... painting, repairs that might be ... only remaining area for the hotel space then. So that was kind of..I think that's all I have in here and appreciate your time. I'd like to just run through the ... proposed conditions. If I may. As Dave mentioned, item number 1 and 2 will probably not be applicable unless we deal with the vacation of Pauly Drive and the fact that we will be, not be with ... will not find it necessary to move ... and therefore number 1 we won't be moving ... if we're taking out Pauly Drive, there won't be a sidewalk... As for number 3, we have no problem with the views of the rooftop. I guess I won't, in deference to your time, I'll just talk about those that we have questions ... We don't have a problem with number 4. With respect to the window signage... Most of you have seen me talk about this issue many times before and that we also spent an awful lot of time talking about the sign ordinance... Frankly we would agree to, we would not agree to this. We don't think that this project should be ... wintertime. In fact there are some reasons where... window signs and the few merchants that will be ... will be open, they would the ones that would like to take advantage of the fact that there will be traffic late at night as the movies end and... probably be open later than most folks around town are ... so we would agree to, or we would respectfully request that that be changed to where window signage shall comply with city code. With respect to the sign criteria. We don't have a problem with that paragraph as amended by Sharmin earlier. ...and maintenance agreements. Yes. We have always done... The building official conditions. Yes, we plan to replat. Definitely and we will be, that will probably be the next thing that you'll be seeing from us ... and certainly they can relocate the... I talked, with respect to item (d). I talked with Steve last week and confirmed again with him this morning that it would be alright for me to say that... covered walkway and that was not intended. So we have a problem with those... We talked this morning about the Fire Marshal conditions and that's not a problem. The northwest elevation shall be remodeled. I have a little concern about the word remodel because I'm not quite sure what it means ... but we'll be happy to include ... with respect to number 12, we have no problems with that. Number 13, we have no problem. 14, 15, 16, likewise ... so if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Farmakes: Do the commissioners have any questions? Conrad: Vernelle, just one. The west elevation, the part that staff said you should do something and you're saying paint it gray. Vernelle Clayton: Well I didn't... Conrad: There is a major entrance there. Vernelle Clayton: It's the bowling alley. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: Right. So what are you planning to do with that? Vernelle Clayton: We're not proposing to change that and that's... double doors but I think they're fairly sturdy and... Conrad: They have an awning over that and that doesn't fit. Vernelle Clayton: I'm not sure that the awning would not fit. I think what will... Conrad: Well, I'm just curious. You talked about ... that seems to be a major entrance to the building and whether it's, and you're leaving the current, that design element out and introducing a whole new thing here so it just didn't seem like it was part of the same project. Vernelle Clayton: So what you're saying is... Conrad: I think you should look at it. Vernelle Clayton: We probably should. Any other questions? We had a fairly low key presentation for you tonight based on the hour. We are more excited about this than how We're very excited about getting... about time you got something done down there, so. Farmakes: Is the applicant finished? Can I have a motion to open the public hearing? Com -ad moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public healing was opened. Farmakes: Does anybody wish to come forward and make any comments on this proposal? Let the record show nobody's coming forward. Do I have a motion that we close the public hearing. Peterson moved, Conrad seconded to close the public healing. The public heating was closed. Farmakes: Comments. Ladd. Conrad: I don't have much. I think I asked my only two questions. I think it's great in general. To cover up the word bowling. It's worth it. There's a long history on that but. Farmakes: I think that's a bowling ball there. 58 1 FJ t r L L 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: But I'm not going to make any other comments. I think a lot of things have been covered. I probably agree with Vernelle's comments on the signage. I'm not sure I'd change it for this place. I think they should do something on that major entrance. It makes sense that it gets tied in and ... as a citizen, not as a Planning Commissioner ... I like it. Farmakes: Okay, Craig. Peterson: I commend the presentation. In the months that I've been on, I think it's one of the most thorough presentations I've seen ... very few questions... but with the exposure on the westerly side, there is going to be a lot of traffic. It's very visible. It's going to have very distinct facing south ... It just doesn't seem logical to put all the effort and all the creativity on one side and all of a sudden you go around the corner and go, it's just blank. It's an abrupt change. Brad Johnson: We could answer that. One of the things that you probably haven't seen is there's a continuation behind the hotel that runs right down to Filly's on the outside ... so I think we can address this. We've heard the issue and we can correct it probably fairly inexpensively. It's $1,000.00 a foot that we're ... to the front but I think... Farmakes: I don't mean to interrupt you but I'd like to go through the comments and then I can put it back out on the floor if you wanted to discuss any other issue. Brad Johnson: Okay, thanks. Farmakes: Do you have anything else? Peterson: Those are my comments. Farmakes: Okay, Bob. Skubic: I agree with Ladd and Craig. I think it's a fine plan and I really look forward to seeing that bowling alley remodeled. And I appreciate the photographs to give us a perspective of what this is really going to look like with the adjacent dwellings. I have a question for staff. What is the rationale for prohibiting signage in windows? Al -Jaffa It was supposed to prevent clutter. Overall clutter. But the ordinance does permit window signage. Aanenson: Again, we did give variances because of the sign permit ... we were allowing additional signage for visual clutter so I tried to minimize that. Certainly open 24 hours ... but 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 we were just concerned about, we are allowing a little bit different signs ... but we also wanted to make sure it didn't get really garish and too loud. I think they understand that and that's what we're striving for. I think there's some flexibility. Skubic: Thank you. That's all I have. Farmakes: Don. Mehl: Yeah, I think it looks great. The detail in it of elevations... downtown area... Farmakes: Is that it? Thank you. My comments on this development, it's a large improvement. I know some of the members here may have not seen the earlier version of this. It was kind of a French, Champs D'Allysses walk down or whatever. Anyway, as I recall the comments that I made at the time... when you do architecture, sometimes you get carried away and you have so many possibilities for doing things and I think it was a solution that was attempted and some of the things that were talked about on Highway 5. Trying to incorporate more detailing and retail structures that were basically shelves and... marketing effort taking place inside the store. Trying to ... market product and basically the rest of the outside of the building is kind of forgotten about. In some cases it was going to be a back door itself, as part of the marketing concept to have a bare bones building on the outside. That was part of the connection with the low price type market. It's hard when we look at the types of buildings that we would look at and say, you know can't you improve that. Can't you bring us more detailing and that type of thing... solution to that. I think it's believable with the architecture, based on our old history here and that reinforces that to this solution. I think it's tolerable to sensibilities here and the features they'll be using on the outside... don't know what's underneath it unless you knock on it. There's a couple of things to make comments on. One is the large expanse of backlit. I'm not sure on the left sign on the right. I think due to massiveness of the building, the facade on the right, obviously that's not a lot of signage for that mass of a building. There is, it's brown on the lower part down there. I assume most of that would be window space. And then also you would have posters ... type of thing. I agree that the retail situation probably should have some ability to advertise in windows. We should moderate that as to what. There isn't a lot of window space on ... and I think some latitude. I don't think however fake windows up above should be incorporated into that percentage and whatever that window space is, I agree that's how we'd do it... So we probably should modify that or ... in the recommendations as to what you work out with that to go forward to the City Council. The issue doesn't put a limit I think on the amount of posters for a theater. But whatever that moderation is, I think it's safe for them to be outside and if they're like other movie theaters, they tape stuff up in the window. And on the other side, I think your limitation listed at 15% of the size of the logo in relationship to the sign. .1 t r � l J 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Ll Al -Jaffa Correct. Farmakes: And that looks like it's about 50% shown in the sample. I'm not sure, as they come back with a signage application, that that sign have a specific sign or how you're going to treat that. Aanenson: Which one are you talking about? The theaters have been specifically addressed. ■ Farmakes: Right. I'm talking about the one on the far, it'd be on my left. Al -Jaffa As part of the logo, the percentage of the logo on that sign. The applicant has not shown us yet what the logo is going to look like so we don't have any of the details. They are not asking for any area variances. If there were any proposed, we will bring them back before you. So they will have to meet ordinance requirements as far as area of logos as well as signage on the building. They will have to meet that 15 %. ' Farmakes: Alright. The last issue, I hope, when we do these things where we talk about how to market, sometimes when you come up with something nice like this, it's the other ways that you market, particularly the chain type buildings. Often there seems to be a basic need to fill it up with bright striped awnings and in moderation that's fine but sometimes it goes the other way and you wind up with kind of clown building. And hopefully, this is of interest I think to people who were interested in looking for something different than what's out there. It doesn't take long to hop into a car and go very far and see the backlit awning and the classic building, or a franchise building. So hopefully we're offering something different here and I like the solution that you came up with. I think it follows what we were hoping to find. So those are all the comments I have on that. I'd entertain a motion here. I don't want to challenge this one but there is several, to remind whoever makes that motion, there are several additions, both Sharmin, Dave added to the packet. Skubic: I'll take a stab at this. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan for the Entertainment Complex #95 -21 SPR as shown on the site plan dated December 12, 1995 with the following conditions. 1 thru 20 with the additional changes and additions. Item number 6(e) shall be amended to have the addition of not to exceed 6 signs which are not to exceed 12 square feet. That's on page 13. 12 square feet each. And on page 14, condition number 12. I'll let Dave recite that. Hempel: Condition number 12 should be amended to read as follows, the applicant shall sleeve the portion of the city's sanitary sewer and water line which are impacted by encroachment of any building structure within the city's utility easements. In addition, the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city for construction. The 1 61 t Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 building structure, walkway within the city's utility easement. All utility construction shall be in accordance with the latest edition. The remaining part of that condition would remain as stipulated in the report. Skubic: Thank you. On page 15, I'd like to add to condition number 17, item (g). That the applicant and staff shall work together to vacate the eastern end of Pauly Drive for parking lot expansion in that area. And on page 16, I'd like to and condition 21 regarding the FMPC and I'll read that as recommended here from the FMPC that prior to final City Council approval of the site plan for the property, the developer agrees to wholly replace and /or reconstruct a traffic facility on the property, and further agrees to obtain approval for such replacement or reconstruction from the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Farmakes: ...talked about. With their modification to (b) on 17. Hempel: Actually 17 condition 17 c could be replaced wi h p y O t Commissioner Skubic s. Farmakes: The drive aisle comment? Hempel: That should remain. Condition 17(b) should remain. Farmakes: Would you take a friendly amendment on 5? On the window signage. The City staff review that and see how that incorporates with current sign ordinance and configure... what defines a real window space in this proposal. Okay, any other additions? Okay, a motion's been made. Is there a second? Mehl: Second, Farmakes: With a second, we'll vote. I Skubic moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan for the Entertainment Complex ( 05 -21 SPR) as shown on the site plan dated December 12, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. The existing four trees located east of the existing bus shelter shall be relocated within the bus shelter area. Species shall be specified on the landscaping plan. 2. The applicant shall incorporate a sidewalk along Pauly Drive with the landscaping. Landscaping other than the city's boulevard trees shall be prohibited within the city's right -of -way or trail easement area. Any /all damaged sidewalk as a result of construction activities on the site shall be replaced in kind by the applicant. W n t I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 3. All existing and proposed rooftop equipment shall be screened from views, specifically from Highway 5. 4. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. 5. Window signage will comply with city ordinance and the staff and applicant shall work together to define what constitutes real window space to be used in the calculations. 6. The following sign criteria is adopted as part of the site plan which includes variances: Signage Plan and Restrictions: Neon Illuminated a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands as indicated on Exhibit A. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height and must be back lit if illuminated. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. (Elevation drawing to be attached upon approval.) a. The letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands as indicated on Exhibit A. Projecting signs may not exceed 4 feet in height and 3 feet in width. ri 63 1 b. All individual dimensional letters and logos comprising each sign shall be back lit with neon tube illumination. Letter styles shall reflect the period style of the facades and /or corporate logos. At the cinema marquee and restaurant sign bands, lettering on a "Plexiglass" face shall be permitted and at the cinema marquee temporary individual letters and numbers may be used to display current and /or coming attractions, ratings and show times and dates. c. Tenant illuminated neon signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area. Sandblasted Wood, Tenant Identification a. The letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands as indicated on Exhibit A. Projecting signs may not exceed 4 feet in height and 3 feet in width. ri 63 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 b. All wooden signs shall be sandblasted and letters shall be an integral part of the building's architecture. ' c. Signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered and such minimal messages such as date of establishment of business. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band or within the projecting sign and do not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area. d. Projecting signs shall be stationary, may be lighted by spotlight and must use one of the three frame designs set forth on Exhibit A. e. Project signs shall be limited to one per tenant, not to exceed 6 signs total, and may not exceed 12 square feet each sign. Menu Signs �. a. Shall be located at eye level adjacent to tenant entries as indicated on Exhibit A and shall not exceed 4 feet in height. b. Shall be used only to convey daily specials, menus and offerings and shall be wood framed chalkboard and /or electronic board with temporary handwritten lettering. No paper construction or messages will be permitted. c. Menu signs shall be limited to one per tenant and may not exceed 8 square feet. Posters a. The cinema shall be permitted framed poster displays for current and /or coming attractions at the south elevation only. Building Directory a. One building directory shall be permitted at the sign band indicated on Exhibit A at ' the "Bank Building" location. The directory sign shall not exceed 12 square feet. 7. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements need to be provided over the parking lot and driveways. 64 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 I 8. Building Official conditions: a. Amend site plan review application to include replatting with the object of removing critical property lines, or redraw plans to comply with code requirements for opening protection. b. Have a qualified engineer perform a structure evaluation of the subject building. This should be done prior to building permit issuance. c. Revise plans to relocate disabled parking spaces closer to other building entrances. This should be done prior to building permit issuance. d. Clarify extent of proposed alterations to the frontier building. This should be done prior to site plan approval. e. Clarify the nature of the crosshatched area between the proposed entertainment complex and the frontier building. This should be done prior to site plan approval. 9. Fire Marshal conditions: a. "No Parking Fire Lane" will be established by the Fire Marshal. Contact Fire Marshal for exact details and comply with Policy #06 -1991. Copy enclosed. b. A remote fire department sprinkler connection must be relocated to the south side of the building. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location. c. Maintain a ten foot clear space around new or existing fire hydrants. d. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineering and Fire Marshal for approval. 10. The northwest elevation shall be remodeled as part of this proposal. 11. The applicant's engineer shall submit to the city for review and approval a storm drainage management plan. The plan shall also include detailed stormwater calculations and area drainage maps for a 10 year storm event. 12. The applicant shall sleeve the portion of the city's sanitary sewer and water line which are impacted by encroachment of any building structure within the city's utility easements. In addition, the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city for construction. The building structure, walkway within the city's utility 65 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 17. The applicant shall redesign the site plan parking lot configuration to include the following items: a. Show the city's 50 foot right -of -way along Pauly Drive. b. Incorporate a drive aisle access to the east out to the Dinner Theater /Great Plains Boulevard. c. That the applicant and staff shall work together to vacate the eastern end of Pauly Drive for paridng lot expansion in that area. d. Provide a turn around for city snowplow equipment at the end of Pauly Drive or enter into an agreement with the City allowing city snowplows to utilize the parking lot facility. 66 1 v easement. All utility construction shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since most of these improvements will be considered private, separate building permits will be required through the City's Public Safety Department for all storm sewer and utility lines. 13. The applicant and /or contractor will be responsible for adjustment of all existing gate valves, manholes, and catch basins on the site. The City's Utility Department will require inspection of these adjustments. 14. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new development. The plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Type I erosion control fence and rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until streets have been paved with a bituminous surface. Catch basins shall be protected with silt fence and /or hay bales until the parking lot has been paved with bituminous surface. 15. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be restored with sod and /or landscaping materials within two weeks of completion of the parking lot. 16. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and to guarantee restoration of city boulevards and adjustments to the city's infrastructures. 17. The applicant shall redesign the site plan parking lot configuration to include the following items: a. Show the city's 50 foot right -of -way along Pauly Drive. b. Incorporate a drive aisle access to the east out to the Dinner Theater /Great Plains Boulevard. c. That the applicant and staff shall work together to vacate the eastern end of Pauly Drive for paridng lot expansion in that area. d. Provide a turn around for city snowplow equipment at the end of Pauly Drive or enter into an agreement with the City allowing city snowplows to utilize the parking lot facility. 66 1 v 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 1 e. Widen main drive aisles to 28 feet wide and incorporate larger radiuses to accommodate emergency vehicles, and increase drive aisle widths to a minimum of 26 feet wide per city ordinance. f. The applicant shall prepare a traffic control plan for city staff to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. ■ 1 18. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tile found during construction and abandon or reconnect all tiles as directed by the City Engineer. 19. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as health dept., watershed district and MPCA. 20. In conjunction with the subdivision process, the city reserves the right to require the necessary drainage and utility easements or street right -of -way based on the subdivision proposal. 21. Prior to final City Council approval of the site plan for the property the developer agrees to wholly replace and/or reconstruct a traffic facility on the property, and further agrees to obtain approval for such replacement or reconstruction from the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Mehl seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 6, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ONGOING ITEMS: t Aanenson: I just have one to share with you. I hope you received a copy of the Highway 5 corridor study and the little letter that says we've officially been approved. Technically it will be placed on the Met Council agenda for the 22nd, but the letter we got from the staff said that it is, we can immediately put it into effect. So that copy that you received does have the integrated ordinance in that so we will be making changes to the comprehensive plan map like in areas that we've done in the 1995 study area. Now again, we haven't brought it into the MUSA but we have guided that so just so you're aware of that. And then also, if any of you are interested in serving on the Carver County Task Force. Another Wednesday meeting. They're going to be updating the comprehensive plan so if anybody's interested. You get a per diem. $30.00. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: All those interested per diem can meet after the meeting. Aanenson: And just to let you know next week there is, I mean in two weeks, your next meeting there will also be a pretty lengthy agenda. There's quite a few things. Applebee's was bumped from this meeting. They wanted to resolve some issues with their site plan but we do have quite a few items on the next meeting. The first meeting in February, which is the 7th, we set that up for a work session. Tentatively we've got ... pud is just a discussion. Talking about the ... and what things we need to do. Maybe just kind of broad brush, talk about PUD and I hope ... to go look at a couple of sites that we've done recently. We won't have anything on the agenda. We'll just plan on doing some ... and again, that's the 7th. Farmakes: Open discussion? Good. Meeting's adjourned? Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 68