Loading...
1h. Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 1996.1 )k. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 6,1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce, Bob Skubic, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, and Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; and Philip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A SETBACK AND HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 2,031 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO ADD A MCDONALD'S PLAYPLCE AND FREEZERICOOLER ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 90 LAKE DRIVE EAST, MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT. Public Present: Name Address Gene Borg 90 Lake Drive East Tom Drews 1810 Hampshire Lane, Golden Valley Mike Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue Sharmin AI -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Sharmin, I just had one which I thought was a good suggestion from the resident in the area and that is, I just wanted to get your feelings on this. It was making just a few alterations on the landscape on the south end of it between Lake Drive East, McDonald's and the sidewalk and doing something kind of arborvitae which would be year round buffering, which would be helpful for the people. The neighborhoods who live on the south side of Lake Drive East. Is that something you considered with the applicant or is that new news? Al -Jaff. That is new. Mancino: Then I'll wait and ask the applicant. Thank you. Any other questions? Joyce: Sharmin, are you going to lose parking spaces with this thing? Al -Jaff We will lose 4 parking spaces. 1 Plannin g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 ' Joyce: And that still will be all right with the ordinance? how you would view the semi parking. Al -Jaff Well it.. . y P g Joyce: I understand but I was just, that I understand. But is there still 64 parking, with the lost ' 4? Okay, I was counting them up and I didn't, that's fine. Okay, thank you. Mancino: Okay, is the applicant here and do you wish to address the Planning Commission? Gene Borg: Yes, I'm Gene Borg ... McDonald's and I would like to add this addition for a couple of reasons. Mancino: Excuse me Gene, could you give your address please? I Gene Borg: Excuse me. 6897 Chaparral Lane, Chanhassen and—this addition, the cooler freezer storage and dry space with the changing of packaging that we've had over the years. I'm running out of storage space in my restaurant. We've switched deliveries down from once a week down to every 5 days. I can't get them closer together than that and so I have trouble therefore and to keep up with the health. The Health Department and things like that. I need , some more storage space there. As far as the playland goes, I need that to keep my business viable. With the competition and everything that's coming into town, business has ... for about 3 Y2 years and I would like that to keep the business viable. Keep it going. Because ... 3% a year to stay with inflation and things like that and the last three years I haven't done that. And I would expect with the growth of the community, long term would have more food establishments in town and I'm not going to go broke today or tomorrow but in 10 -15 years I might if I can't keep ' everything going. Are there any questions? Mancino: Do any commissioners have any questions? Skubic: I have a question regarding the overall architecture. You're putting on an addition here and you're complimenting the existing architecture. Making it look alike. The original ' architecture dates back to 1982. That's when the building was constructed. Gene Borg: Well the original architecture probably dates back to the early 60's. I Skubic: Yeah. Which is the corporate architecture for the franchise. Things have changed some along Highway 5. We have the Highway 5 corridor and we have some other standards in place since this was constructed. It probably isn't realistic to redo the whole building but is there any chance of updating the styling at all to something that is more consistent with what we're doing in the town with some of the new construction? Gene Borg's statement was not picked up on the tape. ' r ' Plannin g g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 ' w have some I think some pretty ood looking architecture in town. Right Skubic: Well e p y g g ht down g the street on Market Boulevard for instance. There's a fast food place that was constructed recently that is pretty stylish. Since you're in the process of doing some remodeling here and some new construction, did you consider renovating the styling at all on the rest of the building? Gene Borg: ...basically you're talking about I would guess, picking up the mansard which goes all the way around the structure of the building as we speak today. New stores only put the mansard on the... I just built a store in Young America. Opened a month and a half ago and that mansard, it's half of the building. It's a square building, like the front of this one that you see. It's more square and part of it has mansard on it. But that mansard is... ' Skubic: Excuse me, where's the mansard? Gene Borg: It's this piece that comes out here. And in order to square up the building and do things like that, that virtually has to come off. As part of the construction of the overall building now. In the new buildings it's not. The section of the mansard so we can keep a couple roof beams and keep the McDonald's look for the long term. It's about this long. It's got two roof beams in it and it's ... so at some point in time that could come off or be changed inexpensively. But today it's not inexpensive. Skubic: Yeah, that's kind of what I expected. Okay, thank you. Mancino: Any other questions for Gene at this time? Alison. ' Blackowiak: First of all I know that there is, what I would consider drive through parking. Gene Borg: There's two stalls on the drive through side. Blackowiak: Are you going to be adding those anywhere? ' Gene Borg: They'll be parallel with a little bit, on the south side of the building. Not on the south side but on the west side towards the south end there will be two parallel stalls. Blackowiak: Okay, so are you going to be increasing the width of your drive lane there then to accommodate those two stalls or do you have enough space right now? Gene Borg: Well, I don't think there'd be enough space. Right now we've got the cars sitting in the drive through lane with I don't know how many feet but... There's a passing lane... I believe that there's plenty of room there. I don't know exactly what it is but... Blackowiak: Okay. And then also there's a comment that there would be no increase in overall seating. Other play spaces I've been to with my kids, there's always been seating in the play space. Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 ' Gene Borg: We're going to put seating out there. What we're doing is, when I say the play , space. When I built this store I anticipated putting a playground on someday. When I expanded... so I built it so you could come back in the store with the seating. So the front part of the ... cut in half and put up a, I call it a barrier wall so the noise doesn't go through. So the round seating would be mixed in but there won't be an increase in seating but we will use existing seating out... Blackowiak: Okay. ' Mancino: Gene, I don't have small children. My children are grown so, what's the concept of the play place? Gene Borg: The concept of the play place is to bring children in. The children will bring the parents in to eat, that's the concept. And they bring them in great numbers. ' Joyce: They're tubes, aren't they that they crawl though? It's tubes they're called. Gene Borg: It's like an indoor. Mancino: It's like a Hobbit trail? Gene Borg: I don't know what that is. It's an indoor play space where they have a little ball pit... There's a slide or two in there. Adults will have fun in there too. Mancino: I was going to say, so I can come. And how many other McDonald's have this? I mean they're obviously up and running and they've been tested and test marketed, etc. ' Gene Borg: I don't know exactly how many. I imagine there's about 25 around. Well hundreds in the nation, yes. Hundreds in the nation but. But the closest one here now is in Eden Prairie shopping center there's one and there's one in Young America that I just built. Conrad: Is there a new prototype, just sort of branching out. Is there a new McDonald's prototype, or are you close? Is the look that your store right now has, is that pretty close to what the current franchise design would be? Like in Young America. Is this the same look? ' Gene Borg: It's similar without a mansard. I would guess what I would call a mansard is that roof line. This roof line on the store was built probably 5 years ago or older. It goes all the way around it. And the newer store is probably, depending on the location, is all the way around to a third of the way around. I think the one ... the one in Young America is probably near half of one of those sides. So we're trying to keep that look of the McDonald's which people recognize. But I there's some of them that look entirely different also. Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you Gene. Is there anyone else that is presenting for you Gene? El Plannin g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Tom Drews: M name is Tom Drews. I'm with McDonald's. M address is 1810 Hampshire Y Y P Lane, Golden Valley. I'm the construction project manager and I'll be helping Gene build this ' facility... Some of the questions I might be able to answer them more clearly for you. In regards to the roof line and the mansard roof and the roof beams, that's still currently a part of ' McDonald's corporate... I just completed a building for a new McDonald's in the Minneapolis, well western Wisconsin and Minneapolis region here and the mansard roofs and those roof beams, those lighted roof beams are still part of our corporate trade... There are some locations based on city ordinances and stuff like that where we have modified them. The McDonald's that Gene Borg currently operates in Chanhassen is very, very similar, it hasn't really changed a whole lot from what we're building right now... The play place we've been really aggressively building a lot of them. They're a great addition, not only to the business but they are a great addition to the community. They allow small children to come in, especially with the winters we have here, it allows children to come in and they'll have a safe place and a warm place to play. I have two younger children and my wife loves them. ...cold day, have a cup of coffee and read a book and turn the kids loose. So it's nice to have them. The play system, things like there's a Lego area where they can play with Lego's. They have slides... Mancino: Is it about 1,200 square feet? Is that the size of the building? Tom Drews: The play area, yeah. What Gene is going to be adding here is 24,28 by 37 feet. And the height is needed just because of the height you need for your, what we refer to as the toys. The slides and the crawl spaces and things like that. The toys. The addition is about 19 ' feet high, which is about 4 feet higher than the rest of the existing building. Just to get that height for your toys. We have ... we're going to put up a glass wall that the interior, in the dining room. So a portion of the dining room seating will become effectively part of this playland area. And the glass wall allows the parents to sit and they'll look through. They can monitor their kids that way. It also allows customers who don't have kids to sit in relatively peace. The play area can get pretty noisy ... kids. It only takes two. So those are some of the issues. I'll be glad to answer any other questions you might have. Mancino: My only other one would be safety issues. I mean do you have somebody on staff that is in the area? Tom Drews: Yes. We keep someone in there at all times to monitor the children and to make sure, for instance that they take their shoes off. There's a little cubby hole place where all the shoes are supposed to go. If they don't have socks, fine. They can purchase socks at the front desk where we keep a supply of those. You have to wear socks in the play area. And it's things like that. Just to make sure that spills get cleaned up properly. Things are being monitored for, watch parents so they don't just dump their kids off and leave them there for the day. We don't allow that. Mancino: Is this daycare? ' Tom Drews: No, no. We're not into that so, I mean we have signs all over. Parents have to be there. They can't just walk in and spend the day there. We typically have some time limits. We 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 tell people a half hour. Usually a half hour my kids are about ready to go. I've got a 5 and 3 year old and after a half hour they're, okay. Joyce: I do have a question. As far as the play area. Is that going to be, have a lot more light emitting from it obviously than what you have presently there? Because it looks like it's all glassed in windows. Tom Drews: Yeah, that's why we refer to it as a glass box. It's well lit on the inside. Joyce: What kind of window? Is it a direct see through window or are they tinted or? Tom Drews: They're somewhat tinted but the light is strictly a down lighting system so you're not going to have like side lights that are shining through the window on a horizontal fashion. They're ceiling mounted and shining down. So you can see at nights but if you were to do some photometric study or something like that, you're spill that would come out of the play land would be fairly minimal. It'd be on the ground... so you're not going to have light shining off into someone's living room or something like that. There's no spot lights. Joyce: Oh I understand there's no spot lights but right now you have basically a blank wall there, if I remember correctly, right? Tom Drews: Yeah. Joyce: And now it seems to me you're going to have a big light bulb there. I mean if you've got windows, all enclosed with lights and I think some of the neighbors, I think that's the main concern. I don't see any noise problems here but I think that you have a big lighted area there now that wasn't there before. Is that correct or incorrect? Tom Drews: Yeah, it's lit. Joyce: It's lit. And this is open until 11:00 -12:00 at night? Tom Drews: The playland closes at, I think it was at 9:00 right? Joyce: 9:00. Tom Drews: 9:00 the building closes. Joyce: Would that shut the lights down then at 9:00? Tom Drews: Not completely... we want to clean it. Typically we would break the lighting off... and then after we close, they switch off about half the lights. So there's enough lighting in there so people can get in there and clean but it's not nearly as bright as what it was ... with kids. Joyce: Okay, thank you. 1 1 0 �7 11 Plannin g g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 ' Tom Drews: Any other questions? Conrad: There are other designs for this type of an addition, are there not? ' Tom Drews: It's been somewhat of an evolution. This is kind of what we've arrived at. All the new ones that I've been building are basically the same structure. Over the years, one of the first ones that was built was somewhere on Nicollet Avenue. Just south of 494. To give you a little history of the playland. The whole indoor playland concept for McDonald's really originated out of here, out of the Minneapolis region. And it was picked up by other regions. So we've been ' kind of on the forefront of trying to design a playland that works good. That's effective with the kids ... and we've kind of stumbled and made some mistakes along the way but this is pretty much ... what we call a glass box. That's similar to what you'll see in here. So yes, there's been other designs but they're designs that have been part of the evolution. Conrad: Yeah, I've seen others that seem far more integrated into the building. This seems like a separate piece. Tom Drews: And some part of that process has been cost. Trying to, you're'building a substantial addition to the front of your building, sometimes structurally and you have to make some tremendous structural changes to the front of your building to support that. So part of it is getting away from making, having to substantially rebuild the front end of your store to take on ' the additional load so we've kind of evolved to like a separate unit that pretty much stands alone. I don't know, does that help or does that? Conrad: No, that's fine. ' Mancino: Any other questions at this time? Thank you. Peterson: You may want to speak to the issue of landscaping was brought up earlier tonight. About the possibility of adding additional evergreens on the south side for buffering of residents from the... Tom Drews: I'm sorry, I didn't get that. Peterson: I said the additional, it was brought up earlier as far as the addition of evergreens or arborvitaes that would be year round landscaping to protect the neighbors from the new addition. As far as buffering with a little bit more. Is that a possibility or not? Gene Borg: ...got such a narrow spot out there for green space. We didn't put any trees or anything out there because of the root systems on the tree...hedge of maybe evergreen type of material. That'd be my. Tom Drews: I guess we looked into it and we'll have to find something that is survivable. That's part of Gene's problems over the years is some of the planting materials just can't handle 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 the limited amount of moisture because of the space they're in or the salt or some of those factors. Until we find something compatible... Gene Borg: I think we've got 4 feet. About 4 feet and the root system, to have something like maybe that's around the stockade. It's like a bush but it grows tall but you could trim out, and the root system there I think is better than like a tree type. Tom Kotsonas: Arborvitaes come and they grow anywhere from 20 feet wide and also a type that grows 4 feet and they go up... Gene Borg: Maybe that's what I'm talking about. Tom Kotsonas: There are different types of pyramids. Gene Borg: Well we can work something out. Mancino: Okay, good. Thank you. Skubic: The neighbors also suggested adding evergreens to the south side of the street. Of Lake Drive East. There was a suggestion that evergreens be added to the south side of Lake Drive for the same purpose but I suspect that there's probably the feeling there's more room there for trees. Is that a legitimate? Gene Borg: South side, on the other private property? Skubic: Across the street from your property. Gene Borg: Across the street on my property? Skubic: Right. Gene Borg: Well it's somebody else's property. Skubic: It would be somebody else's property so staff, is that a legitimate possibility? Al -Jaff: You're referring to the area right here. That is another parcel. A buildable parcel and the Planning Director and myself spoke about this earlier today. At the time when this site is developed, that's when we would require the applicant, or whoever develops that site, we would require them then to add landscaping to buffer the neighbors. Skubic: That's a commercial site? Al -Jaff: Correct. Mancino: But the underlying land owner would not be. n. 1 w u 1 r I Plannin g g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 ' Al -Jaff: No. Skubic: Right. ' Al -Jaff: A private. r� Joyce: They're soliciting right now. They have a big sign there looking for suitable development. Skubic: Okay, thank you. Mancino: Okay, may I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing please. Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please come up. State your name and address and please ask us any questions, any comments that you have. Mike Koenig: Hi. My name is Mike Koenig. My address is 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and one question I have is, why does this have to be a glass box? I mean we talk always about how it's going to look from Highway 5 but it really doesn't seem to matter how it looks to all the neighbors that have to look at it continuously on the other side and the people on Highway 5 go by. This will be attracting them into the business on that side and kind of try to cover it for us. My thought is why can't... if it was solid on that side, we're not going to see it. As far as putting some trees there. Sure, it looks nice when you drive by but it doesn't do the neighbors any good. But as a resident in that area, it's getting to the point where it doesn't matter what we say, we've been through this with every one of these. We never get anything heard for our side but when you're looking on Highway 5 side, you've got the nicest landscaping. They get the evergreens because they don't want it to look like gasoline alley. Just make it look like gasoline alley in the back side, and it's getting to where our property values have fallen because of the noise, the looks. I mean now there's another one possibly going in right behind us on a commercial spot, as we heard tonight. Mancino: It's up for sale. Mike Koenig: Right. So you know, I really would like to see the City and the City Planning start looking at the people who were there as residents and look at their concerns for once and say, what can we do. Especially in the winter time when the trees drop their leaves, I mean they're like a palace sitting over there when you light them up. You walk out into your living room... There's ways to work around it. I mean you don't need a glass box on all sides. The kids don't care. They're going to be playing regardless. I don't know why you'd need to attract traffic. You're not trying to pull them off that side of the street. So it'd be real nice to... 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Tom Kotsonas: I'm Tom Kotsonas and I live at 8001 Cheyenne, directly behind McDonald's and kind of to reiterate what Mike said. I envision sitting in my living room watching many mothers and fathers drop off their children and play for hours and I'll get to watch them until 9:00 at night. Either that or I can pull the shades and my drapes, especially in the winter time when I'm looking at 6 to 8 months of looking at a lighted, 19 foot box, with this type of lighting. It's less than 75 yards from the nearest... I know there's nothing that can be done about it but when I bought that house, maybe I wasn't too smart but none of that was there. It was woods and fields. And to say someday that if that other piece of property gets developed, we'll put some trees in there, that piece of property is almost, but not totally, but almost undevelopable... The size of it is very prohibitive. So the suggestion I made as far as, I understand that Gene's not going to be able to plant trees on that side. It's not his property. It's somebody else's but I do know that the City has planted trees on boulevards in a number of places around the city of Chanhassen. The City does own, or have rights to the first 15 -25 feet from the street, whatever. And that type of development, it would take a long time but a pretty good sized blue spruce, or some type of a spruce tree that's going to grow 25 to 30 feet high, would be a great improvement over arborvitaes which we're talking about might be 6, 8 to 10 feet high and I can see why the Council wouldn't want to build more... The main thing is, think about sitting in your living room, or your kitchen, and looking at a playland from the time it gets dark at 5:00 or 5:30 now until they close the lights down at 9:00 or 10:00. Mancino: Tom, what do you see right now? I mean don't you have, and I'm not sure which home is yours. Tom Kotsonas: It's fairly dark right now over there so you see right now basically what I get in the evening, the way the cars come out of there, I get all the headlights coming out. Mancino: But you do have coniferous trees on your back property line? Tom Kotsonas: Yes. I've been planting trees for the last 20 years back there. And they take a long time to grow. Mancino: Now do you have any buffering from your trees that you've planted so far, because you've planted a whole hedge back there. Tom Kotsonas: Right, about 3 or 4 deep of trees. But when, if that property ever gets developed, many of those trees will probably go. They're not all on my property. I suppose, you know they're trees so I figure nobody really cares as long as I planted trees down there that come out of there. Mancino: But I did just notice that they are coniferous trees so I was just wondering. Tom Kotsonas: They're arborvitaes and spruce. 10 1 n n L� M9 ' Plannin g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Mancino: ...going to be 100 feet away from the play area, whether that will really invade your i area much at all. ' Tom Kotsonas: I can see light from McDonald's and especially in the winter time. In the summer time there are also some maple. A type of maple that, kind of a bush like type of maple that's common around here and those give me a fair amount of protection in the summer time. ' But now I can sit and watch you drive down Highway 5 from my window, depending upon on how fast ... and I can watch people come in and out of McDonald's. So if I get something the size of this room, well lit like this, I get to watch it. Mancino: Did the arborvitae help your, even though they're going to be just 6 or 8 feet tall, will they knock the headlights for you. Tom Kotsonas: Headlights would be, yes. Obviously the cars are what, 4 or 5 or 6 feet, depending upon whether it's a van or whatever. And those would help because that would block ' that. The problem is of course there's a little green space. If you imagine that driveway where they come out and the sidewalk that was built. It all retains, but there is something that an ordinary... I mean trees grow right next to houses. Obviously they must grow 4 to 6 feet deep, so ' that would help, and some kind of tenting. Some kind of barrier. If they're going to get this built, something on the south side to protect the 4 or 5 houses. ' Joyce: Can I ask a silly question? Mancino: Okay, you bet. ' Joyce: How about a shade? Like a tinted shade. I've seen these before where you pull them Y Y p ' down. I mean I don't know how big this would have to be but would that help at all? Is that possible? ' Mancino: Kevin, why don't we bring that up during comments and we can ask Gene to come back up and respond to that. Tom Kotsonas: Something that would keep, for those people. I'm not so worried about those people looking ... but the fact that we're going to sit there, as long as I own that house, and I've been in Chanhassen since '72 so that's a long time and I plan to be here a long time. I think ... I'll ' try to sell and move out. Take my loses and go, like Mike says. If you talk to realtors, those houses in that area because of what's happened there, are a tough sell. We're going to get beat up on prices and I guess a dollar is as important to us as it is to Gene as far as increasing his ' profit. I think it's only fair, especially with the car wash and Goodyear and all the other stuff that's come in. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time? The public hearing is still open. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. i 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Alison. Blackowiak: Well I talked to some of the neighbors in the area and got a general feeling from one neighbor that this would be an okay thing. She's got small children and would probably take advantage of it. I talked to some other neighbors who were feeling, I think as Tom is feeling. A bit cynical as he stated in his letter. That regardless of their feelings, their comments, that their wishes are just not being heard or totally ignored. I don't want that to happen. I'm sure that McDonald's wants to have a good relationship with not only the community, but the neighbors who are also their customers. In light of that I would hope that they could do something with landscaping, as Mr. Kotsonas noted in his letter. I think some type of a pyramidal arborvitae would be a good idea. Something in that vein. Not necessarily a hedge. To me a hedge says 3 to 4 feet. We need something with a little bit more height to try to screen the lights. Not only from the drive through but from the play space. Secondly I would like to see some type of tinting on the windows. If not a different type of window altogether. I know there are windows that can be purchased that are, they're tinted to reduce glare. To keep sun, the damaging sun rays out, yet letting the good rays in. I'm not quite sure what the difference is but there are different components out there that could be used. I know that the glass play space is sort of a trademark of McDonald's. I don't know if they would completely shy away from that but if that's not an option, I would like to see a heavily tinted glass so that the light is not going to project out of the building. It would just stay inside and I know that it can be done. I mean there are downtown Minneapolis buildings all over that have glass that at night you can see a little bit of glow but it's not the bright glaring light so I would hope that McDonald's could look into some type of a heavily tinted glass to keep the light contained as much as possible with the new play space. Mancino: Don't forget to add those in your recommendations. Jeff. Farmakes: I think a revision of this sort, there was some mention about changing the facade of the building. This isn't a large modification to the existing building. It's basically a fairly small application of the structure. I don't think it'd be appropriate to ask the applicant to consider changing the entire look of the building. The issue ... we all know that putting a commercial area and that association of single family residences is a problem and will continue to be a problem. And it was a mistake that was made decades ago. We're not going to solve it here. When an applicant comes forward, their expectations and if they are in a commercial zone, is that they're allowed to develop the zone as ordinance. It says they can. People in our single family zone are allowed to develop as the ordinance say they can. The association is unusual that distance. The way they're connected. We've seen this time and time again. That problem isn't going to be solved. The neighbors, in a letter, it's hard felt. I understand it. But the problem occurs is that on what basis do we either approve or deny these things. We can't just arbitrarily say well today we're not going to approve this because we don't think it's a good idea. That's not ... that's not how it's set up. Common sense however tells me that McDonald's has been a good neighbor in Chanhassen. They've been here for quite a while and they're actively involved in the community 12 �7 1 r Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 and charity functions and so on. They're a good neighbor as a business. Gene lives here. The issue of the windows. is something I think the staff could look at tinting or non -lit awning or something to modify the type of ambient light that comes out from the structure. I'm somewhat concerned too about the issue of our percentage of window advertising that allows to shine through the window. An expanse of that size with a big window. I'm sure that the neighbors probably don't want to see that either facing into their living room windows. The direction that that faces to the south is not a major read from anywhere so I don't think that probably is a major problem of contention either. From an architectural standpoint, probably having some tinting back on those windows might be a nice thing. It's probably not an award winner anywhere but it functions I guess. I think again, if it was a larger modification, I think it'd be a lot more critical than that playing out. The issue, obviously you can plant trees to modify the ambient light. It seems to me to be a reasonable direction to go and that's it. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: I have nothing new to add. It's certainly not a great design but I'm not going to make an issue of it. I think the lighting issue is something that maybe we should solve. And whether it be through tinted glass or through shades, like Kevin, there are shades that can drop real easily. We still have to make it a, I think kids in there would certainly, the lightness is a real value so I don't know that we'd want to make it a dark room but I think it can be solved. Especially for night time viewing by the neighbors. I think shade on the south side, or tinted glass will solve it from, along with the previous comments I heard. I think that's just fine. Mancino: Thank you. Bob. Skubic: Well I have several kids and I sure certainly appreciate the play space at McDonald's and as I'm sure a lot of other people in Chanhassen that will utilize it. I've also waited in line at the drive through quite a bit so I appreciate there will be another lane there. I agree with what the commissioners said. I think it would be good to do something about the front to tone it down a little bit from light transmission. It is a much colder sight for the neighbors than what it was previously and whatever can be done, should be done along there. That's all. Mancino: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: I guess I'm basically just echoing what the other commissioners have said. The one thing I noted though, there was definite concern from both Gene and the McDonald's representative that there be a buffering inside the structure, with the glass between the diners and the play area. And I guess if they're so concerned about what's happening inside there, obviously there should be a buffering between the play area and the neighbors and I think that's only fair. And I mentioned out of order that we should put a shade or something, some sort of tinting so I'd like to see that in the recommendations for sure. That's it. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: No further comments. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 ' Mancino: I don't really either. I would like to see the arborvitae dealt with and some sort of a good buffering and the height, 6 or 7 feet. And please bring Jill into that discussion because I ' think she can add and help McDonald's in what will survive the salt and the limited amount of soil, because it may be that we may have to put in corrected soils in that area so that the trees can get grounded there. Or rooted there I should say. And also I'd like to see staff, before this goes ' to City Council, work with Gene about the lighting and how we can keep the lighting inside from what everyone else has said. May I have a motion please? ' Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #95 -12 as shown on the site plan dated received August 8, 1995 subject to the conditions ' 1 through 4 with a couple additions. Condition number 5 that staff and applicant work together to increase the landscaping by adding arborvitums south of the building. And condition number 6, that the applicant and staff work together to investigate reducing light transmission and the ' exposure on the south side to the neighbors. Mancino: Is there a second? ' Blackowiak: I second. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval ' of Site Plan Review #95 -12 as shown on the site plan dated Received August 8, 1995 and subject to the following conditions: ' 1. The applicant provide the city with clarification on ground cover to be used in the landscaped area to the rear of the building. ' 2. The applicant just obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. pp J 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary ' financial securities as required. 4. Consult with Inspections Division plan reviewer about accessibility requirements for , existing building before permit applicant. 5. Staff and applicant work together to increase the landscaping south of the building. 6. The applicant and staff work together to investigate reducing light transmission and I the exposure on the south side to the neighbors. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I r L 14 Plannin g g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 ' PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 45,505 SQUARE FOOT AMERICINN MOTEL & SUITES LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS, JOHN SEIBERT. ' Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. IJ u 1 Mancino: Sharmin, are you telling me that we are waiting for BR W's comprehensive landscaping plan that will do the landscaping along Market Boulevard and Highway 5, around this site plan and we don't have it yet? Al -Jaff Kate is more familiar with this project. Aanenson: As part of the underlying development they're to submit a master landscape plan. Mancino: Which has a lot to do with this site. Aanenson: Absolutely. And in looking at two different themes going, Sharmin and the City Forester are spending a lot of time trying to come up with that plan. We felt that it'd probably make more sense to let BRW. They've got a preliminary plan for the pond and the landscaping, which we believe meets the objective. That's what we struggled with before... Should it be more natural looking or should it be highly utilized and we believe that the landscaping plan, it's our objective that it be more natural looking... so they would have to do the escrow to provide security to make sure the landscaping gets done in conjunction with the overall master plan... Mancino: And when do you anticipate the master landscaping plan being done so we can integrate it in with this site plan? Aanenson: They're working on it right now. Mancino: Okay. So is that something that's two weeks away? Aanenson: I think it will go longer than that. Vernelle Clayton: They're waiting to get, they need, BRW's landscaping department needs to have feedback from the engineering department so that, first they're working on the streetscape. The grading and so forth plan for the street. Their goal is to have that done sometime in December and then they'll work on the landscaping part. We hope to be here in January with the landscape plan. Mancino: Okay, thanks. Sharmin Al -Jaff continued with her staff report. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point? I just want to go over a couple things that I found missing, and I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't my oversight. Number one. We are not approving signage tonight. What is on top of the cupula as we do not have any detail drawings of it, renderings of it, proportionally or anything so I'm assuming that tonight that is not being asked of the Planning Commission to approve the signage on the cupula, correct? That that will come back as a separate. Al -Jaff: The only thing they haven't submitted actually... is the rendering that you see in front of you. Mancino: But there are no specifications. Secondly. Aanenson: ...we would go along the PUD ordinance, that was an issue that would be left hanging. Mancino: This is what we received in July. Aanenson: Right. When we were trying to put together the PUD standards that they wanted a free standing pylon sign and you said no. They asked... building, you said you may consider it at that time ... but that's something that was left hanging... Mancino: But again we didn't receive in our packet anything that gave us specifications on the logo, size, color, anything. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something in the packet. BRW is working on the comprehensive landscape plan. We did not receive that so we do not know perimeter landscaping, etc. Does that also include the parking lot? Are they working on a comprehensive, does that include a parking lot for this building too? Or is what we see here what the plan is? Al -Jaff Individual landscape plans, site plans are approved individually. The comprehensive plan will basically look at the parameters of the development and along this. It will also concentrate on the streetscape. The interior streetscape. Mancino: Okay. And we did not get any elevations showing what this hotel will look like from Highway 5. We have nothing showing any view shed of what this whole plan will look like from Highway 5, correct? Aanenson: I think that's the applicant's model. Mancino: Okay. Peterson: Theoretically just going from east to west, this would be a primary view, wouldn't it? Right here. Mancino: From east to west. I don't know, we'll wait and ask them when they show that. Okay. We also, Sharmin, the other thing that was missing was any lighting plan. Anything that the 16 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 motel has for, you know pavers. Are pavers being used on the sidewalk? We didn't get that or any lighting plans. You know how it will carry the village character. Lighting interior on this building. Al -Jaffa No. Mancino: Okay. I just was looking for those things and wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed it. Any other questions? Okay. Is the applicant here and would you like to present please? Vernelle Clayton: Yes, Madam Mayor Elect and members of the Planning Commission. My name's Vernelle Clayton and I'm with Lotus Realty which has been shepherding the project along for a while now. And beginning some time after concept approval when we met and learned... intent to be involved in this project. They've been with us for a little over a year now and their interest in the project gave us not only the courage to continue but the financial wherewithal to fund some of the drawings and renderings that you saw throughout some of the preliminary process. They've been an integral part of our project. We have valued their partnership and they're committed to this project to it being one of their more outstanding motels and they've done a lot of work for us, for the city, to bring this project to you this evening. A couple of the folks involved with Americinn are also are here. Luke Fowler, the president is here this evening in the back and he lives out in Laketown Township. Another member of their senior staff lives just a few blocks or so in that direction. And John Seibert, who will be the presenter for them this evening. I would, before we get into a little all the conditions here are drafted from a perspective that they relate to this project. The first three items on the conditions, we as the developers and the Wards feel relate more to the landscaping plan approval. As well these are thoughts that we don't necessarily agree with 100% and frankly haven't researched totally because we need to review them with BRW. We would like it rather that they be phrased that to shall be because I think it's a conflict with item number 6. I don't think that BRW ... that you must do a, b, c, and d. We want their creativity and their solutions. That's not to say we wouldn't share these with them but we'd like to have language... I'll be back up probably from time to time but right now I'd like to introduce John Seibert. John Seibert: Good evening Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. As Vernelle said, I'm John Seibert. I'm Vice President of Real Estate and Construction with Americinn International. Americinn International is located here, close to this proximity in Deephaven, Minnesota. That's where our primary headquarters is at. I have brought along with me this evening a number of people to assist me in the process of helping you understand what this Americinn concept is about. And obviously Vernelle Clayton will speak on behalf of Lotus Realty. Mika Milo was to be here this evening. Unfortunately he has taken ill. He has faxed us a letter in reference to his view and recommendation as to what he perceives our project as looking like and how it will help fit into the overall concept of Villages on the Ponds, and we'll read that letter just a little bit later this evening. And obviously Mika's position is the architectural review board for the Villages on the Ponds so it's very important for us to work with him and we have been working with him diligently over the last year. Also with us this evening is Truman Howell with Truman Howell Architects and Truman Howell is going to 17 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 ' basically present to you this evening the whole layout of our particular building, and also how it is incorporated into Villages on the Ponds. We also have Allan Kregman who is going to end up going through the process of walking you through the landscaping that we have done on the ' project and as we take a look at this overall landscaping, as it's been stated already, we've worked with BRW. We've worked with Allan and we've worked with Lotus. We're trying to incorporate all these things together. The directive that we received in reference to how we ' handle the Highway 5 corridor has been really kind of juggled back and forth and in the process of this juggle, what it's been is that what exactly is it that they want for the Highway 5 corridor and how it will incorporate into the rest of the project. And given that direction, we basically ' have stepped back a little bit and I guess I would like for the Planning Commission to look primarily at how we are addressing the landscaping within the project rather than addressing specifically how it is dealing with it along the Highway 5 corridor. And again I assure you we've ' been working aggressively with the three different groups in order to attempt to try and come up with a workable solution that will allow the architect of review on the project who has some concerns about how much we block and how BRW looks at what the Highway 5 corridor , requirements are so, and Allan will end up giving you some assistance and guidance and walking through how we address the landscaping on it. We also have Tom Steinke with us this evening and Tom is with Edison Signs and he's a designer of signs as well as a manufacturer of signs. ' And I might address at this time in reference to the signage issue. It was our understanding that the signage would be required to go through on a special permitting on it's own and I apologize ' that we didn't submit a little more information to you as was requested a little bit earlier but that was what our understanding was and I think with Tom's information this evening, hopefully we can kind of incorporate that within the rest of the project. We also obviously brought with us the ' site model. The site model is a study model and I think it's very important for everyone to look at that as a study model and what the intent of the study model is to give people a perspective of the lines on the building and how it would actually really look in a 3D perspective, you might , say. And so it's not intended to give you color. It's not intended to give you the fanciness that you might see on a normal model. Completed model but the study, this particular study model that we have here, I think will give you the feel for how the roof line breaks up and what actually ' occurs on it. We also brought with us this evening, I think it's one of these. A rendering of the particular project and the rendering obviously is going to end up giving you the color decor and that sort of thing that we anticipate utilizing on it. We've brought a number of boards that are , going to give you the elevations on the building as well as the footprints on the building and how that particular ... as well. I thought I might take just a second, if you wouldn't mind, before we started into the presentations, to give a little better insight as to what Americinn is all about. The ' organization started back in 1984 by a gentleman out of St. Cloud, Minnesota. Our particular organization did not get involved in the Americinn concept until 1990 when we built one of the Americinn motels on a property that we own. And as Victor Diaz said, we liked the project so , much, we liked the product so much that we said gee, we've got to own this company and so in 1992 we bought controlling interest in the company and at that time there were only approximately 27 motels in existence in the Americinn system. And in 1992 when we bought the ' controlling interest in the company, our desires were to take them a little bit more public and really drive the development of the Americinn system. And in 1994 we bought the company in ' it's entirety so we bought out control of the entire controlling. Today we have 75 motels open so we obviously are on the track of the progress that we hope to attain. We have 26 of them that are 18 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 under construction at the present time and we have 20 of them in the development sequence where franchises have been signed and are in the process of getting ready to start construction. So again, I think it's important for you to understand that because I noticed in the attachments that you have there is a picture of the Shakopee Americinn, and I'd like to back you up just a little bit in history with this because the Shakopee Americinn was built originally as Americinn. It was built back in the mid 1980's. I believe it was 1985. I might be off a year or two on that. The way it was built, it was built with the perception of what Americinn was at that particular time and the Shakopee Americinn does not have the very things that you will find in the Americinn today. For instance the primary thing is the fact that it lacks the pool. An indoor pool has become a very important part of the Americinn system. We at Americinn have gone through what we call an evolutionary process. Not a revolutionary process. In that we want to end up along with the Americinns that were in the system prior to our organization taking over, to make sure that there is some consistency along the way for yet improving the product for the general public. And within that there are a number of unique features that we have incorporated into this specific project for Chanhassen. I think Vernelle made reference to the fact that it is going to be a flagship property in that we've put some unique features here that I'm going to allow our architect to specifically address with you and point out how they work in some of our particular product. The Americinn system was initially designed to develop around the business traveler and how we basically developed that was we did it on the basis of trying to make it one where it was a quiet motel. Therefore the construction of our particular product is very important as well. They're all concrete buildings. Concrete blocks between the wall that have sheetrock attached to the walls so it doesn't, the average person when they walk into the room wouldn't know that but they are definitely quieter with respect that you don't hear your neighbor. We also have them slab on grade and there's a concrete plane between the floors. So if the person in the morning on the second floor decides to get up and start doing jump roping and that sort of thing, you're not going to hear them on the first floor. And again, the whole quietness of the motel is how it's really designed initially. Then they incorporated an indoor pool. The indoor pool brought the motel around the corner a little bit more and at that point in time it allowed it to become a little more of a family motel as well as a business traveler's motel. Subsequently to that, now we've incorporated a number of suites within our properties and the suites have allowed it to become a little bit more of a vacation type of a motel so where a person can come in and do a 2 -3 night stay with having wet bars and microwaves and refrigerators and so forth located within the suites along with the whirlpools. So I'm trying to bring you along the phases that Americinn has gone through so that you can kind of get a better understanding as to how Shakopee Americinn will differ significantly with Chanhassen Americinn. And the architect will explain to you how the Chanhassen Americinn will be different from the normal Americinn and really kind of our flagship of the system. One of the other things that Americinn has is interior design, is we have done basically what we call a continental breakfast area that's set to one side of the entrance and then we have a fireside conversation area which is set to the other side. And as people walk into the motel lobby, it's a spacious, open motel lobby. But it really gives you an inviting feel of being at home away from home and that is really kind of one of the things we've really developed our system on as well is the quietness. Is this home away from home feel. The fact is we have a number of comments that come back from our particular guests that say, you know you gave me the feel like it was a bed and breakfast almost. A big bed and breakfast but kind of that same homey, comfortable feel. And we think within that it says volumes towards this neo 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 traditional concept that's trying to be developed within the Villages of the Ponds because this is really kind of the big bed and breakfast, if you want to call it from that particular respect. So we're very comfortable in the fact that we're not a sterile box and that we have a lot to offer the community of Chanhassen and we're obviously very excited to present to you tonight that information. And at this time what I'd like to do is have Vernelle read Mike Milo's statement so that you can get a feel for what Mika's envisioning on this particular project. Vernelle. Vernelle Clayton: This was done this afternoon. Mika...couldn't be here but he wasn't feeling well. It's nothing serious but more or less ... so it's addressed today's date. Review comments by Mika and plans reviewed refer to the plans that were submitted. Number one the use. The motel use is in conformance with the PUD list of permitted uses and is a welcome function within the Village. Even though the nature of a motel use does not allow for any commercially very active and general public oriented ground floor area, it's residential character and the traffic generated by visitors and tourists who stay at the motel will be very beneficial to the Village. It is expected that motel guests will walk on foot to adjacent streets to shop, eat or find some entertainment or recreation activities. Also, motel parking will fit very well into the shared parking concept for the Villages, due to a staggered activity timetable for the motel vs. Adjacent commercial functions. Furthermore, the motel should contribute to the festive, cheerful character and image of this development. Number two, site design. The building location next to the intersection of two highways is very logical and functional. The ground floor of the motel is not very commercially oriented, so there is no strong reason to be on the streets within the Village core. Hence, the PUD master plan placed the motel at the outskirts of the Village in very close proximity to the core, to allow for full integration of all functions within an easy walking distance. The long L- shaped building along Highway 101 and next to the intersection, along with generous lush landscaped front yards, blocks the view to parking behind it and forms a pleasant manicured streetscape facing towards these busy streets. Parking is oriented to Highway 5 with it's narrower side, thus further reducing it's exposure towards this highway. The low berms, less than 2 feet 6 inches and the dense but low landscape, placed between the parking and Highway 5, is sufficient to provide a desired visual screen of the parking area. It is important that these berms and landscape, including the trees within the parking lot itself, do not block the view towards the Village Promenade, core area and Main Street's Pier Point. The visual angles shall take into account the eye level of drivers along Highway 5, looking towards the Village along the entire northern frontage road between Highway 101 and Great Plains Boulevard. The motel design team needs to examine the current landscape design in view of this criterion and possibly specify another type of tree for parking area and northern edge that will allow for reasonable visual corridors towards the Village, (as shown now, the trees appear too big). I talked with ... about the size of the trees. Mika was not aware of the... With that in mind, if we don't get a particular... we will take a look at those along with... The circulation features shown on the plans, both for vehicular and pedestrian movement within this site area and towards other PUD areas, are in conformance with the approved PUD design and are well articulated. However, curb radius' for fire truck operators are not adequate and shall be changed along the fire truck route, to be established. Building Design. In terms of overall building size, mass, bulk and height, the proposed motel building conforms to PUD design standards. The building terracing towards the intersection is a welcome feature as well as the sloped roofs that cover the entire building. The building facade is sufficiently articulated and reflects a level of detailing K11 Cl n Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 that matches the desired traditional character of the Villages. It is apparent that the Americinn design team made a considerable effort to propose a design that projects an upscale image and to integrate this motel into the Village. The building materials (wood, brick, roof shingles) and associated textures and colors proposed also fall within the Village's design standards. However, we would like to suggest the following. (a) Strengthen and project more of a festive, cheerful and attractive character to the building, especially towards the intersection area, main entrance, pool area and patio in front of it. I called him to ask him what ... and he said, without any expense they can add a little more life, flags, umbrellas. Things out on the patios, festive lighting, flowers. Item (b). During our previous review ... he had reviewed it earlier, of the motel building design, we pointed out that the west elevation towards Highway 101 may incorporate another balcony, might incorporate another balcony, element at the point of transition between the 2 and 3 story segments. This would further help to break down the length of the facade and provide more visual interest. However, the final design indicates that Americinn has chosen to use the pillars on each side of this area and a dense landscape to handle this situation. I need to explain that this fax, this is a second version of the fax. The first version of the fax read this way. If this is not financially or functionally feasible, then the... I know I don't sound like Mika but in my mind I can ... hear him saying this. At the very northwest corner large trees shall be eliminated as shown on the landscape plan in order to allow a view towards the attractive terraced portion of the motel with the cupola and it's integrated signage. In closing, except for the above mentioned suggestions and remarks, the proposed design is acceptable and recommended for further review and approval by other governing agencies. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Mancino: Thank you. I'd just like to make a comment Vernelle. It would be helpful as we get in more site reviews on Villages on the Ponds, and the process is wonderful. Having Mika review it, but it would be additive for us if we could have those statements in our packet and review them, as we're looking at them so that we can refine this process and get it prior to, or at the ' same time we get our packet. If we can work on that. Aanenson: Yeah. We dust reviewed their architectural review committee and made comments on that. These two projects, the church and the motel were on the fast track... Vernelle Clayton: ...turn around in the next week or so and we have to have... ' Mancino: Great, thank you. Because that was very... ' John Siebert: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I do apologize that Mika's not here because any time that you do have written material and it's not presented by the individual, it can be interpreted in a variety of different fashions and Mika, I can say this because ' I'm of German heritage as well. It's matter of fact and within that, I think some of his statements that he makes in there, and again I appreciate that all of you have had an opportunity to listen to Mika and to identify with how he addresses the issues that are there. And Mika and I have obviously worked very closely together in this particular project as well and so I would have much rather preferred to have him here so he could present it to you but I guess that is the situation there so I apologize for that. At this time I'd like to again, I guess re- introduce Mr. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Howell of Truman Howell Architects and allow him to take you through the process of what this building is going to look like on the site and to give you an overall feel of what we've got to offer to the City of Chanhassen. Truman Howell: Truman Howell, Truman Howell Architects... The first thing I'd like to take you through is what a basic Americinn motel is made of. What elements that—in the Chanhassen project. First of all, the main entry into the building comes through a vestibule, through a large lobby, with a large fireplace and a stairway ... up to a second level balcony. Under that balcony on the first floor is the main registration area ... with laundry functions and storage areas to the right. On this particular plan there's the pool area itself ...and open area for chairs, tables, umbrellas, that kind of things on the interior of the building. Just to, adjacent to the laundry on this particular ... we will have an elevator and a series of stairs to the third floor. The mix of the roads from that point are fairly standard in the sense that they're all larger than one would typically find in most motels with 14 feet wide as opposed to some other standards that are somewhat less than that. We have a variety of room types, including spas, two room suites and very obviously handicapped rooms as well are required by State Law. Mancino: Is there a masseuse? Truman Howell: I beg your pardon. Mancino: Is there a masseuse? Truman Howell: Not yet. But those are pretty standard elements in most all the Americinns. The one, with exception of the one before you. I should put this model up here so you can turn it around if you'd like. This would be Highway 5. This would be TH 101 and Market Boulevard extension here. And this is the ... should say the okayed access, or the discussed access area here. ...and I think Mika mentioned in his comments about the various levels of the buildings as it goes up to the three story portion. One of the main features that. Mancino: Do you mind if I take a look at this. Truman Howell: Not at all. Mancino: This is Highway 5. This is the west side that you'll see from Market, correct? And this is the south side which you'll see from maybe the access... parking lot. Truman Howell: If there's any questions about the model, I can answer them for you. One of the first things that we're doing is we're enlarging all of the restrooms. You go into the small bathrooms in some of the motels, Chanhassen is given the new, enlarged, improved bathroom. Each one of the new guest rooms. The swimming pool area is expanded so it is larger than any of the pool rooms, pool areas that we've had in the past. Also we'll be enlarging the windows into the pool area, along the front of the building and on the end of the building so there will be more light coming into there. We have a covered patio area. Now we've talked with you about the plaza. I think it was mentioned earlier. Outside of the building. Just outside of the 22 u LJ n 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 swimming pool area. We will ... right here that it will be shown in more detail on the landscape plan. We've indicated it in the perspective off of this area here. That is also, and I don't know if reads as well from that distance as it does on the model perhaps. There will be an enclosed area underneath that so that in fact it is a semi covered patio outside area that will of course have chairs, tables and lighting. You mentioned lighting. The building will be typically lit with soffit lighting coming down and there will be some ground lighting going up in- between the windows. Not into the windows. The lighting in the parking lot itself will be dealt with on the site plan. It will be in conjunction with the Villages on the Ponds style of lights. There will be a drive through, a drive under... as you can see on the drawing and the model. The cupola on the roof is an element that you will be seeing more of those integrated into our buildings. One of the issues that we dealt with on the design is the third story portion of the building that you see on the model end and this drawing. Typically it comes off and stops abruptly. The cupola is a finishing element to that, as well as providing the signage location which the sign, as opposed to the one that you saw in June, is integrated into the building and actually becomes a part of this cupola. It is the shape is, it is a wooden sign that will have interior back lit letters that will sit into the cupola so it becomes a part of the building as opposed to a pylon type of sign. The type of, this is perhaps the point where I should show you a sample of basically this is the height of that letter which you'll see in the sign... But if it's up at a height of approximately 37 feet to the top of that cupola. But the sign is down somewhat from that. Now all of the letters will be back lit. It will say Americinn Motel and Suites. The other ... will be out of wood and the liberty bell which is ... logo of the Americinn franchise. Other portions or other things that are unique to this project are the balconies that are on this project. I believe there maybe one or two other buildings throughout the system that do have balconies but they're on a very limited use... integrated into the building on a much finer fashion than has been done in the past. The window trim and the exterior columns are unique issues with this building. Again that was in keeping with the vernacular of the neo traditional... in dealing with the Villages on the Ponds and some very concerned about being sure that that was integrated into this building. You see it on the ends of the building where the pool ... and stylized in the balcony... The brick face, which is not typically around all of our buildings. It's uniformed on this building and it tends to give a base and accentuate the neo traditional type of architecture. The accent color is to give a brightening, a lightening of more the festive air to the building. And you can see it called out in the ... and the hand rails that are on the balconies as well as trim around the windows, which are...base of the windows. And these balconies are not ... so instead of being right on top of the structure, they're actually integrated into it so that they don't appear as we've all seen as though they were about to fall off or come off... I'll briefly show you the materials at this point. We're using the Chicago brick. And though it's not called Chicago brick. We're using a used brick or a Chicago, which is the ... with Chicago brick. You can't really get Chicago brick. You have to use used Chicago brick. Used Chicago brick has lost it's space in most cases and so it deteriorates rather rapidly under weather conditions. So we're using a Chicago brick type or color. Mancino: How high up does that go on the building? Truman Howell: It goes up, just at the. Mancino: Is that 3 feet? 4 feet? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Truman Howell: It's. 3 foot. Isn't it? Siding. Cedar siding. Straight. Straight lines as opposed to the, what is called wavy ... waving siding which has a shape to the bottom. Wavy butt. The ' roofing will be the charcoal Timberline, which is the next thing to cedar shake. Then I think, on the building itself this is, the cedar will be painted this on the main body of the building. The ' columns, the trim around the windows will be white. The window trimmings themselves will be white and then the accent color of the architectural ... this rust color. It will be used for accents around and above the windows. At this point to keep it moving ahead, I'd like to introduce Allan Kregman of HKS. Mancino: Can I ask a few questions before we move on? 1 Truman Howell: Oh absolutely. Mancino: Do any commissioners have questions at this point? I just do generally. I have a couple. And the one, as a commission we certainly embraced Villages on the Ponds project. I mean there's no question that we have been excited about it and about the traditional village character and I've certainly followed along with Mika's vision, etc. He articulates that very well... One of the things that I have asked architecturally is, number one, he certainly in his ... that he gave us, has talked about secondary elements as in pavers. As in some of the other ' things that would be in this plan. As in sidewalks. Again the widening elements, etc. How this would all be integrated to give us the traditional character so ... talk about that a little. And those are very specifics, I know that. But secondly, how is this different from Country Suites? How is this idea more of a traditional village? More of a European feel. More of the Villages on the Ponds feel that we're going to get on this particular area than what we see, in all honesty, in the Country Suites in our regular, in the downtown as we know it now. Truman Howell: This is a entirely different kind of building from the inside to the out. Number one, the materials that we're using are those that we feel are more traditional in the vernacular of, and the way ... and we're using columns. We're putting columns, free standing columns around this building. Mancino: Is there...? Truman Howell: On the ends of the building? ' Mancino: Yes. 1 Truman Howell: Along here ... and here, here and most of the one story. We are also bringing a column element, three story columns in each side of these here, here, the entry area of the back so that we're recalling the column basically... and I'm sure you've noticed, has basically the... columns and the base to it. And that's a traditional definition basically. And that, we've tried to do that in one of the elements of this building. And then the hand rails are very slender, crisp I handrails. Nothing very woodsy or it's a much sleeker kind of. 24 7 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Mancino: And that all, that interior is also painted wood too? Truman Howell: No. Mancino: Is it metal? Truman Howell: The handrails. Mancino: No, on the siding. You use the brick and then is it cedar siding that's been painted? Okay. Can you talk a little bit about the secondary elements? I mean what are they going to be? Truman Howell: The lighting will be incorporated. The reason we don't have a light sample for you is because we haven't gotten the ones from the Village yet as to what their architect... some samples or examples of the kind that is recommended. And definitely those will be used on the site. Mancino: In the parking lot. Truman Howell: Absolutely. Mancino: And what about on the building itself? Truman Howell: We will have lighting on the building. Soffit lighting and there would also be a lighting, a ground lighting. Mancino: Okay. But their kind of traditional character, you know whether it be wrought iron, wide angle or something like that. That's what I'm talking about. Truman Howell: Absolutely. Mancino: It will be all in there. Will there be any sort of air conditioning components sticking out of the building, etc.? As we saw on some of the photos. Of the earlier. Truman Howell: There are two ways to do that. You can either make it in ... which there is a large panel that basically sits under the window as opposed to just a portion of it. It becomes the rear element of it of that window. Or you can use an architectural panel which attempts to, and paint it to match the surrounding color of the main wall of the building. We can do it either way. And we're comfortable with it. My selection of not doing it with the heavy base on it was because I thought it was too heavy to do that. And the painting it out to match the surrounding was their option. It's a matter of taste. I just felt it was a heavy element. Aanenson: Just to... Truman, we looked at a lot of different versions of what we thought... Truman Howell: Window boxes here, are not terribly successful in this part of the country unless you use plastic. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Mancino: Pardon? I have them all over. Well but you probably maintain them everyday ' Truman Howell. y p y rY Y too. Mancino: You do need people to take care of them when you have them. There's no question about it. As far as sidewalk and the entry into the motel. Again, what is that cement? Truman Howell: On the outside? Outside it would be concrete. When you come into the building... Mancino: Any other questions specific to architecture at this point? ' Skubic: Your cedar siding. Is that the vertical spacing of the sample? ' Truman Howell: This is roughly the spacing. We can't obviously vary the overlap. This is about a 3 inch exposed. We've gone down to as narrow as 5 inch with varying success as to the character... We have drawn this at about the. Skubic: Yeah, I look at the elevations here in the print and they look much less. I Truman Howell: That's the heck of a thing about a computer but you're right. That's narrower, and probably at the point that we were drawing that, we were looking at the variations and the options available to us. John Seibert: That's why we brought the breakdown of the actual section of the wall so you could get a better perspective as to what it actually looks like. Our suggestion is the wider? Peterson: Suggestion for what particular purposes? Taste or is it functionality to it? Truman Howell: No, taste basically. We think it looks cleaner with the wider spacing. More on the size and scale... Peterson: With regard to the overall colors you're using and I'm assuming that the primary color ' is going to be the gray with the rust accents that you talked about. Will the sign, the back lit sign be the blue that you presented earlier? Truman Howell: Yes. Actually the Americinn logo has the first 4 or 5 letters in that blue and the final three in... Today was the first day we really put these two sketches together and we were ... in fact the building, the Americinn building is really compatible with this style of architecture here, which is... John Seibert: One of the things I'd like to interject at this time as well. When we did start to look at the two of these together today and looking at the color of the shingles that we were originally proposing with the charcoal. And looking at what they're... there of a little lighter 26 1 J 1 1 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 texture, we then went out and looked at this particular type of shingle so we may consider lightening up the shingles to help kind of blend with the rest of the project and again, our desires are obviously to make this look as a part of the Villages on the Ponds and so we're working again to try and make sure that we are in keeping with basically what Mika is trying to... Mancino: John, do you have any future plans to add retail to the, you know a lot of European hotels, etc., there are the shops on the walking level of a hotel and motel. John Seibert: Sure. At the present time we don't have a specific, with this particular property to do that. We have incorporated into some of our properties little gift shops and that sort of thing and it is something that we may, as the market develops here and that sort of thing, probably consider doing. But we do again have this real kind of homey, comfortable feeling and we don't want to end up getting too far away from that... so we're trying to kind of keep that all incorporated in but it is something that can be incorporated... If I might, maybe what I should do too is, I do have a picture book I'd like to just pass through the Planning Commission and allow you to just kind of get a feel for some of the ... that we have. Obviously when you get into the rooms and that sort of thing, there's going to be a lot of similarity from that perspective. And the treatments of the exterior and that sort of thing that we're showing here will allow you to see what we've changed from this project here in Chanhassen to what is currently being built out there today. So if you don't mind I'd like to just circulate that through. That will also give you a good feel for what the pylon sign looks like and some of the colors as well. Peterson: Can you talk a little bit about the 6,000 square foot expansion potential. As to where that is going to be. Truman Howell: Okay. It actually will happen at the end of this building. Off of this building. There will be, before we do that, an additional element of this kind... additional set of...balconies and I think... John Seibert: Excuse me, I just want to interject just a little bit. When we took a look at the additional expansion and that sort of thing, what we did is we wanted to incorporate the look on the building and if you take a look at this model, study model, what will happen is the expansion will occur right there. And then we'll repeat these element at this point over here and that was one of the other reasons that we really didn't want to try and put an element on the building here now because we'll break that when we get it over into that area there. You might ask yourself well, just build the whole building right now. Our approach has been a little more conservative on a company basis and we like to go into a market and then grow with the market. Add on at a later date so our intentions are that we're going to be adding onto this property and what we're going to end up doing that a year or two from now when we see that the market is doing well for us so. But that would be the element that we incorporate right at this point here, where the addition of that can occur in the building so when we looked at this, we tried to look at how we could integrate all the very different elements that were desirable for this project and how we can make sure that the future addition would also be integrated with it so it wouldn't end up looking like an addition. So that's the whole... of how we did that. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Joyce: What will occupy the space that's there right now? John Seibert: ...and we also should have a trash disposal... Mancino: Sharmin, in the expansion, is that taken into account in the impervious surface? Al -Jaff: Yes. Mancino: Thank you. Truman Howell: Any other questions? Mancino: Any other questions? Okay. Allan Kregman: I'm Allan Kregman from HKS. Good evening commissioners... Just to give you a little bit of background. HKS is a multi - disciplinary firm. We provided the site plan and landscape architecture and civil engineering on the project so I'm speaking on all those subjects. To give you further background on myself. I am a registered landscape architect and I've been in practice for approximately 20 years. It's interesting to talk about Mika and BRW because I used to work at BRW on very non - traditional landscape concepts and incorporate that into other projects throughout the Twin Cities. When you consider projects like Edinborough in Edina and some of the character elements in there and how the landscape and site plan was involved in that project. In the same respect on this site, the selection of the material, of the landscape material reflects elements that reinforce that neo- traditional landscape. Again looking at the site plan that the staff has presented, we've got Highway 5 on the north. Market on the west side with our entrance into the property coming off of the internal street here. That connects over to Market. What we've proposed in the site plan is to bring traffic up into the site and get it to a point where it will go to the motel and the adjacent development that will occur to the east here. The intent is to have traffic that will circulate and provide access into the property. We've incorporated some of the islands that separate the two uses, which are utilized in the landscaping to create outdoor rooms and to provide the opportunities for trees that will fill the intent of the site. In addition to that we've got parking again wrapping around the structure in these areas and it's amazing to think that we've got 109 parking spaces within this small, compact space. I think it works very well. In addition, the idea of trying to create layers of landscaping and the parking I think is going to achieve by the alignment of the islands and in fact the pattern can be repeated as the development occurs further to the east so we've tried to consider that and how this all lays out. And if you have any questions while I'm presenting this, feel free to interject. Mancino: Allan, does this have the open radius that staff talked about for public safety concerns? Allen Kregman: Very good question. We did put turning templates on the site and looked at what a fire department would need. The trucks could make it through there but they will have to move into the other lanes to use the full driveway width. And what we can do is we can introduce and relaxing the curbs to accommodate the desires of the Fire Department. I don't have any problem with those recommendations. From a grading perspective on the site, we've W 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 got our drainage coming around the building and coming out to a low edge on this side. We've got catch basins that feed into the system as created by BRW for the building and the storm water ' flow will be following the piping that will be incorporated into the overall development to a sedimentation basin here that will clean the water before it's discharged into a wetland. In general, we've got a fairly flat grades in there. The lowest percentages, we've tried to maintain 1 are a percent and a half and that will prevent bird baths from occurring in the parking lot so we've tried to keep it well formed and... The other elements that we've incorporated into the grading are significant berming along Market Boulevard and some berming in addition to that up on Highway 5 and I've got some cross sections I'd like to present at the end of my presentation that incorporate the berming and the landscaping so that you can see how we've tried to screen ' the parking and yet maintain views into the site. From a utility standpoint, we looked at how a sanitary sewer system will interconnect into the system that will be provided by the Villages master plan. And in addition to that we also looked at our water supply and how we would create a loop system around the structure. Again, you've incorporated three fire units and looked at the radius necessary for hoses to make sure we have proper coverage of the structure. And I know staff also mentioned comments on PIV valves. We've got that set on the back side and we'll continue to work with staff in refining the plans to accommodate any concerns that they may have in those particular areas. Now for the ... I know this is the point where the most concern has been expressed and obviously we're going to be working with BRW. We have been working with them in looking at the perimeter landscape. The whole issue of the wetland landscape we had several discussions on that and meetings on that and tried to bring that natural prairie landscape that's associated with the appearance of a wetland across the front here. I think that can successfully be done and I hope that in the overall master plan for the landscape that there is some attention and concern brought out that will accommodate views in other structures in addition to the fact that your signage will be occurring here. We need to maintain view corridors to that signage in the placement of the landscaping. And that's one of the reasons why we stayed fairly low with more ornamental types of trees on the northwest corner and to provide some buffering on the edges with large over story trees. Again, we'll be working with BRW on that as that is refined. Now look at the parking lot. Again, we've accommodated staff's concerns with the need to create what I call our outdoor rooms for your landscape and as you'll see, the parking lot is broken up into fairly small areas and I think that what we've come up with ' works very well in that respect. The other comment I would have too on that is that, in selection of material again we have tried to utilize materials that follow the neo- traditional aspect, but also accommodate the city's ... for native species. That's kind of a blending of the two. Then you ' have to also throw into the equation salt tolerance of species along the highway corridors, and look at other conditions needed to a specific site such as... And overall, the whole plan we believe will create an excellent setting for the motel and will incorporate a pattern that will be able to be repeated throughout the Villages. Now in looking at the issues of landscaping, berming, and screening of the parking. I think it's very important when you look at those issues ' and you consider what's happening in Chanhassen on some other sites, that a very important relationship you have to consider is the relationship of the elevation of the highway to the elevation of the parking lot on the site. I know as I go down TH 5 further to the east there's a ' few sites in there that have some berming and landscaping that really doesn't achieve any screening of the parking lot and I think that the key element is not the height of the berming in relationship to the parking lot per se, but it's the height of the berming in relationship to the view 29 Mancino: Well when you talked about just ornamentals, that's where I was. 1 30 Plannin g g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 point out o Y illustrating a view line through the site, n the highway. As we've tried to show b accommodating the point of the top of the berm and how the land form in itself will achieve screening of the parking lot and that will allow for views of the structure and the other , development behind it. Especially the promenade I think would be a very important element that you want to have visible from the highway. And then in looking at the placements of the trees through the parking lot and on the edges, to me when you do a landscaping you need to take into account that, what is the function of this tree. What are we trying to achieve here? And within a parking lot you're trying to reduce the heat absorption of the parking lot to try to deal with a micro climatic conditions that are created in a sea of asphalt. We've broken that up into smaller areas and provided trees that have a fairly good density which will provide for shade within a parking lot. And also try to have... species on the edges, ornamental trees, over story trees and evergreens to provide for a variety. So called variation as well as accommodate those views into , this development as well as providing for views into the other portions of the overall site. The other comment I would make on that too is that, as we look at the east /west section, which has Market Boulevard over here. One of the comments of Mika was in relationship to the density of the landscape and the views of the structure. I think that if you consider the view angles in conjunction with that, the structure loses a story, number one. As you look up towards the upper portion of the structure, that's where the branching and the density of the trees will accommodate the screening of the upper portion so there will be some ... views into the structure of the site, but it will be I believe a very soft edge. And again we'll work with staff and if there's any ' enhancements necessary, we'll obviously incorporate those into here. Again, one other thing I wanted to illustrate is a person who's driving into the property. There's a parking lot there but we've also tried to even accommodate some screening of the parking lot as a person drives into the property. And we've got a hedge row on that edge as a person drives in to screen parking as well. So it's not only from a highway side, because there's only one turn lane because we feel is by that the emphasize should be on the building. Not on the parking and a way to achieve that properly placing landscaping and having adequate screening in it. Mancino: So you're developing green walls and rooms in here? Allen Kregman: Yes. Absolutely. Mancino: Okay. Part of the Village character is having wonderful over story trees all over and so that you do have certainly a line of sight and you'll be able to see the hotel. There's no question because it's going to be three stories high and the cupola is 36 feet tall. But we would , still expect to see some over story trees on that Highway 5 side because that is part of the character of the traditional village. Allen Kregman: I agree with that. The vertical elements do create that character and vertical elements can bring more of a human scale. You can sometimes use a variety of species, some , which may be a little bit taller and some which may be a little bit shorter. Mancino: Well when you talked about just ornamentals, that's where I was. 1 30 I 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Allen Kregman: On the northwest corner of the site, yes. And the intent there was to provide for screening, a lower level screening for the structure. The only uses out on that edge would be for the outdoor plaza, which we talked about, and I know Mika mentioned some issues of landscaping in there. Obviously we want to have flowers and have some very nice ornamental types of landscape that will be very attractive and really draw attention to the character. But again, if you put larger trees in this area here, you're going to be losing views of the signage from this intersection, which we feel is an important element that needs to be preserved. Even with the placement of the evergreen trees that we've got out here, we've tried to accommodate views across the promenade as well as views back into... There is a place where those trees should occur and in working with the undulation of the berming that we've got and the low point is where we place the evergreen trees to maintain the integrity of the berm and at the same time provide for variety and enhancement of the landscape on that edge. Aanenson: Can I just give you some staff comments on the scenario that... I guess that's why we turned it over to BRW... I guess to keep this project moving in good faith, we agreed that BRW could come up with a master plan to make it appropriate but I want to make sure that you understand where the staff's... Mancino: And while we're being real ... BRW comprehensive plan, some sort of visual renderings so that we can, and so that the applicant can make sure that with overstory, that we would still be able to see their signage, which I know is important. Allen Kregman: And obviously we'll be working with BRW in the final version of our landscape plan to accommodate all of their ideas. Mancino: So we want to do both things. Make sure that they can see their signage and make sure that it still retains that traditional character feel of having the overstory trees. Any questions at this point? Thank you. John Seibert: I guess at this time what I'd like to do is address the recommendations of the staff, and also go back and ... and then at that point in time open it up for any additional questions that might end up being. First of all, in reference to, we've spent a fair amount of time talking about the landscape issues along Highway 5, and I don't want to reiterate that. What we're really asking to look at this evening, is to look at the site specific, excluding the highway corridors because they're going to be incorporated into an overall landscape master plan. So I'm asking this evening to make the approval based upon the landscape plan that we have designed, to incorporate the actual interior of the project. Rather than to be as specific about the Highway 5 corridor. Appreciating, understanding the importance of that. Appreciating and understanding the staff's concern and also on the other side, appreciating and understanding the architectural review board of Mika Milo in making sure that we don't block the project so of course the project can be seen as well. So there are issues there that I think we all need to work through in reference to BRW's assistance on. So I guess in reference to that recommendations, that you're making in reference to 1 through 5, hopefully you'll understand in working with BRW and trying to control the view path. 6 obviously incorporates the fact that our landscaping in our project is to be compatible with the entire Villages on the Ponds, and I think you see it as understanding 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 that we're P roceeding in that direction. There's reference made to the fact that we should utilize a variety of street furniture and that sort of thing. And I guess what I'd like to do is, I'd like to just give you a little bit of feel for how we're planning on going about that process. This is an outdoor patio area, and the outdoor patio area does have access from our pool area, as well as it will access to the walkway system that goes around the entire project. And so I our intent obviously is to make this outdoor patio area this festive area. It is going to be a focal point on the project from the Highway 5, and also the Highway 101/Market Boulevard. And the intent would be there obviously to utilize festive colors in the umbrellas, the lawn furniture and that sort of to end up having out there so we're intending to have as a very focal point in thing we're going the entire project. And that also is one of the issues we've talked about in what kind of landscaping do you put around this so you can see it best so you see the struggle that we're going through, but we're definitely trying to address all those issues. In addition to that, what we have for furniture here, we envision we'll have ... benches sitting out front that again will end up giving some of that exterior lawn furniture feel. So we do envision that those will be incorporated in probably as well to incorporate a bench over in this area too. Again, to bring that warm, inviting feeling to the project. We understand and we appreciate the value of having our place looking like it's very comfortable and inviting so I assure you that our directive in this whole process is to , accomplish that. So in reference to 7, I guess I certainly would suggest or recommend to the Planning Commission that that is something that we will incorporate into it. Again in reference to number 8. Our understanding was that we would need to present a separate sign package for permitting purposes. To get a feel for what kind of signage program we're anticipating tonight and was presented to you by the presenters. In reference to number 9. Obviously when a final plat is, we understand that a final plat has to be filed in order for us to go ahead and apply for building permits and so forth and the developers obviously are assuring us that they're going to take care of that process as well. And we're also very accustomed to the fact that we are going to be required to end up having some financial assurances that the landscaping process will take place and that it will end up being completed as again we are presenting to you this evening. In reference to 10, we again in talking about that. Where it talks about the access onto the property is through this road that's just to the south of the motel building. And given the fact that that somewhat of an unknown at the present time, the County is supposedly going to end up having to patrol that access, we've been dealing with the State as well as the County as well as staff in working through the concerns and the issues in reference to that. Some of the cirulcatory type fashions and that sort of thing that we've looked at, do preclude to us the need to have that right - in/right -out access to help eliminate some of the congestion that will actually occur up at the stop lights. So this will hopeful help eliminate some of that process and back -up that might occur internally so those are issues that we've been looking at and working with the State and the County and staff on so I would again plead to you in the fact that this is an issue. Appreciate it's an issue and we're all working diligently in trying to get a resolution to that particular aspect of , it. I'll refer to the circulatory patterns that are developed within the project. We have not had the opportunity to sit specifically with the Fire Marshal to review what his direct concern was. We did feel that we addressed some of those circulatory concerns when we designed the project and as Allen has expressed this evening, if it requires us to cut back the curbs or round the curbs a little bit more, we certainly have no objections to doing that. In reference to item number 12. We currently have 13 fire hydrants on the site. Or 3 fire hydrants. Number 12, 13. I'll get myself back in line here. In reference to the specific site, we do currently have 3 fire hydrants on 32 e t Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 the site and in here they're making reference to the fact that we provide three additional fire hydrants. I'm not sure if that was one where there were none. Mancino: Total of 3 Sharmin? There needs to be just a total of 3 on the site? Al -Jaff: Correct. Mancino: It doesn't need to be 6, does there? Al -Jaff: No. It's a total of... Mancino: And you just want them to be in accordance with the City Fire Marshall's recommendations? Al -Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. Does that make sense John? John Seibert: Sure. We have no problem with that. But when we looked at it we said we had to have 6 fire hydrants and in dealing with our engineers, they said why over kill on it. Three does cover ... so just a clarification there and we do comply with that recommendation. 13. In reference to the site utility improvements. We understand, and the developer understands that separate permitting is going to be required on that. Storm drainage to be revised and catch basin... address those particular issues on there and again we have no problem with the recommendations that staff has made in reference to the sizing on that. Mancino: Any other concerns with the last few. You don't need to go through them John but are there any other ones that you have a concern about and would like to, need some clarification on? John Seibert: No. And the rest of those on there were basically issues that are going to be taken care of in the process of all this. I would like to make reference to this lighting plan. Item number 19. Here again it says specifically to us that we have to provide a detailed lighting plan at the time of our building permitting process so I apologize that we didn't have that shown to you tonight but our understanding was that that would be done at that time. Then in reference to Mika Milo's comments... I hope again I've helped you understand that we do have a festive community that we're trying to develop on the exterior, on the pool area. We do have an enlarged pool area that's larger than all the rest of our properties so we take that festive environment inside and carry it on outside into that patio area so we're looking at that as being a very festive and recreational type of environment. Mancino: John, one real quick question. John Seibert: Sure. Mancino: I'm assuming there is no roof top equipment. I mean there is not going to be a big. 33 Plannin g Commission Meetin g - November 6, 1996 John Seibert: No. The way we handle our particular building is we use through wall units and we take care of all our heating and air conditioning through that whole fashion. And then the air exchanges that are occurring inside the pool area, those actually occur within a mechanical room so the unit sits inside that mechanical room. Mika had a couple other concerns that he addressed, that I'd like to just make comments to if I might please. And that was he had made reference to the fact that he'd like to see. What Mika had addressed is, he was concerned about how we deal with this element on the building and he wanted to repeat that. Well in that area we also have an elevator incorporated and it just physically doesn't fit into the building to be able to use that particular element so I don't want it to be looked at as being one well, we just don't want to spend the money. Obviously we've spent a lot of money towards this process and are spending more on this than ... that this particular layout does not accommodate that issue and so when we ' visited with Mika about that he said, okay if you can just give me a little more break up on that. We did that with the columns and that sort of thing. I think we've addressed that issue and again I wish he were here so he could speak to you directly on that issue rather than through written ' material. So we did try to address that particular element. The other thing that he talks about is the landscaping to the northwest. You'll note that he's making reference to the fact that it should , be smaller landscaping so again, I'm not going to take that issue any further than what we have at this point in time. With that I guess I'd like to conclude with the fact that we obviously are anxious and if you talk to Lotus Realty they'll tell you. Yes, these people have been bugging us a lot and our desire's obviously to try to get on winter construction fairly soon so we can end up being open for next summer. We would like to end up being kind of the forerunners in the process of development of Villages on the Ponds and we feel that it will be a very good draw to the entire development and help spur development on. So our anticipation is that as soon as we go through the permitting process and that sort of thing, is to go ahead and start construction. And that means we would do winter construction on this particular site. We are accustomed to , that. We have done a lot of winter construction and in our particular type of business, it's very important for us to be open during the real strong part of the season so our intent would be to try and move the process through as rapidly as we can so we can be open in May or June of this coming year. We started out with a project being 77 units and we do hope to expand to the project up to 95 units. The parking issue that we were concerned about with there is certainly one that we're concerned about but again we need to work with BRW to understand the berming I and all of those issues but we do have a concern about losing 11 parking stalls out of our parking lot. And I guess I make reference to that because you need to understand that we're trying to be a part of this overall community. When people come to a motel, they're a little more destination orientated and because they're destination orientated, they want to park there. They don't want to park over in an office building or over in a restaurant and then walk to the motel and spend the night in the motel. So that's why we've been so concerned about that particular issue and Sharmin made reference to the fact that we don't want to lose 11 parking stalls. She's correct. We don't and we don't because we're looking at number one, providing our customer with the convenience and availability to the parking. And then also to... our ability to expand our parking. ' With that I would invite any questions you would have. Mancino: Are there any questions at this point? 34 u u u h �I Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Al -Jaff: If I may make a correction. You asked earlier if there were a total of 3 or 6 fire hydrants. Condition (k) on page 21. Mancino: Of addition of 5 will be required. Al -Jaff: Three additional fire hydrants. Mancino: I'm sorry, 3 additional. Al -Jaff So that would make a total of 6 and not 3. Aanenson: You certainly have an opportunity between now and Council to meet with the Fire Marshall... Mancino: Okay. And maybe we could put that as a condition. To get clarification with the Fire Marshall. John Seibert: And I guess that's what I would request at this time. Just to get additional clarification from the Fire Marshal. Mancino: Any other questions? Well thank you. You've given a very complete presentation. Answered lots of questions so I thank you for that. Can I have a motion to open this for a public hearing. A motion and a second please. ' Joyce moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this item, please do so. Anyone? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second. Joyce moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. n Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Craig. Now let me just come up with a couple of things here. We will see a comprehensive landscaping plan from BRW. Probably at the beginning of the year. It will include the TH 101/Market Boulevard side and Highway 5. We will also be seeing, the signage will be coming back to us in more detail and exactly what that is. I guess those are two things we'll be seeing later. And a lighting plan will be coming when the final plat goes so I'm assuming the lighting plan will not come through the Planning Commission? Aanenson: No. Mancino: Okay. 35 Plannin g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 r Peterson: Well I've been struggling with this one since we got the packet last week, and I've been searching for, searching for ways to articulate how I felt about the project itself. I bring the, , I guess the commissioners back to the last year or so that Mika and Vemelle and Brad have been talking about this neo- traditional style of architecture. This warm European feel and the vision for what that community is or what we want it to be. And I tried to fit this structure in here ' within that same European feel, and I'm not able to do it. I'm searching for what part of the design that that doesn't work. I heard the presenters talk about, that it does fit the design standards. I see the comparison with the drawing. The rendering below. And I look at those two r and I don't see a correlation between the two. I see the bottom rendition, which is a pond being much more European. Much more with a defined character than what the motel has. I guess I look at that and in many ways I see, whether there's a Midwestern style or more of a, almost a ' Western style feel to the actual model itself. I do see it as a big box. I'm trying to offer ideas that would make it more of a warm, inviting kind of a building but even though it was offered by the developers, I don't feel that. And I'm struggling with giving advice as to how I gain that. I look back at the design standards for the Villages and try to correlate some of those issues that were brought up and the standards set forth by staff and the overall developers and I also have a , hard time correlating the two. You know I think you look at the pictures that were presented for, you know as far as what the current buildings are as far as what the Americinn's are doing too and I think they are pretty typical boxy style motels that I don't think that is what we originally had envisioned or what we had thought we were getting when we talked about the Villages on the Ponds concept originally. And I think that in and of itself, I think Americinn's have done a nice job of presenting a motel. I just don't think it fits within the Villages on the Ponds as it's designed today. The upscale image, I don't see that. That was offered earlier as far as a characterization of it. I think it's a nice style building but it being the focal point of really what Villages on the Ponds is going to be, it's the most visible structure probably that's going to be r there. Closest to Highway 5 so I think we have to be even more careful about what goes in from an architectural standpoint than any other building in the development. So I guess, other than just the architecture of it, and even the building materials I don't think lends itself to what the character of the Villages on the Ponds really was set forth over the past year. At least was intended in my mind. I would look to the other commissioners to get a feel. Mancino: Can you talk directionally at all? r Peterson: Well, there were numerous pictures that were presented over the last year have much more of a brick feel. Much more, you talked about pavers before. Meandering kind of a feel that there is much more lines of architecture. Roof lines that had more character. There's awnings. r There is much greater use of windows. Of unique styles. I mean if you look back at the presentation booklet and the pictures, whether it's in Europe or the Grand Avenue in St. Paul or the downtown character that, even throw in Excelsior as an option. Has more of a distinct and r uniqueness to it that I think is offered by this proposal tonight. So I'm not comfortable with what the architectural lines, nor necessarily how the building materials fits into what I envisioned. You look at St. Hubert's Church. You compare the two and I can't. I don't see them correlating easily. As far as being similar in character of design and building materials. r 36 i Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Mancino: Any other comments? Peterson: I think that's it. Joyce: Well I'll have to say it was a well thought out, logical presentation. I think it's a very, very nice project. But I have to agree totally with Craig. I think it's how are we going to integrate this into the Villages on the Ponds and where it is a nice project, I don't know if it integrates well with that. It's ironical to discuss the neo- traditional concept through all these meetings but this is a motel. M- O- T -E -L, which to me says it's automobile friendly. And just the mention of the 11 parking spaces, how they need the 11 parking spaces so that their customers can come in there and be closer to their motel doesn't lend itself to what Mika was saying about bringing in the pedestrian. So I, originally when I heard there was a motel. It's not an inn. It's not a hotel. It's a motel. I think that's an important distinction. It's the first project in this, the first site plan we've had for this project so it's also kind of an anchor and will give the flavor to the whole project. And I don't know if that's, I guess I'm just agreeing with Craig. The flavor is different. I've been standing up and down looking at that. Looking at St. Hubert's and I don't see, they aren't similar. I don't see the dormers. I don't see the brick that Craig had eluded to. The varied architecture. I'm giving comments. I don't have any direction. It looks like the developer is very intent on putting Americinn's in. It's totally comments. Just comments. I mean it follows all the requirements and everything else but I have to make those comments so that's basically it. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I think Craig and Kevin have pretty much voiced my feelings on this. It is a very nice motel but I also don't see that it meets the intent of the Villages on the Ponds PUD. I think it meets the letter of the plan but not the spirit and you know it has the features. The cupola and the dormers and so forth but it's not, at least what I had come to expect by looking at some of the earlier renderings. And I guess that's something that, that's why the Commission is here to try to help put intentions into some ordinance here but I'm not sure how to do that. I think what Kevin and Craig have said covers as much as I would have to say about it. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Well it's interesting. It's certainly a situation where there's certain expectations and maybe this is not appearing to be the, fitting the expectations. I'm not sure that I had the same expectations in reality. Are we creating a European village? Is that the expectation that we are? I'm not sure that there's a market that's going to come in that really does re- create a European Village. So if we have that expectation, you know I think there's a design direction that way but I'm not sure that it's really going to happen so if that's our standard, then maybe this doesn't fit and maybe nothing else will get built. Real interesting situation. I think this is, it is a motel and it's probably not to the same vision that we saw with all the pretty drawings that Mika did. I guess I don't have the same degree of expectations that maybe I've heard other Planning Commissioners say. I think this is sort of a lead project in the area. Does it set the design standards? It probably does a little bit. But does it make the area more viable to start the rest of 37 Plannin g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 ' the ro'ects? It probably does that. It probably gets the project rolling. So my comments are a , p J p Y P Yg P J little bit more specific. Probably saying this is acceptable to me with some changes. The things that are a concern to me are the vistas into the lot and therefore the BRW landscaping plan will ' be very interesting. We have to break up parking lots. If we've learned anything, the parking lots are just, we don't need big parking lots. And when we start adding the second unit, if it's a , restaurant in this area, then all of a sudden we're building back parking lots. I liked very much what this developer has done in making the little pockets for parking. I think that's quite nice. It's, I like how that is. The berming and landscaping though has to shelter that so again I think it's real important that if a building like this goes in, that we give that building the right signage exposure. The light building exposure. Yet we do cover the parking lots and create the vistas that we had envisioned. The things that, the other two things that I'd just say. I didn't see all the details that I thought we would be getting. I really thought there'd be more details in this, and again I didn't expect grandiose details. Mancino: What kind of details are you talking about? ' Conrad: We're talking about benching. And we're talking about things that accent the unit and boy, these are not costly things but they were handled as a secondary, oh we'll do them and I think they should be part and parcel of the presentation so unfortunately you're the first test case that we have and that's, here we go. But those details should be there because I think that's what we all brought into. We all have different visions of what this whole area should look like. But the details have to be there. The other side, and I guess the bottom line for me personally would be that this is probably acceptable. The west elevation is not acceptable. I think Mika brought , up some good points and they have to be considered. This is the friendly side of the building. I like this. The other two sides are really not friendly. The north side is friendly. I like the patio. There's some really nice things. I like the cupola. I even like the potential signage that I see. I think it's fine. What's not fine is the westerly and southerly exposure. Primarily the westerly exposure and Mika brought that up. And I just don't think that's a difficulty in doing it but it's the warmth of the area that, it's the warmth of the community that we should be bringing out in some of the details. And the only other thing I have to say specifically is on the parking on the south side, there's not a sidewalk for those parking stalls which means we'd be bumping them ' out into the street, if they were really hotel customers parking there. If that is full of hotel. So somehow we need, in design considerations we really, we can't have people walking into the streets. So maybe there's something I don't know but again if those are for hotel guests and they ' are bringing things into the room, we can't be bouncing them out into the street. So that's a detail but, so just to recap some individual details that I think are important on the building site like this and what we talked about are benches and lighting and I think we've referred to it as a ' primary concern. Not a secondary concern. And then the westerly elevation I think. Mancino: And the south. I Conrad: And the south, yeah. It just has to be broken up somehow and I don't think we've done it. So where I'm at is, I think this is acceptable for my expectations but I think it needs a little bit of work. 38 L 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Mancino: You'd like to see it back...? Conrad: Probably, yeah. Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: What more is there to add? Maybe some more constructive things. I guess in talking about, when we talked about details and talked about lighting and benches. I think there was more to his comments than lighting and benches. The issue of detail I think is kind of glossed over a little bit. Potentially working more brick than just 3 feet of wainscoting into the structure. When you talk about neo- traditional and that's such a broad term. In looking at the structure, possibly shutters. Possibly widow walks that break up those two bigger slabs. And working the brick up in breaking up some of those large gray clapboard. That is the problem. It looks more motley than what people are talking about their expectations are European village. I got the interpretation in listening to Mika talk is the issue of European village is more how different structures were set up between retail and apartments and things of that nature than trying to do a Disneyland recreation of a European village. That really wasn't the intent per se. So I don't expect to see a stucco alpine lodge here with flower boxes and Greta sticking out of the window there. On the other hand, this kind of goes back in the general comments that we were talking about all along and before ... we were talking about issues of detail in the buildings and traditionally franchise buildings omit that. They omit detail. Detail in material and those are the things that give, that lends character. Mancino: Connect it into... Farmakes: Well fit in but also building up to a different level. It's not your standard building. You go up to the same building driving down the street 20 times, going into... Things aren't mechanical. The thing about corporations is that they often spend a lot of money standardizing those things because they feel that that type of look projects their image. You know a McDonald's when you see it. And to a certain extent that's a good thing. On the other hand, communities like, are like any other people who buy a home or live somewhere. They want some individuality in the community. They want some idea that that's a special place, or it's a cut above. I think if you were to look at that project when we talked about details, a brick is always a good one. Shutters. Changing the roof lines here and there. This area here where the cupola is, somewhat more of that I think is a good thing. Trying to incorporate some more breaking up on the other two wings here. What you talked about it in the integration of the landscaping. To wait on that. Nothing further constructive to say. Mancino: Good comments. Alison. Blackowiak: Okay. I don't have a lot to add. I do agree about the importance of detail. And if this is to be, as Mr. Seibert said, a flagship location, I think detail would be very important at this point. Nancy mentioned pavers or something at the entrance. ...benches. Those types of things would add detail and add interest to the project. So I fully agree with that. I guess I'm coming to this a little bit late so I don't know what the expectations were for this whole project. I don't see W , Plannin g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 , European village when I look at that motel. I do see it more with the promenade rendering that is v P g below. So I don't know if there's, and again I'm not going to comment in that direction but what could be done to maybe tie it more into that village feel, or that promenade feel? Just some , comments about the trees in the northwest corner. That whole thing. I think we need bigger story or over story trees in that corner. I can't believe that you need a sight view with small shrubs to see a 37 foot cupola. That just doesn't make sense to me. I think it could ' accommodate some larger trees in that corner, and the trees would, it's a whole package we're looking at. It's not necessarily just the building itself, and I'm talking about basing approval on the interior of the project, not on landscaping. Well this is a package that we're looking at so I ' think we need to kind of look at the overall feel and I don't get the overall impression that it's a finished package right now. ' Mancino: Thank you. Good comments. I'm comfortable with the contingency that it's on BRW comprehensive landscape plan coming in and our reviewing it... for the perimeter landscaping. ' And hopefully the comments we gave tonight, staff will take them into account when you are meeting with BRW and with Lotus. And I think the architectural comments have been very good and I'd like to see it back again and I'd like to see some of the more detailing, secondary elements that Mika talks about, integrated so we can actually see it and maybe bring photos of what you're talking about. And also I'd like to see the west and south elevations have more detail, more character to them. Make them more welcoming because that west side is so big. , And that's where many of us will be coming in from Market Boulevard so I would like to see it again. I also agree with, and I think some of Jeff's comments about a widow's walk. More brick. Breaking up the large gray areas and changing some of the roof lines and maybe shutters, , etc. Those are all things obviously that you could take into looking at, at the design or changing it to some degree or adding to it. And I'd also like to see a sidewalk on the south side. I thought that was a very good idea too. Pedestrian friendly part of it. So may I have a motion with that? ' Brad Johnson: Can I add one thing? , Mancino: If you can come forward. Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson... I think this has been a tough one to present because it's , basically a motel. Most of what you have looked at as far as our proposal is concerned, and all the drawings that we've done, if you look at it, I don't think they've changed much to the village. It's always had an L shaped building on one corner. The difference is most of the architecture ' that you're talking about was in the core area. And all the illustrations that you see around here are core area of the village type of content and I think you can deal with both issues. I mean this is a psychological... That we look at the core area, and I don't know if we've got a plan or not ' but we perceive and, and this is just a practical thing that we're going to get into. We think that we'll control and provide the image, and by the way the architecture that Mika is presenting is ' called Upper Midwest Traditional. It's not European and that's why we put in the barn. You know if you look at some of these you'll see barns and things. That's the kind of stuff... The European part of it is the friendliness. The streets. The walks and stuff like that. But he was ' trying to use an architecture that was a little bit eclectic and if you look at some of the things that we've done, in your books you'll see it. It's very eclectic. I mean we actually have a silo on one 40 n �J Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 of the buildings. One over in here someplace so, that's how I was trying to explain it. I think the European thing comes from the tightness of this area and when you start looking like that, I don't know if that's European or not but that would be our vision if we were to do this of that. It turns out that this little area right here is a $18 million project. And it has to be done all at once we decided. So we'll bring that in and we'll have some control over the that. What's going to happen however, as we try to finance this project. In other words we have to sell some land and build some buildings in order to do the core area. Much like we did with St. Hubert's. They were kind of a finance. Americinn came to us almost 18 months ago and offered to be a participant and because of their interest, and obviously they've changed their hotel tremendously from their standard one, to try to upgrade to meet sort of our goals. I think we're kind of halfway in- between of what we were trying to do. Each of these sites out here, I mean let's see, where are they first. Oh, it's not north. Remember the problem? So this is north. This building, this building, this building, maybe not this building, but this building, this building. These out here and anything along in here and here, are going to be sort of somewhat more traditional... you know we aren't planning on building those ourselves and we're going to have to deal with whoever that is. And they're going to have their standard building. You know whether it's Park Nicollet or a clinic or something, they all have standard buildings that they'll try to adjust to this use. I mean that's the way it's going to be. They'll come in, not as a franchise but a standard building that they're used to using. And I don't know what we'll do ... because that's this one, this one, this one and probably down in this area. This core area, is sort of that. We asked Mika to do this. This core area was where a lot of our grant money is going because we probably couldn't do all this unless we had the grants that we seem to be able to get for the project. I think that's where, I'm just trying, if it's going to be a problem, I think they've done a very good job of trying to adapt. I'm sure they're going to listen to some of your comments. I think they'd like to be open next summer. I mean that's a critical time. We're building a hotel today ourselves which we're going to open January 1 S `, which is absolutely disaster and if we could open in the summer, they cash flow better and all that stuff so I would, we'd like to see it just kind of move along and make some changes because I think the adjustments that we're talking about is that yeah, it's not perfect but it was out here see and people showing you all this stuff. I'm not trying to sell any of that but that's how I think I based it. We've got to do certain things in this to make it look, and we have to attract other developers like Americinn, to come in and do things. And you know, that's just what we're like. We have to figure out how, one issue is should people be able to see in here? Or should they be able not to see in. Well we'll have to come to some conclusion on it. And the same thing is, as you're dealing with, you know you guys are right. This does not look like that. That's right. I don't know what we can do about that. Other than they've been working on it and I think they've been listening to you. Aanenson: I hope we have a PUD ordinance that takes care of that, otherwise. Brad Johnson: Well no, I'm just saying is. Well they'll meet the standard but it may not look like this. That's all I'm saying. It will meet your standard but this meets, this meets your standards. It didn't meet your expectations. Mancino: Well we can also make recommendations. 41 Plannin g g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 , Brad Johnson: Yeah, and I think they're going to listen to it. I like the idea of the detail stuff and all that, but I'm just saying, that's my problem but we've tried to work through this and we've , got to come to some grips of what we're trying to accomplish. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion please? ' Conrad: Yeah, I'll make the motion to table Case #96 -13. ' Mancino: And would you like to give your reasons for tabling? What you'd like to see how it would come back. I Conrad: I think I'd rather vote on the tabling and then have us dialogue for the applicant what we're looking for because there are different expectations. It's not mine so again my I recommendation is to table. Joyce: I'll second that. I Mancino: Any discussion on the tabling? Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan Review #96- 13 for Americinn Motel and Suites. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: Now let's g ive some direction. , Conrad: And I'll start out, because it's my motion. I would like to see more detail on the building. On the west and south side for sure. I would like to see the applicant give concrete examples of the other details that we're probably looking for. Concrete meaning these are what we will do. Benches. Whether it be certain types of lighting. Not just lighting that identifies a , building but the character type lighting. Maybe it's the patio area where the addition will go. It's whatever, and this is my interpretation of what this entire property is about. It's connectivity and ' it's letting people walk through the area and that's what I see as the big part of this project. Is it's pedestrian people friendly so I'm looking for those type of elements. And I'm looking, and I think the applicant did a good job in talking about the patio to the north. The tables but I guess I need more of those on this site. Also the other thing that I think I specifically talked about was ' really reviewing seriously the sidewalk on the south side so that the cars can, the people unloading their cars from that side will have a sidewalk to walk on to get to the building. , Mancino: Any additions to that? Jeff? Farmakes: This is informal, right? ' Mancino: Yes. But it is clearly to give direction. 1 42 ' Planning Commission Meeting - November 6 1996 a g g , Farmakes: Well I think these two areas here, the massive gray areas, shoe box in there, they can ' maybe integrate... brick in these areas or create some sort of relief ...long expanse of straight line. So it looks a bit more like what's going on the other end, that would help. Also it would break up a big, gray slab of clapboard. ' Mancino: So you like the elevation changes that are going on in this northern end? ' Farmakes: Yeah. Yeah. Like I said, this is all gray. If brick came up there or something to break up the expanse of it. I think the idea for the architects is to look how to break that up and detailing would be how to make it, it could be a little bit more personable. Maybe... shutters or benches or things of that nature. Mancino: Any other comments? Direction? ' Peterson: Like I told the other comments too. I think possibly the columns that are in there could be, I think the pictures render them as, photographs of these were wood. Timber style. ' They could be brick again to warm up the feel. I think just breaking up the building a little bit. Adding more of a rich. ' Mancino: I'm sorry, Truman didn't hear you. The columns being, instead of wood, brick. May help in breaking up the expanse also. Peterson: I would, I think just look at reconsidering the exterior building materials just as far as, I don't think they present again we're operating on assumptions here but that that style of siding ' may not necessarily be conducive to the rest of the Villages on the Ponds. I'm making an assumption there. And potentially even the color. I mean we're looking at, I had in my mind more of an earth tone versus the gray, which presents kind of a colder, impersonal feel, than what ' I heard you presenting of what you wanted the motel to be like. You wanted that warmth, inviting and whether gray is your standard color or not, I don't know but it didn't present itself as being inviting from my perspective so general feedback. ' Joyce: The only point I had was, I do agree with the planning staff as regards to 11 parking stalls. I think the applicant should come up with another option. I think it's important to work in ' that green space and pedestrian trail that the staff has put together. And that'd make me a lot more comfortable with the project if they could consider something to do with those 11 parking stalls or work it into what staff is directing on that particular item. That's all I have to say. ' Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much and we will see you maybe in 2 weeks. POST OFFICE CARRIER ANNEX SITE - UPDATE. Public Present: ' Name Address 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Laura Graich 310122 nd Street East, Minneapolis Bill Kemble 1782 Valley Ridge Trail Mike Sawyer 3426 Mill Run, Minnetonka Bob Beduhn 1798 Valley Ridge Trail Marcia Strand 8631 Valley View Court Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: So our job tonight is to make recommendations as we would at any Planning Commission meeting. To look at it, regardless of what can or can't be done and to make suggestions and recommendations to the applicant, who isn't here correct? Al -Jaff: The architect is available to discuss architecture of the building and the berm issues specifically because they have spent a lot of time over the past week working on this item. Mancino: So we will be seeing the revised landscape plan? Al -Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Al -Jaff: The plan meets the ordinance requirements for the Chanhassen Business Center. Staff is recommending approval with conditions in the staff report. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Joyce: Sharmin, I think I know what a privacy fence means but can you just elaborate exactly. Is it an opaque fence? Al -Jaff A 7 foot high wood fence. Joyce: Wood fence, okay. Thank you. Mancino: Did we receive a lighting plan? And again, I looked through these plans that were dated in July. Is there a lighting plan on here at all at the post office? Okay. So we have not received a lighting plan at all? Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? Okay, is the applicant or the architect here and like to present. Please state your name and address. Laura Graich: My name is Laura Graich. I'm representing RSP Architects who is working for the post office on the Chanhassen project. I live at 310122 d Street East, Minneapolis. As Sharmin said, we met with the residents last week, last Wednesday and listened to their concerns and comments on the project and we were authorized in that meeting to go ahead with, from the post office I should say, Bryan Marschall, to pursue one possible proposal that the residents made and that was regarding a berm on the south buffer zone. As Sharmin said, this is north here so as Ed n L L 1 n Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 part of the buffer zone, the residents have requested that we look at putting a berm in as high as we can make it and then put the fence on top of it. Mancino: It doesn't look like there's very much room there. Laura Graich: Not the way the trail is currently, that's right. That's part of the problem. Can you all see? I'll pass this around. This is the proposal of the buffer zone that we've just been putting together in the past week after we had the meeting. The darker green here, I just did that for illustration purposes. Mancino: Laura can we, so everybody can see, is there a way Nann to get it on the camera or so that people can... Laura Graich: I can pass it around, I don't know if that would help or. Mancino: Well it'd be better if they could see it while obviously you're explaining it because ' then it makes more sense. Can you back up a little bit so it can be in their range and maybe we can back up the podium a little. You may have to open up your voice a little more Laura. 1 Laura Graich: Can the Planning Commission see it? Joyce: That's fine. Laura Graich: The darker green is the actual, would be the berm ... here. The lighter green is just the buffer and the green space around the parking lot. So the proposal is to put a berm all the way across the back of the site and tie it into the berm of the site with the site to the west. I spoke with the developer who still owns that site and he doesn't have any problems with us doing some grading on this site. At least... The problem, as Sharmin eluded to earlier is that, and I don't know how well you'll be able to see this. Is there is a dashed lines up here. That's where the actual path is currently located and in order to fit the berm in there, if we left the path where it is, we could get approximately a 2 foot high berm, which really isn't going to do any effective screening for the residents. So what we're proposing is that the trail be located further south. Again as Sharmin said there's a line of mature trees, all deciduous as you pointed out, and that's what's located here. The little bubble. Mancino: So they would not come out? Laura Graich: No. That was one of our requirements as well, was obviously to try to save as many trees as were there and this would not eliminate any trees. And it also stays well outside of the crowns of the trees so it shouldn't damage the root system. It's moving the trail, and this is on the far west side. It's moving the trail 24 feet south of where it currently exists. On the east side, if it was made in the same place and again it's difficult I'm sure for the distance your cameras are at, to see where the dashed lines are but for about the first probably 75 feet, that's just an estimate of the scale here. The trail would remain in the same place. But then it would have to start. We'd have to rebuild it and come further south in order to get the berm. Then for 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 the screening, with the vegetation that we talked about, we have, we're adding 19 evergreen trees and 10 deciduous trees. The evergreens are Black Hills Spruce and Austrian Pines. Both about medium speed growers. The problem with faster growing trees, it tends to not last as long so you've got to kind of balance that out. And these are nicely shaped trees but we've placed all of the evergreen trees on the residents side so it will help break up the fence so you're not looking at a 425 foot long fence. And then the deciduous, which are like Ash, are all on the other side and that's to get more height. Then you'll have probably 8 or 10 feet of trunk and then you'll see the crown of the tree above the actual fence. The fence is here and, I'm going to cut somebody off no matter where I am. The heavy black line here is the fence and we're staggering it for a couple of reasons. One is just architecturally to give it a little bit of softening. It's an awfully long fence otherwise. And number two, for structural reasons where you've ... top of the berm, it's going to be part of the wind load... something more stable and... We talked about this first, as I said, we were trying to maximize the amount of screening we could give the residents. For that reason we're showing the berm, and there's a section here. We're showing the berm at a 2:1 slope and Sharmin and I had a discussion this afternoon I guess it was, that the City, the maximum slope the City allows is a 3:1. That's mowable. 2:1 we would have to have a ground cover that would be mowable was what we were planning on so that would require some discussion with the City I suppose about whether or not that would be allowable. We could of course give additional height to the screening, which was our intent. One of, I think it's Mr. Kemble's points in the meeting was, what would really be swell is if this middle level, I think pretty much all their homes, and I don't know if that's exactly accurate, is where the family rooms are and where all the activity is. Mancino: Yeah, on their back. Laura Graich: And so what they would like is really to have screening from the middle floor of their house. What this sketch is showing is a section cut through their house and we've got information from, survey information from Sharmin the day after the meeting as we had asked for, so we could show that real accurately. So this is actually, this is the wire fence which is the property line, just to give you an orientation. We're cutting north to south. These are the existing trees here, which as has been pointed out, are all deciduous that I can recall at least. There were a few new evergreens but a lot of them looked like they were dead. These would be the spruce that we're talking about and the Austrian pines on the residents side of the fence. And then the ash on the other side so that's all new. This shows the berm. The sight lines, obviously in the winter time the sight lines are going to be a lot worse than in the summer time when you have the leaves to the trees leafed out. So this is the worse case winter view and that is, if you, well I guess before the evergreens get to full maturity, we would be putting in the highest, the tallest trees that we could safely transplant and would take, it would be 12 to 15 feet maximum. And we would attempt... Through the trees however, as you can see this second dashed line here, you wouldn't have any view of the post office facility. Mancino: In the spring and summer. Laura Graich: No, I'm sorry that would be at the top of the evergreen. So it's actually... l � 0 N Planning Commission Meeting - November 6 , 1996 r Mancino: I'm sorry, are you done? Laura Graich: Well let me check. Yeah, I believe I am. Mancino: Any questions of Laura at this time? Joyce: Can you talk about landscape islands in the parking lot. Laura Graich: That was brought up in some comments that we received from the City... and that's being discussed with the post office. Joyce: But it's in the recommendations so you're considering that obviously. Okay. Mancino: ...extend the berm and the fence and I can see your sight lines with the berm will help immensely, but how tall will it be, the berm and the fence? Laura Graich: Oh, okay. Good question. From the tallest point, the berm is ... and then we have it slightly flatten off at the top so ... We would show a 7 or 8 foot ... so it would be 4 % and then. Mancino: And then the 7 foot fence. Laura Graich: That's correct. Mancino: So you've got about 11 %2 to 12 feet in total. Laura Graich: That's correct. That's correct. Mancino: And how does that feather out to the east side? To the Weather. Laura Graich: To the site ... what we showed on the plan, just curve it around here ... so that would be sloping down ... and then it sort of slopes down... Mancino: So you would just kind of stop it ... just stop. Laura Graich: That's the proposal. Mancino: Let me ask you some what ifs because... You talked about moving the trail 24 feet. How long of the trail do you propose to move ... how much of the trail? Laura Graich: ...approximately 325 feet... Mancino: Okay. And a question for you, and I'm sure you've thought this through so you're going to be able to answer right away. Laura Graich: That's a set -up. Cy7 Plannin g g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 , Mancino: No, I'm serious. Why don't you move the parking, the employee parking in that southern whole strip of parking over here or some other place instead of... ' Laura Graich: There's truly no space on the site to do that. ' Mancino: Even if there is a variance to setbacks? Laura Graich: I believe even with a variance. ' Mancino: Would you check that? I Laura Graich: Certainly. Mancino: Because I'm assuming, obviously most of the building to the south, having the ' employee parking... would be on the north side. And then it gets to the ... and one of the sides butts up against single family homes... Do you think that all of the activity, all the noise activity ' is this exactly where nobody would want it. Why, at the very beginning of the project would that not have come up in the discussions with the post office to say, why are we putting a loading dock on the south side and why are we putting all the employee parking because you certainly , have room in other areas. Or did that not even come up? Laura Graich: Well the truth of the matter is, as Sharmin pointed out ... by your PUD ordinance. ' ...and the problem is ... there is no way to get the trucks in there to make the turning radiuses... Mancino: So you couldn't have put this on the west side and just moved the whole building over to the east a little bit, because there's nothing on the. Laura Graich: ...is that what you're saying? Right. What I'm saying is, if the truck dock is ' here, and certainly in the facility that we're in, what I'm saying is if you move the truck dock... there would not be enough turning radius to get the trucks in and out... Mancino: So you would have to buy the other lot. Laura Graich: Correct. ' Aanenson: Or design the building different. , Mancino: Or design the building differently... Laura Graich: And as was pointed out earlier ... the post office uses the modular... ' Mancino: But they also said that they have a lot of these neighborhood meetings... this isn't the first time this has happened. 48 I 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Laura Graich: Well they have had them on different issues but they do have... Mancino: Any other questions for Laura at this time? Skubic: I have one. I'm looking at the compliance table in the staff report. The parking stalls, the PUD requires 56. Do you know why the post office is needing 83? Laura Graich: They are putting additional... for the possible expansion. Skubic: Where would the possible expansion be on this small site? Laura Graich: This would be expansion for the carrier ... this portion of the building. And this would be expansion for the... Skubic: Thanks. Mancino: On page 10, it says the applicant has applied for a grading permit through the Riley - Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Now if they have to get a grading permit from them but they don't need to get city approval. I don't quite... Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that. We did receive a call from the Watershed wondering what was going on out there. We did explain to Mr. Obermeyer at Barr Engineering who is the Watershed District Engineer. And he, apparently Watershed had a similar run in in Eden Prairie a few years back. The post office or federal government believed they were exempt from getting the necessary permits for the grading. However they did take them to Court and won so. Mancino: What, the Watershed won? Hempel: The Watershed District, that's correct. So apparently it did slip through the cracks in the permitting process... Bob did make contact with the postal office and did get the postal office to make the application. Submit the plans for approval. And that's on the Watershed agenda this evening as well. In conversations with Mr. Obermeyer, he did not see any problems with the site plan from the Watershed District standpoint, from drainage and erosion control. Mancino: Okay. Any other questions for Laura at this time? Okay, thank you. Now are you going to go and submit a final landscape plan that will show exactly where the berm is going to go. Where the fence is going to go. Where all the vegetation will be. Laura Graich: Yes. Mancino: Okay. We would like to get that. Laura Graich: Yeah, Sharmin and I will... Would you like me to leave this up or should I take it down? Commission Meeting - November 6 1996 Planning C g , 1 Mancino: Why don't you leave it up because people may want to come up and talk about that. ' We'll open this up for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second to do so. Peterson moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was I opened. Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Any of the people here that would wish r to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do so. State your name and address. Any questions or comments. � Bill Kemble: My name's Bill Kemble. I live at 1782 Valley Ridge Trail, and what we, the neighbors would like to do first is ... gentleman who we've enlisted to create our own ideas in terms of a berming and landscaping plan. To possibly point out some of the areas that might be ' short comings and the postal service, we do appreciate Laura's efforts in presenting the plans to us. There's a lot of good ideas in there but we may have... ' Mike Sawyer: Hi, I'm Mike Sawyer. I live at 3426 Mill Run in Minnetonka. Mancino: Mike, are you a landscape architect? Mike Sawyer: Yes. We've ... and I would like to say as far as from the post office that was illustrated earlier, the size and materials is actually larger than what we were looking at... The greatest difference probably that we've got is just in quantity. What we're looking at right here, is not only a facility that's very large in the building itself, but the types of activities that's going to be going on. And one of the major things that I was looking at was that there is going to be significant traffic starting very early in the morning. It's my understanding that it's going to major truck traffic beginning at 3:00 a.m. in the morning. I don't think that's something that a lot of us would like to be hearing starting up that early in the morning. And that's again primarily going to be located with the loading docks and you're going to be having circulation basically in this type of traffic pattern. And that's going to again impact the entire site so in order to really adequately get that, the noise factor, the visual elements, in our opinion reduced, there's going to have to be significant plantings through here and ... but you're still going to wind up with triangles out there, especially with the evergreens. No matter how high the evergreens are, unless you start getting double rows or even triple rows up, you're still going to have triangles going ' between the evergreens that is just ... unless you start filling up a massive mature... basically front to back. What we're trying to do is get a combination of approximately 75% evergreen with 25% shade trees. Mixing in also some understory material so you start getting a layering effect. You know we did take into consideration the two rows of existing conifer. To be very honest it's very sparse. It is a line that goes through but it is not a continuous line. If you look at it, there's trees ' here. There's large gaps in- between and they don't necessarily overlap each other, line to line. Also there's some existing fencing that is going through there. Barbed wire is probably not the safest thing to have where you've got a community that has a large number of children. r 50 � ' Planning ommission Meeting - November 6 1996 g g Mancino: Its the old fencing that's been out there for years. I have it all around my property ' too. Mike Sawyer: What we would like to see as far as the berm construction would be to again ' pull ... so that it is relocated more towards where that second row of trees has been. Basically more in this kind of configuration. It's not much different than what the post office is looking at. We're also looking at pushing the slope requirements through there. We would propose more of something more of... If you have a 2:1 slope with a ... grass type of seeding on there, and if you've got proper erosion control measures taken, there won't be any problem. It's not a maintained slope. There really isn't any reason to maintain it. If you've got grasses coming up, that's just going to add a little bit more height to what you've got as far as plantings... also. We feel you can pull up that grade more to the 2:1 slope, you're going to be able to get more in the nature of, we're hoping somewhere between 8 to 10 feet all the way through there as far as the height of the berm itself and that the plantings again add more height to that. Also with the inclusion of possibly a 6 foot or 7 foot...wood fence. I Mancino: Excuse me. If you go up 7 or 8 feet, do you need a fence? That's my question. Mike Sawyer: And that's a good question. It depends on where actually the fence is located. If you wind up doing it right along the road itself, you would tend to get again, a very stagnant type of fence through there. If you start talking about a fort, then you're going to start getting a decrease in height also on the property berm itself. In my opinion. Mancino: Does the fence help through with, I'm going to interject for a second because I've just done this on my property. Created a berm and put all the trees, 75 trees and everything and I'm going to have an extension of a street, a collector street close so I've gone through this. My question is, does the actual fence, the privacy fence help more with the sound because I know that coniferous trees, they really don't block the noise as much as the berm and the fence would do. Mike Sawyer: From a sound standpoint, you'd probably get more benefit probably with the fence. It also tends to reverberate the noise. Either back and actually over the top of the fence or whereas the plant materials tends to absorb it more. So there's this kind of a, there's a trade -off ' both ways. You tend to have more of it blocked right at the fence but it can actually jump over and go up over the top. H 1 Mancino: And you have a 2:1 slope. Can you get, I mean you have 8 footers, 8 to 10 footers. Can you get that whole ball to fit in that slope area because we had some trouble getting it underground. The whole ball. Mike Sawyer: Right. What you may have to do basically is short cut, or deep cut the back side and actually have the covering of earth on one side of the root ball. It's not the best but it certainly can be done. If you have the right soil mix, and if you have the ... they've been planted on slopes a little bit steeper than that. 51 Bob Beduhn: Hello, my name's Bob Beduhn. I live at 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North. One of the neighbors of this project. And what I'd like to first go through is I'd like to kind of go back in time a little bit on how we got here today first and then talk a little bit about some of the issues that we feel need to be addressed, and I'm sure a lot of my other neighbors have comments on the ' landscaping plan and some of the other things. Our phase of our neighborhood, most of us bought our homes and were built in either late 1994 or early 1995. If you go up and down the street and talk to every single one of us, we knew we were building up against a business park and we researched it. We went to the planning. Some people talked to Kate. Some of us talked to Sharmin. And we asked them, we said what's going in behind us and they said, well it's a new 52 ' Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Pla g g r landscaping proposal also extends to the property Skubic: Mike, I noticed that you p g p p p p y to the east. Necessary to screen the view lines to the southeast I'm sure. , Mike Sawyer: Yeah. You're still getting impact of the building itself and especially again with the loading dock on this end, you're still getting impact on these people over on this side as well. The other is to try to get that berm so it just doesn't pop up just where the post office is. So as ' you know feathering it into the berm over on this side, it's a lot easier. It also makes sense to try and feather it back into this slope back over on this side too. If you look at this site, it certainly could use a bit more ... and a little bit more landform... You've got two very intrusive type facilities there ... and it's certainly going to improve the reduction of any of the... Mancino: Did you also do any plans that the neighbors could do on their own property that would help them create a buffer there, because again that is what a lot of us have done. We know that we're going to be getting something near us that has never been there and is going to , affect whether it be property values. Whether it be our life style, etc. It is also you know our responsibility to look at our property too and what can we do. Mike Sawyer: I didn't look at that. I think when you get back onto this area of the site, that's much more doable. The back yards tend to get much longer in those areas. However, when you get up into this section through here, the back yards tend to get much smaller. And there's also more, and actually heavier, older trees that are actually starting to die out actually. They are again, encroaching on the back yards of those homes. It seems the logical thing is to use this corridor, because it is open right now. It would make more sense to get the plantings and do what you can in this area to try and reduce that impact. We also did a couple of real quick sections. Trying to illustrate again possible solutions to the problem. We basically, the dark line is basically where we're figuring the grade is approximately right now with the property the way ' it is. Adding in the berms that we're proposing, you know with 6 to you know 12 feet of trees, turn this area basically you're getting a blockage that is going to take care of some of those. You're certainly going to see the top of it. There's no way you're going to be able to get... As the trees mature, you are going to start taking care of more of the area. The one thing that we were also looking at is that the light standards are going to have also a major impact. There's going to be a lot of light ... at night and those light standards are going to have a spillover. And so that's why we're also trying to, as they mature, as the trees mature, that more... Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? , Bob Beduhn: Hello, my name's Bob Beduhn. I live at 1798 Valley Ridge Trail North. One of the neighbors of this project. And what I'd like to first go through is I'd like to kind of go back in time a little bit on how we got here today first and then talk a little bit about some of the issues that we feel need to be addressed, and I'm sure a lot of my other neighbors have comments on the ' landscaping plan and some of the other things. Our phase of our neighborhood, most of us bought our homes and were built in either late 1994 or early 1995. If you go up and down the street and talk to every single one of us, we knew we were building up against a business park and we researched it. We went to the planning. Some people talked to Kate. Some of us talked to Sharmin. And we asked them, we said what's going in behind us and they said, well it's a new 52 l iL Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 business park. It's going to be nice brick buildings and you're going to have, if you live within the 500 feet or 750 feet or whatever it is, you're going to be notified. You're going to have an opportunity to be involved in the process of what goes in behind you. So we all bought knowing that we were going to be there and we're knowing that the city is out there watching over our interests and is going to let us know through the planning review process that something's going to happen. Well, the postal service first made it known to the City of Chanhassen in July of 1995 that they were interested in finding a new spot for the postal facility. And in October of '95 they selected the site in the Chanhassen Business Center. Submitted a letter to the planning department saying you have 60 days to give us comments because we're picking this site. Then in December they switched the site. They said we like this one behind these people's homes and you have another 60 days to comment, and that was December 20 in 1995 that the planning department was given official notice per all of the government regulations that they were going to build a facility on that site. They had 60 days to give them notice. I've gone through the environmental documents. I've gone to the library and researched the law. I've asked Senator Rod Grams to contact the postal office. He wrote me back today and had copies of all sorts of laws. Some of the other people that were at the meeting last Wednesday, including representatives from David Minge's office, Senator Gram's office, and also a few other local representatives. And I guess the thing that is true is that you really don't have any power over them. The Planning Commission and when you guys are going through this process, and there's enough case law to say that they can all tell you to basically jump off a cliff. They don't have to abide by your rules and regulations. But they do have to hand it to the public in some manner. I mean in reality the people who live around there almost have more power than you do. We can go to our congressmen. We have our rights and when I went through all these rules and regulations and went through the documents that people have provided me, I found four opportunities for our elected and public paid officials and staff to let us neighbors know that this process was happening. Two times it's been to the planning process when you got letters saying that you've got 60 days to let us know. We're buying this land and we're going to build a postal annex. Those are both over a year ago, or near a year ago from now. And two times the postal service had an opportunity to contact us through the environmental assessment. If you read the laws of the environmental assessment that governs the postal service, they're supposed to contact immediately impacted property owners. They never did that. The city received those documents and they never contacted us either. And so you know how we found out about this? I was out walking my dog about two weeks ago and they were moving dirt. That's how we found out that this postal annex was happening. And I don't think most of you knew either, and neither did most of the people on the City Council. I think the former Mayor knew it. Kate knew it. Don Ashworth knew it. People at the staff level knew it. But the people who honestly were really impacted had no idea. So if I sound a little upset, I apologize. I'm going to try to keep my cool but I'm very upset. What are some other things about this area? Well, there's 50 children that live within the impact area of this project under 9 years old. 50 and there's more on the way. And if you look through the environmental assessment, one of the things that you're supposed to consider is noise. Noise impacts. There's 400 trips, almost 400 trips a day coming out of this facility. That assessment is invalid. It states in there that those trips are going to start at 7:00 a.m.. They're going to start at 3:00 a.m.. Minnesota rules governing noise have very strict restrictions. They're 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. in the morning. And that's an invalid document in my mind. This is an invalid process. I think there's a legal justification for stopping this project 091 Mancino: And they must have just hauled some in. There's that huge pile. I , Commission Meeting - November 6 1996 Planning Co g ' ' the move that loading dock. That loading and that s...to help us with until y g g dock can be moved. This was suggested at the meeting, it wasn't brought up. This loading dock right here, this is a modular building. They bring the mail in. It gets processed. They have a system. It goes into ' the trucks and the loaded trucks leave. Okay. There's a process to this. They could take these loading docks, the City could grant a variance and do some plantings and put some pine trees here to help screen the loading dock but there's four loading docks. They could be moved to this ' side of the building. They could re- arrange a little bit of their internal processes. Bring their trucks in. Back them in. You know yeah, there may be some parking back here but this loading, this is going to start at 3:00 a.m. in the morning. These are little kids. I mean it's irresponsible. ' Just irresponsible. At the meeting the architects, the postal service, staff, everybody knew they were out there and they stood there and they looked and they said oh there's those houses. And just like you said Nancy, they put the loading dock right there. And so I think a landscaping berm, that's something that they were going to do anyhow. If you read their environmental assessment, they were going to put a berm and landscaping that had to handle the visual impact of the facility. That's in their document. It didn't show up on the grading plan but it's in their environmental documents. So that's something they were going to do anyhow. And that, we fully expected that. Listening to you tonight, I mean it would have been great if this would have been brought to you a year ago. You could have had it here and fine, maybe they don't have to comply but in every instance, I've called all sorts of other cities. I've talked to people in Golden Valley and other cities and the postal service has worked with them. And all you would have had to have done is brought it into the process a year ago. Well now they've got footings poured and they're complaining about money and everything else. Well there's a couple of things you have to remember. These guys aren't using tax dollars. This is stamps. This is overnight mail. , There's not one dime of taxpayer dollars that goes to support the postal service... I talked to David Minge's office today about that. The only thing the federal government gives them is they'll give them some low interest loans once in a while if they need to build a new postal ' facility. The reason they have the rights that they do is because they have to service everybody in the country with the mail service. They have a mission and so if they have to break up a little footing and move a loading dock, I think we'd ask that of General Mills. We'd ask that of NSP ' or whoever else was building a facility there. Their environmental assessment is invalid. This is, putting that loading dock there is the wrong thing to do. And that's what we're asking for. That's what, I mean if the neighbors won't echo me, that's fine but that's what I'm asking for is ' that berm's going to go in. It's going to go in much more like what we're proposing than what the post office is proposing. That's what we'd like to see recommended. And that they move that loading dock. And I've written a letter to Mark Senn asking him to have the City Attorney ' help us look into some of these nuances of these laws because these are the federal laws that govern the operation of the postal service. It's something that they have to comply with. And we ' should be given our due process. So the variances on some of these things I think can be worked out and that these things can be worked out and can be fixed and I'd really encourage you. I mean your rules aside, we weren't given our due process and it's almost too late. They're , moving dirt_ They've been hauling dirt out of there all week long. Mancino: And they must have just hauled some in. There's that huge pile. I Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Bob Beduhn: No, they're bringing in clean fill because that clay, who wants to build on that? Except for us homeowners but you know it's, they're bringing in sand and stuff I suppose so they can pour their, they need Class V and everything else but they've been hauling, I was working at home the last couple days and they were just trucks leaving there all week long. They took out the berm that was there. It's gone. I mean it's all knocked down. What they're proposing is, right now they have a 13 foot berm where now they're going to have a 4 foot, 4 to 5 foot berm and we're proposing probably closer to an 8 and a 10 foot berm. 2:1 side slopes that they've got ' to be natural plantings of grass and stuff like that. Let it go wild. It is a nature trail. That's fine. But I'm going to let my other neighbors talk for a while but I really encourage you to look at those things when you consider this because this thing's been rammed down our throats and we haven't had a chance to even, when you listen to some of the neighbors talk about McDonald's. They've been talking about the hotel for a year and had concept plans and everything else. This stuff was submitted to you. They gave you 60% design drawings in the summer. They gave you ' notices. The city had an opportunity to do something here and now we need to all stand strong together and try to accommodate this thing because I think it's more than visual. It's more than property values. I mean I'm really concerned, it's our kids. I mean I've got a little one year old at home. Just turned one the other day and there's little babies up and down the street. There's little kids. I mean that's what's really eating at me. Is that I, you know am I going to have to not, what are we going to do at 3:00 in the morning when they start. One of my neighbors gets milk ' service. They're not here right now but that truck comes like at 5:00 in the morning. That wakes me up once a week. ' Mancino: Bob will you talk more specifically again. Just take two seconds to tell us more about the environmental assessment as far as how they, number one how the federal government or the ' post office has to notify you. And secondly about the hours. I didn't, you eluded to the hours. Does that mean if it's at a certain decibel level, the hours have to be? Bob Beduhn: Right. Okay here's what I found out. Talking about the rules. 39 CFR, 775.2. That's the policy, that describes the policy of the U.S. Postal Service following the procedures of the national, the Environmental Policy Act. Basically what it says is, the postal service is to ' emphasize environmental issues, encourage public involvement and use what they call a NEPA process and use all practical means in minimizing the environmental impacts. And one of the requirements as you go through there, and it goes through 775.3 and .4 and so on and so forth, is ' when you go through there, one of the regulations it tells you, you have to contact the state, local, regional officials and the directly impacted public. They have to publish a notice, and apparently they did publish a notice in the Star and Tribune or something like that. Haven't quite got the ' right thing down but it specifically says the directly impacted individuals have to be notified, and we weren't. So then you go and you say okay what kind of rules are of the most concern to me and they, which is why I haven't had a chance to review fully the whole assessment but when I was going through some of the rules and the things that are of concern to us is noise and disruption on our lives. Now there's a Federal Noise Control Act of 1972 that addresses noise in some manner. And then there's also Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7030 which is Noise Pollution ' Control. Now that law, the way I read it, regulates noise between adjacent land uses. And so like if you have single family residential adjacent to like a warehouse site just like this, the way I 55 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 read it is that the warehousing site has to have the same noise level as the residential site. And then there's even more stringent, they were like. Mancino: During certain hours. Bob Beduhn: During certain hours they're more stringent between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. So what was the other? That was the one question. Mancino: I think those were the two. Bob Beduhn: Okay. So you know, I've written to Bryan Marschall at the Postal Service on the 4` I sent him another letter for the 5` I've written him sending a letter to the guy that wrote, signed the Findings of No Significant Impact raising these issues. Oh, you asked me about the hours. How did I know about the hours. We videotaped the meeting last Wednesday and I was playing it back over the weekend, and I can provide a copy to anybody on the Planning Commission that would like one. The person who's going to be operating this facility, I asked him the question, how many vehicles per hour, how many semi's per hour can you expect? And his response was, oh it's not vehicles per hour. There's one starting at 3:00 to 3:30. Then there's one at 4:00. Then there's one at 5:00. Then there's one at 6:00 and maybe two at 7:00. I sort of go, well that sounds like a vehicle per hour to me. And that's how I got to, when you asked me the hours of the operation so the report, if I were just glancing at it, I think it said starting at 7:00 a.m. was when the semi traffic was starting. So that's a big difference. Most people are up by 7:00 a.m.. And this is also, you've got to remember these guys deliver mail on Saturday too. So I don't mind there being a business there. I'm not trying to be a NIMBY but all I'm saying is, I think the thing that's going to be disruptive to our lives and move it to the other side of the building and that's been the same request we've been asking all week long and I'm working with trying to get the senators and congressmen and everybody else to keep asking the same question. I would just hope the City would support us on that and make the necessary accommodations being the fact that everybody, everything else out there is an industrial park, I don't think it will be greatly impacting the facility and I think we can work with the landscaping to help screen ... but it's really an environmental health issue in my mind and I'm real concerned about it. Mancino: Thank you. Obviously the concern is the back noise. When those semi's pull up. mean I can hear it a quarter of a mile away the semi's when they're doing construction. Bill Kemble: I'll be brief. My name's Bill Kemble. Again I'm at 1782 Valley Ridge Trail North, which is northeast of.. And if you don't all have an appreciation for how wrongly oriented this building is, I invite you to come to my bedroom and look out and see what kind of an intrusion it's going to be on our lives. A couple people here were at the neighborhood meeting last week and saw how concerned we were. There's kind of a heighten sense of concern this past week and I just wanted to let you know why. We were assured by the postal service that we would get a quick response, 2 to 3 days it would take them to get back to us directly, formally, to tell us what their decisions were regarding our requests. They so far refused our request I believe by Sharmin or possibly Kate to halt construction temporarily until they're able to make some decisions. They even worked on Saturday this week to speed up the construction a 92 J 7 I u F1 I� fl I C II I J Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 little bit. And we got a real live awakening at 7:00 Saturday morning by exactly what we know we're going to be hearing at 3:00 in the morning if this building goes in as constructed. Beep, beep, beep with all the construction vehicles when they're backing up. That's what woke me up on Saturday morning. And without telling anybody what's going on, what are we supposed to think when they're starting to haul dirt out? It could be used for a berm. We're very happy to see that they've worked on the plan for the berm. Nobody told us. Nobody pro- actively called us and said, we're going to do this for you. All they did was start hauling dirt out. What are we to assume? It's a pseudo government authority. They can do whatever they want. What are we to assume? The postal service also chose not to send a representative to this meeting. They don't have to go through the planning process. They did send their architect to make their presentation but what are we to assume? They're not really paying attention to the situation. There's been no pro- active attempt to contact us. I've called the gentleman who the postal service, Bryan Marschall, who was the main contact when we left the neighborhood meeting last week, to be getting back to us. I've had to call him twice to find out what updates were and all that he's told me is, we're going to work with you on the berm and the landscaping. We've not made any decision on the loading docks. He gives me a long laundry list of financially oriented reasons why they're not going to stop construction. Meanwhile construction speeds ahead and again, what are we to assume other than the worst? So what we'd like the Planning Commissioners and the City of Chanhassen to do for us is not question their right to build on this property because it's their right to build on this property. As Bob explained and we all understood that when we purchased our homes. That's fine. What we're asking you to do is use your influence. As Planning Commissioners in the City of Chanhassen to make sure that they build it in a responsible fashion. Make sure that they orient the building the way that it should be oriented. So that our quality of life doesn't go downhill. You can't necessarily even accomplish that via your normal plan review process because they're not subject to it. They don't have to comply. We just need to make an extremely strong statement to these people saying we'd like to build a berm and the landscaping built. Let's use the architect's design as a foundation. Let's add the neighbors' enhancements and let's move those loading docks. There's a way to move the loading docks. It can be done in our opinion and if they're not moved, it's going to be really noisy and I'm going to be woken up at 3:00 in the morning with beep, beep, beep as the tractor trailer backs up to the loading dock. My kids are going to be woken up. All the other kids in the neighborhood are going to be woken up. Because the gentleman who was the representative from the meeting, Bryan Marschall really hasn't been very responsive, we'd like the contact to go to a gentleman named Robert Fischer, who I believe is the highest ranking person in the Minneapolis facility that would be associated with this project. We would like the City and the Planning Commission to say, here's what we'd like to see done. Thanks. Mancino: 7:00 on Saturday morning. You know we have a noise ordinance that they can't start before 7:00. Pardon? Audience: Isn't it 8:00 on Saturday morning? Mancino: Oh no, that's our development contract and we don't have one with them, never mind. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? 57 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Marcia Strand: Good evening, I'm Marcia Strand. I live at 8631 Valley View Court. Again directly behind the new U.S. Postal Service facility. There had been some talk and discussion about the landscape berm. Whether or not there should be a fence involved with it also. And as we stated a number of times, there are 50 small children under the age of, I think the oldest is 10 now. That all butt up to this house. Or in our houses butting up to this property and I think that a fence needs to be part of it as a security measure and safety function for children and to protect the postal service because they have so many vehicles coming and going. Personal vehicles. Government vehicles. Semis. That that's an issue besides just having the fence there to protect us from noise and view and all that stuff. That's all I want to say because I've been away from home a long time now. Mancino: Anyone else? Okay seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second. Joyce moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Craig. Peterson: Well I think that clearly I empathize and I'm struggling as to how to pro - actively and with dispatch try to resolve some of these issues. I think. Mancino: Excuse me. I'm going to interrupt for a minute because I should have kind of framed this up. This will go, I'm sorry, in front of the City Council on Monday. Aanenson: Tuesday. Monday's a holiday. On Tuesday the 12 Mancino: On Tuesday the 12` So it will go in less than a week to the City Council. So we need to direct them how we would recommend them to act on it and obviously we can put a condition in there about legally, and obviously they'll have to figure out how to deal with that legally so we can make some recommendations that we think the city should pursue legally. I just wanted to. Peterson: Agree. Agree. You know I think clearly had this come through the process we would have as a commission made a recommendation to the Council that the building be oriented differently than this. I think that, in and of itself, says that we should do whatever we can here and now to convince that it's in the best interest of the post office to make that change. So my comments are simple. That we try to do whatever we can to re- orient the building and put the berm in and to use whatever facilities are at our avail as it relates to the city that we can. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, I think this is a law situation with injunctions and work that I don't know how to start or any of that kind of thing so I'm not even going to comment on that. I think this is a bad deal and I think the City should stand behind these people. Some way. 1 n 1 I� Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 I mean there's got to be a method of at least getting some sort of response out of the federal government. I don't understand it. The only thing I can say to you folks, I think you did a wonderful, absolutely wonderful job here. You're the most informed group I've come across in my tenure up here so the only thing I can say is, do the same job you did with City Council and hopefully they'll have methods of getting some sort of response out of the post office. I appreciate your comments. I appreciate your coming and staying here so that's all I have to say. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: The thing that primarily sets this apart, if this would have been a normal industrial construction here, it would have gone through the process and differences that I think we would have seen is the loading docks would have been visually out of sight from the residents. You would have truck traffic at 4:00 in the morning. I can imagine what those trucks backing up at 4:00 in the morning are going to sound like every hour. And I don't know if moving the loading dock in the front is going to make that much difference. They're still awfully close to you. Close proximity. You have a little more shielding there but you might have some ordinance to deal with that. The postal service or the government might have some, it sounds like they have some restrictions on it. It seems like that's the best avenue. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: It is embarrassing the federal government doesn't have to adhere to our standards. That's, everybody else does. The City does. Mancino: The elementary school did. Conrad: Everybody does, except the federal government. That's very depressing. Nice job in the community. I think we should stand, obviously I think we would have changed things so, I can't change. I can't add anything. I guess the only thought is, this will get to the City Council Tuesday and that's 6 days from now and there's a lot of construction. I don't know. I think there should probably be some legal, something probably should be done before that but I don't know what that is. I Mancino: Kate do you? Did Roger? Aanenson: Well we tried a lot of different angles. I guess certainly we can pursue the EA ' documents as far as the hours of operation... Obviously they've found Watershed... Mancino: But they've still been working even though they had the, even though they're getting ' that tonight, I'm assuming they've been working as they've been waiting even for the Watershed District to decide, right? ' Hempel: Right. It was a very straight forward site plan for Watershed to approve. That's why they based it on a relatively short construction window of winter setting in. It's the only control they have is basically was the site grading controls is my understanding. That's pretty straight 59 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 forward. They unfortunately can't look at noise, site plan features that we are looking at this evening. That's my understanding. Aanenson: We can try this other person too. But we did send... certainly try Mr. Fischer... Mancino: And is there anything that Roger can do? He just said legally there's nothing that the City can do? Even reading the EA document and using that. I mean. Aanenson: It's something to pursue. Mancino: Okay. I'm sorry, I interrupted you. Conrad: No, that's all right. Don Chmiel knows of the problem? Mancino: All of the Council knows. Conrad: Everybody knows. Okay. Blackowiak: Well I was at the meeting last week and heard a few of you speak. There's a lot of things going around in my head right now but I'll try to be short and sweet. It sounds as if both the post office and the neighbors have some ideas on berms that are in agreement. Like the 2:1 ratio. The trail location. The fencing option. It seems like if you were to get together on a berm height and add a fence to it, the higher berm height, the 8 to 10 feet sounds good. The 7 foot privacy fence sounds good. This is all visual stuff and I think one of the major problems that you're facing is noise level and the Minnesota Statute that Bob, that you cited talked to me about neighbors and differing zoning. That sounds promising to me. Now I'm not an attorney either but that's something that I would certainly take a look at because it sounds like they maybe haven't met the burden there in terms of making those two uses compatible or noise levels compatible or whatever but that sounds interesting to me and I certainly would take a look at it if I was you. One thing that really struck me as I was reading through the staff report, it talks about the findings. The site design is compatible and harmonious and I just, I laughed. I mean it's not. It has nothing, I mean although the site design itself may be but in terms of the neighborhood as a whole, it certainly isn't and it does bother me that the federal government can just go ahead and do whatever they want to really without any regard for who they're by. And to say, one thing I try to teach my kids is that just because you're able to do something doesn't mean you should do it and it really bothers me. The government's able to do this but I don't think they should do it. I think they should do the right thing. I think they should move the loading dock and I think they should really work on berming, lots of trees and maybe even going over east onto the National Weather Service property. To try to do something there because as I was out there today, and Marcia I parked in your driveway. You may have gotten a report that there was somebody there but it seems as if the Valley Ridge Trail North residences, 1806, 1798, 1792, 1782 and 1774. Those first five seem to be the most affected. Most of the burden is directly on the south and they're on the southeast and so I think the southeast corner is going to be critical to any, not only a visual solution but also to a noise solution too. So I think that looking into doing something ,. 1 1 n 0 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 along that southeastern portion, even if it goes onto the National Weather Service lot, is strongly recommended. So good luck. Thank you for coming. Thanks for staying up so late. Mancino: Okay, Bob. Bob Beduhn: Could we get an audience with the City Attorney like on Friday? Could that be arranged? Aanenson: I'll give him a call tomorrow. Mancino: A couple thoughts here. I would like to see between now and Tuesday that staff facilitate a meeting with the homeowners, Bob or Bill, whoever you decide, or Mike with Laura to work out the differences in the landscaping plan. And see where you can come together and where you can't. But work together on that and I'd like to see that facilitated. I would certainly attend the meeting too. And that have done before the City Council meeting so that that can be presented to City Council. And if there are differences there, the differences too. Here's where we agree. Here's what we can do. Here's, you know and part of that will be the Weather Service. I mean the postal service obviously can't go onto somebody else's property and create the berms so we'll have to look at that and figure out how to work that one out and I don't have an answer right now. On the recommendations 1 and 2, I understand. I would also like to see on 5 that the post office submit, Laura if you could, a detailed final lighting plan to be reviewed by the City Council. So we know exactly where the lighting's going to be and the parking and how it will affect the landscaping, etc. Laura Graich: The contractor has submitted, at least one full set of... Aanenson: There's no lighting details in it. Laura Graich: I'm sorry? Mancino: The lighting details are not in the plan. Aanenson: The lighting details are not in the plan. That's why we've been requesting it. Laura Graich: That's not, the sets that he gave, you may not be in possession of them Kate but in the Building Department a complete set. Mancino: Could you check that please? Aanenson: I'll double check. Mancino: Parking surrounding the building, etc. Even what's going to be on the building and going to be projecting out. Laura Graich: Right, okay. That would all be on the same plan. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 (There was a tape change during this part of the discussion.) Mancino: ...post office landscaping plan and the neighborhood plan come together. How would I say it. That the City shall facilitate a new landscaping plan that meets the needs of the post office and the neighbors. Joyce: So strike number 8 and add? Mancino: Yeah. Put that in for number 3. Joyce: Okay, strike number 8. So it will be condition 1 through 7 as so stated. Mancino: And I suppose the last one should be. Number 6, if we could just add a friendly amendment to that. A first line should say the post office shall submit a detailed final lighting plan for review by the City. Joyce: I'll accept that. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Blackowiak: I second. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic: I have just quickly. Typically you don't put loading docks on the front of a building. We're doing it for a situation because of this particular situation so we're making that concession out of common sense that that's the best alternative and that the building is under construction already and there aren't any other alternatives, is that correct? Mancino: And there's also an option of putting it on the east or if they so desire. Northeast I should say. As long as everyone else is comfortable. Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #95 -16 for a 46,000 square foot Postal Service Annex building, located on Lot 4, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Third Addition as shown on the plans dated October 3, 1996, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway apron detail into the construction plans and build both access points accordingly. 2. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at both access points until the parking lot has been paved with an all- weather surface. GYa u 1 Ll r Planning ommission Meeting - November 6 1996 g g 3. The grading plan needs to be modified to incorporate a berm along the south portion of the ' parking lot and the City shall facilitate a new landscaping plan that meets the needs of the post office and the neighbors. The slope on the berm shall not exceed 3:1. The applicant must provide additional year round screening of the truck loading area. At a minimum, 4 landscape islands or peninsulas should be provided'within the southerly parking lot. ' 4. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory ' applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. ' 5. A sign plan has not been submitted. A freestanding sign shall be limited to one monument sign. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus ' should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument ' sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site. 6. The ost office shall submit a detailed final lighting plan for review b the City. p g gP Y . Y ' Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. ' All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than Y2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right -of -way shall be used in the private ' areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off -site and no more than % foot candle of light is at the property line. ' 7. The Post Office shall move the loading dock and employee parking to the east or north of the site. ' All voted in favor, except Farmakes who was not present to vote, and the motion carried. ' BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED NATURAL RESOURCES PLAN WORK SESSION. Kate Aanenson and Philip Elkin presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Kate, just a quick question. In a nutshell, how you feel about what they've sent back ' to you. 63 Commission Meeting - November 6 1996 ' Planning C g , Mancino: Two across spaces? I Aanenson: Well I think as long as we're retaining that mix, if they did a PUD and still provided that, I think their ultimate objective is to have more commercial on 212. I think that that again ' flashes across... having the downtown as our core center. I mean again under the zoning techniques, if they come in and do something really creative and did the thing that we want, to preserve slopes, save natural features ... if it worked, so those are the things that we would ' consider. But just to give someone flat out commercial and end up with just another big box, we don't need that... ' Kate Aanenson continued with the staff report. I've ' Mark Koegler: Given the kind of discussions the Planning Commission has entertained, heard some conversation about what is this idea of mix. Unfortunately there is no ideal answer to that question. In order to try and get to the heart of that we've done a couple of things , here... options. One was to take a look, which makes common sense, at what some other communities, how they're evolving. And there's no magic to which communities we selected. We just took some initially in there that are basically fully developed, at least from the standpoint ' that they don't have areas that are not served by MUSA right now, or in the MUSA area. Some of them, as you'll see as you scan the list, they'll have significant amounts of vacant ag which over the course of time is going to change the number ratios around. But there's a set of cities ' that are basically, five of them that are in the more developed categories and then just a couple that happen to be adjacent, in Chaska's case and Eden Prairie's case, which do have areas that are outside of the MUSA line right now so that would further change the mix in the future as well ' the development of what's now vacant ag within there. To be candid with you, these aren't real conclusive numbers. It gives you a range of things that's fairly broad. You end up with, in the developed communities anywhere from 4 %2 roughly to 7% commercial /industrial and 3 %2 to 12 %2. Pretty broad ranges within the kinds of zoning that we're seeing in Chanhassen. The other thing that we have done thus far to try to quantify this. We worked considerably with a couple of the major market analysis firms as well as ... firms in the Twin Cities and I broached this topic , with their staffs. We're working on some other comprehensive plans. Inver Grove Heights for example was asking the same question. What's the perfect mix for our community in the future? How do we balance tax revenues? How do we balance services and so forth. And everybody ' laughs when you pose the question because it just doesn't have a definable answer. The comment was, and I think it's a valid one, is that many of those decisions are so legislatively based that they may be present today and gone in 2 years or 5 years. Take fiscal disparities or ' something for example that currently impacts everybody in the commercial industrial. What's the long term future of that? Maybe it remains intact. Maybe it doesn't. It has a long term ' impact obviously on if the city buys into what's the legislative framework is today. What happens 10 years from now? That legislative framework will change. Right now the comment I get is, if you really want to get the best bang for the buck, multi - family residential at this point in ' time. Is the bang for the buck item, which took me a bit by surprise with again. Mancino: Two across spaces? I ' Plannin g Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 Mark K ler: Yes. That's what the market finance people are telling me. I don't have an Ma k oeg p p g y ' statistics to back that up yet. We'll pursue that a little further. But the long and the short of it is, as I think maybe a lot of previous plans have done and other communities, it really is largely a vision policy issue of what do you want the city to become. Chanhassen has had a long history of emphasizing the downtown core as the key commercial resource within the community. Making satellite services available as a convenience to support neighborhoods. That's clearly the pattern that's being followed here. It seems to make some sense. Whether the numbers are perfect or ' not, we'll attempt to pursue that as we go along but don't expect a perfect answer. There isn't one. Conrad: If Chanhassen's population is going to double Mark, and we want the same, we don't want increases in taxes. We are getting some support from the commercial industrial. Couldn't you make an argument that you need to double your tax base? Okay, population doubles. Why ' wouldn't you want to double your commercial industrial tax base? Mark Koegler: If everything continues to pay it's same proportional share? That makes common sense. I would agree. I don't know that that's the mechanics of what will happen. Conrad: But how do you, you've got to make some. The corollary is population doubles, we're ' stuck with the same amount of space. Therefore we're not going to increase our tax revenue that much. So therefore the individual taxpayer's probably going to increase more of a burden. Right? Probably? 99% chance? ' Mark Koe ler: That's a strong argument. g g g ' Mancino: We'll try to get higher priced homes. ' Aanenson: But as Mark was saying, I think it's a legislative thing too. Conrad: Kate's not doing that though. She wants lower. ' Aanenson: Multi- family is booming right now. I think if the legislature goes back and changes how they're going to do property tax... that could turn this whole thing on it's head. What we're ' trying to say is, I think we need to first stick to our vision okay, of what we want this community to be. That's going to be our guiding force. Certainly the economics are important but I think the vision that we've been carrying throughout the city is critical. When you look at the ratios of ' even like Burnsville. Mancino: And what are ours? ' Aanenson: Well if Y ou add the commercial, ours is more, excuse me our industrial is 8 %. And our commercial is 2 %. If you add those two together you've got pretty close to the same number ' so our residential is... n i J 65 Commission Meeting - November 6 ' Planning C g , 1996 that I would throw out Mark Koegler: And again the caution t again here is within these g communities there's still quite a bit of vacant ag land which is going to be converted to other , uses. And we're not sure what their plans are for that conversion. So whether it's this same balance or whether ... but even with the developed numbers, I have to admit I was surprised. I had perceptions that some of these communities had higher percentages than what you actually see. And this is based on Met Council's land use data from 1990 which is largely aerial photographs interpreted, but it's reasonably accurate for this kind of comparison. Conrad: Well Kate, the vision is fine. Yet so many people in this community talk taxes. So ' many and I don't know, Nancy's been out knocking on doors so. Mancino: That is absolutely the number one. Absolutely. Conrad: They talk taxes. And we, I tell you, we've got to know what we're doing somehow, ' even if it's a guess. We've got to, you can't just say you have a vision for how pretty this community looks. I mean we've got to have a vision for how it economically might work. Aanenson: Right. I think the numbers that we put in here match up very favorably in comparison to other communities... put them in there to show you that. Our ratios. Mancino: But see then I need the other column and the other column is what kind of property ' taxes do we... I mean how good, how closely are they? See you can't you have to look at it the other way. ' Aanenson: y , . You've got the school districts. y Y You know you're slicing a lot. If the school's growing faster, where you've got one district in Chaska... ' Mancino: I mean it's never going to be apples to apples. , Aanenson: You can't. That's what I'm trying to tell you, okay. So if you want to add and provide more industrial. Say we don't want to go residential. We want to be more industrial in ' our community, then that's... So we'll try to get you a little bit. What we're saying is that there isn't... Mancino: No, but you should be able to chaos the area. There should be some patterns here. , Out of chaos comes the patterns or something. But we should be able to see. Aanenson: We can try to develop it but there's nothing out there. Nobody knows. ' Mancino: We're smarter than everybody else. We'll be able to figure it out. 1 Aanenson: I understand you need that information. Is there something else or some guidance you'd like to give us for the public areas? We did notify everybody south of Lyman that's , outside the MUSA to give an opportunity to get to the comp plan. Other than that we just noticed it in the paper. Everybody along the entire watershed district... 66 Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 1996 ' Conrad: The only thing I need for the meeting Kate is, and I asked for it before and I got a lot of colored copies. Or we got a lot of colored copies out of the Bluff Creek plan. They're still hard for me to interpret. I need an overview. I just need one page. Not 12. I need one page so I know ' if there's a sidewalk going down this corridor. I need to know more than what I can see. I can't integrate all the data. It's just too much to integrate between the project and all the pages and the little maps. I can't figure it out and I don't have a chance. I can't speak to, I just can't speak to ' it. So somehow on one overview page I need to know, and I'm not sure what I'm saying because I think it's a tough proposition. I guess I need to see the entire creek. I need to know where the projects are occurring that we're spending money on. But I need to know where the amenities ' are going too. Primarily I need to visually see if there's a trail going there and I don't know that yet. I think there's a trail but I can't piece it all the way down and so. If there are educational outposts along the way, I need to know where those are going so somehow simply, and it's not a ' simple deal because there's a lot of projects here, but somehow I think for a presentation, if we get into the details, we'll lose, we're not communicating so. ' Aanenson: There will be one set of maps ... and the other one showing the proposed trails. You want that kind of Peterson: Well the people in two weeks are going to want something they understand too, otherwise they're going to sit there with a glazed look on their face. Aanenson: That's why we had the two neighborhood meetings... ' Blackowiak: You know Kate, we had talked about this I think last year at the Park Task Force meeting about getting a base map of Chanhassen and then having acid tape overlays that you could add. Could you use that type of.. (Taping of the meeting ended at this point in the discussion.) Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. ' Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director I Prepared by Nann Opheim 67