Loading...
2e. Planning Commission Minutes June 21, 1995,,2 � f CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ' REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 1995 ' Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m and gave an opening statement regarding the procedures of a Planning Commission meeting. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeff Farmakes, Nancy Mancino, Mike Meyer, and Craig Peterson. Ladd Conrad arrived after item number 3 on the agenda. ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting and Bob Skubic ' STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer I SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT ON 1.38 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PVD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION, PERKINS FAMILY RESTAURANT, GUY PAYNE. ' Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you Bob. Do any of the commissioners have questions for Bob? Or staff ' at this point. Would the applicant like to approach the Planning Commission please. Guy Payne: I'm Guy Payne with Perkins Family Restaurant... and after the last meeting we, ' and in meeting with Bob also after the meeting, we incorporated the recommended details... and columns that were provided... and hopefully that meets everything requested. That's pretty much it. If you want to ask questions. Comments. Mancino: Thank you. Does anyone have a question for Mr. Payne? ' Farmakes: I maybe do. Do we have, are those from last time? Mancino: This was from last time. These were the same. We should use these as visual ' references Mr. Payne for what we see? Guy Payne: Yes. ' Mancino: This is, Jeff I'm not sure you were here but this is what we received last time. ' Guy Payne: That's just ... the striped awning. The other one is the, that actual prototype, that second photo. And that's a photograph up to the elevations of that same building that we're ' I Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 1 1 planning to provide. That doesn't have the view of the, the back two views ... so we have to look at those building elevations and try to see how that's going to incorporate. ' Mancino: Excuse me, I have a couple questions. Peterson: Can I ask a question please? ' Mancino: Sure. I am looking at your A -3. I don't know if you have one, do you have one in front of you? Guy Payne: No. , Mancino: Okay. Which says right side elevation. Bob, is that right side elevation facing ' south or Highway 5? Am I understanding that right side elevation? Generous: That would be the Highway 5 elevation. Mancino: Okay. My question on that elevation is, as I look at the new drawings that we have and I see where the columns are going to go. I am assuming that those columns will, ' excuse me Jeff, have the detail in them that are on this photo and that means that there's some recess in the middle of the column. Guy Payne: Right, that's correct. , Mancino: That's correct? They will still have those. I Guy Payne: Right. Now they have two different colors in it so it will break up the... Mancino: Okay. So they won't be plain, thank you. My other question is, that around this particular prototype building there is a sidewalk so that when there is a parking lot around the building everyone, when they get out of their car, goes to the sidewalk and then goes to the 1 entrance. Will this Perkins have a sidewalk around the building much like there is on, the only reference that I know that's around here is the Sydney's on Highway 7. It has parking all around it. When you get out of your car, you go to the sidewalk. It surrounds the ' building and it makes it. Guy Payne: This basically has sidewalk around two sides, which is where the majority of the ' parking is. n in - n 21 Planning Commission Meeting June , 1995 Mancino: Don't we have parking on all sides of the building? Surrounding the building on this. ' Generous: Yes. Mancino: So when people get out of their cars on the two sides that don't have parking, can ' you show me Bob how that works? One of my issues was being pedestrian friendly and getting people into the building safely. ' Generous: The primary customer entrances are I believe in the northwest corner of this site so they do have access from the northwest and east on the sidewalk system. I'd anticipate, since the south elevation has a service entrance, that that's primarily where they'd have their ' employee parking. And they do have the short sidewalks right into the building at those points. But people would generally have to walk across the parking lot to get to the sidewalk on the north. ' Mancino: But there is a sidewalk there to collect people and I know ... to that sidewalk on the north side from what I'm seeing here. That is correct? Aanenson: Right. F1 1 Mancino: And I also, I think what I see is an apron or a sidewalk also on that east side where there is so much parking that faces Target. Generous: There is just the end of the sidewalk. It wouldn't be on the side of the building I don't believe. Mancino: This is from last week's plan that weren't included. Generous: You mean the perimeter one? Or the one down Target Lane? Mancino: As you come here and park and you walk up here, you're on a sidewalk that takes you to the entrance of the building. Generous: No. I don't believe there's anything proposed on the east elevation. Guy Payne: No. We're really trying to do some landscaping since on the north and south we're sort of high. On the south there's virtually no room to even put a sidewalk. Then the east we were really trying to put the landscaping along the side and then people would walk along, up until they get up to the north sidewalk and tie in there. 3 Guy Payne: There could be on that east side. 1 Peterson: How many feet of landscaping is there? What's the scale? Quarter inch. As far as the landscaping around the building on the east side. Is there room for a sidewalk and 1 landscaping or not? Guy Payne: On that side? 1 Mancino: On the east side, where the main entrance is? Guy Payne: That'd be very ... put a sidewalk. That would take up almost to the end of that ' building there. Since we're so tight on the north because normally we would have more in the north and the south where we could scoot it down with the landscaping on the north side ' but then the configuration of the lot as is, we really could ... And there really will be more landscaping than what's shown on the east side. That's not totally complete. Right now it's showing... , Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Payne at this time? Farmakes: I have ... again what the primary reason is to come back before the Planning ' Commission versus the previous? Guy Payne: ne: It was a recommendation to increase metal roofs and other ornaments to the ' building on the ... side so that's why we come back and resubmit it because it was suggested there wasn't enough architectural treatment. Planning ommission Meeting - June 21, 1995 g g Mancino: So people again are going to walk kind of kitty corner through the parking lot to the front entrance versus coming up here to the sidewalk and. Guy Payne: Yes, , Mancino: Can you drop people off in this area? Is there enough of an apron area? Guy Payne: Sure. ' Mancino: For people to be let off. Guy Payne: Sure. Mancino: Okay. And are there places for bikes, etc to park? , Guy Payne: There could be on that east side. 1 Peterson: How many feet of landscaping is there? What's the scale? Quarter inch. As far as the landscaping around the building on the east side. Is there room for a sidewalk and 1 landscaping or not? Guy Payne: On that side? 1 Mancino: On the east side, where the main entrance is? Guy Payne: That'd be very ... put a sidewalk. That would take up almost to the end of that ' building there. Since we're so tight on the north because normally we would have more in the north and the south where we could scoot it down with the landscaping on the north side ' but then the configuration of the lot as is, we really could ... And there really will be more landscaping than what's shown on the east side. That's not totally complete. Right now it's showing... , Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Payne at this time? Farmakes: I have ... again what the primary reason is to come back before the Planning ' Commission versus the previous? Guy Payne: ne: It was a recommendation to increase metal roofs and other ornaments to the ' building on the ... side so that's why we come back and resubmit it because it was suggested there wasn't enough architectural treatment. Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Farmakes: If by that, the previous building as I understand was stucco? Guy Payne: Same materials. All the same color materials... Farmakes: Am I, I have the older plans and I'm seeing different materials drawn on the outside of the building. Is that? Guy Payne: Different material? Farmakes: Well, it's showing stucco and so on. Guy Payne: Same thing on the building. Farmakes: Same thing. Generous: The primary difference was that had the massive roof on the top and it was a slightly bigger building. Actually 500 square feet larger I believe. Guy Payne: It was 1,500 square foot larger building. Farmakes: In going to the awning situation. On the awnings that we approved before. Mancino: Were not striped. Farmakes: Were not striped, but they were not all yellow either. They were green and yellow, were they not? Guy Payne: No. They were all yellow. Farmakes: They were all yellow? Aanenson: But they were not to be back lit though. Farmakes: Did we discuss the issue, and it's been a while since we approved this so I'm trying kind of-memory to go through this. There was a question in the previous one about neon and what we discussed about how that fit into what the PUD covenants were. Aanenson: Well the first one didn't have neon on it. Generous: No, it didn't have neon on it. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 , I Aanenson: Well the back lighting we said we couldn't allow. The awnings. Farmakes: Okay, we have neon striping on the plans that I see in front of me. Aanenson: Yes. I Farmakes: And how does that relate to the covenants of the rest of the building in the general area? I don't believe we have any other buildings in Chanhassen with neon striping ' on it. Generous: Not that I'm aware of. ' Mancino: No, we don't. ' Farmakes: Does that single it out within the covenants of the Target and the outlot? Generous: Not within the PUD it wasn't addressed either way. , Farmakes: So that wouldn't be substantially different than from the surrounding building? ' Generous: I don't know. Not substantially I don't believe. You have the other buildings in the downtown that have their large sign areas that are back lit and that acts the same way. It gives off that blue or green or red glow. ' Mancino: Bob, that's only the signage area, isn't it though? I Generous: Yes. Mancino: It's not surrounding. It doesn't run the perimeter of the entire building so this ' would set a precedent. Farmakes: The reason I'm bringing it up, and since I believe in your report it talks about bright bands or, and we never did address the issue. I was talking about colors versus neon and that's ... in the report. So I'm trying to establish, because I couldn't recall whether we had I discussed it on the previous page or not. Generous: I don't remember discussing it. 1 Farmakes: Because I understood it wasn't an issue. It wasn't submitted as such. This is different. I e 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Generous: Well it wasn't submitted. They did have the neon banding around and it was mentioned in the report but I didn't, you know, feel that that was a big issue. Guy Payne: And we had basically the same neon wrapping all the way around the building on the previous submission. Farmakes: I noticed that, since this is back and forth, I've noticed in looking at the Perkins in Hopkins, which I drove by today, all the awnings on the building are green except for the yellow one that's in front of the entrance and I'm just wondering what consistency Perkins has in regards to it's awning maker. Guy Payne: This stripe is the standard. 3M's our... company and we worked it with 3M in developing this new awning and as a matter of fact, I talked to the 3M rep yesterday and they already produced 100 of those stripes for us and we've already used them all up so that's our standard. We've tried it in probably 4 or 5 locations of the different awning. The yellow and green. That's a test basis and basically this yellow with the stripe in it is our standard. So there's quite a few being, either done or being done in the Minneapolis area right now to our existing restaurants. Farmakes: So you're familiar with the Perkins I'm talking about? Guy Payne: I am, however I'm not sure. We had one other scheme that was being done. That may be the same one. It had. Farmakes: This has arched windows. Guy Payne: Right. And it had a green awning with a yellow stripe in it and then the others were yellow with a green stripe. That's probably what you saw. Farmakes: No. I saw, all the arched windows had green awnings. Solid green, and the color scheme of yellow was in front of the entrance. Guy Payne: That's probably that same one. It should have a little yellow stripe around it. It's only a small, you may not even notice it. Farmakes: The reason I'm asking you this is that we've had this discussion before. I think with Taco Bell and some others who came in with color schemes that they're supplying and the obvious question we have is how consistent is this and so on with what we're seeing because they change. They seemingly change from store to store. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 , L7 Guy Payne: Yeah, but that's not true in this case even though out of 200 awnings or so put up, about 3 or 4 have that yellow and green one whereas all the others are doing striped. ' Farmakes: The garbage collection area is leaning towards the most predominant junction. CR 17 and TH 5. Will there be any banners placed on? ' Guy Payne: Banners? Farmakes: Banners. We've had some other. ' Guy Payne: Banners on the dumpster? I Farmakes: Yeah. No, on the shield. We've had some retail operations here in town that have been doing that. ' Guy Payne: No. We want to de- accentuate it. Not call attention to it. And that will be done in the same stucco to match the building so it will blend in as well as possible. ' Farmakes: The coverage on that. What would you determine on the landscape that we're ' looking at there? What type of real coverage would we have? Generous: Percentage of site? I Farmakes: Well, the sizing of the trees and so on. I'm just. Generous: ...not showing the ones on the west elevation. I thought we had pretty good. ' Farmakes: The three I think indicated on the plans? Towards the southwest. ' Generous: Right. And what you don't see is the city also has their planting scheme. Farmakes: I saw some of those, yeah , Generous: They blend in. Farmakes: There's a row of evergreens and so on. However the elevation is such that you're sort of looking over that currently. , Generous: Well currently and as these mature, the southeast corner will eventually disappear from view as you're driving down Highway 5. ' 8 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Farmakes: So you feel that within say 5 years or something, we're going to get some real coverage there? Generous: I believe so. Especially we're doing in depth planting in Outlot A as part of the ' city's plan. I don't know if the applicant's would like it but we're going to screen the whole site. Farmakes: I have no further questions at this time. Guy Payne: Thank you. Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Mancino: Can we have a motion to open the public hearing? Meyer- moved, Fmmakes seconded to open the public herring. All voted in favor mid the motion carried. The public herring was opened. Mancino: This is a public hearing. Would anyone wish to address the Planning Commission on this issue? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Meyer moved, Fm-makes seconded to close the public herring. All voted in favor mid the motion carried. The public herring was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: Well, I'll continue talking. I don't have any serious concerns about this building. I'm not wild about this striped awning. I'd rather see them green. I can understand why they want them yellow. It's a lot of yellow for me but fairly nice materials for a retail restaurant and the signage is not osentacious elsewhere. I think it's a reasonable nice building. I don't feel, the drama that you're seeing there, the skyline I think is a combination of some... I don't feel it's going to have as much drama on the entrance as is showing there. My preference of course would have been to have seen that maybe a little higher... angle of the building. Mancino: How do you feel about the neon? Farmakes: Essentially there aren't going to be that many more restaurants going into the area. I'm concerned I guess about the precedent that we're going to be looking at lit up buildings that essentially become a sign and I've talked about that before. Where they've said it's not how the building looks but whether or not people are going to see it from 10 miles away. 0 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 We're really a low impact area. I mean as far as, you're driving fairly slow and you're in town. You're not competing with a lot of buildings so the question is, these buildings need to be seen well but they're not playing in the same field as they are at Southdale or Mall of America and so on. You don't have those kind of sight lines. It's just using some common sense in this area. I don't feel as a matter of practicality that if we allow that, that we're going to see a lot more of if There aren't that many lots left so my preference is, would not to be seeing it. I don't feel though that it's probably justified in citing the real case that is going to cause a lot of destruction at this point. Mancino: Do you think other buildings will want it...? Farmakes: I don't envision Target or Byerly's or anything like that, if that's what your question is. My real concern with the building is that this is another building that's probably in the most predominant area of town. It's open 24 hours a day. They're going to see it. It's going to stay lit up and the neon actually, you know pin striping neon actually can be attractive but the point is that once the cat's out of the bag, you never know what's going to happen. But like I said, we've only got what, one other lot available in this property and unless we invent more commercial property. Mancino: We don't have any more lots. Aanenson: This is the last one. Mancino: This is Perkins, Taco Bell and Boston Market. Farmakes: I thought there was one more. Mancino: That's it. Farmakes: Alright. Well all the more reason then. Unless things really change on the Ward property, I don't see that happening. I thought perhaps when I was talking about the issue of the covenants. We were talking, there's an overriding covenant I believe in the downtown development that talks about how... significantly different and the comment about the brightly colored bands is referring to the general bright striping. Orange ... book stop retail outlets that you see. I don't feel probably that this falls in that place. So I'm not going to make a big issue out of it. Mancino: Okay. Craig. 10 r I 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Peterson: I guess I really concur with Jeffs comments regarding the neon and the yellow. I think it's overkill in many ways. Again I don't feel strongly enough to advise... The only thing that I would add that I would like to take the developer's word that the east area be landscaped more than it is now with just grass as it's shown. With shrubs, etc, etc. If you ' can't put a sidewalk there, I think it'd be very conducive from a landscaped standpoint to put some significant bushes and stuff in there so. ' Mancino: Mike. Any comments? ' Meyer: I think we've pretty well covered it. No additions. Mancino: Good. I don't think I have any other new ones to add. My concern before was ' that I think the applicant addressed with the new plans was the side that faces Highway 5 and also the sidewalk and I see that as a condition, number 13. So I'm just very comfortable with it. Do I have a motion? ' Meyer: I'll make a motion. ' Mancino: Okay. Meyer: I make a motion that the City Council approves Site Plan 494 -6 prepared by RLK ' Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995 subject to the following conditions, 1 through 13. Mancino: Do I have a second? Peterson: Second. Meyer moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Site Plan 994 -6 prepm-ed by RLK Associates and John P. Shaw, dated May 8, 1995, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The sidewalk shall be relocated to access the service drive where the stop sign is located to provide safe crossing movements for pedestrians. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the erosion control on the site until the site has been fully revegetated. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 3. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits associated with the development of this site including, but not limited to watershed district, PCA, MWCC, Health Department. 4. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. 5. The developers shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 6. Construction access to the parcel shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or Powers Boulevard. The applicant and /or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction entrance until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface. 7. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right -of -ways. 8. The landscape plan needs to be revised as follows: add three red oaks on the west side of the parking lot, add one hackberry in the southwest corner of the parking lot, and add one black hills spruce to screen the dumpster area; revise plant schedule to specify 4 skyline honey locust, 3 sugar maple, 4 black hills spruce, and 12 clavey's dwarf honeysuckles, delete red splendor crab (unless used for foundation planting), delete spring snow crab (unless used for foundation planting), and delete snowmound spirea (unless used for foundation planting); and provide foundation plantings per city code. The applicant shall install an aeration /irrigation tubing, see figures 11 -2, in each peninsular or island type landscape area less than 10 feet in width. 9, The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15% of the wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No backlit awnings shall be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted. 10. The maximum size of the flag shall be limited to 80 square feet. In addition, the flag pole location shall comply with sign placement limitations. 12 I L Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 11. One additional "No Parking -Fire Lane" sign must be placed on the north side of the building. In addition, where "No Parking -Fire Lane" signs are installed, curbing must be painted yellow. This should be indicated on the overall site plan. Also, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants. 12. The applicant must provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the plans must be made before issuing building permits. 13. The applicant shall provide a five foot wide concrete sidewalk from the sidewalk on Powers Boulevard to the northwest corner of the parking lots. All voted in favor and the motion carded. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDNIDE 122.29 ACRES INTO ONE LOT OF 2.53 ACRES AND AN OUTLOT OF 119.76 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED NORTHWEST OF WEST 96TH STREET AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 101, TIM ERHART. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions of staff from commissioners? Meyer: Kate, the number 5. That will be incorporated into the deed? That's a private agreement. Aanenson: Correct. ' Meyer: Okay. Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. Does the applicant wish to give a presentation? Tim Erhart: Thank you for the invitation and I'd like to say ... being up here on a nice summer evening. I put in my 6 years. I just want to say that we've lived here 14 years and we're not leaving the area. We're going to buy a house on Lake Riley so we're staying in Chanhassen. That means I'm still eligible to be on the Planning Commission again. Other than that, I think it's in line with it I think. I've always been concerned about the property, that whatever we do with the property, in 14 years, we do it consistent with the future plan and so the ghost plat really fits with what we've been thinking all along. I think it's logical... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Any questions for the applicant? My only question is, are you going to let the new owners cut down any of those trees that you planted? Tim Erhart: I don't think so. No, they wouldn't do it there. I'm getting very successful at selling a few. Mancino: Are you? Tim Erhart: Yeah. A lot of them are 14 -15 feet high now. It's amazing once they get a couple feet high, how fast they grow ... Kind of a fun project. My heart wants to stay at this place but my wife and three kids, there's just not enough room in the house. Not logical to stay there. She found a really pretty house with lots of room for the kids. Mancino: So you're going to move on. Well, thank you. May I have a motion to open it for a public hearing please. Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is a public hearing. Would anyone wish to come up and speak on this issue? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion cwiied. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Craig. Comments? Peterson: No concerns. Everything seems to be addressed. Mancino: Okay. Mike. Meyer: Nothing. Farmakes: No comment. Mancino: No comment. Do I have a motion please? Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision 995 -9 as shown on the plans dated June 5, 1995, subject to the following conditions 1 thru 5. 14 ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Do I hear a second? ' Meyer: Second. ' Mancino: Any discussion? Faimakes moved, Meyei• seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City ' Council approve Subdivision 495 -9 as shown on the plans dated June 5, 1995, subject to the following conditions: ' 1. The smaller lot shall be labeled as Lot 1, Block 1, Name of Subdivision, and the larger lot shall be labeled as Outlot A. ' 2. The following easements shall be provided. ' a. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. b. Cross access easement over the existing driveway to provide access to the existing residence. ' 3. Show the location of two proposed ISTS sites. This must be done before final plat approval. 4. Demonstrate the existing ISTS is not a failing or noncomplying system. ' 5. An agreement stating that when the outlot is developed, Lot 1 will be required to access from the public street and the private drive eliminated. I All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE OUTLOT A, BRENDEN PONDS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY ' 5 AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. ' Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Kate, I have one. As I read through this I ' was a little confused. I want to make sure that I got it right. At the beginning on page 2, the first paragraph. Lot 1 it says is a single family residence and Lot 2 is the well house. 1 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Later in the report on page 4, under grading it says that Lot 2 is proposed as a walkout house. So is Lot 2 the well house or. Aanenson: No. You were right the first time. Lot 1 is the building lot. Lot 2, next to the wetland is the well house. If you look on the plat, which is on the overhead. Mancino: This is where the house is going to be? Aanenson: Correct. The one, if you look on the plat, it shows the 20 foot interceptor easement on it. That's the lot with the house on it. Mancino: Okay, the western most one. Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Thank you. Aanenson: Sorry about that ambiguity. Mancino: I wanted to make sure. And is Lot 1 the house that's going to need 10 feet of fill? Or is Lot 2 for the well house the one that's going to be graded so excessively? Hempel: Lot 1 will require the additional fill material for the house pad. Mancino: Unless we recommend that it be a rambler. Hempel: Restrict the dwelling type to a rambler or rambler lookout versus Mancino: Or lookout, okay. If, excuse me Dave. If we do, as a condition, instead of putting so much fill in over the wetland, etc, suggest or make a recommendation that it be a lookout or a rambler, how much less fill will there be? How much will we be messing with the topography? Hempel: Approximately about 4 feet of fill less. So you still would require up to 6 feet of fill. Mancino: 6 feet of fill, okay. 16 r j Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Hempel: It will also require filling for the well site. As you continue to the east there, the slopes are even steeper so there will be some filling involved with the well site as well. Mancino: But the well site isn't a walkout or. Hempel: No, right. Mancino: I mean we won't get into as much. So we would be at 6 feet of fill instead of 10, okay. Thank you. Any other questions? This is a public hearing. We don't have another applicant do we? It's the City of Chanhassen. Aanenson: Yes. We're working with Gestach and Paulson on this. But because the city is initiating it for the well site, we're really the applicant because we're the one that's requesting the plat go in at this time so we're taking the lead position on this. But it's the Gestach- Paulson property. Mancino: Okay. And they're not here to make a presentation? Aanenson: No. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please? Meyer moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hewing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone that would like to come up and talk on this issue may. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion caned. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: I have no comments on this. I will vote for it. Mancino: Okay. Craig. Peterson: No comments. Mancino: Mike. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Meyer: Dave, do you see any problems with the 10 foot of fill that ... It seems like sometimes logical from an engineering standpoint, should it be something we're concerned about? Hempel: It's always desirable from a builders standpoint to have a walkout type homesite. It's the most desirable. It appears the filling in there meets the wetland setbacks. It's not imposing in the setback and so forth. I guess we could go either way. Meyer: Okay. Mancino: Kate, I have just one comment and that would be. It's peculiar to me that on this particular, the whole Brenden Pond, how many lots do we have on the collector? We have quite a few lots. Aanenson: Actually on the north side, I think we have, I think there's just 2 or 3 on the other side. Mancino: Okay. So we're going to have 5, a total of 5 driveways on Lake Lucy Road. Aanenson: Right, right. Except the well. Hempel: If I could clarify. The lots to the north side do have shared driveway access points so we have eliminated one or two on the north side. And the south side will have two though. Aanenson: And the well, I'm not sure much activity will be at the well. Mancino: Will go on, okay. My other question is, I've never seen this done but just asking. As the property to the south of this land develops, is there potential for this particular Lot I to get access if it develops to the south? I mean that's hard to put in as a condition but it makes a lot of sense for one house here, Aanenson: It could except that just off the top of my head looking at this, to get another road there, to get another lot, you'd almost have a lot that would be double fronted. Unless you did a cul -de -sac but that wetland is kind of big right there. Unless you came in from the other direction, I think it would be, it's a tough call. I think you'd almost make it a double fronted lot in order to do that, even if you brought a cul -de -sac in. It could possibly but we usually try to look at that but that piece is so big, the property to the south, I think they have a lot more options. I think that'd be a really good point if this was a narrow piece and didn't have as much design flexibility but I think that piece is large enough that we've got quite a few options. 18 I,] ' Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Okay. And is there some way to word it so that you can just look at that and ' obviously. ' Aanenson: You mean a private drive or something? Mancino: Yes. Or something. To see when the southern property does develop, if there's ' some way that the access could be off that. If it can't, it can't. Hempel: I think the topography to the west and south of the proposed house pad is severe enough that you need additional filling to put that driveway in to the street so. Mancino: Well I just, yeah just look at that. I'd appreciate that. Those are my comments. Do I have a motion? Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve preliminary plat for Subdivision 494 -10 dated June 21, 1995 for Brenden Pond 2nd Addition for 2 lots and one outlot with a variance for a side yard setback along the easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1 as shown on the plans received June 13, 1995, subject to the following conditions 1 thru 14. Mancino: May I have a friendly amendment? ' Farmakes: You sure can. Mancino: And that is that, and I'm sorry I didn't bring it up before. That number 2. That ' the plat approval still subject to the approved landscaping plan for Brenden Pond 1st Addition. I would just like to make sure that that landscaping is revised so that there is landscaping on the collector. Buffering that single family home which we did not think would be there. Meyer: Second. 19 Farmakes: Do you have a particular way you'd like to word that? ' Mancino: That staff and, the staff as being the applicant, review the existing landscaping plan on the collector and add buffering landscaping as they see fit. Farmakes: That'd be fine. ' Mancino: And is compatible with the existing plan. Can I have a second? Meyer: Second. 19 C Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Any discussion? Fwmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve preliminary plat for Subdivision 994 -10 for Brenden Pond 2nd Addition for two lots and one outlot with a valiance to the side yard setback along the eastefly lot line of , Lot 1, Block 1, as shown on the plans received June 13, 1995, subject to the following conditions: 1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- ' mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with side slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 2. The plat approval is still subject to the approved landscaping plan for Brenden Pond 1st ' Addition. Staff, as being the applicant, review the existing landscaping plan on the collector and add buffeting landscaping. ' 3. Building Department condition - The footings of structures proposed on Lots 1 and 2 shall be engineered. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee compliance with final plat conditions of approval. ' 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps ' of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDot and comply with their conditions of approval. 6. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100 year high water level. 7. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. ' 8. Fire Marshal conditions: ' a. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to 20 ' J Planning ommission Meeting - June 21 1995 g g insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. ' b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable. 9. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition ' and /or trail construction. 10. The applicant will be responsible for a water quantity fee of $440.00 and a water ' quantity fee of $990.00. 11. The applicant's grading and erosion control plan shall be in conformance with the City's ' Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review. 12. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 13. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all ' utilities and wetland areas lying outside the right -of -way. The MWCC easement shall be increased from 20 feet wide to 30 feet wide centered over pipe. I All voted in favor and the motion canied. PUBLIC HEARING: A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPING SECTION OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CFFY CODE TO CREATE A TRANSITION ZONE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. ' Mancino: Thank you, very much. Any questions of staff? We can go back and ask after the public hearing. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing. ' Faimakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hewing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hewing was opened. 1 21 (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. The following is transcribed from a , poor quality recording.) Peterson: ...question really would go back to cost. What are the developers going to ... or is it, ' as you inferred, is this standard in other cities say in Minnesota. Are we going to stand out as a city that they have to spend double on landscaping to get property developed, or is it so ' close there's not an issue. 22 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Does anyone wish to come up and approach the Planning Commission on the impending buffer yard ordinance? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Meyer moved, Conrad seconded to close the public healing. All voted in favor and the ' motion carried. The public hewing was closed. Mancino: Discussion with commissioners. Jeff. ' Farmakes: I hope this will solve the continuing problems that we seem to have with this. I'm not sure that we'll, not 100% sure. I guess I'm close enough to get to the point where maybe we should try it. I still have a problem with the word buffer and I still have a feeling that the Council's going to wrestle with this anyway maybe. I know we talked about it the other night. There are winners and losers in this thing, which goes beyond the intent of just putting ' up trees inbetween houses and perhaps something like this coupled with looking at the problem in general of that and what placing two types of development do to one another where they meet up. I guess I'm willing to trust staffs judgment in this regard rather than nit pick whether or not we've got 3 trees or 4 in trying to apply some quantifying tool to try to alleviate the problem. That's all. Mancino: Ladd. ' Conrad: I'd like this to go to City Council. It does make things more predictable. Less willy nilly. I don't see the need to buffer single family detached from single family attached. I'm concerned a little bit about the cost implications and would be interested in City Council's perspective on the cost implications. I'd be interested in knowing that City Council understands the draft. The wording should be so clear in terms of how to interpret so the staff shouldn't have to lead the developer or an applicant through the process. It should be ' clear. So my perspective is, send it on. My perspective is to recommend that they not have buffers between single family attached and detached. Interested in their perspective on the cost implications, which I'm sure staff can address. And interested in their understanding of ' this ordinance that is easily interpreted by... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. The following is transcribed from a , poor quality recording.) Peterson: ...question really would go back to cost. What are the developers going to ... or is it, ' as you inferred, is this standard in other cities say in Minnesota. Are we going to stand out as a city that they have to spend double on landscaping to get property developed, or is it so ' close there's not an issue. 22 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Generous: We did send a copy of this to another community who was looking at having a landscape... Peterson: They may be copying us and having the same problem. That's my only question. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: I think from a planning standpoint it makes a lot of sense. Whether the cost is a problem I guess Council will have to decide that but ... your perspective, it's going to make your job easier and their job as a developer coming in knowing what they're up against right away ... so I'm in favor of it. Mancino: Thank you. ...I am assuming that this is not added onto the tree preservation ordinance... using some of these funds to... Generous: Right. And saving trees can reduce the amount of planting that they ... Those examples that we made, I can run a cost analysis of... ' Mancino: And they can also ... I also agree with Ladd's comments about the buffering ... I think it should go up in it's entirety. My thought is or my concern has been on collector and arterial streets first ... I'd like to hear their comments. So do I have a motion. ' Conrad: Yeah, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the zoning ordinance revisions concerning landscaping and tree removal for transitional buffering ' between uses. Generous: ... resolution. Conrad: I'm going to make that motion ... but I would footnote it. I want the entire motion going forward. The entire ordinance going forward as drafted. Then I'd like to challenge the City Council to review the following factors. Whether they really would like buffering between single family detached and single family attached. The Planning Commission may not feel that that's ... would like to see if they feel that the cost implications are excessive. And if they do, then it would return to the Planning Commission for review. I'd like their input as far as clarity... understand this ordinance as drafted ... It's more of a participative ordinance than it is a requestive ordinance. I'm really sending this up to see what they think versus saying we... Farmakes: As a matter of practicality 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Mancino: Do I hear a second? Meyer: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Com -ad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the zoning ordinance revisions conceming landscaping and tree removal for hnnsitional buffering between uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: One little side bar I would add to that is, what you talked with us about Bob is..I mean how hard are the negotiations to get what we think is right for these kinds of scenarios with developers? Generous: Well it depends on the developer. Some of them are real easy and then others are like pulling teeth. Mancino: That's something that I would ... 90% is just pulling teeth all the time and it's so hard... Aanenson: ...and I think it's our job to look at those kind of issues ... and I think we've seen an increase of the ... that people are willing to do a good job. We have a hard time saying, and that's where we rely on you... We rely on our forester... Obviously when the neighbors see it, they want as much as they can but it's going to mature. It's going to grow and we've got to make sure it's the appropriate scale then ... so I guess that's what we were looking at too when this ... make sure we're not over crowding a site too. There's safety issues there too. As Bob indicated, at a minimum, I think streetscape is something we definitely could do a better job... improve the visual. The view from the road issue... Farmakes: ...we had the discussion about doing things that aren't necessarily... somebody's going to want to build here. The ultimate cost of everything that's done in real estate... Ultimately that cost doesn't go to the developer. It goes to the person who buys the house from the developer. Whether it's indirect or direct, ultimately it's paid for by the consumer, and the question really comes to then, the individual that lives in the community either wants to foot the bill ... and since we do this already, I'm not sure that this is a question that we're burdening the business person or simply defining... and I don't know what the response would be but I'm hoping... Conrad: ...Jeff's comments... 24 1 1 �I I Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 t Mancino: Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Staff, thank you for your work. ' NEW BUSINESS. ' Aanenson: ...I've been looking at a couple different designs, I'll pass it around. This is going to come before you as a subdivision. I just wanted to let you know what we're looking at ' here. As you look to the, if you put the street at the bottom so you're facing north. West 79th Street is at the bottom of the page. To the west or to your left would be Americana Bank. To your right, or to the east would be ... bowling alley. What we're looking at doing, ' the City is doing this, is dividing into four parcels. We tried to pull the development of two restaurants close to the street. Put the parking behind. What kind of drove this is there's a piece of property between Highway 5 and West 79th Street that a Tires Plus came in and t wanted to go on that location. We felt like that really should be left open and enhanced as you look across that piece so we worked to try to put them on a site, on the parcel behind and buy that parcel out and make it vacant so it's really an amenity. You have the pond next ' to it that the city already owns so it'd be a nice view. Looking across that landscaped area. And then you would look at two restaurants right on, fronting on West 79th ... not parking in the front. This is one I think we'd have some good control on and I believe these two will ' probably be the tenants there. Applebees ... We're having somebody put together a plat. You'll be seeing that shortly and probably the site plan review for a couple ... so I just wanted to let you know that that was coming forward. We're trying to tie this in again so you can see... Farmakes: I'm just curious. How does Tires Plus as a retail... ' Aanenson: They've gone together in other projects in Eden Prairie... We felt it would work good for them to be ... not as visible with the restaurants in front... They're the ones that kind of drove this whole project... ' Farmakes: I guess the only other place I can think of that there's a tire operation next to a retail restaurant is over in Eden Prairie. ' Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. There's one in Eden Prairie. ' Farmakes: It's the only one I can think of. ' Aanenson: There are some other ones in Apple Valley and... Farmakes: Right off from ... I think there is an Applebees there in a smaller shopping center. ' Peterson: Southtown has got an Applebees too ... tire store. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Farmakes: Typically the auto stuff is grouped together. Aanenson: Well we think this mix works good because what you're having here is it works good for parking and we think that's a plus because what you do is the tire store does require some parking but the hours work different and we think it's kind of a good mix ... Friday and Saturday night. You have less use at the tire store. It actually makes a good mix. We're making good use of parking and reducing the amount of parking which we're trying to look at now is not over parking the downtown. So actually as far as uses, we looked at that play and I think it's going to make a good mix. As you can see what's indicated on there, how many parking stalls they need. I think it's going to work out really well as far as the balance of the site. And again the retail, the other building is 4,000 and 2,000 square feet... Again, the city is looking at getting the property platted ... I just wanted to let you know. Mancino: Thank you. And is the city the applicant? Aanenson: For the subdivision, correct. Mancino: Good... Any other new business? Aanenson: The only other thing I was going to mention is the Planning Commission, Matt Ledvina was the HRA representative or liaison. I think that there should be someone else from the Planning Commission to attend the HRA meetings. Those are once a month. I believe on the fourth Thursday of the month. It's this Thursday so it'd be the third Thursday of the month. So if you would like to maybe think about picking someone for that. Mancino: Is there anyone who would like to volunteer? Aanenson: Or if you want to rotate it or something. Mancino: Or rotate it or have a back -up. I was the back -up for Matt. Not a lot of people go so ... and I think we'd also like to, as we do ... Would anyone like to volunteer for the HRA? Farmakes: It usually goes to the newest member. Peterson: I'd like to know what the initials stand for before I go. Mancino: HRA. Let's see, Housing and Redevelopment Authority. I would certainly be a back -up. Peterson: I would be willing to do that but I can't go this Thursday. 26 I 1 J d Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 Farmakes: I would ... this Thursday the park task force... Thursday is a bad day for me so... someone who wants to go or ... I have a long term commitment on Thursday nights... Aanenson: I can mention that to Todd too. That is their regular night you're saying? Farmakes: Until August. Mancino: I will actually, I'll change... Aanenson: Maybe Ron or Bob might be able to go too. Farmakes: I think rotating it... Mancino: Well the park and recreation... short term. The HRA is longer term. The HRA we could rotate... Aanenson: I can put a schedule together except that Mike and Jeff couldn't make Thursdays but I could put Ron... Farmakes: What times does it start? Aanenson: 7:30. (There was some discussion that could not be heard on the tape.) Mancino: So Mike, you're going to go to the HRA starting tomorrow for, we'll rotate... Aanenson: Yeah, I'll put a schedule together. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Comad moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated May 17, 1995 and June 7, 1995 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: The last City Council meeting, we believed we would not have a quorum. Colleen had her baby, although she did show up for the meeting, so we had cancelled all the items that were on the agenda, except for those that were on Consent. So I really don't have much... 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 1995 The taped portion of the meeting ended at this point. The Planning Commission had open discussion irgarding seasonal /tempor my sales, including Christmas hiees, sidewalk sales, etc., and conceptual review of the Villages on the Ponds, Wand property, located south of Highway 5 between Great Plains Boulevard and Market Boulevard. The meeting was adjourned after open discussion. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim W