Loading...
PC 2003 03 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAR~ 18, 21}03 Chnirwomnn Blnckowink called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBEI~ PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney and Bruce Feik ~iTAFF PRF_~ENT: Bob Generous, Senior Plann~, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, Matt Saarn, Assistant City Engineer, and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEM~: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Blackowiak: Tonight we have a full agenda with 5 items open for public heatings. Two comments about that. Number one, we will take a break at appro~dmately 9:00. A 5 or 10 minute water break, whatever for commissioners. That will be at around 9:00, or as close to that as possible. And number two, as outlined in the official By-laws, the Planning Commi~ion meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. We will do our beat to make sure that we are able to hear all items by that 10:30 deadline. 'However, if at our 9:00 break we're seeing that we're not making substantial progress toward that goal, we may ask. that some of the later item or items be moved to the next available meeting where they would be first on the agenda on the next meeting, but we'll know a liRle bit more at amuad 9:00 so we'll let you know how that goes. We'll try to be concise this evening. With that let' s go to item number 1. PIJBLIC I-1F. ARING: CQN mER Tm,. REQUEST I~R A VARIANCE FOR WA~J. SIGNAGE LOCATED AT 5~0 WEST 79TM ~TREET, BIJFFALO WILD WlNC,~h CLEARWATER OEV~JOPMI~NT OROUP, LLC. N~me Address Doug Pacify Daniel Walsh Scott Ruzin Scott Scbmitt 1600 Utica Avenue So, M'mneapolis 1600 Utica Avenue So, 1Vf'mne. at:}OliS 945 Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul 12560 46~ Street, Waconia Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowialc Okay. Commissioners, any questions? Sacchet: Yes, real quick a few questions. So since the sign.~ are on opposite sides of the building, you never see both signs at the same time? Al-Jaff: No. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Now do you calculate the percentage of the sign coverage? That was a little bit of a riddle to me. Al-Jaff: We pulled out, and that was a discussion that we had earlier with the applicant. We pulled out the definition of sign area and based upon the way we were calculating it we basically did this. Sacchet: So you take the whole space including the white space between the letters? AI-Jaff: Correct. Sacchex: When you calculate it. Okay. AI-Jaff: However that's not how the ordinance reads. The ordinance says take straight lines. Sacchet: Take the full. Al4aff: Length of the sign. Sacchex: Okay. And then for tim symbol you do the whole rectangle? Okay, thank you. AI-Jaff: And we discussed this and the applicant and staff, we believe that we can work out ~ details. They would be able to meet the ordinance req~ts. Sacchex: There's a mix up in the report, h talks about the western elevation. Should be probably the nortl~rn. Now I have my main question though about tl~ two elevations. The two drawings that we were provided. These two. It seems like the signs are on opposite sides of the building. Could you explain which side of the building really the Buffalo Wild Wing is and why the picture,, the other sign's going to be just a post or is that a mistake in how it's drawn? A1qaff: This portion. Sacchet: It's a mistake how it's drawn. Okay. AI-Jaff: This portion of the building is to be occupied by Buffalo Wild Wing and ~... Sacchex: So it's the eaistem part, and I guess I can ask the applicant to clarify how the drawing works. Now one last question. The sign on the north side,, on tl~ parking lot side is 24 inch lette~, the big letters. On the south side it's 16 inch letters. That seems to be kind of backwards because you want to see it from a distance from the south, while on th~ north you're closet in the parking lot. Do you know anything or should I ask that question to the applicant? Al-laff: Staff records you ask tha question of the applicant. Sacchet: Alright, I'll do that. Thank you. That's my questions. Blackowialc Okay, thank you. Any questions? Lillehaug: Another quick question. You rnt,n~oned an alternate. Is another alternate to use a monnment sign on the north? I don't know if that would really be feasible but is that allowed? Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Al-$aff: The entire site is permitted one monument sign, and it was intended to be placed at the entrance to direct traffic into this area. Lillehaug: So that really wouldn't serve the purpose of what the applicant's problem is then so. AI-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: Okay, that's it. Thanks. Blackowialc Craig, questions? Claybaugh: Yeah I have some questions. I'd just like you to respond to what, the question that Commissioner Sacehet asked you. What did you calculate or use the alternative method of calculating the square footage for the signs contrary to the ordinance? I was just curious about that. AI-Jaff: It seems like I always get cracked by the Planning Commission with calculations. Claybaugh: Well you had just mentioned that, is that the typical way or is that the way the ordinance reads and you said no it wasn't. A1-Jaff: According to the, Bob would you read the definition of sign area. Generous: Actually it provides two alternate ways to calculate it. Claybaugh: Okay, is the way that you calculated it either of those two meth~? Generous: Yes. The sign area me~ns the are~ within a single continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of the extreme limits or the actual sign message area. So you could do a fight box around all the letters and the symbols or you can draw a box around the entire area. Claybaugh: Either way. Okay. With respect to, on page 2 under signage criteria. It says the total sign display area shall not exceed 189 square feet, and obviously in doing the calculations that you provided for the two sign areas they were below that. Does that 189 square feet represent. AI-Jaff: Per elevation. Claybaugh: Per elevation for both tenants or for just singular tenants? AI-Jaff: For both. So Chipotle as well as Buffalo V~r'lld Wings, alC~lg th~ north elevation, cnnnot exceed 189 square feet. And they will be substantially less than that. Claybaugh: Chipotle will? AI-Jaff: Both. Sacchet: Together. AI-Jaff: Both together. The total area cannot exceed 189. Chybaugh: Okay. Then with respect, I guess I don't necessarily agree with your response to Commissioner Lillehaug regarding the monument. It would seem pretty obvious to me that what the Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 building is, that it's Wild Wings and Chipotle and it might very well be an oppommity if the site is allowed one monument, t~ move that around to the north elevation. Certainly people pulling in that drive know what's in that building with the size signage that's on the exterior so. Has that been given any fu~er consideration by staff?. AI-Jaff: No it hasn't. But again the applicant was intending that to be more of a directional sign... Claybaugh: Right, I understand that but. AI-Jaff: ...it' s definitely an option. Blackowialc Okay. Any othex questions7 Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Thanks. Slagle: Just one real quick one. What do you think the chanc~ of us seeing an application for a variance from the other tenant? Al-Jaff: From Chipotle? Slagle: Yeah. AI-Jaff: I have briefly spoken to them about this issue and they said they're comfortable for now with one sign. They want to see how the market goes. If there were issues then they would come before you but for now they're satisfied with one sign only. Slagle: Okay. Lillehaug: How about Applebee's? Al-Jaff: Applebee's is one tenant. This is a different case. There is a difference between Applebee's, Tires Plus and this one in staff's opinion. Blackowiak: Okay. I just have one question about the math used again; and I don't know if you want to do this or Bob. Did you use these same methods to calculate both sign areas? A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Now I'mreally confused. Ifwe lookon, what page tells ollrnnmhers? Pag~ 3. Oh Fm sorry, I've got the wrong packet. Here it is. Got too much here tonight.. Okay, north elevation is let's say 53 square feet. Okay. The letters are larger. South elevation, 87 square feet. Letters are smaller. How does that ha~? AI-Jaff: Switch them around. The south is actually the larger. It was intended, when I did the calculation I was assuming the larger square footage was for. Sacchet: South which happens to be north. A1-Jaff: For the south elevatiom Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: So we should switch that then saying that the north elevation has an area of 86.9 square feet, is that correct? Al-Jaff: That's correct Blackowialc And the south elevation has 52.88 square feet. Okay. And then I assume that the logo areas are still correct as written. 23 feet on the north, 19.6 on the scatttu AI-Jaff: Correct. Blackowialc Okay. So then, south elevation logo, 22.6 ~t of the total sign area. Does that still hold? AI-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. North elevation 43 ~nt? I don't think that sounds right. I'm just trying to track these numbers and I'm sorry I hate to keep coming back to the numbers he~ but I want to make sure I'm tracking therm Sacchet: The logo is different. See here... Blackowiak: So it's 4 by. Sacchet: It's 4 by 5.9 and here it's 4 by 4.11. Blackowialc Okay so 20, so that's 20 on the south. Wait. No, that would be narth. 4 by 5 roughly. Sacehet: 4 by 5 roughly on the north. Blackowialc On the north, so the 19.6 goes to the north? And then the. Sacehet: Yes, that's consistent. Blackowiak: 4 times 6 is still not quite right the~ Okay, 19.6 on the north so the whole thing's flip flopped? AI-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: So 19.6 on the north, 23 on the south. Okay. I think I'm tracking now. A1-Jaff: And again we will work out all of those. Blackowiak: Right. It just didn't make sense to me and I just wanted to make sure we had the right numbers in the right spot before we moved forward. Alright. Thank you. At this point the applicant ar their designee is invited to step up to the microphone. State your name and sO_dress far the record. Scott Ruzin: Hi, good evening. I'm Scott Ruzin with Lawrence Sign Company, 945 Pieax~e Butler Route in St. Paul, Minnesota. Slagle: Scott, can you pull the microphone towards you? Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Scott Ruzin: Would you like me to repeat that? Blackowiak: You know what, pull it even farther. Them we go. Start over agaim Scott Ruzin: Scott Ruzin from Lawrence Sign Company, 945 Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55104. We have several things to talk about but first I'd like to say that staff has bee~ very kind and helpful and responsive to all of the questions and desires and we are willing to work with them to adhere to the ordinance requirements with regard to the way the signage is measured. We found out in asking the proper questions that there are a couple different ways to measure these. One is by putting the continuous box around all of the signage, and one is by measuring them individually, both which comply with your ordinance. That is why we want to work together to make the signage look tasteful, yet do what it's intended to do and drive the traffic through the front door. And what we've found in studying the site a little bit is some unique characteristics as Sharmeen has mentioned. The setback of the building and that's one of the key factors in discussing the monument sign is the building itserf is set just over 200 feet from the monument sign. So once these clients or potential clients come into this parking lot, getting them to the appropriate front door with two tenants in this building is kind of a challenge. And Chipofle at this point has chosen to do a lot of interior si~ hanging in the window and things different than what Wild Wings would like to do. We'd like to keep it real clean. Real tasteful, yet definitive for their customer on where their entrance is. With regard to signage on the other side, the south elevation, I'd like to if I may just set a plan set down here. And actually the drawing that you have showed the signage here. And as you noticed earlier they're transposed and the signage, Buffalo Wild Wings building and their square footage is actually here. We'd like to put signage in the center hem on this elevation rather than over on the side, and that was my error and early on not reviewing the plan sets appropriately. So your drawing for the south elevation would show similar signage, properly proportioned into that area with the square footage complying with what your ordinance would allow. So we would again work with staff to provide something tasteful that meets both the needs of Buffalo Wild Wings and the city criteria. Blackowialc Alright, anything else to add? Scott Ruzin: Nothing else to add other than everything's been great. S~'s been a great help and we hope we can work together to provide a package that everybody wins with. Blackowialc Okay, thank you. So commi.~sioners, do you have questions of the applicant right now? No? Slagle: I just had one. Not too much to this gentleman but I believe this gentleman who presen~ the last time. It was here. I just wanted to clarify in my mind, just memory sometimes fails but did we not discuss, I think it was Commissioner Sacchet who had raised the thought of an ~dditional sign and I think the question was asked would window sign~ge suffice at that tim~, because I think we all had a concern about the parking lot. And I don't remember the auswer. Or if you even remember the question. Scott Schmitt: I do. Blackowialc You know what, before you start can you just state your name and s_ddl-~s tO put that on the record. Scott Schmitt: Absolutely. My name is Scott Schmim I'm with Clearwater Development. Address is 1256046n Street in Watertown, Minnesota. And the answer to the question was, or the question what I recall was, you know about the sign issue and will they be coming in for a sign variance for signage over at, and my response at the time was actually, you know the signage is a separate application. We'll review it at that time and right now I didn't know what the answer was to that so at the time I was Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 unaware. I can speak a little bit, just real briefly since I'm up here, that Chipotle, my understanding is as well that the tenant is not intending on going for a sign variance. The western elevation, when you drive, the whole point of the whole signage thing is not so much are they ther~ It's where's tbek front door, and on the north elevation of the building, which is I assume here. Here we go. The north elevation of the building has got all 3, has got 2 tenants plus a u'ash enclosure door on it. You recall part of the approval was an internal trash enclosure. The only logical spot for that for access was on the north side. We couldn't get on the west or the south without jeopardizing our green space, so we had no choice but to put the trash enclosure door fight here. And so what's happened with Chipotle is they've got their signage on the south elevation. The southwest elevation and then window signage as you come around the building so there's really no question with Chipotle as to where Chipotle is. And you kind of chuckle and think, well there's 2 tenants and how are you going to not figure out where they are but as a developer you almost have to figure that every person that com~ to your cemer is a complete mamn and that they really do have a tough time. If they lose sight of that front door, it affects business. As much as we all sit here and laugh, it really does from the developer's perspective and so the combination of the trash door on the front side, no identification other than walking around the building with Chipofle. No signage above their door, it becomes necessary to direct traffic to their front door. It's the combination of the three items. Chipotle doe,m't feel that them will be a need because you have that presence here. You don't ever loose sight of where Chipofle is. So, any other questions? Slagle: Thanks for your memory. Scott Schmitt: Sure. Slagle: I want to direct something at staff just quickly. I don't recall the trash doors being on the north elevation. They very well could have. I thought they were going to be on the east elevation. Al-Jaff: You are correct. They were intended to be on the east elevation. One of the things that we looked at from internal circulation standpoint was, they took one of the windows. Expanded it into span row glass door so we are still the same as far as appearance. You shouldn't be able to tell that that is a trash enclosure area. Appearance wise it's, inste~ of a window you have a door. A glass door. Slagle: Which will be shut most the time. AI-Jaff: All the time. Sacchet: Yeah, a quick question too. Blackowiak: Is this for the applicant or. Sacchet: The applicant. Yeah, I'm still have a question for the applicant. I certainly understand you would want to keep people on the right door, not through the lrash door. One question to your clarification that on the south side, the .sign is going to be in the middle of the building. Are you expecting the sign to be the same size or similar size that was currently presented on what we got from you? Scott Ruzin: We'd like it to be similar in size. I think the letters will be slightly larger. Pmtx~onally fit that space. We'd like it to be tasteful yet proportionam and maximize the visibility as well at the same time. Sacchet: Because my original question for you was, why are the letters bigger on the north side than on the south side when probably on the south side you would have more of a motivation to be perceived Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 from a distance than from north where people are in the parking lot or dose. Can you put that into perspective briefly please. Scott Ruzin: ~t was previously, the size was previously limited by the building elevation and the height we had to work with here, so we couldn't drive those letters to be much larger than they are on the drawings that you have there without surpassing thc roof linc or something similar. Sacchet: Do you perceive the need to have the letters be like 24 inch on the north side though? Scott Ruzin: Well we would ceminly like that. Sacchet: I ~ in terms of proportional to the staff that is there, that's not your main reasoning them is it? Scott Ruzin: Proportionately they're probably going to fall between 18 and 20 to fit in that space. 24 with the grill and bar underneath it. It'd be pretty close. Proportionately they're probably going to be between 18 and 20 on those letters. Sacchet: Thank you. Scott Ruzin: You're welcome. Blackowiak: Go ahead if you have a question. Claybaugh: Yeah. With respect to the size of the signage and the lettering on the north elevation. Is there any data to suplx~ what would be the standard for the size of that parking lot? Whether that's a 200 foot sight line that you're trying to capture. Scott Ruzin: There are standards. Claybaugh: Okay. Scott Ruzin: I don't have those in front of me but ~ ceminly are standards as far as visibility goes. You're pretty close. That's a couple hundred feet for a 24 inch letter, depending on what rate of speed these potential clients are traveling at, so we're close. Claybaugh: I'm assuming they'd be at foot speed. Foot speed at 200 feet. I assume they can find the parking lot. Scott Ruzin: Right. Some of the folks as they're coming into the parking lot, depending on where they're at and how they're jostling through traffic may have better visibility than others. That also proportionately with relation to what kind of square footage they have on that building front. Claybaugh: I'm not so much coming from the pea'spective of ~on as much as I am dove tailing the comment that Scott made, where's the front door? So what do you need to identify justifiably in terms of letter size, for people, patrons where the flint door is? Scott Ruzin: That's tough to say. That can get into a subjective discussion and whether... Claybaugh: There's got to be some guidelines out the~. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Scott Ruzin: There is fact and if we need to supply that I can. It's my guess that it's pretty close now. 200 feet for a 24 inch letter below 30 miles an hour. It's going to be similar to that, and I wish I would have had that with me tonight to equip you with that but I don't. Claybaugh: One of the other commissioners identified that the lettering was 16 inches and 23. I didn't see that anywhere myself but did you verify? Scott Ruzin: 16 and 24. It's noted to the left of the letters the~lv~. There are some measurement indicators there for you. Claybaugh: Okay. Just to recap so I unde~tand. That wasn't the prime consideration from desiring that then in terms of what the lettering size was mandated by your patrons needs? Scott Ruzin: Yes. We were viewing it from the road which is just over 200 feet from that particular area there. Claybaugh: And then I had one question for staff with respect to the relocation of the trash eaclosure. Was the parking affected by that at all? Al4aff: No. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Blaekowiak: Steve. Lillehaug: I'll make mine quick. Have you considered using a monmnent sign in any combination to eliminate a variance need? Scott Ruzin: There will be a monmnent sign at that site and it is over 200 feet from that entrance and it is split. It's a small monument sign and it's split with two tenant panels. One for Wild Wings and one for Chipofle. And it's going to certainly provide identification for wh=e the entrance is, but again once in that lot, driving into the front doors is the main focus on that elevation. Once they get in the lot that's great, but getting them into the Wild Wings front door was the focus on that sign. Lillehaug: Thank you. Blackowiak: Uli, did you have another question? Sacchet: No, actually it got cleared up, thank you. Blackowiak: It did. Okay. Sacchet: Appreciate it. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Scott Ruzin: Thanks. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blaekowiak: This item is open for a public hearing. If anybody would like to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing for this item. Commissioners c. omments. Rich, we'll start down at your end. Slagie: Just simply, I certainly can see the merit to having signage to assist the pamms in the parking lot. It might be a tad large, but nonetheless with the parking lot to the north I don't have an issue with it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: Well I'm in a lucky to say I told you so. I asked about this coming up when this originally came. I think there is a need for a sign for people to know which door to go into. Certainly you don't want to have them try to go into the trash enclosure. I do believe the letters are a liRle large for the purpose so I would propose that maybe you restrict them to 18 or 16 inches considering you're going to have large letters. You're going to have more room to do a little larger according to what the ordinance allows on the south side where you really need the size. I think that would be a balanced position to take. Blackowiak: Okay Uli, just to clarify. Initially they had proposed 16 inch on the south side. Saechet: Right, and that will be bigger because they're going to have more space to play with. Blackowiak: Right, but if that was suffi~ent for 200 feet from a street on the south side, would you feel that that would be sufficient for 200 feet? Sacchet: Absolutely. Absolutely. Blackowiak: Okay, so maybe your motion or somebody's motion would be not to exceed. Sacchet: Not to exceed 16, yeal~ Blaekowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: I tend to disagree. My opinion is we need to stay consistent with, there's numerous other businesses around there that aren't allowed this additional signing and you can go around that whole area and find examples of it. I agree with staff. I think the~'s another option. It might not be as a prestigious option as you indicated. You could use window signing, so there is an option. I think there's going to be, that parking lot's going to be full and I don't think they're going to have a problem getting in your door, so that would end my commeuts. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, sign comments first. Claybaugh: Sign comments first. With respect to the signage, I guess I can support it but I would like it governed by an industry reference standard for the size of the parking lot. For someone having gotten out of their car. Not at 40 miles an hour but having parked. Getting out of their vehicle. Looking at the restaurant. Making a d_~ision based on what they can see and I would suptx~ it only to that extent. In an unrelated item, having gone out there to preview this for the applicant with restmct to the signage, I took a look at the conditions of the site. I didn't see any evidence that...was making consmiefion deliveries over the curb on 79m. Excessive silt on 79m so I would encourage you to speak with the contractor out ~ and try and get that corrected as soon as possible. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I was really kind of tom on this. It seems like it's sign night tonight. We're seeing a few different things this evening. One of the issues that I have is that, like Commissioner 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Slagle brought up, we didn't think we were going to see this again. We didn't think that thi. was going to come back and then Commissioner Sacchet said well, I told you. You know, I thought it was going to come and I can even go one step farther. I think that ff we go ahead and approve Buffalo Wild Wings, Chipotle will come in and say you know what, we decided that we too need a sign~ So I would, I'm not going to be voting in favor of this because I feel that the south signage is sufficient at this point in time and even though there are no tenants per se, or any neighbors directly to the north that would be impacted I don't think I just feel that we have a standard. That the hardship is, that we haven't met our standards for approving a variance on this. To further, I would offer a suggestion. The monument sign idea is a possibility that a couple commissioners have n~ntioned, but also we talked about or we had heaxd about Byerly's possibly coming to us with some type of a monument sign and then they decA'ded to do signage on the building. I think that's an option as well. I mean I don't know that that would necessarily require a variance. I think there might be some options for doing something on the building as nx~re of a directory type sign, as opposed to the large sign on the north side. So those are my comments and we're going to try a new format after our vote tonight. In our meeting last night with City Cotmcll we talked about how to get our message across more effectively so one of the things that I'm going to do is, we're going to try to summarize our concerns that will go forward to City Council so bear with us if we muddle through that this evening. I need a motion for this please. Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair. I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance ~03-4 to allow a wall mounted sign on the northern elevation which has no street frontage as shown on the plans dated February 12, 2003 with the following condition. The applicant shall reduce the area of the logo to not exceed 15 percent of the total sign area. And I'd like to _ada condition number 2. The size of the lettering shall not exceed 16 inches in heiglm Blackowiak: Okay there's been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Blackowiak: Moved and seconded. Claybaugh: Friendly amendment? Sacchet: Go ahead. Claybaugh: I'd like to further restrict the height of the signage. That it be demonstxm~l by an industry standard. The necessity for the height of those letters. Sacchet: So we would say not to exceed 16 inches or... Claybaugh: I can't specifically cite the standard but they're out th~r~. Blackowiak: But lower if the standards call for lower? Sacchet~ Take the lower one. Claybaugh: Most msuSctive, yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: The mom restrictive will apply. Definitely accepted. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a secc~. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the v~ 003-4 to allow a wall mounted sign on the northern elevation which has no street frontage ns shown on the plnns dnted Februnry 12, 2003 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reduce the area of the logo not to exceed 15% of the total sign area. . The size of the lettering shall be limited to 16 inches in height or comply with the industry standard, whichever is less. All voted in favor, except Blackowiak and Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Blackowialc This item will go forward to City Council on April 14~. Now's our new thing here. To summarize the Planning Commission issues, this is going forward to council, were the letter size. Them were 3 commissioners in favor of allowing the north sign at 16 inches, unless a more restrictive size was found to be appropriate. 2 disagreed with that. The only work with staff issue we had is brought up by Commissioner Claybaugh that there's no rock entrance, no silt fence and there's entrance on 79m Street that's causing excess silt on the street, and we would like those issues to be addressed before this item goes to City Council so you can update City Council as to what's ha~ing with those. At this point commissioners do you have any further comments to add for City Council? Slagle: Just a point of clarification. Commi.~sioner LiHehaug, you had mentioned that your comments were in support of staff's recommendation and I think staff was recommending approval of the variance. Well they offered. Blackowiak: Two options. Sla§le: ff you decided not to. Lillehaug: Mine would be in support of their second option, and that would be denial of the variance as they can utilize window signage or some other means. Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioner Sacchet, any further comments? Sacchet: You summarized well, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Mr. Lillehaug, any further comments for council? Lillehaug: Nope. Claybaugh: I do. With respect to the monument possibility and moved around to the north elevation. At first that looked like a viable option to me but looking at the parking configuration I could see where that would be obscured as well and wouldn't necessarily serve the purpose so just wanted to make that conunent. Blackowiak: Okay. So those are the Planning Commission comments that we'd like forwarded to City Council in the next report. Thank you all very much. PUBLIC HEARING: 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 CONSIDER TI-IE REOUF~T FOR A VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE LOCATED AT 463 ~ 79TM ~TREET~ GIANT PANDA~ MHC~ RAM~EY. Name Address Paul Punt 8014 Dakota Avenue Peng Pan 760 West Village Road, #106 Jill Ramsey 6362 Oxbow Bend Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item, Blackowiak: Craig, I'll start down at your end. Questions for staff. Claybaugh: Sure. What type amortization schedule are you working on Bob? Generous: Well we would have to look at what's a reasonable period. The sign costs about $1,100 to have it installed. We'd look at what advertising costs would be to, for a reasonable business e~. I don't know if it's $50 a month. $100 a month and then after that time period they would have to remove it. Clayhaugh: Okay. Just a couple of points I wanted to clarify for myself. The application that was previously denied, you just commented ff I undemood you correctly, that that was a previous owner. It wasn't the current owner. Generous: Correct. Clayhaugh: I thought that was i .mportant. And that when the staff went out and recog~iTed the error, that the signage was already installed. Generous: Correct. Clayhaugh: So it was after the fact. It wasn't a question of them willful non-compliance of them proceeding... Generous: Right, they followed, they went under the permit that was issued. Claybaugh: That's aH the questions I have right now. Blackowiak: Okay. Steve, questions? Lillehaug: Yes. Do you know how long the tenant has occupied this building? Generous: I'm not sure. Lillehaug: Not sure. Any idea? A couple years. Okay, I'll ask. Blackowiak: We'll ask yeah. We'll ask the tenant. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Lillehaug: Did the applicant originally request to install a sign on the south elevation when they initially occupied this building? Generous: Yes, the original owner did. Lillehaug: The original owner but. Generous: The amendment ~s before this. Lillehaug: Okay. So did they install both the westerly sign and the southerly sign at the same time? Generous: No. Lillehaug: So they did install the westerly sign? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: Along with on the monument, the pylon sign out on the south, that was installed? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: But originally they didn't install this Giant Panda sign on the south elevation? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: Was there anything that changed that the tenant thought? I mean he initially didn't install that sign so is there anything that changed in your mind that would trigger something that the tenant could now install this sign on the south? Are you following me there? Generous: Yes, but I'm not sure. He, when he got into that he was aware that he couldn't have it and he did it as a business process. He wanted to get mom visibility so he came to the City for the applicatiom Lillehaug: Okay. I'll direct the questions to the tenant then, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, questions? Sacchet: Yes I have a few questions, trtrst of all the time line. ~ was the sign installed? Was it Generous: I believe so. Sacchet: Was it before February 6~. This is relevant. I'm son'y, it might sound nit picky buC Generous: It' s February 6~. Sacchet: It was before February 6~. Generous: No, it was on February 6~. Sacchet: Alright, let's be a little more specific then because according to the letter that you send to Mr. Pan on February 1 lt~, you did a site visit on February 6~ to tell him that the permit was given in error. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Generous: Correct. Sacchet: And at that point was the sign up or not? Generous: It was up. Sacchet: It was up, okay. Because I think that's significant for at least my own reasoning. Now to clarify also in this letter from February 1 lin. You pointed out an option that if the property owner would be willing to remove the signage on the north end, then the south end sign could be considered legitimate. I assume the property owner does not want to give up the sign on the north~ Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. Just to be real clear. What's the situation with the examples that the sign applicant pointed out in the city, buildings that have signs on 3 or more sides like Market Square, Byerly's, AmericInn, the Bell Mortgage. What's the context? Generous: Those are generally within planned unit development and the design standards were created as part of it. Within the Bell Mortgage sign they do have street frontages on 2 sides and the design standards permit signage on your primary parking side also, which may not be the street frontage. Sacchet: So Bell Mortgage, Americlnn, Byerly's and Market Square, they were all PUD's? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Alright. That's my questions, thank you. Claybaugh: Thank you. Rich, any questions? Slagle: Just one. Bob did you really tell them that the penalties were 90 days in jail and a million dollars? Generous: A thousand dollars? Slagle: A thousand dollars fine. Generous: Well they asked me what's the penalty and I said it was a misdemeamor. Slagle: Alright, I just wanted to ask. And then can I just ask how you found out about it? Generous: I received a phone call and someone said ~em's a sign going up and at that time I said oh no, I'd better check the site plan because this is after our planner lei~ and we started doing these. Slagle: Fair enough. Okay. Blackowialc I don't have any questions of staff fight now, so at this point would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, come to the microphone, state your name and address for the Jill Ramsey: I'm Jill Ramsey, 6362 Oxbow Bend, Chanhas~en. My husband and I own the building in question and he isn't here obviously, so I'm going to do the best I can with what inf~on I have. Most of the things I wanted to touch on here are kind of some clarifications. And I'm just going to go by 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 the letter that went out on the 11 ~ which we received a copy of, so just to icind of let you know the order I'm going in. The first thing as far as Mr. PaWs applying for a permit. He has owned the business, Cfiant Panda, I believe about 4 or 5 months now. The original owner applied in '99 to have a sign put on the south side and that was denied. Then came Mr. Pan and applied for thi~ and was approved. But FI1 touch on that in a second. Going down the list, it talked about asking the ~ owner to remove the sign on the north elevation. There might be some misconception here. My husband and I own the building. We no longer own Gold Medal Sports. We have not owned it since a year ago February. That sign, although the Mike Ramsey is still on it, that Gold Medal Sports now belongs to the new owner of Gold Medal Sports. So it really isn't our option to just go and take down and move that sign. So I wanted to clarify that because it sounded like there might be confusion that the building owners actually owned the business at that end. And also as far as relocating signs, a couple of things. One, it would be a real financial hardship for Mr. Pan to have to remove that sign. He applied in good faith to get a permit. Was given a permit. Then, and the sign was up, and then he was told to take it down so the cost he hirr~eff would be incurring would be the cost of the sign, cost of putting it up, cost of taking it down. As business owners, or owning the building, then we also have damage on that side of the building, which would need to be addressed because of removing the sign so that's an undue hardship I believe for us to have to deal with that. Forgive me if I just gather my thoughts for a second. We also wanted to touch on the definition of street frontage. I think it's criteria B. That you can have signage on two street frontages, and I'm probably not clear on this but if you've seen on the building, and I don't know how do I do thi.~. There it is right there. The north end and south ends of the building are street frontage. One is West 79~ Street, one is Highway 5. The main, the front of the building, the actual entrances aren't street frontage. It's a parking lot connected to the parking lot of the Chanhassen motel and the other issue on street frontage, which the gentleman brought up was, there are numerous signs on buildings in Chanhassen. I just did a little tour this af~rnoon. C'ulver's has signs on 3 sides. That's a single building, one occupant. We do have 5 occupants in that building by the way. The American Inn has 3. Houlihan's has 3 on a single building. The building that holds Bruegger's Bagels and Spalon has signage on 3 sides. I know you touched on the Bell Mortgage. There are actually if you count the small Starbuck sign on the south side, there is signage on 4 sides on that building. So I guess I don't want Mr. Pan to feel like he's setting precedence because be isn't setting precedence by having that third sign. And I guess the main point of it is, he in good faith as a new business owner went through the right channels. He applied for a permit. Was granted the permit on the basis of wanting to increase his business. And once the sign was up, then was told there would be fines. He could have jail time if it wasn't taken down, which I thought was a little harsh. But I don't think he should you know be penalized by now having to take the sign down, nor do I want to be penalized by having to repair damage to the building to do so. Blackowialc Thank you. Cam you just stand up here for a second. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Rich. Slagle: I've got a quick question- Would you have a ballpark figure as to the cost of the sign and the cost of the installation? I'll assume the removal will be about the same as installation. Jill Ramsey: There is a gentleman here with Mr. Pan tonight who did put the sign up and I'd rather let him answer that because he would know. Slagle: Fair enough. Blackowiak: Okay. If you would just state your name and address for the record please. Paul Punt: My name is Paul Punt. rm with Attractive si s, 7420 West Lake Street in SC Louis Park. Jill pretty well covered it I think. I think one thing I'd like to add is that Bob had three options that the commission could consider, and I think one of the, the one that would be the most appealing to us would 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 probably be number 3 which would be to allow the sign to be there and that Mr. Pan no longer use the window signage that he has been using in the past. In fact he has already removed the window signage. Scrapped it all off. It's already gone and that would be the most beneficial to everybody in Chan I think. That'd be the fairest. As far as cost, he's, the cost to put that sign up there was $1,100. Slagle: And the cost of the sign itself? Paul Punt: That building a raceway. The letters he took from a previous location. And we found him a raceway and mounted them on the building. Now that cost represents somewhat of a discount because we understand that he's a new businessman trying to make ends meet so we gave him a little break on that. Slagle: So ballpark, a couple thousand dollars. Paul Punt: Yeah. Slagle: Okay. If I can ask, does he have any other locations? Paul Punt: No. Slagle: That this could be used if it needed to come dow~ Paul Punt: No he does not. Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Thank you. Why don't you stay up. We may.have more questions for you. Uli? Sacchex: No. Lillehaug: My questions would be to Mrs. Ramsey actually. And I'm trying to get thi.~ straight in my mind. As far as an owner and tenant relations go, I assun~ that you were aware that a sign couldn't go up on the south elevation of the building, would that be a fair question? Blackowiak: Or maybe your husband. Jill Ramsey: I would rather not speak for him. To know that, I don't know in '99 when Mr. Lee applied for that permit if Mike was involved with that. Or not so. Lillehaug: Maybe, can I direct this to stat:g? Is it typical that a tenant or an owner would apply for a permit, or would be either or? Generous: Generally it's the sign company that actually makes the application~ Lillehaug: Alright. Blackowiak: This may clarify a little bit but Bob, let's just, tell me if I'm right. I believe I reme~ seeing this when the original owner came in, Mike Ramsey, and chose specifically those 2 locations, north and west as opposed to the sout~ That was a conscious choice? Jill Ramsey: Yeah. Can I touch on the. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay, let's see if staff has the same mem~ that I do, but because I remember the discussion about specific because there were only 2 and those 2 were chosen. Al-Jarl: That's correct. The original required si~tyns along street frontages only, and Roman Roos was the applicant at the time taking this through the process and the decision was, your frontage was, the largest frontage and your doors were going to face the parking lot. We swapped the fronta~ along I-~ghway 15 for the frontage... Blackowialc On the parking lot just becs,se it made more sense to have it over a tenant's door?. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Blackowiak: I'm sorry to interrupt her but I've been here a while so I kind of remember this. Jill Ramsey: The other thinking with that, of the request of having it on that north side at the time was, when we built the building we did own Gold Medal Sports. That end unit had not yet been leased so for us logically as business owners of Gold Medal Sports it was to have the signage down, wrapped around the unit that we occupied. Blackowiak: Okay. Lillehaug: Could I also ask Mr. Pan a question? Is this Mr. Pan in the audience? Is that fail? Slagle: You can do whatever you want. Lillehaug: Good evening Mr. Pan. And my question would be what I discussed with slaff earlier, when the signs were originally put up, there was one put up on the west elevation of the building but at that time the sign wasn't on the south elevation of the building. Could you maybe explain why they both weren't put up at the same time? Is that a fair question? Jill Ramsey: The restaurant has changed hands. The business is under his ownership. The name is the same. So when Giant Panda first went in it was just there. Lillehaug: Thank you. I got it now. Blackowialc Okay. Is that it? Lillehaug: I'm done. Blackowiak: Okay. That was easy wasn't it? I think we got the question allswered, thank you. Craig, do you have any questions of? Claybaugh: I don't have any questions to ask, no. Blackowiak: No, and I don't have any questions of the applicants either. At this point the item is open for a public hearing. If anybody would like to comment on this issue, please come to the microphone and st__~_t_e your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, conune~. Craig, we'll start with you. Claybaugh: Thank you. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - Match 18, 2003 Blackowialc I try to mix it up a little bit. Claybaugh: In reviewing the options given by staff, I feel that given the circumstances I could support item number 3. I would just like to ~dd that I think that particular buJl~ configunaJon in relation to how it's placed to West 79~ and Highway 5 creates a little bit of a unique problem with restx~ to advertising that building. At 50 miles an hour to dovetail what Scott had said in the previous application, at 50 miles an hour I think those monet letters may be all of 10 inches. So I can certainly see where Mr. Pan would want to get greater exposure and at least as it's been explained tonight, it was done in good faith. So as such I think I feel I can support item number 3. Blackowiak: Okay, option number 3 which would be no window signs in exchange for the southern exposure. Claybaugh: That's correct, yes. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve, any comments? LiHehaug: This one's tough. A little while ago I voted no on it, and this is kind of extenuating circumstance. The sign is already up. I like how the building looks. It looks cleaner without all the window signage so I do agree with that. I really do like that. So in regard to that I guess I also would support 3 and I would, in my comment would be as, to maybe remove the sign on the pylon or monmnc~t that on that south side also. I'm trying to get rid Of som~ of these sins. There are sins galore out there, and it's pretty redundant. I don't think that sign needs to be on the pylon if it's on that south elevation of the building. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, comments. Sacchet: Yeah I have a few comments. First of all I don't think it would be fair to remove the pylon sign because it's there and it's a standard allowable thing. I'm ecstatic for not having these windows painted up, to be honest with you. That's disturbed me ever since that place was there. Considering that this situation affect the whole building, I would ask that it applies to the whole building, not just to the south end of the building. Because there has to be a give and take. I'm absolutely sdsmsntly opposed to the fact that we see 3 signs for the same business at the same time. With any other application like that I would say there's absolutely no way that a variance is given for this. I mean considering that a permit was given and it was not discovered that it was an error until the sign was up, I feel that really we cannot penalize the tenant or the other of the building. The mistake is with staff and Bob, you've been too generous. Hate to rub that one again, but that happens. Everybody makes mistakes and we have to allow for that. But I don't think we can expect the tenant or the owner to take the burden of staff having msde a mistake. Plus there are obviously a good nnmher of precede~l~ in the city buildings that have signs on multiple sides. Now there is a technica] difference that's very significalllL That those buildings are in PUD, in planned unit developments, which is a totally different set of rules. There is a give and take in terms of imposing more stringent design standards in exchange for some liberties like for instance maybe a little more signage, which still is not giving them free hand. It's still being regulated. So my position is very clear here. I think we should allow thi.~ in exchange of no window signage on the whole building, and also making it clear that there's absolutely no other justification for this variance. And that's my co~ts. Slagle: In my wildest dreams I couldn't top that one. I think the only thing I would odd to Commissioner Sacchet's comments is, I don't think I could go with the overall window ban if you will persona~y but otherwise I support the variance. Staff made an honest mistake and the gentleman needs business so. 19 Planning Commission Meeting- March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, would you go with the, you said not all over? Sla§le: Number 3. Number 3. Blackowiak: Number 3? So that would be the window ban on that only? Slagle: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. You know what, we're into our comnmnt phase so, you did a nice job. Jill Ramsey: I just wanted to. Blackowiak: You know what, we'll just go ahead. Jill Ramsey: ...unfair to the other owners to penalize them to take down their window signage. Blackowiak: Right. You know what, this is going to go to City Council as well so there's always another venue. My comments are not unlike the other commissioners, but I'm laughing because one sign we're saying no, and the second sign we're saying yes. I agree it was done in good faith. I agree that the window lettering was an eyesore, and I would think th~ or ! would hope that the variance motion would include number 3 and then forbid any window lettering on that unit. Totally. Regardless of who owns it. Whether it's this owner or another owner, and if another owner decides that window lettering is better for them, then they take down the sign on the south side. I mean I think it's an either or. I don't think you get both. So I would just make sure that that was clear that if somebody wanted the window lettering that badly on the south unit that they'd have to give up the Highway 5 exposure. I'd like a motion please. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission approves the sign varial:lce for Highway 5 Center to permit wall signage on 3 sides of the building based upon the findings presented in the staff retx~ and I want to refer to number 3. And then quote that Giant Panda delete and not use any window signg in the future. And specifically for that tenant only. That'd be it. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second. Blaekowiak: Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye? Sacchet: COuld I make a friendly? Blackowialc Comments, sure. Go ahead. Sacchet: I'd like to add that this signage, we recomd approval on the basis that the permit for this signage was issued on January 28th and the sign was actually installed prior to when staff discovered and informed the applicant that this was in error. I think that's i ,mportant because I don't see any other reason why we would... Blackowiak: Right, and that was some of the notes I was taking for our summary to City Cotmeil. Sacchet: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: I'll make sure that that's in there too. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Lillehaug: I accept that. Lillehang moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission fecommend$ approval of the sign variance for Highway 5 Centre to permit wall slgnage on three sides of the building on the basis that the permit was issued on January 28, 2003, and the ~n was installed prior to staff notifyin~o the applicant, and subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant must eliminate the use of window signs for the south windows. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Blackowiak: Okay motion carries 4-1. Sacchet: And I oppose because I really do think it should apply to the whole building. Blackowiak: The window lettering. Sacchet: And no window lettering. Blackowialc Okay, that's fine. City Council summary. Staff recommend~ denial of this issue. Planning Commission by a 4-1 vote recommended approval to option number 3 which excludes any window signs on the Giant Panda on the south tenant location. Reasoning was that the sign~ge was done in good faith. That the permit was issued and the error was not discovered until aftra' the sign was installed, so based on that we feel that it was not the applicant's fault. It also looks cleaner without the window lettering, and they are neighbors to too many people, or specifically Villages PUD right across the street which has many 3 signed buildings, but not here. If it were in a different location I would probably say you know strictly follow the rules but in this case, because they have so many neighbors directly to the south that have 3 and 4 signs, or 3 sided signs or 4 sided signg, that it is jusfifiecL And also Uli's comments regarding the timing issues were very i .mportant in our decision. Commigsioners, any additional input to City Council? Slagle: Just one. Assumption being made that the applicant was not aware of the prior denial of this southern elevation. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: I mean we are making that assumption. Blackowiak: Right, we are making that assumption. That's a good point. U1L any other points to add? Sacchet: My point why I think it should apply to the whole building is because the owner did know of prior denial of applications. Blackowiak: Okay. Steve, any other information? LiHehaug: No. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18. 2003 Blackowiak: Craig, any other information? Claybaugh: Yeah, I'd ~ to just highlight the point I ma~ e~li~r that I b~lieve it's a uniqu~ prope~ insofar as that it really truly does not have any street frontage. And not in order to justify this particular signage but possibly something to a_ddress with respect to our signage statute and ordinances in the fimxre. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. This item goes to City Council on the 14~h of April, and Bob you're waving your hand over there. What can I do for you? Generous: Chair, just one point of clarification. You said tenant and Giant Panda but you really mean for this unit. The next person could have... Blackowiak: For the specific south unit. I mean the southern most tenant Claybaugh: End cap. Blackowialc Yeah, southern end cap, whatever we want to call it. And you know we could actually even say, I don't even have the specific address. Are they 463 West 79~1 Cfiant Panda, okay. So we could specify that this appli~ to the property at 463 West 79~, f-usher defined as the southern most unit. Okay? Clear enough. Alright, so that's our, those are our notes to council. Thank you for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: FQR A LANO AMENOMEt fROM rO ~m~~ ~W D~N~, ~~~G ~OM AGm~~ ~TA~ D~~, A-2, ~ S~GLE F~.Y ~m~, ~, ~ ~D~ON OF ~T 1. B~~ 1. mLL WE 6 A ~R ~ U~ OF A P~A~ ~~ ~~~ AT 8~ ~~ ~~~ ~ R~A~ ~~ Name A~ Arild Rossavik Mark Kelly . George & Jackie Bizek Greg Kahler Cheryl Doty Steve & Krisfi Buan Jayme Lee 8800 Powers Boulevard 351 Second Street, Excelsior 8750 Powers Boulevard 8742 Flamingo Drive 8736 Flamingo Drive 8740 Flamingo Drive 1380 Oakside Circle Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowialc Commissioners. Uli, would you like to start? Sacchet: Yeah I have, I'd just, a lot of few questions. I've still got 16 left because I want to do this real quick. First of all the time line. When was thi~ m-guided from low density to estate? Do you have a time for that? Pl~min§ Commission Mee~in~ - March 1 $, 200~ Generous: In 1984. Sacchet: '84. And so even when it was m-guided to be estate type development, it was considered that it would be developed for larger lots. Can you define larger lots? Generous: Well I would think over the minimurm Half acre to acre. Sacchet: But definitely subdivide it into multiple small lots. So division has been consistently that this property would be subdivided into finther lots, but not necessarily as small as possible? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Alright. · Additionally the city did extend the utilities, sanitary sewer service down to across the street from this property. There is a lift station in place to accommodate suburban style development. Sacchet: So not only was it envisioned, it was actually not only planned for it was even action in investment made by the City for, in preparation for that to happen. So this is not an unexpected event? Okay. Generous: That's cormcC Sacchet: On page 2 you're talking about, when you talk about combining those two lots that front on Powers. You say the turn around for the private street could be moved to the north, meaning it would have to go as far down, it could be shorter? Generous: The short, and that's exactly... Sacchet: Could be shorter, okay. Slagle: Can you show us Bob? Generous: Well on the plans they show it going all the way to the south ~ line for a hammer head turnaround. We're suggesting that it be provided where the 4 lot line comers come together. Sacchet: Now if we only have 2 lots on the east side, wouldn't that allow also for the public street, the cul-de-sac to be shorter? The turnaround be closer to Powers, and therefore the building pad on Lot 6 to be moved out of the slope further down into the flatter area. Generous: Sure, that would work. Sacchet: That would be a possibility, right? Excellent. Now you're talking that at one point you were making a conunent that this is a transition area between different densities of low density resideafial. Do you feel that it is accommodatexl with having this in 5 lots? I mean it's still pretty standard low density. Can it be considered transitional? Generous: Well you have the large buffer area on the north and yes it could be. Sacchet: Could be with a little imaginatiom On page 5 you're talking about the lot nmnlxa' 4 building pad being moved 20 to 30 feet to the south to give more space for the easement to the north of the ravine. 20 or 30 feet, is it possible to do 30 or do you want 20 or do we say 20 to 30 and we know we certainly won't get more than 20 or what's the reasoning? Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Generous: Well the problem shows up on the grading plan. If you look at it, and it's about, it's located I0 feet to the side ~ line. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: If you look at the preliminary plat they've shifted it over in the location that we think is more. Sacchet: So it's closer. Now wouldn't it be also the ease that if the private street doesn't have to be as long, that there is more room to maneuver there or possibly even the lot line between Lot 3 and 4 could be a little bit moved so that the lot, building space on Lot 4 could be moved further out from the ravine? Generous: This lot line shifted to the east? Sacchet: Like if the lot line between 3 and 4 would be more at a right angle. Right now it's not. Generous: That's possible, except for you're creating a smaller lot adjacent to the roadway. Sacchet: Well not necessarily because we're combining 3 lots into 2. Generous: But they're narrower. Sacchet: It'd be the narrowness, aldght. That's a concern. The berming. Now all the berming is going to be different if you combine these 2 lots so that all will have to revised. Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: You're talking about the grades will have to be revised to remove the retaining wall to the north, so that there's a significant amount of change in grading that would have to be taking place them? Some, I guess that's more a Matt question. Saam: Some, yeah. I don't know about if... Sacchet: Not too significant but some. Saam: ...right word. Just revise it to delete the wall. Sacchet: Alright. You also make the comment that Lot 3 agpeam to trap water. That's also something that would have to be corrected through grading, correct? Saam: Yeah. Yeah, at the southeast coaxer of the lot. Sacchet: Southeast, okay. Saam: So again it's not a huge change but it would have to be revised. Sacchee Okay. The neighbor to the north would be required to conn~ io the sanitary sewer system within 12 months. Saanc Correct. That's per city code. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Okay. Do we have any indication that the neighbor to the north would like that? Saam: No, I don't but maybe he's here tonight. Sacchet: Maybe we hear. Yeah, he's here so we hear from him. Same would apply to revising the driveway to connect to the cul-de-sac which sure would make sense. Now here's a technical question for you Matt. On page 8 in the middle it talks about a 31 foot wide face to face street where it's reduced to 31 feet back to baclc Could you explain what that means? Saam: Sure. The face to face and back to back designation is to the curb, so when we say back to back, it's the back edge of the concrete curb to the back edge of the opposite concrete curb. And what they had proposed was a 30 foot wide street face to face which would be the face of the curb. Sacchet: Including. Saam: So if you go 31 foot wide face to face, you still have to account for the bid of the concrete curb and I think it's 6 inches for the back part. So we're saying decrease that. It's essentially a one foot difference. Sacchet: Okay. That explains that very well, thank you. Bob, could you show us the contour of the bluff? There's a statement here that says the toe of the bluff is at the 960 contour line, and we're requiring a 30 foot setback. COuld you point out whe~ we are there? Generous: Well that's what we tried to highlight. The 916 contour comes in here. Sacchet: Right. Generous: And then it wraps around and the bluff actually ends for a period inbetween and then picks up over on this side at the 916 contour which comes in right through the conservation easement line. Sacchet: Now this is probably a Saam question. Matt Saam question. On page 10, talking about sewage treatment system, there's a statement in the report that says the existing well may continue to be used on future Lot 5, but that's a contradiction to actually 2 conditions. Condition 15 and 27 both state that the well, as well as the individual sewage treatment system is going to have to be abandoned. Are we saying they could continue or are we, the condition say obviously they have to abandon. Saam: Yeah. Actually the city code currently does not require for wells to be abandoned if you're, if the house is within like 150 feet as with the sewer code. What we would recommend I guess to the applicant that they, this house does connect to city water. Sacchet: So we want to have the condition that there would... Saam: Yes, we would like to yeah. Sacchet: The compliance table on page 11, I assume that most of that would change with changing it to 5 lots versus 6. Is that ce~'tainly would change quite a bit, wouldn't it? Generous: Well Lot 1 and 2. Sacchet: 2 and 3. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Generous: One is going away, yes. Sacchet: Yeah, 2 and 3 and possibly some on the other ones. The more substantial question. We're talking about the comprehensive plan. Asking for natural features and so forth to be preserved, but then in Finding number 2 we say the proposed development is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan. Could you help me out because I seem to not be totally clear. Generous: What the revisions to the plan to pull it down the bluff... Sacchet: Okay, so we can mitigate sufficiently that we feel that staff feels it's sufficiently in line. Alright. And one more question. Believe it or not, this is number 16. What's a majority of two? It's not a trick question because it looks like in this neighborhood, specific~y this development area, we're talking about 2 parcels. We're talking about 2 owners and the ordinance says a majority of residents in the neighborhood should agree to development. Now here we have a very unique simation~ We're talking about a majority of 2, which by definition would be 2 because 1 is not a majority of 2. So I' 11 come back to that one in my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: I'm not going to go after hint Blackowialc Okay, Steve. Lillehaug: I have a question that kind of hits on a question that, a letter that was presented here by Mr. and Mrs. Coban, and that is, what has changed from the previous application to now? And Fm not basing any decisions that I'm making on that but I am curious. Has the~ been anything that's changed other than a revision to these plans? Generous: Part of it was the discussion regarding the City's in~ i ,mprovement down there. The, what do we call them? Our SUl~intendent of utilities says that we have a pump station that they actually have to go down and pump water in so that we use it. So it doesn't go bad. So the City did make that investment in there. There was an expectation that this area would develop. Lillehaug: That's really not a change from previous application though~ Is that... Oen~om: Well, that's. Lillehaug: That's your interpretation, okay. Let me get to a more ~ecific question here. And this one's tough for me. COuld you point, pull up the bluff diagram there. So there's an area inbetween there that you specifically don't consider a bluff, is that correct? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: I did my own calculations and I'm looking specifically for Lot 6, the south line. If I look at those elevations, right on that south lot line, I get an elevation change from 922 elevation to 948 elevation. It's a 26 foot elevation difference. The horizontal distance I measure to be 79 feet. So this equates to a 32.9 percent grade. So would you consid~, based on my calculations, would you consider that to be a bluff?. Generous: ff it's 32 percent, sure. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Lillehaug: Okay. So based on those calculations. Generous: The line would have to shift. Lillehaug: That would have to change. And maybe, I'm not sure who made the bluff area map here but is, has someone checked that? Am I in the wrong? Matt, do you have capabilities of checldng that right now? Saam: Yeah, I can sure check it. Lillehaug: And it specifically again it was on the south lot line of Lot 6. Saam: Yeah, I'm getting the same thing you are. 80 feet and then the drop is about, well it's over 25 feet. Lillehaug: So based, okay. Blackowiak: So what you're saying is there' s ano~ bluff. Generous: However the problem is you need to determine what the toe and the top are. Those numbers change as you go across. Lillehaug: And that's my question- Is this accummly reflecting the bluff area? Because in my mind it's not. In my mind it ends about halfway. Halfway through on Lot 6, according to my calculations. On the north end of Lot 6 it doesn't appear that that's a bluff. But then further up beyond the existing house and the next lot up there, then there's a bluff area. So it comes and goes. Generous: We could go out with the applicant and actually flag where we think the toe and the top would be and have them survey that and then they could make those exact calculations. This is based on these drawings and there are, because like I said it goes. Sonwximes it goes across contours. Lillehaug: Yep, and that's tough in my mind and Fll wait with my comment~ I guess. A simple conurent here, and I can't find it in the report but on Lot 3, Lot 2, in the repm't it indicates you want to provide about a 20 foot area there with a 1 to 10 slol~ If we do this that' s not really going to provide any berming. Would the city be acceptable to increatsing that slope and maybe if I could find thi~ in the report I could point it out. It's on page 5 at the bottom. Would staff agree that it'd be possibly more importaut to provide berming than providing really a flat slope... That's something I guess we can. Saam: Yeah, we can look at that. I looked at it 20 feet off the back pad of that Lot 2. You kind of come to the toe of that berm that they're showing. So to me, while that berm isn't that high, it is a berm so, unless you're looking for more of a 6 or 8 foot berm to really screen the roadway, then I agree that the 20 foot wouldn't be enough but. Lillehaug: I mean in actuality I don't think a one, based on that width and a 1 to 10 slope is basically no berm in there. Saam: Yeah. Well, we could look at that to see. Lillehaug: Sure. There's a lot of stuff here, just for the people who haven't seen this report. It's very extensive and I guess that will end my questions of staff. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Craig, why don't you jump, in. Claybangh: I guess I don't have any new questions to add, with what's already been asked. I'll hold my comments til later. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, questions? Slagle: A couple things. Quick clarification Bob. Again, Commissioner Lillehaug's question is what has changed from the last time we've seen this? Generous: Besides some revisions to the plan incorporating staff's comments, and our concern for a use of infrastructure. Slagle: Which is more of an awareness issue... Okay. Generous: One of our goals is to ufiliTe existing utilities wherever possible. Slagle: Okay. Bob can I ask, would you say that it's fair to make an assumpfi, 'on there are few things that are not complete in this application with respect to the trees. With respect to, I don't know if there' s been a determination on this retaining wall for the lot to the north. Track with me a liRle bit. You've got on page 6, this area for Lot 3 appears to trap water. Needs to be revised to ensure the stm'mwater. I mean I guess I'm just asking before I even get to the comprehensive plan rezoning, would you say there's a few things that we're missing? And maybe that's a Matt question. I mean would you term this as a complete application? Blackowiak: La:ntded question. Saamz There are a lot of conditions. Have I seen more before though? Yealz I mean have I seen less? Sure. So I guess it's kind of up to you guys to determine if you think more work should be doae on this and then maybe brought back to you. I don't know. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. That's all I have right now. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I just have one question. Uli's comment about the majority of two. I thought that was funny because as I counted there are 7 homes in I-fill.gide subdivision, is that correct? Generous: I believe so. Blackowiak: Okay so it's really not just this one and the property to the north. I mean we should really kind of be looking at all 7. Is that correct? Generous: If you want to call, yeah as part of the subdivision. Blackowiaic Okay. Because I was just curious because it talks about you know we want a majority of homeowners to move forward on rezoning. I just felt that in an existing area would be Hillside Oaks. In o~er words 7 homeowners. I'm on page 13 1 guess. At the bottom. I'm on page 13 at the bottom. I'm just curious, I mean we're talking about 1 and 2. We're talking 1 homeowner and then a second homeowner to the north but as I view it, this is an entire neighborhood or an entire subdivision of 7 homes. I'm just curious if you concur to that. Concur with that. Generous: That the entire subdivision is 7 homes, yes. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Yes, okay. Alright, that's my question. At this point we'd like the applicant or their designee to make a presentation, so please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Mark Kelly: Good evening. My name is Mark Kelly. I'm an attorney. I'm here on' t~aff of Arild Rossavik, the applicant. This is a renewed application requesting a subdivision of 6 homes. We've seen the report of the city staff and we appreciate their comments on this matter. My client is of the opinion that their proposal to reduce the 3 frontage lots down to 2 is acceptable. As regards to the questions that the Chair just put to city staff regarding the approval of the neighborhood. This was originally developed as a 7 lot neighborhood but you're looking at the replatting and rezoning of 2 lots of that original plat and the others are not going to be changed. The question, the proposal to you is to allow this to go forward as a logical transition that the City has already made a determination and a huge investment and it stands unused. If this is approved, this is a logical transition. If you drive down Powers Boulevard you go from relatively, townhomes and higher density, duplexes and the like, and then this would suddenly jun~s to these 2 large lot homes. They're very exposed. My client's home on, which would be retained as Lot 2, is highly exposed. It doesn't have the character of an A4 development that you would find down along your bluff area along the river where those estates are quite sheltered and private, And clearly this will open up more housing oppommities in this relatively high traffic area. This is an arterial. It's going to connect with 312 shortly. This area doesn't lend itself to buffering of my client's home in turning it into any kind of private estate. And we're asking that the City acknowledge that and that this is a logical transition. The question has been posed what's new and the answer is, I think we're taking a fresh look at this. We've tried to answer the questions and concerns that were raised by the city stuff the last time. We have put in, tried to answer the questions regarding bluff and setbacks. Proper consmlcfion of the cul-de- sac. Dealing with the engineering issues, many of the items that are enmmmted in the city stuff report are engineering issues that can be sorted out. Survey issues that can be verified to the city satisfaction. So we welcome questions that you might have, and look forward to some support in making this transition. We are not trying to make a change for the area to the south. We are not asking that you change the zoning of the area to the south. Those homes actually are benefited from more shelter than this property is, so there is a distinction between this land and the land to the south~ Blackowialc Okay. Questions of the applicant? Rich, I'll let you start. Slagle: I just had just a couple. Would it be in your opinion, if I may ask, the city talks about it's commitment to mmmfl enviromnent and I'm just asking would you consider your client's ~ be deemed highly environmental? Mark Kelly: Is it uniquely, a unique setting unlike any other in the city? No. Does it have some bluff in the westerly edge of it? Yes. Has that been protected? Yes. Can it be protected with ~a_~luate conservation easements and bluff control? Yes. It's typical in these plats. Is there a reason why you would then deny the i ,mprovement of the property? No. Slagle: Would you, and Matt I might need your help on thi.~ but would you be open to assisting in the survey of that bluff?. Mark Kelly: Of course. We'd want to confirm that information. The concern that was raised by Mr. Lillehaug can be verified by engineering and survey. Slagle: Okay. And you're open to the 5 versus the 6. Mark Kelly: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sla§le: Your client's house as it sits now, those lot lines will not change, is that correct? Mark Kelly: It would appear not. I think the adjustment is going to be between Lots 1 and 3, with Lot 2 evaporating. Slagle: And if I can ask your client have a issue, or would you have any issue with putting together the request for certain items that are not part of this, that being the tree preservation, so forth and so forth. Mark Kelly: Tree preservation is typical in a land development. That's not an issue. Slagle: Understand. Okay. That' s all for me fight now. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uti, any questions? Sacchet: Yeah, real quiclc You indicated that your client would be agreeable to reducing to 5 lots. Now I have a few more specific things. ~t seems like along with that it would make sense to shorten the cul-de- sac closer to Powers Boulevard. Mark Kelly: To shorten that distance? Sacchet: Yes, and therefore bring the building pad from Lot 6 off of the steep slope. Mark Kelly: We would prefer that. One of the challenges of modern engineering requirements is the, when you end up putting in a 60 foot radius cul-de-sac serving a very small area, it's problematic. It eats up a lot of land. We would probably prefer a flat out driveway arrangement, but this is what your code or engineers would dictate. Sacchet: Right. And shortening the private road I'm sure is in your interest too. Mark Kelly: That doesn't hurt them. Sacchet: Possibly revising the lot line between Lot 3 and 4 to be able to move the building pad ~ away from the ravine, should that be helpful? Mark Kelly: I haven't tried to manipulate that as has been suggested here but perhaps engineering will suggest that this line tilt slightly. It would bring the. Sacchet: That's the idea, right. Mark Kelly: Bring this comer down. Maybe bring this comer up. Sacchet: Okay, that's my question, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve, any questions of the applicant? Lillehaug: Yes I do. There's 50 some conditions in here that stuff has recommended. I assume that you've had a chance to review them all, you and your client, and my question would be, are you acceptable to all of the conditions? Mark Kelly: We believe most of these are engineering issues rather than conditions that make our proposal undoable so this is not an issue for us at this time. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Lillehaug: So what you're saying is you are acceptable to all 50 conditions and th~ sub-conditions? Mark Kelly: Yes I believe so, yeah. Lillehaug: That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay Craig, any questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Maybe staff could co~t on thi.~ but I'm not sure how appropriate the question is, but to dove tail Commissioner Lillehaug's comment with respect to Lot number 6. If that in fact ends up expanding that bluff area, is there still sufficient square footage for that to be a viable buildable lot? Generous: Well that's what we'd have to determine. Claybaugh: Okay. Would it be appropriate to pose that hypothetical to the applicants? Blackowiak: You know I think that at this point we'd have to find out. I mean I wouldn't want to ask him to. Mark Kelly: We simply don't know at this time. Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say, I don't think it's fair to ask you to speculate. Claybaugh: How does that affect our review of this particular application at this time, I guess is the question. Generous: If they could not comply with the ordinance and the lot's undevelopable and they can't have it or they would need a variance. Claybaugh: Okay, would it be appropriate to ask the applicant's representative if that would be a make or Mark Kelly: We don't know that at this time. Blackowiak: I think what he's getting at is that, I think we have to determine the bluff survey, and then move from there. I don't think we. Let's not speculate. Claybaugh: Yeah, it's a little dicey so, okay. Sacchet: We don't know. Claybaugh: Alright. Blackowialc We just don't know. Claybaugh: I don't have anything further to add to that, thanks. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you very much. This it~rn is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this item please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 George Bizek: Thank you for your time. My name is Caeorge Bizek. I live at 8750 Powers Boulevard. The lot just to the north of this proposed development. I've lived there for 17 years. I bought the lot originally. Built the house the~. And I, at the bottom of the hill ~'s only one curb cut and both driveways are serviced by this single curb cut right now. It's a shared adjoining driveway so.- I was toId that that would not change when we bought the lot for the County wouldn't allow another curb cut. Everything's down there. Hydrants, electrical boxes, street lights. I've seen Mr. Rossavik's proposals many times before and this will be the third time, and I don't see much change. It was decided at the last meeting that it had to have been a shared effort for both of us to agree to do this, which would be two. I just think that this would be a detriment to my property. It would be leaving my land out to be developed properly at a later date. It should be done at the same time. Both these lots, and that's basically what was decided at the last meeting. If you'll go out there and you look at Lot 6, I can't believe they would even consider it as a buildable lot. It is so steep. It's adjoining a building on my property and it's going to affect the drainage on my existing building. Mr. Rossavik's attorney says it won't impact the property to the south. What about the property to the north? You know it's going to impact me greatly. I don't know, are you going to start changing grade. If you look at this plot map to the north hem, this drainage ditch, there's an unbelievable amount of water comes down that drainage ditch. Right now our driveways are approximately here and any sizable rain it's like a river running across there. Has that been considered? All the drainage from ~ lots and this way there's a ravine. I don't know. I think it's kind of ridiculous to be considering the wants of one for the needs of many. Thank you for your time. Blackowiak: Thank you. Jayme Lee: My name is Jayme Lee. Fm the neighbor to the south. 1380 Oakside Circle. My main objection to this is what it does for my property obviously, and the hardest thing I have is visualizing how the 3, or I guess they're going to have 2 houses real close to the road. It's really, I've tried to visualize that and it just does not look good. I think we need the open space, just as an aesthetic to the city. We've got the open ar~ on the other side of the Powers Boulevard, and I really, I don't know. I've had a hard time seeing how that would _a_dd anything at all other than more houses. The other thing that I have is, it really does get very, very wet right here, back. I've had to even give up on trying to mow that area out in front of my house because it just becomes a real soggy bog. The lawnmower sinks it. It gets clogged up. I think even the city when they've gone to mow the parkway occasionally the lawn and tractor sinks in the mud there as well. So I'm definitely against it. I disagree that it would, that it does anything for making me feel more secure. I'd much prefer having the open area around so. I can't identify with the concept of actually wanting to have houses around here so thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve Buan: I'm Steve Buan, the property owner at 8740 Flamingo Drive, which is located fight at, just immediately to the west of the property in question here. trLrSt I'd like to comp~t Bob Generous on his excellent customer service skills in dealing with all my requests. Dealing with over the past 3 times this has been before the commission. He's been very helpful in explaining comprehensive plan versus this versus that and I think I'm starting to get it a little biL So it's a good civic's lesson anyway. The one thing I think that's missing in the whole staff analysis is how this rezoning would i .mpact the city park facilities that are located here. I think you've all seen various renditions of this, and the park immediately to the west of the property and extending to the south looks like about a 5 acre park is all natural upland area. It was left with the PUD development. They were actually, what we were told when we purchased there is that they were going to put lighted temni.~ courts in where the graded flat spot is located on this diagram here, but subsequent to it going in and different commissions and park and rec looking at it, they decided just leave that as a flat spot for open recreation. Put in a picnic gazebo and call this a vista view area. Looking off you can see Buck I-rill ski area. You can see a long ways away, and just this aftern~ I had the privilege to sit in my kitchen and look out to the southwest and see a red tail hawk soaring over the area. Over the trees. Swooping down into the grassland area and that's what it's intended for, and 32 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 that' s what the park and rec, so there's no analysis of, and then that works with across the highway, across Powers Boulevard is a large marsh expanse area, which these are very complimentary. Right now this large lot area compliments that transition between those two and it allows wildlife to move back and forth. The parks are not hemmed in on all sides by residential single fitmily or multi density or high density. We're allowing outlets, and I think somebody saw that whell they were doing this. In the bigger scheme of things back in the 80's they saw what was going to ha~ and how things would work and that things are complimentary. And so I trust that they were thinking about that and so I think, and you have my letter on that and I outlined that. I outlined it last time and I'll outline it again. Another thing about Lot 6. Lot 6 has come up several times. I'm the immediat~ neighbor to that Lot 6. It's awfully steep from the back lot line down. Down to the current house. Very steep there. There's a small immature ravine right off the back of my property that water actually comes down these back yards and then enters into that immature ravine right now. I'm just afl'aid that in a 1993 type situation where we have Niagara Falls in this ravine, we have significant water coming down here, that poor Lot 6 is going to have water right in his dining room when they dig that house into that hillside. So with a tuck under style that they're talking about so, it just does not add to it. i'm not going to come up here and say I'm anti development. I believe it's possible to have additional homes down there, but the current configuration is not going to work, and for the reasons that have been, people have talked about. So pre~ development would be my opinion right now, and if the city's having problems with their lift station that they installed, that's a risk the city took at the time. There's no, if that was all it took to get development, then you'd have people beating your doors down to just run something in and then afterwards they say okay, now we'll develop because we did this. I think they can mothball the pump,. I mean ! think it's been done elsewhere. We're having problems with our pump down them. Let's mothball it so we don't have to go visit it so. That's all I've got. Blackowiak: Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak? Mr. Lee. Jayme Lee: ...I forgot to say. If this development goes through this way, Fm wondering what the future might be when they want to develop my lot, should I sell and somebody wants to build on mine. And I was thinking that you know, perhaps if these lots were joined together maybe we all sold at the same time or whatever, it might turn out to be a better plan instead of doing this for this and then a different one to try to fit into my lot and so on, and I just thought about the wisdom of maybe instead of trying to squeeze it into individual lots, seeing what kind of a plan it would be if they were all joined together without property divisions. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, last chance otherwise I will close the public hearing. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Thank you for your comments. Commissioners. Rich, would you like to start this time? Slagle: Sure. I just have a couple of thoughts. I think that the property is maybe a tad more unique than given credit for. With relationship to the park_ The potential bluffs. The obvious drainage I think some of the comments that have been made about what yards will look like or rivers rmming through them, and I realize there are means to grading that can prevent some of that but I think it's got some issues with that, but most importantly, and what I'm going to advocate, or at least suggest to my peers here is that we table this. When I see 50 conditions, I'd like to see staff go through those with the applicant to get a better, either agreement or disagreement with 50. I have a hard time remembering all 50, but I think the~'s some other things here that are stated that I don't need to list ~ all but basicaRy you know will come. Work with staff. Applicant has not provided. I'd lilm to, for something this sensitive and this you know what I'll call major, I want to have a complete application and I don't think we have one. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, comments? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Yeah, a couple comments real quick. F'wst of all I really think this needs to be tabled. This is not cooked enough. It's not just 50 condition. Some of these conditions, one condition has 10 sub- conditions. I mean we easily have 100 or more conditions. But the main reason why I think it needs to be tabled is not just bec__ause there are so many conditions. I think there are some very si~pnificant changes. We're talking about 5 lots or 6. We're talking about shortening at least a private road. I would propose that we would shorten the public road, the cul-de-sac to move the building pad of Lot 6. That we are more clear where we want to move the building pad for Lot 4. How all the changes in berming affect the drainage and everything. How it affects the whole table of compliance. I mean there's really a lot of aspects that seem to make it imperative that there's changes. However I have some additional comments to make. One thing, I'm still a little bit struggling with is the comprehensive plan calling out for the preservation of natural environment, including trees, slope, vista and the unclmmred open spaces. The development as proposed significantly imp, acts these featmes. That's a direct quote from the report on page 12, while about paragraph ~ down there's a finding that the proposed development is consistem with the intent of the comprehensive plan. I would want to be very clear what kind of mitigating factors are introduced that are an environmen~lly sensitive. That take ~ consideration the sensitivity of the bluff, and also that park connection aspect which is definitely an i ,mportant point. I do believe that with the way it was proposed, the envimnn~ntal impact is still excessive. But obviously going to 5 lots, that makes it quite considerably different. I don't think it has been snfficiently been analyzed and determined what that does. Now to come back to the aspect of the majority of two, we have been considering this in conjunction with the lot to the north the three previous times that it was here, as far as I remember. So yes, the development, the neighborhood is 6 properties but I think in terms of what we're consi~ here, this context, we're talking two. And I'm kind of stru~ling with this because a majority of two is two. Now I assume that several of us here are married and we struggle with this concept every day. What's the majority of two, and we know that the majority of two, like in the wedding envimnmenL Slagle: It's her. Sacchet: It's her. It's her, so once in a while maybe he gets something too. No, not really. Them we go, majority of two. I feel that we cannot continually keep one of the two hostages in the long run, and you have to try to be fair here. So that's my comment about that one. And there's another comment about the use of the private street here is put in here that it helps to enhance the protection of natural resoumes. I would argue with that. I mean the private road is to put in more lots. I mean it's not to preserve natural environment. F m very sorry about that. In terms of the co~ from the neighbors, I want to thank you for speaking up. Mr. Biz. eL the property owner to the north. Is it really all to your detriment when the whole infrastructure is put onto the property to the south? The whole cul-de-sac. The whole public road. You don't have to give this away a single square foot of land for the infr/lgtru~ture being there. I would disagree that it's totally all to your disadvantage in that sense. The comment of Mr. Lee about the open area, my god. Would I love open space everywhere. But we have reality here. This is a city that's growing. This has been allocated in the comprehensive plan as a place that will be developecL ...just keep it open space. As much as I would like that too the best, And the other comment from Mr. Buan it was. From Flamingo Drive, Steve. Very good point about the park connection. I think that's one of the hot points we looked at the last time this proposal came before us. It's very si~trnificant that there is this park connection, but unfortunately I think with the direction the city plan has taken, not tonight but quite a while ago, that this would be developed to some extent... Slagie: I'm sorry Commissioner Sacchet, point of clarification though. We have in the slxff report two differing viewpoints as to how this parcel applies to the comp plato I'm just throwing out as a suggestion, you're making. Blackowialc Yeah, this is your opinion. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Slagle: You're drawing a line, exactly. Sacchet: This is my opinion. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Right. Sacehet: I'm speaking for myself here. Blackowiak: Okay, but you're saying the city. Sacchet: Well the city made a determin~on, 'the way'I read the report, that this property would be developed. I think that's my opinion. I take personal responsibili~ for that, but my opinion is that that's a city's decision that's been made in the context of how this thing was platted. In terms of how it's stated that this would be, this property would redevelop with, but with larger lots. Which is a little bit flera'ble term, large lots, but it would develop. I mean it's stated here. I'm not making this up so this is my opinion, interpretational something that is written. Slagle: I guess all I'm asking Commissioner Sacehet is just to reme~ that we have some questions of staff that they seem to be contradicting themselves in here and so it might be better to hear back from them. Sacchet: And the point of my pointing that out is to encourage that to be researcl~ further as I said, my position is that this needs to be tabled and when it comes back I would like to have more clarity about these points. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: This is a tough 3.7 acres here. It really is. I'm not opposed to developing this. Like fellow commissioners I'm not here to punish the applicant I'm just not comfortable with what I'm seeing right now. Items out there, I think the bluff is very significant. I think we need a bluff survey there to clearly identify where that is. How that relates to the parcels that are backed up to it. Can lot number 6 be, is that a buildable lot? I'm not sold on it right now. One thing to staff, could you maybe clarify is ~ a minimum throat length for that cul-de-sac? I mean can we shift that closer to the county road7 Maybe we can't. I'm not too sure if we have a city standard on that. That's something I think we need to address. As long as I'm making comments here. Mr. Buan indicated that he's becoming pretty clear with the city comprehensive plan .... we have a couple empty spots on the planning commission so go ahead and apply. Thought I'd get that in there. Blackowiak: Good job. Lillehaug: As far as the existing lift station, I'd like to make a suggestion to dty staff that potentially look at taking them pumps out of there. We have many li~ stations around the city. Get them in a rotational plan and utilize them somewhere else. Just as a suggestion. And then to the beef of it hem, there's many changes in here that I'm just not comfortable, with and I will not recommend this to the council. I need to see a majority of ~ conditions irr~, lemented~ And I just want to reiterate, I'm not opposed to this development. I really do need to see a lot of these conditions worked out. Specific~y which ones, I don't think, I mean I want to be clear to the applicant and staff but there's 50 conditions here and I mean I can take the time and go through and pin point every one but I don't think that's necessary. I think there's the significant ones that other commissioners have touched on and the ones I've 35 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 discussed that we really do need to get in touch with. Along with, there was a letter here given to us by the county implementing a few more conditions that they would like to see. Nothing too significant but that needs to lag added into th~ mix he~. So with that, likewis~ I support tabling this at this time. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any additional comments? Claybaugh: Yes I do. Again I'm not opposed to developing this prope~. In it's current form I can't support this particular application. I think it's i .mportant to note that the applicant certainly has a right to develop this piece of property and despite the fact that open space is desirable to everybody in the community, I think it's important to note that this ~ is being sought at the applicant's expense and I think people need to consider that if the shoe was on the other foot. With respect to the complet~rness of the application, after 3, or a~r 2 previous applications to the one in front of us, staff commented that they felt that there wasn't necessarily any significant issues. I recall a quote the Russians used to have above their tanks that went, quantity has a quality all it' s own, and I think to that end the cumulative affect of the minor issues constitute a major issue, and I think those need to be addressed on that level. And as such I'd be in favor of tabling the issue. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve, additional? Lillehaug: So this doesn't come back to haunt me next time if we address this. I want to discuss with staff, one of their findings in the subdivision findings, and it would be their last finding. It says that a majority of the property owners in an existing area came and requested land use amendments, etc. That this may not be premature. You indicate that this is a policy of the city. Is this a written ordinance policy or is this just the tendency? Generous: Madam Chair, it's one of the guides, in the comprehensive plan there's a statement that says, these large lot areas will be maintained. However, if the majority of the properties come in, we'd look at it in a favorable light. However our city attorney has said we can't hold people up to that standard. We have to look at each case individually. But it's more favorable, yes. We'd have less of a problem with this subdivision if he and his neighbor to the north came in. It would lay out a lot easier. Tbere'd be less conffict if he came in with thc whole neighborhood. Lillehaug: So my understanding would be that the comprehensive plan directs us that really we need a majority of the landowners. Not directs us, recommends? Generous: Well it suggests that we look at that. Slagle: Suggest probably is a more appropriate term than policy or direct. Lillehaug: Okay. Sacchet: It will come back to haunt you. Blackowialc And I don't have too many additional comments. I do feel that a bluff survey is i ,mperafive before we move this forward. We really can't speculam as to how many lots are available. How long cul- de-sacs need to be, etc, until we really know what's out there so I think that's i .mportant to have before we see this again. Second, trees, preservation, etc. We need to get information about that. Thirdly, drainage issues are huge. How are those going to be addressed? What's going to be happening-with the water that's coming down the hills? I don't think anybody that lives in that area would argue that point. And finally, the premature ness or lack of premature ness of this applicatiom Do we have to look at Hillside Oaks as the 7 homes? Do we look at 2? Do we look at 3? Do we look at 17 You know what is City 36 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Council's feeling7 I'd like to hear that. You know, do they have any guidance for us before we see it again? I'm not sure. But it sounds like all the commission~ are in agreement that we table it and get further information. Rich? Slagle: One quick question for Bob. Bob, have we heard from the attorney as m his viewpoint on that last point as far as 7 homes? I mean just like Alison said, the premature ness of this, has he given you. an input one way or the other? Generous: We haven't asked that question. We have had other projects. Blackowiak: Yeah, well let's you know, then maybe we could get an opinion from the attorney before we see this application again. As to what we really should be considering in terms of a neighborhood. Should we be looking at the entire subdivision? You know property owners in existing area. Is Hillside Oaks 7 homes, you know what's the existing area, so I'd like to hear that. And that ends my comments. I'd like a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that we table this imm. Blackowiak: Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commi~don table the request for a land use amendment from Residential Large Lot to Re~~ Low Density, Rezoning from Agricul~ Estate District to Single Family Residential, and subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Hillside Oaks into 6 lots with a variance for the use of a private street located at 8800 Powers Boulevard. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of S to 0. Blackowiak: This item is tabled. We need, I think that we've made fairly clear the information that we'd like from you Mr. Kelly and Mr. Rossavik before we see it again. Staff, is there anything else we need to do? Generous: Not currently. Blackowialc Not currently, okay. Generous: We will be sending a letter to them that we're going W take additional time to review. Blackowialc Right, so we can get the Ad6ifional information we're requesting. Claybaugh: That's not an issue as far as the timeline? Saechet: What's the timeline? We're okay with the timeline? Generous: Yes. We can take an additional 60 days. It will take us to mid-June. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank yom One comment before we take a bre~ rm just going to mention this. Our next Planning Commission meeting is Tuesday, April l't at which time the Planning Commission will review and adopt the By-laws for the coming year, which the Planning Commission year is April 1~ through March 31a. And also at that point we'll elect a chair and vice chair so that is going to happen at our April 1~t meeting. Now we'll take about a 5 to 10 minute break. Get a little water. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Claybaugh: Do we n__e~_ to summarize Blackowiak: No, we're not summarizing. We're not sending it to City Council. It's not going anywhere. Okay, so we'll take a quick break and we'H be back in about 5 to 10 minutes. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point. Commissioner Claybaugh left the meeting at this point.) Blackowiak: Craig had to leave for a personal matter so he is no longer with us. However we sun have a quorum tonight so we'll move right along to item number 4. And I believe we're going to be able to finish items 4 and 5 tonight. Any commissioners have any other feeling that we can't get it done in an hour, tell me now. Otherwise I'm holding you guys to this. An hour? Okay. Alright, items 4 and 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CQNSmER THE REQUF~T FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDm0N OF APPROXIMATELY 45,600 SQUARE FEET AND A 730 ~QUARE FOOT BU~.OING Wi'tn VARIAN(~F_~ AND A CQNDITIQNAL USE PERMIT FOR DEyEIOPMENT WITHIN ~ BLUFF CREEK OyERLAY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZQNED INDU~ QFFIt~E PARK AND LQ(~ATED AT 8000 AUDUBQN RQAD, GENERAL MII.I~. Public Present: Name Address Ron Miller Chris Hall Lonnie Malikowski Mark Wasescha Jack Warner 9141 Inverness Circle, Ramsey 2442 Ponds Way, Shakopee 3402 Highlands Road, Brooklyn Park 1795 Fairview Avenue, St. Paul 3721 Tmpatiens Lane, Brooklyn Park Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay Rich. Slagle: Just quickly. On page 2 of our report, the gray area that I see to the west of the parcel a~ to abut the creek and the path along those homes. AMaff: Yes. Slagle: And then when I look at the map or the diagram of the fadlity, specifically page 2 here, it shows what I will call the new automobile asphalt paved area. Is that into that western tn'open'y? Al4aff: No. Slagle: Okay, so the western prope~ that we see on page 2 is not being touched at all? Al4aff: That's correct. Slagle: Okay. And then I'm going to hold off the other questions until later, but just one more. I noticed on the mailing list, which first of all I didn't get one of these. FYI. But secondly, I'm a little concerned because none of the homeowners to the west are included in this, and I'm gueasing that you went 500 feet 38 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 from the existing building perhaps. I don't know if it would reach over there or not, but anyway I think I would be very encouraging if you will to have the mailings be sent to that neighborhood because basically you're going to have semi trailers now on, albeit the north side, much closer than the Audubon side. Do you know what I'm saying? I don't know if it's Stone Creek or, what is that? Blackowiak: Stone Creek Drive. Slagle: I mean I just got to tell you, if I was a homeowner them and didn't get a mailing and I'm not watching TV tonight, I might be a little interested to see what's ha~ing when the bulldozers come. Blaekowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve, I'll go to you. Mixing it up. Lillehaug: Alright. My questions would be, is the office portion of the building in the southwest comer, what would be the material on that portion of the comer? The exterior. A1-Jaff: EIFS. Liilehaug: That is FINS. A14aff: h will be 2 percent. Lillehaug: Say again? Al4aff: 2 percent. Lillehaug: On the existing portion of the office building. Al4aff: On the existing portion? Lillehaug: Do you know what that material is? Al4aff: No I don't. Lillehaug: I mean it apwatm to be fflFS I guess. Mark Wasescha: It's a pre-cast concrete that we specified the EIFS to be a readly frae finish to match the flat appearance of the pre-cast. And the contract documents say to match the office IX~on so. Blackowiak: Okay, we'll get into that when the applicant comes up. Lillehaug: Question on the height of the building. You have 21 feet. And then there's 24 feet on the next page. I'm looking at page 3 and 4. Fm confused at really the building height's going to be. I mean when I look at their plans, when I look at an elevation plan I calculate 34 feet and maybe that's because I'm including the, what do you call it, parapet or whatever it is. Is that, am I missing something? Al4aff: That would include the parapet. Lillehaug: So when you say the building height, yom- 21 feet doesn't include that, is that Al4aff: It should be 34 feet. Especially if we look at the elevation sheet, and the building is built at an elevation of 100 and the parapet is at 134. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Lillehaug: Okay, so if I look on page 4, it says existing building height is 36 feet and the oddition will be 24 feet. Are you saying that should be 34 feet? AMaff: Correct. LiHehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: More numbers Sharmeen. We're sony. Lillehaug: Yep. Al-Jaff.- Yeah. I didn't write this one, can I explain that. Lillehaug: And a one foot parapet wall, it doesn't appear that, if I were to scale the elevation drawing, I wouldn't get one feet there. So what that's telling is, and correct me if I'm wrong, does that mean there's only one foot of wall that would cover or screen the roof equipment7 Al-Jaff.' Commissioner Lillehaug, the architect is here. Maybe he can answer that question. Lillehaug: I'll hold off on that. Same page, number 4. There's, number 5. Does that meet, I assume it meets. Is that correct? Al4aff:. That's one of the things that we believe that with the ~ddifion of the screening, the ~ the landscaping you would be able to achieve. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowialc So meets with conditions, is that? LiHehaug: Page 6. The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. I don't see that a possibility. Because you are increasing the i ,mpervious area of that parcel, so how do we odd_ress that? Am I missing something there? I don't mean to be throwing these at you but, maybe I've got to address that to enginee~g. AI-Jaff: Yes please. These are engineering issues. Lillehaug: And you know, let me follow up on that because in the next paragraph it says, it a~ the existing stormwater infrastructure may not be functioning properly. So if we have a non-functioning storm sewer infrastructure, and then we can't increase or we need to maintain that existing runoff rates, it appears that we have a problem, and I know you say, you're indicating that you'll address thig with the applicant. AI-Jaff: That's correct, and earlier conversations between Kate and the applicant's engineer indicated that these are things that they can work out. When they're up here they will be able to answer that question. Lillehaug: Okay. I'll save that one for the applicant. I'll leave you alone a little bit here. And then in, on page 10. One of your findings you indicate that it's going to, it ~ that we're going to be reducing the number of trucks coming into the site because, I mean, and I'm insinuating that because it says the Planning Con, mission Meeting - March 18, 200:3 noise is going to be reduced. Is that accurate that the number of trucks comin~ to the site is going to be reduced? I'm just not putting that, putting 2 and 2 together on that. Al-:Iaff: Currently they truck the flour from Eden Prairie where they have one of their plants, into this area. They're consolidating the two plants. Number of trips will be reduced and hence the noise will be less. Lillehaug: I'm going to pose that one to the applicam. Blackowiak: The traffic calming one. Lillehaug: Okay, I'mdone. Blackowiak: Okay thank you. Uli, questions. Sacchet: Yes, a couple of quick questions. What's a terminal oil building? Is that an applicant question? Al-$aff: Sure. Sacchet: Alright. We'll ask that for the apphcant. You pointed out where it was. Staff report says this was first approved by council in 1998. Wasn't it 19887 Al-Jaff: 1989. Sacchet: 89. 89 instead of 98. AI-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. I figured that couldn't possibly be true. It talks about that there is no activity in the Bluff Creek Overlay, you addressed that. So it is a r~t they still get the conditional use permit because they do something, whatever it is on that property. Al-$aff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. I don't see a condition, I don't know whether I wasn't looldn~ close enough for screening the roof equipment. Al-~aff: On the addition only. Sacchet: Excuse me? Al-laff: On the addition only. Sacchet: On the addition, yes. Preferably. Is it in there? Okay, it was hiding when I looked for it. Blackowiak: I don't know. Sacchet: Okay, we can always come back to that. The design standards, that's the one... To come back to Commissioner Lillehaug's comment. It a~ the existing storm water infras~ may not be 41 Planning Commission Meeting- March 18, 2003 functioning properly. What does that mean? Are they getting puddles? Are they over flowing? What exactly, what does that mean? Sweidan: I think this is a comment fi'om our Water Reso~ Coordinator, Loti, and she is doubting like to put because they did not submit the sewer sizing so we can wimess if they are sufficient or not for the proposal and that's why she's doubting from that. Sacchet: So it's a question. It's not... Sweidan: It's a question and we condition that he has to submit a storm sewer sizing to confirm that it is sufficient for the addition. Sacchet: It has to be confirmed. Sweidan: Yes. Sacchet: It's necessarily like we have a real problem, but we don't know exactly. We want to make sure it's clean before we move forward. Sweidan: Yes. Sacchet: Alright. Al4aff: The applicant will be able to address this. Sacchet: They will address that one, excellent. Al4aff: Yes. Sacchet: This one kind of baffled me is sanitary sewer and watermain hook-up fees the same for industrial building as for residential building? It looked to me like they were, or what that is on page 7. Is that accurate? That kind of startled me a little bit. It just seems like such a huge thing versus maybe a single family house or duplex or like. Sweidan: Well any additional connections would have charges. Saccbet: It's just standard? Sweidan: Yes. Sacchec Okay. So it is the same. Whatever it is this row of evergreens on the west side, I assmne they would be moved. Maybe that's an applicant question if staff doesn't know. This is getting to the meat of my story. Originally Coulter was not supposed to be a through street, correct? AI-Jaff: No it wasn't. Sacchec And therefore all this screening, view screen_ ing and looks were designed to be viewed from the east, and not from the west. And that's why if you drive east on Coulter we see all this machinery there on the side of the building. The big fans and all these pipes and grates and mesh and what have you. AI-Jaff: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Has any consideration been given of how that could be screened, either with tilt up panels ox berming or anything? AI-Jaff: One of the things that we have attempted to do, Nann if you will please, with this application is, this is the area that they are adding. We've a_tt_¢mpted to insure that the berm extended out to screen at least a portion of this building. We've also tried to. Sacchet: Yeah go a little further. That's my concern. Little more over there. Okay. So that is a berm there? Al-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Yes, a little bit of a berm, okay. But no consideration of possibly having tilt-up's or something there so far? Doesn't look like, okay. That's a clear answer. So this, that's an applicant question. There's no activity on the south side. There's already a temporary parking lot kind of up on the southwest comer, but there is not going to be further activity that we're aware of there? The reason Fm asking is we're only asking for silt fence on the western look. Sweidan: We conditioned a silt fence along the west side of the park. Sacchet: West and. Sweidan: Southwest of it. Sacchet: Oh southwest, okay. Sweidan: Actually even along the north too. Sacchet: That's all my questions, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay thank you. And I just have a couple questions regarding entrances. Tnlgk entrance. I'm assuming that the trucks will have to be going west on Coulter Boulevard to enter at this extreme angle, and can I make the same assumption that they could only make a right turn onto Coulter Boulevard. Are they going to exit the same way or are they exiting in a different way? A1-Jaff: It looks like they will be, that assumption is valid. It a~ as if they will be. Blackowiak: They'll be going up to the north, backing in and then driving out, is what L AI-Jaff: Driving out. Blackowiak: Okay. I didn't see any condition about a right turn only. A1-Jaff: Okay. Mak, do you want to Add to this condition? Sweidan: Yeah we can add that as a right. Blackowiak: Yeah, because I just don't feel that, I think it'd be hard to turn left. Well for a truck. Sweidan: We expect this entrance it will be just turning left and exit will be just turning right. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay, but I mean I'm just thinking maybe we need conditions. Conditions for that so. Go ahead Rich. Slagle: I just want to throw this out because your question about the enmmce is just a que~on I'll be anxious to hear from the applicant because I've seen many, many t~,~s running down Audubon and I've seen what I'll basically call congestion on Audubon with trucks and trailers. So I'll be anxious to hear how your plan is to how you're going to handle what aptmars to be perhaps even a smaller area than the existing one. Blackowiak: Okay, and then my second question is, can you point out where the existing entrance is? Is it the same entrance? It's kind of over, shifted over a little. Can you show me where the old entrance is off of Coulter. For cars. From the north side off Coulter there's an enwanc, e and I can't really tell where that is. Lillehaug: It's right where note 8 is. Sweidan: R's almost in the middle between the two proposed. Blackowiak: It's almost in the middle? Sweidan: Yes. Lillehaug: It's right where note 8 is on the third sheet Jack Warner. Currently the truck and car entrance is one entrance and it's directly north of probably the northeast corner of the new expansion. So I think there should be another blend, yeah. If you look at, I guess we don't have that one here. I've got a larger plan that I can show you. It does have the existing... Blackowiak: Okay, and maybe it's. Sweidan: You saw the two proposed, and this is the existing. Blackowiak: Okay. I can see that a little bit better now. Okay. Alright, those are my only questions right now. Would the applicant or designee like to make a presentation? ff so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Jack Warner: My name is Jack Warner. F m with AMEC. We're au engineering firm working for General Mills for this project. Our ~ddress is 800 Marq~ Avenue, Minneapolis, 55401. Excuse me, 402. 55402. We really don't want to make any statements. We'd just like to open up to questions. A couple comn~nts I could maybe address it, were brought up her~ As far as less traffic, I think your conm~nt about no shuttle traffic between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen will now be gone. They can bring in full Irucks. Right now they bring in a lot of partial trucks because they only have a limited amount of storage at Eden Prairie. Or sorry, at Chanhassen. So they need to nm partial trucks back and forth which means a lot more trucks are running back and fofl:h from the two plants. And now they will be able to bring in full truckloads, store it in the warehouse and then as a result have a lot less tmfFte. Even though they're producing a lot more warehouse space, the usage and the amount of product that can be brought in at a time is greatly increased with this. As far as the storm sewer system, that has not been reviewed that. That will be reviewed as part of our en~neering plan. We are not going to be the engineers of record. It's a design build project that's out for conuact award right now. It should be awarded within 2 weeks Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 and that engineer will be responsible for providing all those calculations and the storm sewer sizes and doing what needs to be done to meet the city requirements and code requirements. Blackowiak: Okay thank you. Let's start with questions. Rich, do you have questions for this applicant? Slagle: Sure. Can you, and I don't know if it's you sir or one of the other gentleanen but can you tell me the number of current stalls if you will versus what you're putting in. Jack Warner: We're adding about 10 stalls total. We're eliminating about 27 but adding back about 37 so. We're eliminating about 27 and adding back in 37 so the gross is net 10. Slagle: Okay. And those 37 would be all along this warehouse or would they still be partially over in the old location. I'm talking about deliveries. Jack Warner: Oh I'm sorry. You're talking about truck traffic. Slagle: Exactly. Jack Warner:. Oh okay. I was talking car traffic, sorry. No the, well let's see. With 5 loading docks, there's no, there shouldn't be any issue of trucks having to park someplace and then be waiting to unload. With 5 docks and the frequency of the deliveries with the large full truck loads and the fewer partial Iruck loads, we don't feel we need to have a parking area for trucks. They can just come nearly into the docks and be unloaded and then leave. Slagle: How many do we have today? /Iack Warner:. Okay, you're talking about the shipping area which is a different area. It's down in the southeast comer. And that's shipping out of the warehouse. Slagle: Okay. And that's where I typically see the congestion. Jack Warner: Right, on Audubon Road. If the~'s any congestion on Audubon Road, it's relative to shipping. And I believe they've addressed that by providing a lot of truck parking. Slagle: It's gotten better. Jack Warnec. Yeah. They have provided a lot of lruck parking along the south side so they can park the trucks, the trailers. The trucks can then leave and then they have their own dolly to move the trucks into position once they're ready to load those out. The full ones are just brought up and then the truck has come and pick up the trailers when they're ready so. Slagle: And from what I can see of thi.~ diagram you'll have 4 spots or so? Jack Warner: 5. 5 loading spots. Single: For those trucks waiting. At least the way it looks here. There's 5? Jack Warnec. On the south. Sacchex: On the north side. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Jack Warner:. On the north side. Slagle: On the north, yeah. Jack Warner:. Really it's, yeah probably about. Acually those are flour and sugar tml~. Those are separate from the warehouse itself. Those are existing spots that are there currently. Slagle: I'm talking about the... Jack Warner: Again there would only be one mack. One truck or one sugar truck at a time. There wouldn't be 3 or 4 Ixucks lined up to. Slagle: You okay Bob? Generous: I'm awake. Slagle: Maybe this gentleman could comment. Here's my point and it dove tails with my comment of the neighbors to the west. I just want to make sure that, and we're certainly happy to have your company as one of our major tenants but I just don't want to have a situation where we've got all these trucks you know backed up again like we had before on Audubon, and obviously thank you for making that better but, how many parking spots for trucks and then probably 5 loading docks. Lonnie Malikowski: We have two separate areas. Right now we have the shipping area and we have a receiving area. What we did for the shipping area is we a_dded the 20 drop trailer locafiom where the trucks could stop and park. On the south side getting off of Audubon Road. On the receiving side we average about 16 trucks a day with about 7 coming over from Eden Prairie presently. So what we're trying to eliminate hopefully is the Wa~c corning over from Eden Prairie and with the space capacity of the warehouse, which we should be able to-start ordering tmxluct and full truck loads rather than having all the partial LTL loads coming in. Slagle: So you would say somewhere tenish, you know 5 to 10 per day is what a resident could expect? Lonnie Malikowski: We're still probably going to be in that 16 area but what we'll do is we'll e 'hminate the traffic coming over from Eden Prairie so right now we're presently arotmd that 21 ama, back and forth. What we can really focus on now is trying to eliminate some of that night traffic, you know because with the small capacity that we have in our warehouse presently, try to e 'hminate some of that night traffic that's coming over from Eden Prairie. Slagle: And I'll say this somewhat kiddingly but please see what you can do. Your drivers with the mallets. That hit the things. Blackowiak: The flour trucks. Slagle: And I live 3 miles north, in all seriousness, you can hear it in the wee hours of the night so I would only ask of you to do something about that. Lonnie Malikowski: Yeah those are the flour trucks where the flour actually sticks to the sides of the tanks and they need to hit that and we're trying to address that as much as possible. Slagle: Okay, thank you. It's true. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Oh I know, I've heard them. I knew exactly what it was whe~ you said that. Okay, Uli. Or is that your questions, Fm sorry. Applicant questions. Sacchet: What's a thermal oil building? Jack Warner: Thermal oil, it's an edible oil that they use to heat up the ovens so it's warmed up. The building itself is a heating unit that warms up the oil. It's pumped into the baking oven with the products so it's a completely closed loop system. Sacchet: So there's no odors? Jack Warner:. No, there's no fumes. No odors. It's completely enclosecL There's no open flame so it's a very environmentally safe and very preferred system nowadays in the baking business. Slagle: But you'll keep the odors going though... Jack Warner: Oh yes. Slagle: That's good. Sacchet: The evergreens on the west side that, are you planning to replant those? Jack Warner. Whatever we can save will be replanted. If not, they'll be replaced. Sacchet: Or replaced, okay. In terms. Jack Warner: This is Mark Wasescluc He's our architect. He could probably address some of these landscaping and architectural issues a little better. Mark Wasescha: This is an image. We've studied the project using 3D and we think this is probably the maximum impact view of the project, which is the west side. This illustrates I guess how high the berm is going to be. Our intent on the landscaping is to have all new landscaping in the report which discusses the need for beefing up. We've identified 22 evergreens on the n~da and 20 on the west and the report identified the need to increase the amount of landscaping. And the applicant is willing to do that. Other comments generally I guess the project is designed to blend pretty much with the existing. It's an expansion really of the planL This plant, the project ...the Eden Prairie facility is going to close on October 31a and the operations are consolidated here. And the two warehouse functions, they're kind of inter-dependent. Kind of back up what was discussed earlier. Right now they kind of work in tandem and that creates a lot of traffic which you know on the site. One comment generally about vehicle and truck service. Observations was made about the doors and the nearby developments over here across Bluff Creek. I should point out the existing doors axe here and we're moving them here so we're projecting the impact will actually be less on the neighbors. Those doors right now are facing west so there's probably a sound wave going up directly to that development that's going to now be projected north into the industrial development along Highway 5, which we think is a more appropriate use. I guess the front east door presentation is that this will actually i .reprove the conditions on the site. We are differentiating vehicle and visitor tra~c. Right now that occurs in one entrance. This functions to create a segregated truck and automobile entrance, which exceeds the city standard of 300 feet separation as opposed to having a common entrance right now. The overall site approach is to put the industrial support functions on the north and east. The south is preserving the views to the wetland and future development includes office will react and respond to the fact that there are views which is really quite a tremendous view to the southwest. So we see this as an extension and reinforcement really of a plan Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 which helps to create some of the industrial corridor, kind of a belt along Highway 5 which we think is an appropria~ use. The issue of the storm water was discussed. It's i~ I guess to see the shud~ area which shows the new impact on parking. We are adding relatively little new i .ml~ous area to this site. The building, this is all paved currently so the additional area is identified in the shaded ama. We think that the existing storm water pond was somewhat, this is going to take the detail engineering .analysis beyond the scope of a preliminary design, will reveal that that pond perhaps can probably be deepened or modified but it should take the runoff from this site with very little additional modification, which will address the whole pre-tream~nt issue. Lonnie Malikowski: Just pre-treatment, they recommend we put a drop manhole. That will be included in the project also. Mark Wasescha: Yeah, rear structure, yeal~ Slagle: Mark, two quick questions if I can. The elevation that you showed, what elevation was that? Mark Wasescha: This is looking from the northwest and as I mentioned. Slagle: So looking south, southeast? Mark Wasescha: It's looking southeast, yes. Slagle: So that's the loading docks. Mark Wasescha: Now the loading dock are behind the berm here, yeah. We did some analysis and in order to see those docks and we think that they're going to show just briefly as you look down that, that new nur~ into this complex which is going to be something like, which serves the trucks, which is going to be kind of like looking basically...freeway on ramp.. This is going to be a very short window where you can see what's going on in this facility. Slagle: I'm sorry, if you could help me. Those 4 or 5 silver gray vehicles in your rendition, where would I see those? Mark Wasescha: Well assuming they're actually them, that would be right in this area, but that's just along the...parking. Slagle: So those are trucks but they're not supposed to be trucks. Mark Wasescha: No... Truck service is right he~ and right now... Slagle: Got you. I'm with you. Mark Wasescba: And the view is really looking through here. You're looking at that comer which is our analysis of probably the maximum~ We endeavored to look over this berm, you know with the comp~ analysis and the drawings. I should point out, as you come down Coulter and say you're going home here. This structure heavily masks this so when we did the analysis of this, you don't see this. It's hidden by this. This thing actually functions, this is kind of a foil to screen the warehouse so we think that this computer image actually represents probably the maximum i .mpact on the site. Slagle: Last quick question. The parcel to the west Any thoughts as to what's going to ha~ them? Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 21303 Mark Wasescha: No. Not currently. Them was a plan to add a lot of space them under the McGlynn Bakery ownership which is not really I think part of the current plan. We, due m the impact on the site, the current thinking probably on the expansion might be to avoid going very far west just because of the Bluff Creek district and thing so. Jack Warner: If I could address the roof top equipment. There's very little, there's no air conditioning. There's a small air conditioning unit for office. A 3 person office, a restroom and a trucker's lounge and that's the only air conditioning unit that will be on this. Z~ere win be some exhaust hoods, exhaust fans on the roof but they will be relatively low, so we don't think there's probably the requirement for screening. We don't think anything will be sticking up high enough to be seen from Coulter or from that side. Mark Wasescha: Which addresses your question of air, but it's important to tmderstand that the ambient temperature in here will be 55 degrees and. Iack Warner. That's during the winter. Mark Wasescha: ...not heating. There's no air conditioning so the air conditioning, the mechanical requirements usually occur due to the fact that you have to provide a massive air conditioning system. Space heating and smoke relief vents and there's going to be water in order to handle the mmk~'s lounge in here so the minimal parapet should not be an issue because you're not dealing with HVAC. Air conditioning equipment for this building. Jack Warner:. I think the equipment you're used to seeing are usually the compressors for the freezer and stuff like that. Obviously very large. This is all just strictly dry storage so there's no refrigeration or freezing or anything within this building. Mark Wasescha: Them was an earlier discussion the existing situation on the roof here. Our analysis of that is, that's refrigeration equipment and the problem with a screening wall there would be that it could crea~ a snow drifting condition into the louvers of intakes on that equipment, and obviously being a bakery, such a huge bakery, there's a need to keep that stuff refrigerated and then there could be an effect on the function of that equipment by putting that screen wall up there. Slagle: You're referring to the roof equipment now? Blackowiak: Existing. Jack Warner: Existing over the freezer area. Sacchet: May I jump in at this point? Blackowiak: Sure. Your mm. Sacchet: I'm not referring to the rooftop equipment. Fm referring to the equipnmnt that is on the ground on the north side of the building. And you might be wondering why am I referring to thac That hag nothing to do with what you're currently trying to do. The reason why I'm refen'ing to that is becamse you are asking for a variance, and so we are trying to see what can be done to the benefit of the City, being in exchange so to speak or to balance the fact that we are considering giving you a variance. And I wonder, have you given any consideration or could you give some consideration to screening that equipment that is on the ground. Huge equipment that is cun'ently very well screened, what do you call, from the east side. It's not at all screened if you come from the west for the simple reason that it was 49 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 originally decided it was envisioned to be viewed from the west and not from the east, but since the conditions have changed, now it's a through street, Coulter Boulevard, it's very visible and it's a combination of flit-up there and maybe berming to the north could be done, I think that would be excellent. Mark Wasescha: Just to back up on that. Our discussion with staff, there was...your concern was, we were led to believe it might be the equipment on the roof. In response, I guess we are willing and able to address having what landscaping is required I guess is the only thing that additional, given the possibility of other modifications or expansions in that area. The addition of having panels and that kind of ~ could be kind of problematic as there...small structures in support of the process of operation in that area in the past. So there's a concern I guess about having those kind of things that might complicate the future changes of the internal operation of the plant. Jack Warner: The owner just suggested that maybe we would look at possibly sending the berm ~ down to try and screen it. The problem with perimeter wails in them is the air flow and the equipment that's there needs to have certain spaces for air flow and things like that. We're a little concerned about restricting that and affecting the effectiveness of the equipment. Sacchet: It's your belief it could be fully screened with berming and landscaping? Jack Warner: We'd have to look at it and see. How much, I mean it may require some retaining walls and things to do it properly but we would be looking at that as a possibility, yes. Sacchet: Okay thank you, that answers my question. Blackowiak: Good, thanks. Steve, any questions for the applicant? Lillehaug: Okay, my questions. I'm heating, I'm talking rooftop equipment. I don't have, out of these drawings and what you're saying, you're saying we don't ~ It should not be in view. At this point I'd like to hear will not be in view. I mean serious, I want to hear, I'd like to see more definites. Mark Wasescha: I think we could make that state~t because again it's just purely a storage. It's an SI building and we have some discretion to the scale that we could place those roofh~p equipment is primarily smoke relief vents. In board and they will be low enough in the s~ that we think that due to the height, the 34 foot height it probably is essentially but we don't believe you'll be able to see it. Again there's the lack of air conditioning to this project I think gives us some confidence that there's not going to be a lot of heavy mechanical on the roof. Lillehaug: Okay, I'll hold you to thaC And now I'd like to talk about the concrete tilt-up panel for the exterior of the building. In the southwest corner you have the office portion of your building and it's not the tilt-up concrete. Or it's covered by. Jack Warner. It's pre-cast. It's pre-cast concrete but it's just a horizontal panel rather than vertical panel. It doesn't have the ribs like that. Lillehaug: So it appears, texture wise it looks like smeco/g~lgS. Jack Warnec. Right_ Lillehaug: Alright. 5O Planning Commi.~sion Meeting - March 18, 2003 Jack Warner. To distinguish the office from the rest of the plant. That's the way it was originally intended, yes. Mark Wasescha: It's a standard insulated panels. Very unusual because it's slung horizontal. Lillehaug: So with that, I'm trying to weigh this out. In my mind it doesn't rr~,er what's inside this new expansion. It's an expansion period and there's no reason that this same material in the office portion of the building could be carried into this portion of the building because it's still, it still flows with the rest of the building. Mark Wasescha: A comment on that. The panel is used to, on the horizontal panel on the existing is used to identify the office functions and it's a pure white. And the storage industrial functions on thi~ building are the gray panel with the vertical so it kind of differentiates two functionalities going on in the building through the administrative and support or industrial. Lillehaug: Would staff have a comment on that? I'm not famili~ with really any ordinances that even remotely address anything like that. I mean other than being their business standard or, can you a_dd_ress that at all? Probably not, is that safe to assume. Okay. Let me move on here. 1ack Warner. Could I address that real quickly? Lillehaug: Sure. Jack Warner: It would be a bit of a hardship on the owner because then we would require a steel framing inside the building to support the exterior walls. These are stand alone panels basically and it makes a nice clean surface for sanitary purposes and by putting in a steel frame and framing these, it creates horizontal surfaces and infestation areas and sanitation issues that the baking and food industry are very much against. And that's the advantage of having this type of a panel because it's vertical. It's load bearing and there's nothing, there's no steel or any framing inside of the building to support this. Mark Wasescha: The internal function of the building is guided by GMP which is Good Man~g Practice which basically encourages or demands that the surfaces be wiped down. So a horizontal ledge creates dust which creates an issue in terms of food handling and the USDA has regulations which directly address that. Jack Warner ...they're similar in appearance, other than, but the offices are ~ steel framed building. They're not concerned about ledges and they're not concerned about those issues as they are concerned with the manufactmfng process areas and the warehouse areas. So they are two distinct functions really, and there's different standards that apply to each. And the warehouse and process area can be much cleaner than the office area from a sanitary standpoint and infestation areas and things like that. Mark Wasescha: As an extension of that idea, the roof ~ will be a double V ~ kind of a pre- cast and the reason for that is a metal frame building of R joists would collect all that dirt so on the structural.., there will be no build-up of dust or dirt in the structural like that. Lillehaug: Okay. Let me move on with my questions here. There's going to be maybe a minor insignificant loss of parking through thi~ consmmfiom Is that. Jack Warner. During co~on? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Lillehaug: During consm~on. What I'm looking at is staging of the parking right now and how is that going to be handled. I don't want to see it out on Coulter Boulevard or Audubon. Is that. Jack Warner: No. They'll have sufficient space on site and there's, as was mentioned earlier there's a temporary parking lot that's been consmmted for the c. onlraetor's use and that will also be unli?ed as needed during the consm~tion so we don't feel them will be any parking issues with, during the construction. Lillehaug: That'd be it, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, and I don't have any additional questions at this time. Thank you. Jack Warner:. Thank you. Blackowialc This item is open for a public hearing, so if anybody would wish to speak on this imm, please come to the microphone and state your name and a_d_dress for the record. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments. Who'd like to start? Lillehaug: I'll try to make this quick. I don't mean to be critical but we don't, I haven't seen in my short one year, seen design built projects so when I look at these plans, they're lacking, like you said. These are preliminary plans and when I compare this to the next site plan here, these are final plans in my view. So when I look at this there's missing, they're missing some key elements in this. It's hard for me to put 2 and 2 together. For example I wanted to measure the spacing between these driveways. I can't even figure out the scale on this drawing. So it's lacking items that city ordinances require. So I think somehow we need to direct or address design build projects because we don't at this point and I think we're lacking some information on these plans that typically we would see. And it's not fair to other applicants that are required, or that do present this inform~om Let me move onto my comments. I'd like to ensure that any equipment on the roof is screened so I will be adding a condition that it will be screened. I think that is important as we proceed lxa'e. I'm kind of tom on the docks on the north side. I drive that road quite frequently. My kids go to Bluff Creek school them, and I'm kind of .weighing out personally would I prefer them on the north side. I'm not too sure, but if the applicant's willing to do it, he's willing to provide additional screening there and I think that's a good solution ttmm. Because it does provide screening from the development to the west of that area. Let me try to shorten this up. Yeah I think that's probably it. That's it, thanks. Blackowiak: Thanks. Uti, comments. Sacchet: Yeah a couple comments. One of the things here is this variance request for tilt-up's. And I would disagree with the staff repo~ that says well because it's 15 percent of the building, it would creaim a hardship. It doesn't really create a hardship but it's a reasonable reque~ It's certainly applicable to any other building that has an addition of 15 percent or less. I do agree though that we requiring to hold them to the standards is inappropriate. However I do believe that it's app~opiiate to ask for something in return because that's as a discussion of the applicant.., it would be very difficult to do a different structure because these flit-up's, not only do they blend to reflect what's happening in them, they also make it possible inside with reasonable ease to do what you want to use it for. And I do, I'm very adamant about shielding screening that machinery to the nort~ The machinery that sits on the grotmd that is totally visible from the west side. It's well screened from the west. I do believe it is reasonable to ask that there would be some panels potentially towards the west plus some berming landscaping to the north. How it's going to be screened, that's not for me to determine but I do want to put a condition on this that it has to be fully screened. I think that's reasonable. Another couple of comments, in the staff reconunendation it talks about the, it talks about the 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zones at the setback and that kind of threw me. Sharmeen and Bob, are you still awake? 52 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Generous: I'm awake. Sacchet: Alright, the motion A. Lillehaug: Page 12. Sacchet: Page 12. 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback. Does that apply here? Is that something that was previously. Generous: Unless that's the storm water ponding or the. Sacchet: That's stormwater ponding? So that applies them. And then why do we say to permit a contractor's yard. Is this considered a contractor's yard? Lillehaug: Does this apply to this application? Sacchet: Is this cut and paste from somewhere else or does it really apply? Generous: Chan Business Center 3~. Lillehaug: I don't think this applies. Generous: The conditional use permit does. AIJaff: They do need a conditional use permit. Generous: Oh, this is for DayCo. Sacchet~ So this does come from somewhere else so we may need to clean thi~ up before we vote on thi~. And also on the findings of fact, you're missing the legal propexW description... In order for us to vote on that I think we need to have that on there. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: I'm not going to say anything more than this. I think we need to get a more complete applicatiom I think everybody, or I should say, I'm encouraged with this applicant just because of all that they do for our community but we need a complete application~ And staff, I'm so~. Blackowiak: It's getting late, I know. Slagle: I know but most i .mportantly, in addition to needing a compl~ application, I would request, require, however you want to state it, that all of those propegy ownem along the east side of that ~ You know I'll give you the guidance or the flexibility as to how far south you go, but I definitely think they should be part of a next public hearing. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, I agree with what you said Rich. I also would like to just make a comment on behalf of Commissioner Claybaugh because he had to leave. In discussing this he made, he was insistent. Not insistent, he was in favor of screening existing, not only new but also existing rooftop equipment. In other words, if we are going to allow the tilt-up concrete, there should be some trade-off and what can we 53 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 get for a trade-off and his feeling was, screening is i .mportant. So Fm just going t~ put that in for him since he's not here. Slagle: Can I throw one thought out too? Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: If I may. I think it's important for the applicant to sense this because I think some of the thought of asking for screening for the existing facility is because of Coulter Boulevard having been changed. I mean I hope they appreciate that. We're not just saying to a business, you know add the~ things now. There have been things that have changed and it is from the north, you can see tractors and there's a snowblower down there and so forth so, I'tn sorry. Blackowiak: That's okay. Also a couple things that I'd like to see in conditions. In condition 34, just to say that the lighting will meet all ordinances. We didn't talk about that. Fd like a condition 35 with the northeast truck access to be a right out only. And then we've talked about rooftop equipment and we've talked about maybe a condition for extending the berm eastward to help screen the existing fans that are on the ground, Uli and F tn sure you'll, whoever makes the motion can do that. And I do also agree Rich about the mailing to the neighbors. Not only Stone Creek Drive but also Andrews Court and I'll make, I've got a couple comn~nts about that when we do our sumuutry for City Council. Slagle: Well we might table this. Blackowiak: We might table this. Okay. Well then I will just say right now because when it does go to City Council, it will not have a public hearing so I would hope that Ci~ Council would number one, make sure that the neighbors in Andrews Court and Stone Creek Drive get the mailing. N~ two, allow time for them to speak should they wish to do so. So that would just be a direction for when it goes to council. If it goes to council. I don't want to assume anything. Slagle: Yeah, I guess my comments about wanting a complete application similar to Commi.~sioner Lillehaug's comments but also with the neighbors, is the thought that we would table this. There would be another hearing. Residents would get to come, listen, participate. Blackowiak: Go ahead and make whatever motion you would like. And I suppose it could be addressed in either format. Either at City Council or with a public hearing or here. Slagle: I think, I mean personally I don't think it's golXen to the point where it needs, where I'm ready to pass it on. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: Personally. Blackowialc Well then I would like somebody to make a motion. Slagle: Well I'll make the motion. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission table this application until, and Commissioner LiHehaug, you might want to help me with the technical details of the application but a more complete application is provided, similar to what we've received so far tonight on others. And then also that homeowners on the western side of, whatever road that is, as well as those townhomes that I think you're referring to. Blackowiak: Andrew Court and Stone Creek Drive. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Slagle: Need to be sent a mailing, because I think acting whgthcm' voting to approve or disapprove without any input from those neighbors, and then just giving them a chance to auend a public ~g, or excuse me, attend the City Council and hope that they're going to have a chance to speak, I don't think is fair. Blackowialc Okay. Sacchet: Point of clarifi~fion7 Blackowialc Sum. Sacchet: What's the timeline? Is there a timeline... Blackowiak: May 25~ for review deadline. Sacchet: May 25z, okay. Jack Warner: Do we have any opportunity to comment on the timeline impacts7 Blackowiak: No, this is actually a timeline, a legal time~ for review by the City. It's not a construction timeline. Slagle: Believe me we, I t~ink we empathiTe and understand the current situation, but on the other hand, you know I mean I just, I think we've got to have the residents. Sack Warner: It's a little bit unique because of the timing of the ~Atgn Prah'ie ¢losllre... Slagle: I understand. And we just had that same thing with Banta, to give you an example, two weeks ago with a closing of a plant and expansion. We just have to do what we have to do and you know if the timeline will work, it's great. Blackowialc Okay. Did you give me a motion? I'm sorry, I'm getting tirecL Slagle: But I had a request to Mr. Lillehaug to clarify. Lillehaug: To clarify any specifics. Address the utilities. Address the basically just the general requirements that are stated in the ordinance. It's lacking all the way around. Slagie: So I move that the Planning Commission table this application until a fiirther complete application is provided and the mailings are sent to the designated homeowners. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? LiHehaug: I second. Slagle moved, l.illehang seconded that the Planning Commt~ion table the request for site plan review of an addition of approximately 45,600 square feet and a 730 square foot building with variances, and a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District for General Mill, at 8000 Audubon Road unffi a further complete application is provided and the notification is sent to the homeowners on Stone Creek Drive and Andrews Court. All voted in favor, except Saechet who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Do you want to hear why I'm opposed? Blackowiak: Yes I would like to. Sacchet: I sympathize with the idea of tabling it because obviously my big issue is the screening of that equipment. I'd like to see that in a plan in front of me as I pass it througlz But I believe that by tabling it and delaying this process we actually are putting it through I believe we will get more good will for them to work on this. But I...for delaying it for what you say. I think it will be...go to council at this point and then at council these things would be addressed. Slagle: I'm trying to envision at a council meeting, you know you invite these residents who truly should have had an opportunity in my opinion to be here today, to listen to this, and not that I have my documents but those documents aren't in my opinion, what I typically see. And so I mean simply put, as much as the timeline is impo. ~t, and I realize that there is the duress they're under if you will, I mean it's simply put, it's just not complete. I mean not good or bad. Blackowiak: Okay. Well the motion to table then can'ies 3-1 and I would request of staff that when this does come back to us, that it be first on the agenda. Whatever evening that happens to be so we can hopefully have residents. I hope somebody comes and says something af~ all this. Okay. Got 3 minutes guys. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING: I~FOUF.$T FOR AN AMI~NDMENT TO ~ ARBORETI, IM BU~ PARK PI)'D STANDARD~ TO PERMIT PERSQNAL ~W_,RVIG~_$ AS A PERMITrED I~I~E AND A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW FOR A FA~T FQQD ~A~ AS AN ANdY I,I~E AND SITE PLAN APPRQVAL FOR A 9~800 SQI~IARE FOOT QNE STORY BUH~0 LOCATED AT CORPORATE PLAICE AND CEWI~JRY BOULEVARD~ l:lgl~ PARTNEI~ LLC~ AND ~'_~INER DEVEI~OPMENT~ INC., CF_2qlq.~Y BOULEVARD COURT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay Bob, I'm just going to jump in before anybody else and ask, can you walk us through. We've gotten several documents today from you. What changes do we need to be aware of? I just want to make sure we're all on the same page before we start a discussion here. Generous: The one document I sent, the last one was the Findings of Fact and I just expanded on that. The city attorney wanted me to address both of the amen~ts and also the variance criteria and so I tried to incorporate that as part of the Findings of Fact. The other thing was just the existing design standards for the project. What they're proposing would change Section B of the development design standards which talks about permitted uses. Specifically under the co~ uses, we would add a 6 category personal services. And that's what we're recommending approval of that They also requested an amendn~nt under ancillary uses with fast food that we permit a drive thru facility as part of the lot, what is it? Lot 2, Block 1. And we're recommending denial of that portion of it. Blackowialc Okay. And then this sign variance. It would be just signage on the east and west sides then? Generous: Well it would be a variance to permit it on the west side. It's permi~ on the east and south by ordinance. Blackowiak: East and south. So the variance, so two sides? Generous: Well it would permit, you could, it's set up either way. If you want it on only two, then direct it in~ of having it on the south side. Blackowiak: I'm just thinking Giant Panda all over again so. Generous: That was part of what I was thinking so the first two sides are permitted by ordinance, ff you permit it on the third side, that would be the variance. And that's what we had recc~nmea~led. Blackowiak: So we could do variance, we could either then have two options. Generous: Right. Blackowiak: Variance to permit on third side. In other words, have 3 signs, or variance to permit on west side but only 2 sides excluding the south side. Generous: South and north, correct. Blackowiak: Got it. Okay. Now, questions. Uli, would you like to start? 57 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Yeah, I've got a couple of questions that should not be too painful this time. Ac~ ~lly my first question, it looks like Steiner Development is always last on the agenda. Do they like to be up late at night? You're talking about on top of page 2 when you talk about the pen~n~ services to be allowed on vacant support commercial lots. Plm'al. And then actually in the proposed recommendation you're talking about Lot 2, Block 1, 2'~ Addition and Lot 2, Block 1 4a' Addition. Could you point out, it seems to apply to two lots .... two lots, I'd like to know where the second one is. Generous: The 2~d Addition is down on 82~d Street. ~t's next to the Citgo site. That's guided for commercial uses. This is the 4a Addition, and actually they talk about the Outlot D which is part of their original plat as in their letter. I just, I shortened it to just the commercial properties which are those, well yeah there's more. Sacchet: So what will it apply to7 Blackowiak: Can you put a little star on it for us or something? So that one, yeah. Sacchet: The one that we're considering, plus the one across the...so it's actually 3. Lots, okay. Blackowiak: So that's just by doing commercial. By stating co~, is that correct? Generous: Right. Well technically the way, if you just put it under commercial uses, that would odd 3 more lots then. The existing Citgo but they're existing developments. Sacchet: And that would be the other 3 that, so it applies to 6 lots? Generous: Yeah... Sacchet: The one we're looking at plus 2 more. Okay. That answers that question. Thank you. The access from Century Boulevard is, that says may be limited to right-in/right-out. We went back and forth on that several times over the past. Right now there may be means it's actually allowed? Generous: Corre~. Sacchet: But that could potentially be cut out. Generous: Right. It was under the subdivision they determined standards for if it was. Sacchet: Similar to what's on page 6, staff recommends Type H silt fence. Recommends. Well are we asking for it or not? Lillehaug: It's condifionecL Sacchet: It's a condition? It's under conditions? Alright. That answers that. The applicant, the way I read the plans, I don't see a drive thru window. Has that already been withdrawn? That's being cut out, thank you very much. That helps. I believe that's my questions. Thank you very much. Blackowiak: Thanks. Rich. Slagle: Quick question on sidewalks. As I drove through there today, I know we have the sidewalk running north/south on the east side of Century Boulevard. And I remember when we had US Bank proposal, the idea was to nm a sidewalk across. Well, it was a desire. Help me out how the sidewalks are going to work here. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Generous: Well for the US Bank it's approximately in this location. We want to line up a connection and they have pedestrian rarn?s on the US Bank site and so wherever that would line up we would have another pedestrian ramp on this building. Slagle: Pedestrian ramp, define that. Generous: That's where they slope the sidewalk down so it's at grade. So you can take a bicycle or a stroller or something up it. Slagle: Okay. Generous: And then the other one we wanted to extend it to the west because as part of the KindeiC_~e they have a peninsula that comes out with the sidewalk and it's providing connection to this site and the US Bank site. And then on the KinderCam site there's another one that goes down to Corpom~ Place. And then right here they're proposing an additional one on the south side of building to Corporate Place which has a sidewalk trail in there. Slagle: Okay. So just so I'm clear on Corporate Way on the north side the~ will be a sidewalk going to Century, correct? Generous: Correct. Slagle: And then on the north side of this property where US Bank is, are you saying that them is a sidewalk on the north side of that road? Generous: No. They're across this drive aisle and then take the sidewalk on the north side of this building to the west. Slagle: I'm just asking, you're one of the folks living at Pulte. You go down the east side of Centm'y. Where do you cross over and what sidewalk takes you into the. Generous: Corporate Place. Slagle: So you have to go south of this, cross over and then go up? Generous: Correct. Slagle: How do you feel about that? Generous: It's better than nothing. Slagle: What about a sidewalk, I mean let's get to the US Bank. You can't, so you're going to cross them, you know you're crossing the road and you're walking into a parking lot without a sidewalk, How do you get to the KinderCare? I mean if you're walking from Century. Generous: You would just follow it over. Slagle: You just walk along the edge of the road? Generous: There's a sidewalk them. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Slagle: No, south. Well let me say it this way. To get to US Bank is maybe the best question. You can't get in there with a sidewalk, is that safe to say. Fred Richter: It isn't the shortest route but you can get there through a sidewalk system Basically, from Pulte. Down Century. Across at the safest crosswalk. Slagle: Which is Corporate Way south of US. Fred Richter: Up here and around this building, which is a pedestrian scale building instead of a retail type building, and then across and into the bank. Now it's not the most direct, but it definitely is a sidewalk just as KinderCam's up on here... Generous: And then there's an east/west internally. Slagle: I mean all I'm asking is, as we go forward with more, I just think I'd love to see sidewalks be put in each of these properties to make it so convenient to walk. I mean beca~ you could argue that people are going to be walking to go to US Bank and maybe whatever else you guys develop to the west. And you would have to go down Century to get in there, and if Corpcwate Way's the main entrance, then it is yeah. That's all. Blackowiak: Okay, Steve. Lillehaug: So you've indicated that the window is going to be gone. Or you haven't but they have. I want to address that question to them. Let's just back up. You know I don't have any questions for staff. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay. I don't either. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? Name and address please. Fred Richter: Fred Richter with Steiner Development and I am representi~ the building owners, Gene and Chris Helsene. The Helsene Partners own a hair salon at several locations. They're currently in Eden Prairie .... this building will occupy approximately 2,500 square feet of it as their office space and hair salon. In addition to that, they have a leasing company who has been negotiating with various potential tenants. The building is designed to be a 10,000 appro~tely square foot kind of support service building for the Arboretum Business Park, and consequently that's why we wanted to broaden that service definition. The typical tenant could be a sit down Subway restaurant. Small medical building. A small office building and so on. While when we started the project they wanted to maximize their potential, leasing agents had a deal with Subway driven with a drive thru window. Working with staff, back and forth with the tenant it became quite obvious they could meet the market, and everybody happy and we abandoned the drive thru window. The other change was the rotation, and that was a kind of response to the traffic engineer. City engineer wanting to minimi?~ the back up into the common area. These would be driveway. And that was satisfactc~ to the building owners. Their concern was the exposure to Century. Exposure to I-Ftghway 5 and Corporate Place and they felt the rotation was adequam and the plan works quite well. It kept our parking ratio. There is one thing Bob, I'll just state that we will get on the drawing. We will have trash enclosures, and that was my fault that we forgot to put it on there. We've got revised plan that showed it than the earlier one. LiHehaug: Could you point to that again please? Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Fred Richter. We'll put a trash enclosure...corner, which would be a per code, you know building material, so on and so on. I think other than that, we haven't talked about rr~t~isls. I will put down, I think given what got a copy, this is still accurate. The building's just rotated. This would be viewed out from the southwest versus the original rendering from the so~ The building is basically the same materials, features and design elements of the bank building. And which is real close to the KinderCam building. So we really have tried to take in the office industrial park and create this small retail area of red brick, sloped roofs and some drivit gables and all to try and keep a consistency. Landscaping will follow code. There's examples which I think you've all seen saying basically this kind of change. It's the exact same thing as was done on US Bank. The ~ is just a touch different on the shingles and the brick I think unless there's questions. Slagle: I've got a question. Fred I just have to ask. As I look at page 2 of this, and I'll make just an assumption that somehow I could convince you or we could convince you to put a sidewalk on the west side of Century and the US Banlc Okay. Let's assume for a second. As I look at hem, I mean if you had a sidewalk up there you could put a sidewalk on this ~. I mean tell me why you wouldn't other than cost. Fred Richter: Well Rich this, and I think I'm partners with the staff on this. This whole sidewalk issue was something that was assessed on our street i ,mpmvemeuts and was planned out in the big picture. You know moving traffic across Century. Sidewalks going back to the east on Coulter. And then distributing it into basically an office industrial, large building environment. And I think that in~ was kind of laid in place and a lot of people looked at it and the best investment was on the east side because it was near the wetlands. It hooked up to the potential park. Them was a bunch of reasons that that went over there, and that was a pretty cosily investment- We're sitting here today connecting to that and I think in the context of the pedestrian scale, and I think pedestrilm scale in a development like this is you know, kind of a frontier. I mean we all are trying to encourage it with bike racks and everything. I really feel we've got a good solution and if we start to get some complaints or that in the future, but I think right now we've addressed pedestrians probably as well as any development of this scale. And it's, I mean a big deal to come back and put the sidewalk in there. It's basically a city i ~ml~'ove~t because it would be back in the right-of-way and. Slagle: Well let me just throw this last thought out is, as I see the development going on to the west in your remaining, primarily to the west. I think you're going to end up with some major tenant, which we've talked about. Which to me will probably mean people. Cars. And I just think it's going to be one of those things where people at lunchfime are going to go, you know. Fred Richter. To the west, the sidewalk goes back there. Slagie: No, I'm talking to the east. Fm talking to the eaks'c Your development to the west Fred, the people will be going to the east and I know you'll have the sidewalk on ~ Way. What I'm trying to just say, and I'm probably doing a teaTible job is, is I just am asking you to be very cognizant as we move forward to the west. Lot 5. The big one. I mean I'm just saying you're going to have people hopefully wanting to walk to go down by those ponds, and what not. Fred Richter: Well Rich I think we've, you realize this, and if I were to give a dark pen or something. Our sidewalk comes here. Connects along here and then there's a lot of future ~ trail that can be developed as park district improvements around the wetlands. This is... Slagle: I'm with you Fred but when you described to me earlier that you would walk down the east side of Century, cross over, go to this building. Cross over their parking lot. Walk along the edge of their building to get to US Bank: I'm specifically saying US Bank. We missed that opportunity in my opinion to place. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Fred Richter: Rich I don't dispute that because in the plan this was one large lot but I think we've re, ally acco~ through a very, well we took what might have been as a negative as you're walking arotmd a retail building, almc~st like a downtown store~ Slagle: But with drive thru. Fred Richter. No, no drive thru. Slagle: No, no, US Bank I'm suggesting. You've got 4 lanes of cars. Fred Richten Okay. Well Slagle: Fred. Fred, I just want to, we don't have to, it's so late but I just want you to know that Fm asking for everything you can do to be cognizant of my requesc Fred Richter: And I think that the staff keeps our a_n_¢ntion on that, but I really think given the parameters and all, we're really in pretty good shape on this one. Slagle: Okay, I will trust you on that. Fred Richter. This is not the exact diagrarm This buil~ has changed but basically we're, this is the sidewalk. We're coming up, around the building and then connecting into US Bank_ Slagle: Okay, and I'm just saying that as a citizen I would think gosh, you would just go out the bank. Hit the sidewalk going to Century on the, you know right there. Exactly, and then cross over. Or go up. You know. And it might be a total of 30 yards of concrete, I don't know. Fred Richter: But then we're putting people in the middle of traffic movements. I'm not the one to make these. These are you know engineering and safety. Slagle: Well what you could have done is you could have gone the sidewalks to Century and then down on the side of this ~ versus having to walk; I'm just thinking it's crazy to have someone walk through, across a parking lot. Walk along this side of the building and then cross that parking lot again on the north side to get to another building. Fred Richter: Okay. Do you have any thoughts on that? Generous: Well I would bring it back to the from. I might pull it over so it's more a straight shot so they're not doing the jog but. Slagle: Whatever, it's. Fred Richter: Let me just, get me going, I'm going to keep going. Laying out these sidewal~, and I learned something. Our civil engineer, you know we really, I mean it's really, that being 5 percen[ ff we go over 5 percent and you go onto private land and they say well you have liability issues. It's not as easy, especially with the topography in the Arboretum Business Park. We have to bring it up from the comer because there's a grade change at the comer, and all I'm saying Rich is I'm just trying to educate you that there's just a whole bunch of parameters to make these sidewalks work that you know, have to please good intentions, and then good engineering standards and you know the private ~ owner on liability issues. And we just try to do our best. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Rich was in Fargo today, you have to undemand. They have sidewalks everywhere so. Slagie: It's unbelievable how many sidewalks they have, and it's quite amazing. Fred Richter. I respect your objectives are perfectly, you know proper.. It's just the irr~, lementation is sometimes more complicated. Sacchet: One really quick one. I fully support the important of sidewalks in consideration, but then on the other hand I would also want to caution us to consider a crossing of the street where we have a may be full turning or not. I mean that doesn't sound to me like that's necessarily the safest place to put a crosswalk. Slagle: I'm not suggesting crossing Century. Sacchet: Oh you're not, okay. Slagle: I'm saying go...north/south on the west side of Century. Fred Richten Hopefully in a few years there's enough demand to say that we can do that. Sacchet: That's all for that. Blaekowiak: Any other questions? No? Okay. Any questions Steve? Lillehaug: Yes. So the drive aisle has moved to the south of the building. Fred Richter:. No. Lillehaug: I said drive aisle. Fred Richter:. Yeah, that is a one way to accommodate so ttsm~'s no dead end parking. Lillehaug: It's not for a future drive thru? Fred Richter. It's not for a future drive thru. Lillehaug: But it is necessary to maintain there. Fred Richter:. Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all my questions. Fred Richter: And I think one of the biggest issues was the signage, and I know because of the uniqueness of this building being a building with 4 sides, and a building with the gables, I mean they're really kind of designed into the architecture. I know the owner would like as much consideration as possible to get signage in all the gables if possible, and staff has been accommodath~, I know the ordinance talks about the two street frontages, but in this particular buildi~ it's kind of you know not really in the spirit of how the project's designed so. I think the way it sits now, staff's allowing or recording signage on 3 sides, the south, the east and west. The owner would like to have signage on 4 sides. The logic being that with this small building, potential tenants at each of these gabled entrant. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 And the signage you know that is sized and everything so it fits in them and cem~ dimensions. Right Bob? Generous: Well comply with the ordinance. Blackowiak: Okay. That was actually my only question was regarding what the applicant wanted for signs and I don't know if he wants to speak but. Gene I-Ielsene: Gene I-Ielsene and my son Chris, and what we're looking at is on the south side of the building, which is the end because we flip flop the buil~ is that is up against the street. The north side is up against Highway 5 to be seen for more exposure so we're looking at that to be helping us with the leasing and people. That's the reason we're looking at those two ends. Chris Helsene: And hopefully avoid the Panda situation where if somebody doesn't have signage on that end gable, they won't he plastering the window. Gene I-Ielsene: Try to keep it as clean as we can. We want to, that's one way of doing it. Keeping the signage in the gables and not putting signage in the windows. We don't want that as owners. Tenants or the city doesn't want it either. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any other questions here? Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. I know there's no public 1ell I still have to say it though. Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, time for comments. Lillehaug: I can go first. I can't support the sign variance. Based on the ordinances I don't think: I just don't think I can support it, especially with what was presented to us earlier tonigl~ I think that needs to go to the City Council. I'll be adding a condition for access, and this would be, I think it's a liabffity issue for the City of Chanhassen and that's that fight-in/right-out there. I'm going to add a condition indicating that that median needs to be closed. A one way sign odd_od. And it's not an LOS standard. Level of Service standard at that intersection, so thai would be my comment them. My other comment is, I'm very appreciative of these plans. They're very complete ~ to what we previously have seen tonight, and I comn~nd the applicants on preparation of the plans. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: I want to thank you for hanging in so late, and not for the first time. I don't have too many comments. I do believe, we don't have a silt fence condition, at least not that I've found it~ I'd like to add thai with the si_marion also that it will come down when completion is, construction complete... In terms of the sign variance. I'm inclined to support the sign variance for a building like that, that's a multi-tenant. That building in a similar framework as it was originally laid out in the...building because you have a long building where you possibly end up with some tenants that are sandwiched between the ends, so you have the issue of what you see from the street. What you see from the parking lot side. I would however want to put a condition on it that no one tenant could have signs that are visible at the same time. That's what really urked me the most with the Panda situation. You literally see two sign.~ at the same time. So I would want to put that limitation on the... Blackowiak: Okay. Can you look at that, so that would not be acceptable is what you're telling me. Sacchet: That would not be, right no. If they have a sign here. Blackowiak: What if they have half the building, and they have two enmnces. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacche~: If they have two entrances then I would consider it. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, I have to play devil's advocate. No... Slagle: Couldn't you just limit it to the number of entrances? Sacchet: A sign per entrance. Well. Slagle: Because I mean you're not going to have, I would hope you wouldn't have a company's logo above a gable that someone else. Sacchet: That they're not in there, right. Right. But we're already restri~ the silage on the north side. Blackowiak: But that north would probably have two I would guess. Slagle: One or two gables on the north? Fred Richter. One. Sacchet: One on the north side, so I go along with the recommendation to deny that because even though you may argue that's visible from I-~ghway 5, it's also screened from the back. And driving by you actually end up seeing the side I would expect, People are not, it's tricky because, I rather would, I do think I'd like a condition to not see double signage for the same owner. And if there is a real issue or somebody ends up with half the building, I would rather have them come back and ask for a vaxiance rather than leave it open at this point. That's my position. Blackowialc Okay, let's hear from Rich. What do you, any thoughts on that? Slagle: You know, actually I'm in favor of gnmting the variance for signage on all 4 sides because of the construction of the building. My only question is, is how to do, how to limit a like company with multiple entrances. In other words you know, can they have 2 sign~ or 3 signs. I mean it's similar to that, what we looked at earlier today with each individual business having a sigm Sac. chex: May I? Sacchet: The way I see the condition that no multiple signage is visible at the same '.time is because if one tenant ends up with that building, they could have a sign on the Century Boulevard and on the parking lot side. They could have multiple signs, but they couldn't have then kitty corner so you see them at the same time. $o I think that would keep the halance~ It would be in my opinion consistent with what's being applied in some of the other eases around. Blackowiak: I guess I don't understand you. So if I stood at this corner, out here in the parking lot I could see both of these at the same time. Sacchet: Right. But if the other sign would be on the other opposite, that'd be alright but this would not be. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowialc But you told me you couldn't see any two signs at the same time. Sacchet: I don't want to see two for the same tenant at the same time. Blackowiak: But I can. Sacchet: But you do see, that's why I'm saying. That does apply. But if it's on the opposite side of the building, not here but on the gable on the other side, that'd be cool. Because ff it's opposite side of, like we looked at Buffalo Wings, there's no way you see both sins at the same. Blackowiak: No, I understand that. Sacchet: Same idea here. Blackowiak: But I mean in that kind of drive it's going to kind of direct their layout of the building. Slagie: Uli, what if you were looking at a east elevation and you had a tenant that was taking up 2/3 of the building. They would have the logo above one of these gables which are, divides the building in thirds, and one of them just wouldn't have anything? Is that what you're saying? Sacchet: Potentially. Because we said we want, wouldn't necessarily want to... Blackowiak: Well I don't agree with you on that one. I would support a variance for 3 sides. Not the north side, and let the signs whatever. Because if they use let's say, if they have a third of the building, let's say that a tenant uses 2 sides for office, and a third side for storage and they don't want a sign over there. What if they want to use these two and you can see them at the same time? Lillehaug: I think if we knew who the tenants were, or where they occupied the building it'd be more clear. Blackowiak: Yeah and we don't know that. Nobody knows that yet. Lillehaug: Right, and so it's legitimate to deny the variance and allow them to come back and request it when they do know the more specifics on the sign. Blackowiak: But then every time a new tenant comes in we have to look at a sign variance? I don't want to see them that often. I mean I like you guys but. Fred Richter. I don't want to be here. Sacchet: Especially since we're always putting you last. Lillehaug: I withdraw that then. Scratch that. Blackowiak: Okay. Well a liRle discussiom But I would suppo~ a sign variance on 3 sides, but not on the north side. That' s where I' m at. So it' s 11:00. Slagie: I'm on 4 sides. Blackowiak: You're on 4 sides. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Saochee 3 sides. 4 sides. 3 sides with restrictions. 2 sides. So... Blackowiak: Well then you know what, we'll just make the motion. We'll go through and forward it to council and they can hash it out. Slagle: Absolutely. Sacchet: That's fine. Perfectly fine. Then we'll get out of here. Blackowiak: So let's start, we need several motions here. Sacchet: Then I make the motion number A. The Planning Commi~ion recommends approval of the amendment to the Arhxexum Business Park Develo~t Design Standards, PUD ~Y24, Permitted Uses to permit Personal Services on Ouflot D, Arbomnma Business Park, Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 2~ Addition and Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 4m Addition. Slagle: Second. Saeehet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commi~tfl_ on reeommende approval of the amendment to the Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards, PUD ~)2,-6, Permitted Uses to permit Personal Services on Outlot D, Arboretum Busine~ Park, ~ 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 2~a Addition and Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretmn Busine~ Park 4t~ Addition- All voted in favor and the motion carried ~y with a vote of 4 to 0. Blackowiak: Next motion please. Slagle: Is B just wiped out? Generous: I believe they're withdrawing that portiom Blackowiak: You know what, I think we should just then make a comment. Saechet: We'll make it just to be clear. The Planning Commi.~sion reco~ denial of the amendment to Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards, PUD ~)2-6, Ancillary Uses to permit a drive through for a fast food restaurant on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 4~h Addition. Blackowiak: Second. Saeehet moved, Bhlckowilik seconded tlmt the Plmming Commin~fion recommend8 denial of the amendment to Arboretum Business Park Development Design Smnflartl~ PUD ~92-~ Aneffiary Uses to permit a drive through for a fast food res~urant on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Busine~ Park 4m Addlflom All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Blackowialc Motion carries 4 to 0 and I'll just note that that amendment, or that anaendmem to the business park design standards was withdrawn by the applicant but we're just voting on it anyway. Because we're here and we stayed so long. Okay. Next please. Sacchet: Alright, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval for site plan g2003-1, plans prepared by Steiner Construction Services, dated February 14, 2003, revised March 12, 2003, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 28 with a note that 8 and 19 seem to be pretty much Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 the same. And the addition of 29. Silt fence II will be used and removed when the constrt~on is complete. Blackowiak: Okay there's been a motif. Lillehaug: Friendly amendment? Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: 30. To get an approved pavement section from engineering staff. I don't think I saw one in there. So I'd like to add that one. And I would like to add number 31. And that would be requiring the applicant to close the median opening on Century Boulevant at the ~ between the bank and the applicant's property. Sacchet: Yeah, I accept it and I then the council can make the decision. I mean this is for council to decide, not for us. Blackowiak: Right. Okay, there's been a motion. Fred Richter. I think I would like to at least, you know we sat here. Blackowiak: You know actually, I think you should, let's just let us make our motions tonight and council will see this and you can make your case. Sacchet: It's my recollection that that was actually consistent with what the Planning Commission looked at before and council said it's okay so they can do that again. Fred Richter. Is that what you recall? Sacchet: Is that accurate? That's my recollection. I may not be accurate but. Fred Richter: I thought we worked this out with the Planning Commission. Generous: The City Engineer worked out that language. They've already...it should be dosed down. Blackowiak: Right, and you know what, we can say what we say. What ha~ at council will happen. I mean we'll just, we'll be consistent. Sacchet: So on that basis I accept. Blackowiak: Motion and seconded. Sacchet moved, Lillelmug seconded that the Planning Commta~ion recommends approval of Site Plan ~F2003-1, plans prepared by Steiner Construction Services, dated February 14, 2003, revised March 12, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreen~mt with the City and provide thc necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 . . 1 . 1 1 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The developer shall provide an addition al 150 square feet of fenestration on the south end of the building and 190 square feet of fenestration on the east side of the building. Fac, aide transparency on street frontages shall maintain 50 percem of the wall area to the top of the brick. Sidewalk connections and pedestrian ramps shall be included from this site to the properties to the north and west. Additionally, pedestrian access, including pedestrian ramps, shall be provided from the building to the trail on Corporate Place. The developer shall add parking facilities for bicycles. Is a restaumut use is included on the site, benches or tables shall be added. The trash enclosure shall be made of the same material as the building and may not use a chain link fence. The developer shall increase landscape plantings in the east buffer yard to meet minimnm requirements. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted before final approval. Storm sewer design data shall be submitted for staff review. A professional civil engineer registered and licensed in the State of Minnesota must sign all building plans. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charge is $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for w~ Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. Relocate the parking lot from the north side to th~ east side of the building. Add two more street lights along the west side of the building at the southwest and drive thru accesses. Add the latest City Detail Plate No. 3101, 5201, 5203, 5206, 5215, 5300, 5301. Add a note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be core drilled". Show existing sewer details, type, class, slope, size. In the utility plan, revise the proposed catch basin (BC- 1) invert to mst_eh the existing stub invert. Add a benchmark to the plans. Revise the existing storm sewer flow direction along the south side of Corporam Place. The building is required to have an automatic fire e0oi~ 'n~ishing system. Duplicate with number 8. The accessible parking space access aisle on the east side of the building mast be a minimum of 8 feet wide to accommodate van parking. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - March !8, 2003 21. Detailed occupancy retailed requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 22. A P1V (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the fire service water line coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire marshal for exact location. 23. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire marshal for exact location of "no parking fire lane" sins and curbing to be painted yellow. 4, One additional fire hydrant will be required on site in line with the fire seawice water line coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire marshal for exact location of additional hydrant. All radius tums shall be designed to accommodate the turning of Chanhaze, en Fire Deparm~nt's largest apparatus. Submit radius tums and dimensi~ to the Chanhassen City En~neer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Purser to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.3. 26. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, stuubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Bnergy, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhas~n City Ordinance ~-1. Builder must comply with water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. The builder must comply with the Chantmssen Fire Depamnen~ Prevention Division regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water on a comb~on water/sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhas~ Fire Depamnent/Fire Prevention Division Policy g36-1994. The applicant shall install Type H silt fenetng and remove it upon completion of construe'dom 30. The applicant shall get an approved pavement section from en~neering staff. 31. The applicant shah be directed to dose the median opening on Century Boulevard at the access between the bank and the applicant's property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Blackowiak: D now please. Sacchet: Somebody else make one. Slagle: You don't want me to. Blackowiak: I can't make it, sorry. Sacchet: Well maybe I should make it after all. Slagle: You should make it because you're right in the middle. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Alright, the Planning Commission recommends approval of sign variance to permit wall signage on the west side of the building, which does not have to be frontage, and denial of the sign variance for sides on the no~d~ side of the building with an added condition that no double signage Of the same owner shall be visible at the same time. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sorry, I didn't think that was going to fly. Will you withdraw your motion? Sacchet: I withdraw the motion. Blackowiak: Okay. Somebody else please. Rich. Slagle: Planning Commission recommends approval of the sign variance to pem~t wall signage on all four sides of the building period. Blackowiak: Is there a second? Sacchet: Can we second it and then vote nay? Blackowiak: Yes you may. You can second it and vom any way you would like. Lillehaug: I second that. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Slagle moved, IAHehaug seconded that the Planning Commination recammends approval of the sign variance to permit wall slgnage on all four sides of the building. Slagie voted in favor and the rest opposed. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 3. Blackowiak: The motion fails. The vote is 3 to 1 against. Slagle: Then it goes to council. Blackowialc Yep, this all goes to City Council on April 14m. Sacchet: And you are going to summarize on this one. Blackowialc Yes, thank you very much for coming and to summarize our Planning Commigsion notes. Our issues were stressing the i .mportance of sidewalks. We'd like City Council to look at options for increasing connectivity between the different ~es and the possibility of a sidewalk along the west side of Century Boulevard. Numlx~ two, we agree with staff on motions A, B and C. Personal services. Denial of fast food restart, which the applicant has since withdrawn, and C, approval of site plan. We disagree with staff on the sign variance, bat couldn't come to an agreement on where that should go. And our work with staff item is the trash enclosure and we hope that that will get taken cam of before City Council. Steve, anything to add? Lillehaug: Just on sign variance. I think in sticking with the ordinance that it should be withheld. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Yeah, the sign variance. My position is based on...of what we discussed in the earlier cases is I believe that signage on opposite sides of the building for the same owner is alright. In a special case or somewhere it seems to be in order but since it's not clear enough I don't want to just leave it undefined in Blackowiak: Okay Rich, anything? Slagle: One last thing. Can we ask in that summary for staff to give input to council and us on traffic patterns, plans and, we're getting a sense that there may be a little disconnect on Century, Cotlmml~ Way, you know US Bank. I'd like to just Blackowialc: Okay and in that vein I'll also srla Steve's condition talking about closing the access and right-in/right-out and the council will decide, you know that kind of dove tails with what you just said. So we made it. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Sacchet noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 4, 2003 as presented. Chairwoman Blackowi~ adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Developn-ent Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 72 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARIZI~. MINUTES MARCH 18, 2003 MEMBERS PRF.~ENT: Alison Blackowiak, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Steve IAHehaug and Craig Claybaugh MEMBER~ ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney and Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner, Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner;, Matt Saran, Assistant City Engineer, and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRE~ENT FOR ALL ITEM~: lanet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 I_aredo Drive PUBLIC 14F-ARING: CON~IDER THF. RE~I~_~T FOR A VARIAN(~E FOR WALL SI(~NA(~E LOCATED AT SS0 WEST 79 TM ~FREET, BUFFALO WILD WINGS. CLEARWATER DEVELOPMENT ~R0~,U', LI.C. Sharmeen AMaff presented the stuff report on this item Sacchet moved, Slagie seconded that the Planning Commi~zlon recommends approval of the variance 003-4 to allow a wall mounted sign on the northern elevation which has no street frontage as shown on the plans dated February 12, 2003 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reduce the area of the logo not to exceed 15% of the total sign area. . The size of the lettering shall be limited to 16 inches in height or comply with the industry standard, whichever is less. All voted in favor, except Blackowiak and l.mehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. To summarize the Planning Commission issues going forward to council, the letter size. There were 3 commissioners in favor of allowing the north sign with 16 inch letters, unless a more restrictive size was found to be appropriate. 2 disagreed with that The only work with staff issue was brought up by Commissioner Claybaugh that there is currently no rock entrance, no silt fence and the entrance on 79~ Street seems to be causing excess silt on the street that the Planning Commission would like _,_daressed befor~ this item goes to City Council so staff can update City Council on their status. PUBLIC CON~IDER TI-IF. REO~T FOR A VARIANCE l~)R ~IGNA(~E LOCATED AT 463 WEST 79TM ~TREET, GIANT PAND/~ Bob Generous presented the staff report on this issue. Planning Commission Summary Minutes - March 18, 2003 Public Present Name Address Paul Punt Peng Pan Jill Ramsey 8014 I)akom Avenue 760 West Village Road, #106 6362 Oxbow Bend Lillelmug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commi~on recommends approval of the sign variance for Highway 5 Centre to permit wall signage on three sides of ' the building on the basis that the permit was issued on Jammry 28, 2003, and the sign was installed prior to staff notifying the applicant, and subject to the following condition: I. The applicant must eliminate the use of window signs for the south windows. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Commissioner Sacchet opposed the motion because he thought the no window signage should apply to the whole building. Chairwoman Blackowiak stated the City Council sumumry as follows: Staff recommended denial of this issue. Planning Commission by a 4-1 vote recomngnded approval to option number 3 which excludes any window signs on the Giant Panda on the south tenant location. Reasoning was that the signage was done in good faith. That the permit was issued and the eh'or was not discovered until after the sign was installed, so based on that we feel that it was not the applicant's fault. It also looks cleaner without the window lettering, and they are neighbors to too many people, or specifically Villages PUD fight across the street which has rrmny 3 signed buildings, but not here. If it were in a different location I would probably say you know strictly follow the rules but in this case, because they have so many neighbors directly to the south that have 3 and 4 signs, or 3 sided signs or 4 sided signs, that it is justified. And also Uli's comments regarding the timing issues were very i ,mportant in our decisiom Commissioner Slagle stated the assumption was made that the applicant was not aware of the prior denial of this southern elevation. Commissioner Sacchet's point was he thought no window signage should apply to the whole building because the owner did know of prior denials for a sign on the south elevatiom Commissioner Claybaugh highlighted the point he made earlier that he believe it's a unique property insofar as that it really truly does not have any street frontage, and not in order to justify this particular signage but possibly something to address with res3x~ to the signage statute and ordinances in the future. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Summary Minutes - March 18, 2003 Public Present: Name Add_n~ Arild Rossavik Mark Kelly George & Jackie Bizek Greg Kahler Cheryl Dory Steve & Kristi Buan Jayme Lee 8800 Powers Boulevard 351 Second Street, Excelsior 8750 Powers Boulevard 8742 Flamingo Drive 8736 Flamingo Drive 8740 Flamingo Drive 1380 Oakside Circle Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded t/mt the Planning _Commt~ion table the request for a land use amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density, Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District to Single Family Residential, and subdivision of Lot 1, Blo~ 1, Hillside Oaks into 6 lots with a variance for the use of a private street located at 8800 Powers Boulevard. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of Sto0. This item was tabled and the applicant was directed to work with staff on preparing a more complete application and plans to address the 50 condifi~ in the staff report Specifically addressing chan~ng the plans to reflect a 5 lot configuration, have a bluff survey done on the back of Lot 6 to determine the impact of a bluff on Lot 6, the length and size of the cul-de-sac, and directed staff to get a legal opinion on whether this is a 2 lot neighborhood or 7 lot neighborhood. George Bizek was concerned about the having to share the one curb cut with this development and drainage, especially as it related to Lot 6. Jayme Lee and Steve Buan were concerned about disrupting the green space between parks and drainage. There was discussion about whether this development was premature and if it should be looked at in conjunction with Mr. Bizek and Mr. Lee's property. PI. JBLIC FllC. ARING: (~QNS~ml~.R ~ RF. QUEST FOR ~ PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDmON OF APPRQXIMATELY 45~)0 ~QI~ARE FEET AND A 730 ~QUARE FOOT BIflLDING WITH VAmANC riND · CONDmONAL US . Pm XT I QR WITItlN Tl:ffi. BLIJFF CR~K QyI*.RI.AY DI~qTRICT QN PROPER~ ZONI~ INDUSTRIAL QFFICE PARK AND LOt~ATED AT 8000 AIJDI~QN RQAD, GENERAL Sharmeen A1-Jaff presented the st~ report on thin Public Present: Address Ron Miller Chris Hall I. xmnie Malikowski Mark Wasescha Jack Warner 9141 Invca'ness Circle, Ramsey 2442 Ponds Way, Shakopee 3402 Highlands Road, Brooklyn Park 1795 Fairview Avenue, St. Paul 3721 Imp. aliens Lane, Brooklyn Park Planning Commigsion Summary Minutes - March 18, 2003 Slagle moved, lJflelmug seconded that the Planning Commi~ion table the request for site plan review of an addition of approximately 45~d)0 sqnnre feet and a 730 square foot building with var~ and a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District for General Mills at 8000 Audubon Road until a further complete application is provided and the notification is sent to the homeowners on Stone Creek Drive and Andrews Court. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. The Planning Commission tabled this item so the applicant could prepare a more complete plan and specifically asked the applicant to address screening of the rooP. x~p equipment and Coulter Boulevard. There was also discussion about the access on Coulter Boulevard and parldng. PUBLIC m nmN0: ItFOUF~T FOR ~ ~~~~ TO ~ ~0~ BU~ P~ ~ ~TA~~ ~ PR~ ~QNAL ~~~ ~ A PE~'rr~ U~ ~ A D~ ~OUGH ~W ~R A FA~ ~D ~A~ ~ ~ ~C~~Y U~ ~ ~ PL~ ~R~V~I. ~R A 9~ SOU~ ~T ~RY B~.D~G ~CA~D AT ~~~'FE P~E ~ BO~EV~ ~~ P~~~ L~ ~ ~TE~ DE~P~~ ~ ~Y B0~~~ CO~T. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this iterm The following four motions were made after discussion. Sacehet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commi~iion r~tonnnends approval of the amendment to the Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards, PUD ~2-6, Permitted Uses to permit Personal Services on Outiot D, Arboretum Business Park, Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 2"d Addition and Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 4~ Additiom AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Bm Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Comnds~ion recmnmeuds denial of the amendment to Arboretum Business Park Development Design Standards, PUD #92-6, Andllary Uses to permit a drive thro~ for n fast food restaurant on Lot 2, Bloek 1, Arboretum Businezs Park 4~ Addition- AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Cm Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning _Commission recom~ approval of Site Plan 82003-1, plans prepared by Steiner Construction Services, dated February 14, 2003, revised March 12, 2003, subject to the following conditions: Ii The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. The developer shall provide an addition al 150 square feet of fenestration on the south end of the building and 190 square feet of fenestration on the east side of the building. Facade transparency on street frontages shall maintain 50 percent of the wall area to the top of the brick. Planning Commission Summary Minutes - March 18, 2003 3. Sidewalk connections and pedestrian ramps shall be included from this site to the properties to the north and west. Additionally, pedestrian access, including pedestrian ramps, shall be provided from the building to the trail on Corporate Place. 4. The developer shall add parking facilities for bicycles. Is a restaurant use is included on the site, benches or tables shall be 5. The trash enclosure shall be made of the same material as the building and may not use a chain link fence. 6. The developer shall increase landscape plantings in the east buffer yard to meet mininmm requirements. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted before final approval. 7. Storm sewer design data shall be submitted for staff review. 8. A professional civil engineer registered and licensed in the State of 1Vfinnesota mllst sign all building plans. 9. Sanitary sewer and watem~in hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2003 mink hookup charge is $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 10. Relocate the parking lot fram the north side to the east side of the building. 11. Add two more street lights along the west side of the building at the southwest and drive 12. Add the latest City Detail Plate No. 3101, 5201, 5203, 5206, 5215, 5300, 5301. 13. Add a note "Any connection to existing manholes shall be core drilled". 14. Show existing sewer details, type, class, slope, size. 15. In the utility plan, revise the proposed catch basin (BC-1) invert to match the existing stub invert. 16. Add a benchmark to the plans. 17. Revise the existing storm sewer flow direction along the south side of Corporate Place. 18. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system- 19. Duplicate with number 8. 20. The acx, essible parking space access aisle on the east side of the building must be a minimum of 8 feet wide to accomrruxlate van parking. 21. Detailed occupancy retailed requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Planning Commission Summary Minute~ - March 18, 2003 22. A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the fire service water line coming into the building. Contact Chanhasmm F'n'e marshal for exact location. ~rtre lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Irtre marshal for exact location of "no parking fire lane" signs and curbing to be painted yellow. One additional fire hydrant will be required on site in line with the fire service water line coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen trlre marshal for exact location of additional hydrant. All radius turns shall be designed to accommodate the turning of Chaahassen Ftre Department's largest apparatus. Submit radius ugns and dimensions to the Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen l:rlre Marshal for review and approval. ~ to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2~2.3. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhas~n City Ordinance :~)-1. 27. Builder must comply with water service installation policy for co~ and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy g34-1993. The builder must comply with the Chanlmssen Fire Depamnent/Fire Prevention Division regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water/~nklg supply line. Pursnsnt to Chanhassen Fire Departmen~ Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. The applicant shall install Type H silt felutng and remove it upon completion of construction. 30. The applicant shall get an approved pavement section from eugineering staff. 31. The applicant shall be directed to close the median opening on Centur~ Boulevard at the access between the bank and the applicant's property. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. De Slagle moved, l~flehang seconded that the Planning Commission reee~xmends approval of the sign variance to permit wall signage on all four sides of the building. Slagle voted in favor and the rest opposed. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to :~. The Planning Commission's issues were stressing the i .mportance of sidewalks. We'd like City Council to look at options for increasing connectivity between the different properties and the possibility of a sidewalk along the west side of Century Boulevar& Number two, we agree with staff on motions A, B and C. Personal servia. Denial of fast food maamant, which the applicant has since withdrawn, and C, approval of site plan. We disagree with staff on the sign variance, but couldn't come to an agreement on where thai should go. And our work with staff item is the trash enclosure and we hope that thai will get mkm~ care of before City Council. Commissioner LiHehaug wanted to stress the i .mporumce of not granting a sign varianc~ Planning Commission Summary l~Fmut~ -Mm'ch 18, 2003 Commissioner SaccMt felt signage on opposite sides of the building for the same owner is alright. Commissioner Slagle asked that stuff provide input to the City Council and Planning Commission on traffic patterns and sidewalk plans for Arboretum Business Park. APPROVAL OF MINUTF~: Commissioner Sacchet noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 4, 2003 as presented. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commi~d'on meeting at 11:10 pan. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheirn