Loading...
PC 1994 03 02CHANItASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 2, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 pan. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, $oe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Ron Nutting, Jeff Farmakes, Ladd Conrad and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner;, Bob Generous, Planner H; Sharmin AI- Saff, Planner I; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Paul Krauss, Planning Director;, and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager Chairman Scott introduc~ the newest member of the Planning Commission, Ron Nutting. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN KINGDOM I-IAI.L FOR A SITE PLAN llE~ FOR 3v800 SQUARF. FOOT CHURCH TO BE CONSTRUCT~;n ON AN 87v113 SQUAIIE FOOT PARCEL LOCATED ON LOT 1~ BLOCK 1~ CH~~qSEN BUSINESS CENTER~ LOCATED SOUTIt OF THE CI-HCAGO~ MII.WAUKEE~ ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAH.ROAn AND WEST OF AUDUBON ROAn. Public Present: Name Gordon & Betty Sayne Fraser Martin tC Andreasen Joshua P. Rissell Pbillip & Linda Koskela Pearl Rogneby Mary & Dave Gustafson Gary Harju Steve Kern 6982 Edgchrook Place 19330 Vine Ridge Road 17301 Duck Lake ~ Edea Paine 17301 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie 15901 South Eden Drive, Edea Pmin'e 110924 Von Hertzen, Chaska 5985 Mill Stat, Excelaior 6540 Devonshire Drive Kate Aancnson presented thc staff report on this item. Scott: Arc there any comments or questions to stuff from the Planning Commisaionem? Mancino: I'll have some questions aflrr thc applicant. Scott: Okay. Seeing none, we'd like to hear from the applicant or their representative. Yes sir, and please state your name and your address~ Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Steve Kern: Good evening. My name is Steve Kern, 6540 Devon.~hire Drive in Chanhassen, Minnesota. As of 2 weeks ago we made note of points brought out by the Planning Commission and we've added some change. What we made note of was on the drawing concerning that berm area, had more grading in that area w put in some...where we're going to be putting some of those lindens and the mounded so they'll be above the snow line. And we'lL..with some a second row of green evergreens within that same garden are~ We kind of drew them in this area here and have a crazy 8 shape. And the other axe. as, the two ends, instead of having the Black I-lills spruce up on the north ond and then the monument at the other end, which we put around some...spreaders around the monument. I think we'll also have some other shrubbery...So we've got some green around the monument...requested, maybe not at the meeting but by staff to move the monument sign back 2 1/2 feet so there will be better visual for people pulling out of the driveway so that adj~t is made on that drawing. And the note..xip rap, it's been recommended that we use the sheet drainage over the sod so that's made note of. And then we did make note also of the 11 city trees that we will, as is noted here, stagger our lindem between the city trees as noted along the boulevard there so we have a proper visual bahnce. Also I've made note that the handicap parking . concern, so rather than finding a way to draw the signs themselves and just made note fight in there of the code where it said the MSPC...handic~ sign...make sure that that's covered. :.. If I could answer any questions. Scott: Are there any questions for the applicant from commi.~sioners? Mancino: Yeah. I just had a few. First of all thanks for the revisions to the landscaI~ plarL I notice here that you have on the berm, on the east side of the berm you have §ardem What do~ that me~? Steve Kern: In a sense that's bringing in those evergreens. To move those and so on...have either some chips and mulch and also a lot of small ~ stone to make up some of the garden...we're going to make kind of a bordered garden effect with I think a crazy 8 shape like this and kind of starting up over the hill a little bit over the berm. Mancino: Great. Have you, on thc list, the planning schedule list, have you added your mugo pines and your arborvitae? Steve Kern: Yes, Mandno: Are they also on the list and how many and how big? Steve Kern: Yes. As mis list goes down and then M, N, O, P and Q covered the...a verbal discussion made about shrubberies around the building alld we wanted to actually put a list Platming Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 there so we got 6 and ? of the mock orange and purple...and there's some Carlisle Buckthorne going around the building. Along with what was already there. And then the Sierra spreaders 6 pieces around the monnment. A couple more of white plum birch on the corner of the parking lot by the driveway right here. And then we added to the list, the numbers went up for the other concerns where now there's, let's see. Item number G...And then yes, the mugo pines did not get listed I believe only because they want to be out there and arrange. There could be 3, there might be 6 that would be appropriate. We weren't sure how many but you can be assured that's in there. Mancino: Okay, and the arborvitae too? Steve Kern: Yes. We're making note within that garden area there's going to be an adequate amount to fill that space but we weren't sure how many to put in there. Mancino: That's f'me. Scott: Okay. Any other comments or questions for the applicant? Hearing none, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Can we have a motion to.open the-public hearing - please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Is there anyone in atmndance for this particular issue, item number 1. Chanhaascn Kingdom Hall. Yes sir. Okay, feel free to ask questions or give your input if you would like. Resident: Just here in support Scott: Okay. Let the record show that there's no one that wishes to spe~ at the public hearing. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Any comments prior to making a motion on this particular item? Ledvina: I don't have any additional comments. This is essentially the third time thc Commission has seen the plan and I think we've pretty much worked out the concerns as it related to the land use and the parking. The collector street Proximity to the collector street, Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 etc so I would support the proposal subject to the conditions listrd in the staff report. Scorn Okay, good. Any other comments7 Can I have a motion please7 Ledvina: I move that the Planning Corr~ission recommend approval of the sit~ plan for the Jehovah Witness congregation SPR ~)2-$ as shown on the plans and subject to the conditions identified in the staff report. $co~ Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commis~J'on recommend approval of the site plan for the Jehovah Witness congregation SPR 1P)2-5 as shown on the plans and subject to the following conditions: le B612 or equivalent concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in all parking lot and .. driveway area~s with the exception of where the drainage outlets in the northwest~ly portions of the parking areas adjacent ~o. the railroad tracks.-.The parking lots shall be . designed to promote sheet drainage across tho parking lot areas~- I)op~_~ing on the side slopes of the drainageway, rip rap may or may not be required, If rip rap is not required, then the drainage swale shall be sodded. Final determilmtion will be made by the City Engineer after review and approval of the side gra_ding plan. 2. The driveway curb cut on Audubon Road shall be cons~ with a driveway apron in accordanc~ with city &tau plate no. 5207 (A~schment No. 1). The applicant shall submit for review and approval a site plan with the pre and post site contours across the lot. The parking lot shall be designed so it drains in three directions with the high point located at the intersection of the driveway and the easim'ly and southerly parking lots. 4~ Erosion control me~ures shall be employed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Access points to the site shall be limited to the proposed curb cut on Audubon Road. A gravel construction entrance shall be provided and maintained until the parking lots and driveway have been paved. 5. A separate permit is required for the Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 6. Marking of handicapped stalls as per the Building Official's letter dated January 31, 1994. AH voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad and Diane Harberts who were not present to vote, and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CHARLIE JAMES FOR A VARIANCE TO ~ crrY CODE REGARDING THY. SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WE~T VILLAGE HEIGHTS CENTER, LOCATED ON LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION, Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments for Ledvina: The situation on the west wall of the building, why. First of all, d.oes that. represent, their request, does that represent a variance? Generous: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. So under normal situations, as far as the ordinance is concerned. Generous: They would get no signage. It says street frontage. Ledvina: They have to have street frontage, okay. Generous: In reviewing this we looked at that and as part of the site plan we made them create a business...on the west end of lhe retail center and that's why they're req~g that. They want to have actual frontage for the boilding so when people park out front, they can know that they're walking into the, engineering dedgn...what have you. Mancino: So we don't have street frontage ther~ Now accordin§ to what we have, Section 20-1303, it says for a wall business sign, it says one wall business sign shall be permitted per street frontage for each business occupant ~ the building. So I'm looking here at the south elevation and I see three different signs. I see Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours, I see a Byerly's sign and I see a Wine and Sp'n'its. And according to our ordinance, they're allowed to have one sign. Generous: Well thc way we've been doing that is to aggregate the total square footage as it... for that building. Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Mancino: But that's not one sign. There's still three signs, it's in three different spots. Generous: It's in three different locations. But we've been treating it as if that, they have their one sign. Instead of, they can stack all that infomuttion up in one spot, and if they met the code req~ts. Mancino: If they meet 80 square feet. Farmakes: Current code is 80 square feet. Generous: Yes. Fimrmkes: The point she's making is that there's auxfllary information provided within that, other than identifying the store. So the question is, if you allow that as a variance, not only are you allowing a variance for the wtal cap of the signage name but you're allowing in addition to that, Wines and Sp/rits. I think the precedent, that was used was to allow the word . Pharmacy on Target. The question goes back, I think in the current sign ordinance that we'll be reviewing, there was a co~t on there about what constitutes additional adv~g .w a sign. For instance, Cold Beer and Hot Dogs. Mancino: Or Fresh Fruit. I ~ what are we going to have on these buildings7 Farmakes: And where does that constitute an additional sign or in addition to or within that cap7 The critexia we seem to be using here is Target, which is a PUD correct? Generous: Correct. Mancino: And so is Market Square. Farmakes: So is thc crim/a that what we gave them, we give Bycrly's or what is the objective? Generous: Well to provide them an equitable relief for their signage is basically it. 'They believe that they're doing thc same thing as the other two developments. However they don't, they just didn't do PUD. They're doing, meeting evcryfl~g ehe in the code as far as, they want to have comparable signs. Mancino: Well they're doing more than some of the other developments. For instance, they're going to have a 20 foot pylon sign fight on 78th Street which is going to give them a lot more visibility than any other ~ business on 78th. There is no pylon signs 20 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 feet high for Target on 78th. There's no 20 foot tall pylon sign for Market Square. For the Chanhassen Bank, etc. So I think they have a lot of visibility with the pylon sign added to what they've got. Farmakes: The other criteria of a PUD is that the city gets something in return for allowing an applicant to go over or get variances from existing city codes. I'm wondering what, it would seem the purpose here is that Byerly's is an overgzext building. Large 60,000 square feet. Scorn Well the total development's 109. Farmako, s: The original signage I think, Charlie that you had, wanting to know why there was a cap in there. Percentage. The issue had to do with stores that are smaller getting over sized signs that are as wide as the store front. Where you'd have a disproportionat~ amount to where essentially the store is covered becatute of signs. The cap of 80 square feet I think is pretty long standing, isn:t it Ladd? That was on the.existing ordinance.. .... Mancino: Well 80 is for the general b_usi_'ness district. 65 is for the CBD so it's even smaller in the central business disuict Farmakes: Yeah, but what I'm saying is that isn't part of the revision- We didn't reduce that. That's been an historical cap. I guess a precedent was set then when Target was built. Conrad: No, the bowling alley. Farmakes: Filly's? Conrad: Yeah. That's a huge sign. I think it's an ugly sign. Fmnakes: What criteria did they, that came under a PUD or was that conditional use or what was that? Conrad: That came under crit~'ia of visiMlity from Highway 5 and I'm not sure how that happencd to tell you thc truth, h sure fit within the 15% of wall area but it sure is over 80 square feet. So there are precedents. We obviously don't have an ordinance that treats different sized buildings adequal~ly. I think dwelling on the 80 square feet is sort of dwelling on something that's not equitable. Scott: Well I've got a question for you. In the findings section, we talk about that strict compliance would cause a hardship. And under Section 20-58 it says that the City Council Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 may grant variances only if the following criteria are met and one of the them is the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship as defined as undue hardship means if the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of size, fiscal smround~gs, shape or topography. And I don't particularly agree with that in this p~cul~ case. I think we would all agree that the fact that there's a Byerly's in Chanhass~ it's a destination in and of itself. Not like on Highway 61 where there's ? car ~hips competing for mind share. So at least in my particular view of the world, I wouldn't consider foisting _this ordinance on Byerly's to be creating any hardship whatsoever. And the other corr~issioners have talked about some of the other issues but that's the one that kind of stuck in my mind: I had some difficulty seeing why that would be a hardship. So I'd like you to develop that, maybe educate me a little bit. Farmakes: Well the comment that I'd like to make here before he answers that. I think Ladd is right...several building fronts is what you're talking about here. The question that I was looking at and maybe there isn't a precedent that's used for buildings of that sc~e. The cap 'really didn't deal with buildings of that ma~itude in this town.. But part of the question that .. ~:~ Nancy seemed to start to answer is what in addition to that and how many do you duplicate? Do you use pan of the ordinance from thc 80 cap and then if you enlarge the sign, do you still use pan of that allowing an additional amount of the signs? I don't have a problem personally with looking at that again to look at buildings of this scale. I don't have a problem even that Byerly's is projecting to the hi.way by a larger sign of that scale but I would question how many times it's duplicated and if for ins~_~nce you have the same size sign projecting to the east coming down 78th Street where you drive within a few hundred of the building to get by it. I question that. Whether or not that needs to be duplicated again to that scale. So that's my. Scott: Okay. Are there any more comments? This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open the public hearing. Mancino: So moved. Scott: Actually we should hear from the applicant first. Excuse me. Mr. lames. Charlie James: Sorry I'm hte this evening. I thouEht I was further on the agenda. Scott: You're on time. You're here. Please state your name and your address. Charlie James: Yes, my name is Charlie James. I'm with T.N. James Co ,mpany of Eden Prairie. I guess first of all I'd like to stress that the issue under discussion this evening is of major, major importance to us and we're really here tonight because I believe of an ambiguity Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 in Section 20-1303, Subparagraph 3 of your cturent ordinance. And'we can and will meet all aspects of your current code on the entire project with the exception of the Byerly's logo. Thc retail slrip will be in conformity. We're not asking for anything there. The pylon that you mentioned is totally in conformity with thc ordinance plus I'll point out that Target's pylon is 36 feet tall and contains 144 square feet of sign area where our's has 64 square feet so their sign is 2 1/2 times as large as our sign area, 16 feet miler but we're not asking for that. We'll live with your ordinance on that. The monument that's proposed is totally in conformity with your ordinance and it was redrawn to be. And I guess we, when I read the code and having had an analogous experience to ~ up in Forest Lake, Minnesota. They had a code like this that said you could have so many square feet but no individual sign could be bigger than, I forget what it was. It was some'thing like this so we went through and said, look it. Under your code we can put 20-80 square foot, or we can put 2-80 or whatever the size square foot signs they are on the building but no one sign can be bigger than you know, whatever it was. We can distribute this out but no individual sign can be as big as the sign that we're proposing so potentially we could put 2-80 square foot signs or whatever it.was, and have 500 square feet. All we're asking for is-200 square feet. And they resliT~ that ... they had a problem in their ordinance and we were allowed to do what we wanted to do and-.. they since have changed their ordinance.. And I have to say that when I read this ordinance . and coming fi'om that experience, maybe that was too fresh in my mind but I will refer .you ... here to the wording in this and it says, under paragraph 3. Nirst of all it says, they're dis '.tinquish~g here between the pylon and monument.. First of all there's a mixture of the plural and singular within this paragraph. It says, wall business signs. But then it says, one wall business sign shall be permim~ per su~et frontage. And then it says, the total of all wall mounted sign area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wail on which, plural, the signs are mounted. And then it says, no individual sign shall exceed 80 square feet. My ~g of this, the mixture of the plural and the singular and the use of the word individual is that the code was intended that no individual sign would be bigger than 80 square feet but that you were allowed the 15% of the wall area. There's that mixture of the plural and singular here. I'll further refer you to the staff report that was written and subsequently adopted by this body regarding the Target. Here's a picture by the way of their 36 foot high, 144 foot up here. That's 144. What we're talking is 64 square foot in our total sign and they've got 144 feet just up here. This is in your staff report that was done for the Target. Farmakes: You're aware that the Target was a PUD? Charlie James: Yes I am. Farmakes: And that there's a diff~~ in zoning. Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Charlie James: I'm very much aware of that. That's going to be a point I'm going to make. Farmakes: Well you're comparing the two back and forth and I just want to make sure that you knew that. Charlie James: Right. And I'm going to address also the issue of, someone raised the issue of the trade off and what are we getting here. Under the signage report that was done for - Target, again there's this ambiguity in your signagc that says, findings. The staff is proposing one free standing pole sign and on and on and then subparagraph 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontages. Then they say the total of all wall area sign display areas shall not exceed 15% of the total wall area. Or of the total building wall upon which the signs, plural, are mounted. $o this is consistent I believe with our interpretation of what the code is. So I don't want to be in a position here of being argumentative. What I'm trying to suggest this evening is that you've got a problem with your code and that should be addressed. And I don't want tonight, I don't want what we're presenting here tonight to be in. :. any way a precedent or maybe the more proper word is andecedent for what you're going to be considering later this ev~ing. What I would like is for you to look at what we're proposing here for the Byerly's and look at.this as a uniq~, individual case. It's not, let's admit. We've got a problem with the ordinance.- The' ordinance is ambiguous. With Target they talked about 15% of the total area of the building upon which the si~s are mounted. $o let's get beyond that and can we just review this on a case by case basis of what we're.W/lng to do here and. Well we've got this. I guess within the context of what we're proposing here and the scale of the building, I would submit that what we're proposing in the way of signage .. here is not excessive and it is attractive. I thinir thcre's some other factors hcre that need to be mentioned. I think one of the things that there were some numbers in the staff report that were calculated in a different manner than which we c. alcul~__ted our numbers. We were wld that we had to draw a rectangle around the Wtal area and I understand that when they calculated the sign for instance for Festival, they did not do that. They k-ina of went around the edge of that in preparing the square footages that were in your report. Again an ambiguity here. We're penal/zed because first of all this is cursive and so if you throw a rectangle, you have to go all the way up to the top here. That's how we were wld you know that this thing was figured. When in fact an argument.could be made that you could just kind of outline this sign area and this area in here being about approximately 16 feet, if we came over here and then dropped down to _this area which is about 8 feet, it becomes 200 square feet instead of the 321 square feet that would be made if we basically put a border around the whole thing. I understand that you're considering a new code. Unfortunately I was traveling and I wasa't in a position to interact with staff and to comment on what they were proposing. I guess we just simply can't abide with the later almamtive in there. And I don't, I feel that the table they came up with there, and those numbers are just as arbitrary as anything else. I 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 mean why 3%? Why 4%? I guess what I would prefer is that we address here tonight is to look at what we're trying to prevent here and I don't think that what we're doing hcre, I have a very strong vested interest in this being the best possible project and a lot of thought went in to a lot of this and I guess what I would ~ is can we look at this particular project and not rewrite thc code around me. In other words, can we work with recognizing that we have existing ambiguity here within the code and then say okay, Charlie. You get a variance from that code. He's not asking for a variance in the pylom He's not asking for a variance for the monument. Those elements are less than what's been done elsewhere. I'm not asking for a variance in the retail space but I'm asking for consideration for this particular layout. And I guess as another thing I guess I'd say is, as I mentioned we're ~ because of the cursive nature. It's not a neat block of their logo but also another aspect of this you have to keep in mind is that their letters are blue. As a nmtter of fact, this whole element of the building, so it's more or less size and proportion to accommodate thc sign and the concern is thc visibility from Highway 5. Target's out there on Highway Ii and has the 36 foot high whatever. And blue doesn't read well at night. So that's another facttyr that it's not a glaring white or a yellow or a red. It's something that kind of softly dissipates into the night air so-.... that's a concern based on, this was input directly from the ~t of Byerly's based on other locations that they've had and the studies that they've done on visibility of their signage from distances. And that relates to what was said tonight about 65 square foot in the central'.. business district as opposed to 80 square feet in the highway and general business and I again, I think that that's why the first altmumtive that was being proposed or rationale for your consideration Ladd this evening is better because I think the reason that 65 square feet downtown is because the buildings are close...and where the buildings are placed. And the code when they refenud to 65 square feet downtown, I think there was a reco~ition that the bnild_ings are placed closer to the curb there. That the cars are closer to the streeL So I think, and then as you get further out from town, you're distances away so I think that's pan of that rationale and I think that that rationale fits in betl~ with what was the first ~ve here that was proposed this evening. But again, now I'm starting to discuss what you're going to be considering here later this ev_ening and I guess I wish we could focus on here. As far as a PUD and what the City's getting in return here. I guess I'm ern?hasiz~ again that we worked with staff for over 6 months. Probably 7 or 8 months before we ever even came to you folks and everything we tried to do here is consisUmt with everything on this side of the street. City Hall's brick and has the same son of, and the Fire Station, the post ofrace, the bank and so everything that we are doing hem is kind of consisttmt with this side of the street. We came in here originally. Target had 5% of their parking lot landscaped as part of the PUD requirement when your code had nothing. We were told that that was something that was going to be adopted as the law or code. The :5% of the parking lot. I came in here right off the bat with 8% in our parking lot and we subsequently, thanks to Mr. Wing's input and elsewhere, I think we ended up closer to 10%. And I think we're trying to bring a high quality project here. A high standard of design. We've got $88,000.00 at last count in plant 11 Planning Commission Meeting - Match 2, 1994 material Not the installation. Not the irrigation~ Not the sod. Just in mR__u~ial in the bucket on this job. Which is way far and above what's required. We came in here as a permi~ use on a permitted piece of property and we still tried to work with you all And tried to improve it and do bett~ than what was required. The only variance that we were asking for in that project was necessitated by your own Highway 5 corridor study that said that you wan~ a detached buildings and broken up. We've got a project here that's 600 feet long. We tried to articulate the...Put a lot of money into different various elemeats. And the one thing we need help on is the sign. So I guess it is important to us and I would r~~-ully request that you look at this and look at it in tm~s of the total design of the project and grant us some relief from the ambiguity of your code. Scott: Good. Are there any conunents or questions for the ~plic, ant from stat~ Commissioners? Mancino: Charlie did you provide a drawing with an 80 square foot Byerly's so we could see thc difference? Charlie Irene, s: I'm sorry. "Mancino: Did you provide staff with an 80 square foot Byerly's logo. One that would fit in the ordinance so we could see the scale of an 80 square foot one in them? Charlie James: No I didn't but I'll tell you, you've got a building 300 feet long here. That's 2 sheets of plywood. Okay, approximately. And as I said, this element, we read, when we .-'~': read the ordinance, we thought. What we're showing here is well below 15% of the wall area so we thought there was _this glitch or snaffu in your ordinance that, as I indicated earlier, that we've nm into elsewhere. So we thought well gee whiz. The 80 square feet thing is obviously something that wasn't contemplated here but we're well below the 15% of the total wall area here. What's shown here I believe in your report here. Generous: Nancy, if you look at the Open 24 Hours and Fine Food section, that's almost 80 square feet. Between the two of therm Mancino: Between the two of them? Chadie James: It becomes mini,_%-mle and there's no point putting it on there because you can't read it from the street, You know I ~ this. Mancino: Well thc point of putting it on there is for us to be able to see the difference and why it doesn't work, 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Charlie lames: No I meant as far as 80, I'm sorry. Right now, our in--on of the code originally was that in any event we're allowed 15% of the total wall area. What we're showing you right here is 5.5% of the wall area. So we didn't anticipate a problem. We were asked by the President nnd CEO of Byerly's, has stayed out of many of my negotiations with Mr. Meyers. I reme~ specifically the one time he suw, k his head in the door was on this issue of signage and this is a big deal with them because they've had problems with the blue signs at night and they're open 24 hours and this sort of thing and it's a real hot spot with him. And so in proportioning the boil_ding and everything, we design~ some of these elements to accommodate that. And it's not an after thought, It was a fore thought and it was based on our misinlm'pmtation of an ambiguous code. So I'm sorry, no we did not. That's my typical long winded. Farmakes: Your Edinn location is how many square feet7 Charlie James: I'm sorry7 Farmakes: Your Edina location for Byerly's. How many square feet? John Meyers: 18. St. Louis Park is 19. Ridgedale is probably 16. Fannakes: How many signs in Edina do you have on the face front of the building7 John Meyers: On the face? This is what we have on most of the stores. We don't have,. some of the swres we have restaurant. Edina we don't have wine and spin'ts because we don't have wine and spirits. Fine foods is something we're. Farmak~: The primary sign of Byerly's, is that on the area facing, would that be 70th7 John Meyers: That store has, I don't know if that store has a sign on 70& Farmakes: I recall it just has one facing France. Byerly's. John Meyers: No. No. There's supposed to be, I'm not sure how big the building is facing south. There's a sign on the south side of that building. I'm not sure if there's one on the north side. Famutkes: Is there a frontage street there though7 Charlie James: I do know that. 13 Planing Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 $ohn Meyers: What you see if you're coming north, if you're coming north. Farmakes: Is that a monument or is that...? John Meyers: No... Charlic Jmnes: I do know that Mr. Harberts specifically said that one that is on Ridg_~a]e is larger than this one but it's mounted over hare. They have this big wall on their drive thru so they have a much higher wall area to mount it on. So actually the sign that's on Ridgedale is larger but it was put over here and we didn't want to do that. We wanted to have these arches here that, and they don't have that condition there. They don't have arches here. This is a blank masonry wall. John Meyers: Well we didn't want a blank wall there either. We wanl~xi to put a feature in that carries it through the whole ceni~r so when you put the feature in, you carry it through the whole center... Charlie James: We have a visual aid here. This is 10 by, this is 80 square feet. Scott: No problem. Charlie James: You love it right7 Mancino: We can still read it. Farmakes: What is the accmulative amount of square footage you take in Byerly's and you take in Wine and Spirits, Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours. Charlie James: 431 square feet, or 5.5% of the wall area. John Meyers: Of which, under the code, if we stuck with 15%. If we stuck with 15% and just put Byerly's, Byerly' s, Byerly' s, Byerly' s, Byerly's. FarwA~re-s: I understand that but the code has always had a cap on it so. John Meyers: If you take 15%. Farmakes: So to take pan of an ordinance and you said the criteria is. Charlie James: It says no individual sign but then as it... 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Fannakes: But it could be more than one sign. Charlie Sames: Exactly. Farmakes: Let me explain. It coukl be a lol/o. It could be logo and type. It could be Fine Foods or Open 24 Hours. It could not even have the name of the store if it chose not to. But there's a cap of the amount of square footage that can be used. It's up to the store owner how he chooses to use that cap. Some stores wish to add additional information other than their name. The question then becomes, is it an identification or an advertisement. Charlic James: Wcll there's some argument to be made here that we havc more than one use in this building. We have the supemutrkec We have thc wine and spirits. We have a restaurant. We have all these different businesses going on under one roof, which is somewhat analogous w Target and Target having a pharmacy. Fammk~: I understand your argument. I think that the button line is that you would like - that sign to be readable from Highway 5, correct7 John Meyers: Correct Farmakes: Okay. That is facing south. The elevation that we're looidng at now. There's additional signage being requested on thc face fron~s that face east and thc other one you said was not included or? Mancino: The west one. Farmakes: ...of what we started out with there on that elevation drawing. Generous: It's in your packet. The hettom would be the west elevation. Farmakes: Where it says 4 next to it? Generous: Yes. Farmakes: And that's being withdrawn? Generous: No, we're recommending that that not be approved. Farmakes: That that not be there. 15 P/anning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Mancino: Because it doesn't, frontage is not on the streeg right? F~: The purpose then of the monument sign then is. Is the question of signs I think in relevance, one way to look at this is from what distance do you consicl_er a sight line to be adequate for your store. And I'm just looking at this from your point of view. You obviously want to be read from Highway 17, Highway 5 and what is the purpose of the sign to the east? How far is it that you would like to be seen? John Meyers: The sign to the east? F~nak~: Yes. It would be the sign west of City HaIL John Meyers: You're really, at the point where you get to the stop light, at that point you'll start to be able to see from the elevation, the one that you've got, from the intm'secfion. Just up off the mad. You should start to be able to see this sign as you probably just get through the intersection. Farmakes: It would seem ~o me that the purpose of the sign, besides the sight lines being different distances away say from Highway :5, because you have to be a certain distance away. A minimum distance. Those cars are potentially going by at 50 mph...The one from the east, somebody's coming by at 25 mph. John Meyers: Hopeflilly. Farmakes: Well, hopefully. It seems as if there's a different size of signs. What I'm trying to get a handle on here, other than arguing thc technicalities of your interpretation of the ordinance. There are parts of the ordinance but whether we're looking at a different zone at one time and half of a zone of another, I think there are some arguments to come back and say that you're being selective in you're interpreting what applies to your store and what doesn't. In comparing Target, obviously you're aware, and you say you're aware that that's a different zone and you understand that it's a PUD. Charlie Jarnes: I do but what...bnilding could have cost another $7.00 a square foot and got.... Farmakes: ...I understand that. Charlie Jmues: I've got more landscaping than they do. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Farmakes: I understand that but do you understand how ordinances are set up? We can't willy nilly disregard pan of an ordinance when we're discus.~ng so~ing ~ how we're interpreting it. It doesn't mean that we can't relook at something to work something that solves this problem. What I'm saying is that, based on your tmrts of your argumeats that I don't buy into personally but... John Meyers: I don't understand what you're disagreeing over. Farmakes: Comparing for instance the sizes that are allowed for Target. Target is a diff~t zone. And I know that both of you are fully well aware that there's a difference between PUD and what you are applying for. John Meyers: I'm not even arg. ing the Target sign. Farmakes: Okay, but that's part of the ar~t that I've before me. In comparing, and I understand the criteria that was used for Target. I'm not argnlng the scale of the bnilding and some of the rationale that you're using. There however are some other things other than the size of the sign for Byerly's sign here, the additional signage and how that accumulates and how that is reflecaxi to how other applicants are ~ here. And we have to consi_t!~r_ that in how we handle this. And I think in the past, and said you acknowledged that, I think that's how we have to treat this discussion. We have to do this fairly and I would admit and agree that obviously when these older ordinances were put on the books, nobody envisioned the buildings of this size coming in here. And primarily the cap and the percentage was W keep small store fronts from becoming over sized. Where the entire wall of the building is a sign. So far these huge buildings have beea PUD's and have been handled as separate issues. The signage. Where you're getting 100,000 square foot building and you're looking at the signage issues as a PUD that can be handled as a separate issue. Your applying under existing signage ordinances that apply to a small store. And if we have to hold them to that, we also have to hold you to that irregardless of the size of the building. Charlie James: But that's where the hardship comes in. Farmakes: I understand the hardship and I understand the rationale for relooldng at that again. There's additional baggage on here though that I would like to discuss because this also conflicts with some of the other issues that we have held other store owners to. Applicants. In supplementing signage with advertising. It goes beyond identification. There is precedent I think for the Open 24 Hours. The Fine Foods, it seems to me that. John Meyers: That's a trademark, just so you know. That's a uademark which the Byerly's own~ Which we used to use in the Twin Cities as we feel it's i ,mportant to use out here 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 because we're going into a new market and trying to expand farther out. Farmakes: I'm familiar with trademark law and I know that the words Fine Foods are not the trademark. ~ohn Meyers: The logic behind_ Farmakes: It could be added onto Bycrly's but the words fine foods is a generic. $ohn Meyers: But part of the Bycrly's name and actually it's trademark one of those logos is Byerly's Fine Foods. Farmakes: Okay. And what I'm saying is, if Fine Foods was underneath Bycrly's, that could be consmse, d as part of the trademark. Where it's several hundred feet away, one would have to interrupt... Charlie James: One of the designs had-that and it was mo cluttered.. John Meyers: We've done it on both sides but we had to make the facade even bigger in that area which...defeats the purpose of what we're trying to do.: Mancino: It's a positioning line that goes with the name Byerly's. John Meyers: Exactly. Fannakes: Except it's not with the name Byerly's...And thc question of Wines and Spirits, I'm not sure how, I'm not sure how, does thc city consider that a separate stm~? Mancino: No it's not. It's part of Byefly's. Farmakes: But legally, does it have to be a separate store? h holds a liquor license doesn't it? Charlie James: There's a part of the store where we're being required to close that off so it John Meyers: Separate operating leases. Charlie James: It will have it's own cash register. It has an entrance where during the times that the supermarket is open you can go into the liquor store but when the hours are past for 18 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 a liquor store to be open, there's doors in there that close that off so you're not able to access it. That shuts down. Those personnel leave. John Meyers: It's no different than a liquor store inside a mall I'll give you a perfect example. Go down to TH 4 and TH 5, to Driskill's. You wsllr out of Driskill's store inW the mall space and the first tenant is the Eden Prairie municipal liquor. When you're inside our sWre...sWres is to make flint side of the store basically a mall You come inw the stare. You §o to the right. If you've been in Rid§edale, and you walk down a corridor. Down that corridor is the post office. Down that corridor is ice cream. And down that corridor is the restaurant. Down that corridor is the liquor store. I mean we opear~ it separately. Farmakes: It doesn't have a separate entrance...it only has separate entrance. Separate checkout. John Meyers: Right. You can't get into the Wine and Spirits shop and take it into the store... Mancino: But you can get into the Wine and Spirits through the Byerly's grocery stare? '.- Charlie James: But only because they have parcel pick-up and you don'.t, have to carry your bags so you have to pay for your groceries there. Then you can walk into a separate opening, into the liquor store and they have a sepmate personnel and separate check out there. But once the State laws come inw effect and they say you've got to be closed at 6:00 or whatever.. it is, there are these bifold doors or whatever that seal that whole area off from the inside of the store, plus the outside door is locked and that port/on of the stare is closed. John Meyers: It's a separate legal entity as well. Somebody that opa'ates the liquor store is a separate entity from Byerly's. Farmakes: How would the City interpret that? Is that a separate stare? Generous: Thc way they describe it, I believe it would be separate. As far as our review of it, we aggregal~l everything as part of one wall, business wall. Fmmakes: Can you check on that. See how that would be in~ Scott: I think what we need to do now is to ask for input from members of the public. Are there any members here of the public who would like to speak on this particular issue? Seeing none, I'd like to have a motion to close the public hearing please. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to dose the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Scott: Any conm2mts from the commissioners, My initial comment here is that it seems like we really don't have a good handle on what to do with this patrick. Do you agree with me? Based upon the ordinance that we have to deal with the issue at hand. Personally I'm not comfortable acting on that at this point in time but if you all are, please speak up. Conrad: I'm curious. What people think about visually is this offensive? What we're looking at? Farmakes: I personally don't think it's offensive but I think it is a weakness in our ordinance in dealing with these size bnildings. I don't know how many more of these we're going to Conrad: So if we could develop a sign ordinance that would allow, that,, would we all kind of~ say, that's probably reasonable7 Mancino: No. Farmakes: I think that there's a problem with the addifion~ amount of signagc. And. how we treat other applicants. That... Conrad: $o you're uncomfortable that they're saying wine and spin'ts would be too generic, -. you wouldn't want to see that on other boilctings? Farmakes: If it's a separate entity, I think we talked about that with the hotel and does that consfiml~ a new business. Does new signage come into play? I think that's another issue of weakness in our signage ordinance. Conrad: Don't you feel that that's insmicfive though? Don't you think a food store is diffenmt than restaurant? Farmakes: Yes. I do. I _think that th~'s a viable argument there. I don't think that it's too much signage for thc amount of square footage that we're talking about. But I do think that there's precedent problems that if we ignore what currently is on the books, and how we treat other people, that's going to create a problem. Mancino: I'd like to build on that also and say, I mean what are we going to have a sign people can say, open 7 days a week or open from 7:00 to 8:007 And that's whet~ I'm having Phmning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 a problem with the Open 24 Hours and Fine Foods. I don't have a problem with the Byerly's and the Wine and Spirits ~ I think it is a different entity. My other concern is, as we get bigger with these signs, proportionately to the building, are we just going to have box buildings that act as billboards all over? And the signage on them is just going to read as a big billboard. And is that what we want and is that what we want in our downtown? Do we want signage in our downtown to be able to be read from all over? From a mile away. From a half a mile away. I mean at what point Fmmakes: Issues of scope and I thinlr duplication. As I said before. I think that in looking at advertising, the sign to be read from Highway 5 from a building of that scale, I would think perhaps that's reasonable to an extent. However, the assignment for a read from Highway 17, which is a different speed limit and 78th Street, which is also a different speed limit, are two different assingrnents and I wouldn't see that sign duplicauxi three tim~. So again I'm not sure what we hold the hotel development to. What we hold Market Square. I realize some of these are PUD's and some of them are not. I think we have to define the rli~ of what we're doing there because what we hold some of these smaller stare .. owners to, we should be consistent on how we approach that or enact an ordinance that deals -.. with this as part of the signage package that we're looking at here. Scott: left, where would you draw the line inbetween ithe "small store" and the Byerly's? Farmakes: Well the city tries to do some of ~_s_t on scale. However, I think.this still needs . . some work from the ordinance that we're looking at. The old signage ordinance also did some scale work but it had the cap; It kept the 80 foot cap which I'm not sure how relevant ._ that was at the time. That they ever envisioned a 100,000 square foot building here. Scott: How do you, based upon coming to some son of a decision this evening, what are your thoughts? Farmakes: I think that perhaps we should get together with staff and discu~ either how this would be incorporated into thc new ordinance or how it would be in~ in the old. But I think we should be consistent on how we handle this. Scott: Okay. Farmakes: This is asking to be incolkSistEnt. I don't think what they're ssking is -nreasonable if it can be done with how we've acted consistently in the past. Scott: Would you like to make a motion to that effect? 21 Pla~nin§ Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Farmakes: I'll make a motion to table this. Scott: Okay. Fmnakes: Until that can be ascertained and until we get counseled but I think that this is something that could be worked out. Where it is consistent, I think the potential to do that is Scott: Okay. So the motion on the floor is to table. Mancino: Second. Scott: It's moved and seconded. Is there any ~on? Conrad: Yeah, a lilxle bit. Charlie, ff the Byerly's wasn't farmed in a square, how many square feet would there be in that? Any ide~? Are we talking. Charlie James: Yes, I figured that out...This letter here, if we go from the very top to there and out to here, that would be 6 x 16. That's 96 square feet Then if we squared this area off, this would be approximately 8 feet by 13 feet The total is exactly 200 square feet. This is 80 square feet right here and one of the reasons why I think we can prove that your . ordinance is maldng a mistake. Conrad: I don't think_ ~'s no question about that. No contest about that. Chartic James: ...take a square footage of a wall. I mean think about it. If they're saying 15% or 80, just divide 80 square feet by .15 and that will tell you how big of a wall they anticipated. It doesn't make any sense. And so I guess part of the problem here is, is that I've got, if you are going to table this, I mean and then you're later on tonight, does that ~ I should stay around because you're going to talk about this ordinance? Or are you going to table that new ordinance as weal. Scott: That's possible. Conrad: That's a real possib'flity. Charlie James: And the aspect of this is that I'm on kind of a situation where road restrictions go on on Monday and we're going to be moving, lxying to move equipment _this weekend onto the site. The scrapers and all that and I've got a situation here where Byerly's isn't going to go ahead with this thing until they're comfortable, I mean this is Mr. Har~' 22 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 hot spot, and this is not posturing just to.._idnd of thing so if you are going to table it, I know that they have to come back for a liquor license and I know that, I guess is there some way that, you've got. That's why I was suggesting earlier if we ~onld just separate this for a moment from the aspect of your code and say, that code's got a problem. Okay. We're not trying to solve the problem around Charlic Sames or writing the code around Charlie Sames. Scott: Unfortunately that's what's going to happem Charlic Sames: ...and there's 80 square feet and I guess our position is that we've gone far and above on everything on this building for you. Scott: Agreed. I agree with that. Charlie James: And I just need your help on this. Scott: Bob, can this be on the agenda, Do you think the neces&,u~..wo~ can be done by.. :.:.. staff so this could be on the agenda in 2 weeks? Yes? Mr. ~ames, what do you think about. This is unfortunately when you're breaking ground and-you pay the toll and this is, from what I understand, is a series of these things for you and for this development. What we have-here is Bob Generous is willing to, this ordinance revised so we can tak~ another look at it and h~y come to resolution in 2 weeks at our next meeting. Krauss: Chairman Scott, what's the expectation though? What are we worldng this out for? Scott: Well, I think we realize that the existing ordinance does not do what we need to do. I meam from my particular standpoint, the Byerly's sign in and of itseff I don't feel is out of scale for the building. A subjective vision. I know that some of the issues that we do have is when we start talking about Wine and Spirits, Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours. It becomes a departure from traditional signage to more advertising. I think what we, at least my undersmmling of the ordinance that we're going to be looldng at later on this evening, is that it does not do a good job of setting the guidelines for a building of that scale. And as far as giving concise direction, I think what we need to do is to perhat~ have a better bridge inbetween what we have required other people in similar ~ developments and making this consistent with it. Krauss: We have no similar standard developments processed under the ncumal zoning ordinance. Target and Festival were both PUD's. Those are the only two of comparable size. Mancino: Well there's Filly's. Isn't that the one that Ladd said was oversized. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Krauss: Well Filly's is potentially an example that we might...in the future. Mancino: But it's oversized? It's big? Conrad: I think yeah. Really the problem is, this is not bad in my opinion. And I think most people up here would say this is not bad. And I'm probably speaking, not ~ for some but most. Therefore, the ordinance that I've seen you draft doesn't allow this. Okay. That's the problem. Maybe we can allow this. Maybe I've got to figure out another way to make this happen and maybe it's outlining the letters for 200 square feet and Charlie can home tonight and, no. Let's work this out Charlie. You know that's my problem with the ordinance right now. I'm seeing something that artistically is very nice. That is not offensive. That I don't care if it's read from Highway $ or from West 78th SU~, it does a nice job. I have to figure out how to make this legal in Chanhassen. Sc. om Yeah, that's the difficulty I think right there is that it looks nice but we can't use that as our tesL Looking nice can't be our ordinance. Conrad: Well unfortunately you can allow something 3 times bigger that's pretty than -..-. -. SOme_thing that's 1/3 as big that's ugly and we're combining ~cs with size and that's '. tough. There are very.few City Councils or Planning Cowmi~ssions can deal with that issue. We have to and so again, I think that's what we have to struggle with to see how to make - this work but make it consistent. Rely we haven't had problems with the signage ordinance here. We really haven't. It's been pretty good for it's many flaws. The signage ordinance is. the big bugaboo in any city and you know that. It's 40 pages long and it's got all these things and nobody understands it and everybody's got a problem with it. But over all, our's has done an okay job for the last 10 years but now Charlie you arc brining some new stuff to us and we've just got to figure it out and our job is to not screw Byerly's up and you up. But on the other hand, ou~ job is to say hey, we have to treat people fairly here and for us to just say go ahead, do it is not respon~ble. You wouldn't, if you lived here, you wouldn't want us to do that. Harberts: But I think at the same time, when you look at the fact you have public policy and what you don't want to happen is to have a policy that really resuict~ I guess in my perspective is somewhat Surrasic with the times. And I thinlr the test imm my perspective is, what's the impact on the community? What's the impact in mrn~ of development and I have to agree with you Ladd. I think it certainly is pleasing. It's balanced. It meets those type of criteria that I think will affcct thc gcncral public in mrms of when they're coming down the street. Is it nice or is it you know ugly? I certainly am very sensitive to the fact that we have to be sure and not acting in an arbitrary way but being consistent and what I'd like to be able to do wnight is not let public policy that's out of date somewhat, or deficient, slow down Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 progress. And I don't know if we can move it. I would rather sec a decision made tonight rather than tabling it when we don't even know what are we trying to get at in 2 weeks. I mean we could be spinning our wheels in 2 weeks or 4 weeks. Farmakes: But who's responsibility is that then7 If we forward it. Is that avoirlir~g what we're supposed to be doing here7 Harberts: Well again I fall back to the fxusuation that it's a defect it seems in the policy and what are we going to direct staff to do in 2 wee~? We're not going to change the ardinan~ But yet at the same time it's certainly, I think the general consensus is that it is restrictive. That this is, that this does work for what we have here. And that's where the ~on here is. We've got a piece that works but we have a policy that isn't with the times. Farmakes: But it seems to me that there's some other issues involved here ~sides the signage of Bycrly's or thc logo itself. The other issues are supplemental signagc. Is that advertising? Is the liquor store a separate store or not? Would that allow that to.be treau~. as a separate store? Harberts: And from my perspective, I look at the entire project and what's the impact to thc community. In my opinion, I think it's pleasant. I think it's balance& Given the size-of the development And again, coming back to what's the intent of a public policy? Is it to be so restrictive, so confining or is it to in a sense be able to help produce a-product, an. asset to the. Farmakes: I understand that but if we ignore existing ordinances at will because we think well that looks pretty good, we're creating a precedent that may come back to haunt us. Harberts: And where's the frustration is for me Jeff. Is bcxause perhaps that there needs to be a change in our policy but again it's at the, it's the developer that's on the short side of the stick so. Mancino: Well we're asking the developer to wait for 2 weeks. Plus the fact we will be revic~g a new sign ordinance tonight. Farmakes: I don't have a problem with that Any other developer that we've had in he~, and I think we've tried to treat fairly and get them back on the docket as fast as possible. Harbcrts: What will we accomplish in 2 weeks? What will staff be able, I guess that's one of the confusing parts that I have. What will staff bring back to us in 2 weeks that will make the difference or is it just the discussion at the later point this evening about the new signage? Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Scott: I'd like to see, if we do table this particular item, that tha~ would be tabled with some specific direction for staff w come back with something that we can give us a tool that we can apply fairly to this circumslauce and others like it. Jeff, would that be accurate? Farmakes: Yeah. I think so. I think that we need an interpretation that we, if we're going to apply this as a variance, are we going to apply it to the 12 crilm'ia that we use to grant variances? I don't know if Ibis would qualify under that The issue of the wine and spirits, of the supplemental signage beyond the word Byerly's, it would technically it's a variance. We're granting a variance if we approve this. Sco~ We do have, we're discussing a motion that's on the floor to table. Scott: Yes. Harberts: Just for the record I want to go on record that I am of no relation to Mr. Harberts of Byerly's. Truthfi~y. I think they checked that out before and I guess that can be confirmed. Scott: Yes, that is confirmed. Thank you for your comments. We have a motion on the floor, are we, we closed discussion? Okay, let's vote. Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commi~ssion table action on the variance request for a sign permit for Byerly's at West V'fllage Heights 2nd Addition until the March 16, 1994 Planning Commimfioll illeetillg. AH voted in favor, except Diane Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Sco~ Jeff could you, I don't know. Does staff have a direction as to what we want accomplished? Generous: Well partially but I'm going to wait until you discuss Kate's item later on and get a little more. Because I have the idea... Scold: And I think we all agree the intent is that physically what we see, actually is what we like. What we like is very subjective. However, we just want to make sure we have some specific numbers or sonmhing that we can utiliz8 to make decisions. Have a ~ tool Fammkes: If we're granting a variance, I think every time we do that you have in there the criteria that we use to grant variances. So if for some reason another option that we have, if 26 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 there's some reason that we're not able ~o give specific direction to staff or you can't come up with something that fits "the Byerly's thing". Then what we need to do is to work out our variance. Signa§e variance and maybe that's what we, maybe it's not an ordinance. Maybe it's our variance criteri~ So I think we have two options. Harberts: It's of interest that we dian't attack this signage ordinance before this particular piece. Scott: Agreed. Normally since the public hearing has been closed but if you wish to say something briefly. Charlie James: I wanted to say one thing. If you're going to be considering this ordinance later on this evening, one of the things you might want to consider, because someone raised the issue of advertising, is go downWwn. Is it Subway or is it Subway Sandwiches? Is it MGM or is it MGM Wine and Spirits or liquor or whatever it is? Is it Festival, as we refer to it in the industry or is it Festival Foods? So I mean. there's a whole multi dimeasional thing there so. Farmalr~: Is it Holiday or is it Warm Snacks and' Beer? You're right.. It is a problem and it's currently, under the current ordinance, subject to the manager of the store... Scott: Okay. Thank you very much for your comments. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REPLAT .- OUTLOT An MARKET SQUARE INTO LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MARIO~T SQUARE 2ND ADDITION FOR THE LOCATION OF A WENDY'S RESTA~ ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED AT ~ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY SERVICF~. Public Present: Name Address Brad ~ohnson Vemelle Clayton Herb Bloomberg Chyton Johnson Peter Beck Jurij Ozga Kevin Norby Lotus Realty Services Lores Realty Services 7008 Dakota Avenue Bloomberg Companies Inc. 7900 Xerxes Avenue So., Mpls Naperville, IL 27 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Harberts: I just want to ask a question first. It's my understanding that the city owns figs piece of pr~. Scott: The HRA does. Harbens: Or the HRA does. Scott: That is corrext. Harberts: Well, the HRA, which is a different entity by Statute. Is the city interested in having, is the city interes~ in selling this piece of property to have this development occur on this piece of land? Krauss: There have been some discussions about that but the fact is, is that there's a purchase or a repurchase agreen~nt I guess... Harbem: Does the city have the intention of solling ~ piece of ~ in order for this ... development to occur7 Krauss: There are questions that have been raised regarding that. and it's ultimately going ua be a decision of the HRA. Harberts: When will they consider that? Krauss: But I should stal~ that ti~ has really li~e or no bearing on wha~ you as a zoning, planning and zoning commission do with a s/te plan that's before you. Harberts: Oh I agree Paul. Krauss: The fact of city ownership. The fact that someone along the line, other elements of the city may decide ua sell it or not ua sell it or use it for something else is not what's before you. What's before you is the site plan. Harberts: I agree with Paul on that but my only concern here is that, axe we spinning ou~ wheels? Krauss: Well yeah, I can't answer that. I really don't know how it's going ua turn out. But you as a Planning Commission are empowcrexi to review projects based upon in place PUD agreements. Based upon the zoning ord~ Based upon the Comprehensive Phn. That's 28 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 it. Whether or not the HRA elects to or el~s to do song e2se with it, is really their decision. Mancino: So anybody can come up in front of us with a site plan on any land, whcthcr it's going to be sold or not, and just say we want you to revicw this si~ plan? Krauss: Anybody who has a legitimate interest in a piece of ground. Scott: What's a legitimate interest? How do you define that? They're in~ in doing something. Kmuss: Well they have a purchase agreement or they own it outright and in this case they have an agreement to repurchase the land. I mean this goes back to an in place PUD agreement that's been around for 4 1/2 years. Harberts: I have to agree with Paul in terms of what is before us this evening is to ~ .' - concentrate on the site plan that's before us. My only frustration is unde~tanding-what the .: back~und events are. I'm a little, maybe a little bit disappointed that we as a Planning .. Commission, and maybe this is just one of those flukes, one of those weaknesses, and the -.- purpose of a Planning Commission that we're spending' our time, perha~ spending our time on a project that has so much controversy, so much who knows what direction this is going to go, that I believe we have better things to do with our time and so I agree with you Paul-and I may be speaking out of turn a little bit but I'm just, I think we have better ~ings to do and I don't know if there's an oppommity to clearly cle~qne that projects that come before us have" some legitimacy in one way or the other so we can spend our time more e/fecfively for the city. Krauss: Well I'd say first of all we're holding this project to the same standards of legitimacy as we do with any other in terms of it being a legitimate interest to bring a project before you. I don't know how that other issne's going to mm out. I appreciate the concerns that you have in spinning your wheels, as you describe it, but then again you've spun your wheels for two meetings on the Centex townhome project and that died for.reason~ beyond the purview of the Planning Commi~on. Those things happen. Mancino: Yeah but the city didn't... Krauss: No. Scott: I happened to be in, I know Commissioner Mancino was at the City Council meeting 4 weeks ago. I was at the one on Monday night. This issue was discussed very ~cally 29 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 and major questions were raised at that level Do we want to x~emin this as city propav/for a public project? Centex obviously didn't have that sort of exposure and I don't know, I'd have to defer to some of the commissioners that have more tenure than I do but do you, have you seen a project of this type that got to this point where thc city was involved with the property? Has owned it. Farmakes: The criteria that I've used in the past is the more the city is a partner in these projects, the more negotiation position it has and that beco~ a gray area. Now whether or not we should be involved with that, it seems to me that in partiofl~ if the City Council asks these questions, that's part of our charge. To investigate what those questions are. And especially if they get into the areas of interpretative things such as awhitecmre or how this affects the city in generaL Those aren't quite the same as saying, whether or not you're meeting the height requirement. Krauss: ff we go back to the history of the site, the Planning Commission had no problems approving the Americana Bank proposal on the same property..It was in the same conl~xc It was still owned by the city. Farmakes: There were problems with the building as I recall Krauss: But you approved it. It was redesigned certainly and I think you were the major. focus of that discussion. Farmakes: Well yeah. I don't see any difference though 'm what is the reason this wasn't .. approved at the last meeting. Or excuse me, not approved. Continued for some other reasons that I recall but the public hearing was actually continued. Mancino: On the American Bank, was there a task force that was looking over the whole downtown to decide about land use? Krauss: No there wasn't at the time but I would argue that what a task force does or doesn't do, unless there's a moratorium involved, what somebody may or may not do in the future cannot color your decisions based upon your review of the zoning ordinance. That gets into pretty dangerous territory. You can't m~ire the rules up as you go along and when you do that, you run into some legal problems, which is why we of~ counseL..Commi,.sioner Harberts, you raise an interesting question. Is the Planning Commi.~sion out in front of this one and is that the place for you to be. The fact is, 5 years ago I recall there was a great deal of consternation, Steve Bmmings was in the room a second ago. He may well renmn~. Ladd I'm sure remembers. That the liRA was driving projects and the Planning Commission got them second. And there was a great deal of imsuafion with the Planning 30 P/arming Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Commission that projects were already in the pipeline. And we reversed that process largely at your request because we thought it made sense for the Planning Commission W be in the driver's seat. Now this is one of those rare instances where it may backfire a little bit but that's how that happens. Harberts: Well like I said Paul, I don't disagree with you in terms of what our charge here is. V~'nat our purpose is. It just, like I said, it's somewhat disappointing and somewhat frustrating given the large amount of pieces that go through us here when there clearly seems to be some discussion in terms of what you should occur at the sim because it's a focal point to the community. Because we have this 2000 year task force. Those type of pieces. Krauss: Well, what you may consider though is, I think you have a responsibility under the zoning ordinance, under the infamous PUD agreement, to make some kind of a judgment in that context. If you have, and I understand that you do have, other concerns that should be brought before the City Council and the HRA, or to the Vision 2002 committee, fine. You make one set of actions on this proposal based upon what's in place now and send along a - second set of recommendations of what you think should happen in the other context. But the idea of somewhat arbitrarily saying well, because there are things that are happ_en_ ing outside this, we don't think it's necessarily a good idea.. Therefore we continued this. That's not really a valid use of your authority. Harberts: And you know to be fair too, I guess you know I get a little bent out of shape . .. when public policy seems to in a sense tweak the developers or tweak the public when in a sense we should be more in a parmership. And like I said, maybe I'm speaking out of turn a-. little bit on this issue but like I said, I agree with you. Our charge is certainly W look at the site plans and again I would just share that same comment with my colleagues here. That that's what's before us rather than what do we think is a good use of this ama. That ceminly will come into play here but you know we do have a charge here. Mancino: But that's pan of planning, deciding what's a good use of an area of land use. I mean~t's what we're supposed to be doing. Not just reviewing site plans but as an overall land use, is this a good land use. Conrad: Well tonight this is a legal use. If it's not, somebody has to tell the City Council it's not but tonight it is and we really can't change zoning. Farmakes: The question is, as I recall at the last meeting, is the content of what goes in there and not the criteria that it's an office retail. But what it is that goes in there. Conrad: It's reviewing a PUD. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Farmakes: We've had other applicants come in here with the concepts who didn't __tec_-bni_~_ lly own the property so it's not, I don't see it as a pwblem or a waste of time for us to do this now. I think this is part of the process. I don't sec it necessarily as a parmership but as a system of checks and balances of what we're doing here and h~y in the c~d you get different representations of different interests in these type of things and hopefully the there arc community interests in this property and I think that the system as it's set up is a §ood one. And allows for the other checks and balances to take place. Conrad: Absolutely but when the applicant came in here with the rest of Market Square they said, we didn't say is there going to be a library that? We didn't. We knew full well this was going to be retail co~ial so that's how, you know there was no deception about that and we didn't raise any issues with thac Any. Krauss: No. I ~ it was wide open~ Conrad: So at that time, at that time if we had a problem. Mancino: So you were expecting fast food and retail Conrad: We didn't expect any~h_ ing but I think the app~t talk~ about ~ and talked about food. Scott: Well a public hearing on this particular item has been continued from last time so if · someone would like to address the Planning Commission, please step fc~d. Maybe from a staff report standpoint, talk about anything that has changed. Specifically what has changed since the last time. Slmrmiq AI-Jaff gave a staff report update at this point. Scott: Any questions or comments for staff? Ledvina: Just one thing. Is the traffic ~on in tm'ms of the alignment of that egress, is that addressed in the report or would that have to be added as a condition? AI-Jaff: It's not addressed in the report. Dave might want to answer that quest/on. You had the meeting with...this morning. Hcmpel: It was recently created as early as 8:05 this morning so no update has been placed in your items for you this evening so it would be appropriate to put something in to make 32 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 revisions ~o the plan. Mancino: Sharmin, what does that do to the number of parking spaces that are required? Al-1aff: What you might look here, you'll be able to make up so you will end up with the' same number of spaces because. Well this, we could probably add 4 spaces here and you would be losing 3 spaces with the first. But I think it wonld be a wash. You have a total of 91 parking spaces~ The ordinance requires 89. Mancino: So you still have the same number of intersections there. You would just straighten out the line. Al-laff: Coxrecc Mancino: So it wouldn't eliminate. Al-$aff: You would still have 5 intersections but they won't be center. Hempeh Ac~_~olly you still have 4 intersections. Mancino: 1, 2, 3, 4. But you have incoming traffic Ivo from that. Narth, south. The main entryway. The north one. Hempel: Sharmin, would you please put the overhead .back on. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Farmakes: This site plan that wc havc seen, north elevations and west and east show no signage...duplication south elevation to the north7 Al-$aff: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that. Farmakes: The north elevation and the west elevation and the east elevation show no signage. The north elevation, east and west be a duplication of the signage that we see in the sou~h elevation? A1-Jaff: No. h would be limited to the north and south only. F~: Alright, so the north elevation that we see cummtly would be a duplication then of what is currently is shown on the south. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Al-laff: Correct Scorn I think what we'll do, since the public heatdng is continued, I think what we'll do is we'll continue that public hearing and then if the app~t would like to speak as part of the public hearing, make a presentation. That's fine. If other members of the public would like to do so, all we ask is that you step in front and state your name and address and state your case. So who would like to begin? I'm sure someone would like to speak. Vemelle Clayton: One of the things that has ocagam~...is in our effort W quickly turn around 'a response to their request, son of at the same time that the repo~ are going out, you're getting reports that say one thing and then pictur~ of something in an envelope that look like something else. This is the very latest of...in response to my conversation with Dave this morning. I think I'll show you thi,~ rather than if you have, if you want to know what happened before we have sort of a chronology of things here and we do have what came immediately before that which was a site plan that we incorpmaUed one. .. since the last meeting but until I met with Dave, we didn't want to incorporate those changes on the site plan. After we met with Dave we incorporated those changes on the landscape plan so if you want that...as far as getting an overall idea of what it's looking like. So that's what we have before you now. And as Sharmin explained...actually 5 exits into this comer. Now we have the 4 with this one off to the side...Can you see it? I guess the other changes are...we had. made earller...So before we move off the site plan and over to the landscape plan, I'll give. you an opportunity to ask questions if you'd like. Mancino: I have a question for Dave. I'd lilre to hear hi~ comments on, you've gone through the drive thru. You're stopped and you're going to exit. You're just going to go through the middle of all that traffic? Do you see where I ~? Now you stopped right there, the end and you want to exit on that n~ yeah. And go straight. Tell me about traffic and traffic safety there and who knows when to stop where and how many people do you have to look at and all that kind of stuff. Hempel: First of all parking lots are difficult in the first place to make safe but the site has very tight configurations. The buildings and the parking lots and so forth like that..To add a drive thru with the circulation, to even try and bring out a point that's trying to give the most ease of access to get in and out of the site. With the drive thru like this, you're avoiding the additional traffic movexrr~nts in the retail parking lot...to bring that more out into the location for quicker access to the site. The turning, the second type of movement out of the driveway would be backing a car out of the parked stalls on the west side of Wendy's and proceed north is basically no different than that. Famuflw~: Would it make more sense to widen the area, the exit from Wendy's. Put an 34 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 island between the two so you didn't have the converging in the same spot from the office building and the fast food? Vemelle Clayton: I'm sorry. Say that again. Farmakes: I don't know anything about traffic allocation designs on how you're doing that. I can see where sort of the cars are all being angled to the same point in that parking lot and what I'm wondering is, if your finger, if you just bring it ~aight down. Just straight down fi'om the parking lot from that fast food lane there. Vemelle Ctaywn: Here7 Farmakes: Yeah. Just bring it straight down and keep on going with it. Keep on going. Vernelle Clayton: We've talked about that too and I've been...we originally had the exit here. More like here and you wanted it lined up with across here. This would be fine with us if it · . would come out here. Hempel: Right. That was part of the existing parking lot on the other side which, serves Subway and the rest of the Market Square has these existing islands.here which dictalr the access point or openings for tr~__ffic flow across the intersection here. Ideally, yes. That would be great if we could continue one movement right off the road. But you've got. constraints such as the parking here where you don't have that on this side. We're not able to mirror. Farmakes: Well how many parking spots do you lose then though? Hempel: This, and you'd essentially have to reconfigure the opposite side of the street as well. You would have offset points corning out onto your access road. That's the problem with that situation. Farmakes: You wouldn't necessarily drive from ~ parking lot into Wendy's? A straight ... vertical line though wasn't it? Vernelle Clayton: Are you saying why is it important that they be across from each other7 Mancino: Yeah. Fanrmk~: No. Why is it important that the access from that parking lot drive across the thru road into Wendy's? It doesn't seem to me to be the same destination. Wouldn't the 35 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 majority of the traffic come through the thru road? The road that goes north and south to access the property. Hempel: Right. This would be the major access feeder for this whole site for the shopping center. The major access to Wendy's would be the most southerly one. Farmakes: Right. I mean...people leaving to the middle area there. The majority of them entering to the fight. My point is, I would assume you wouldn't have very many of them driving across from the opposite parking lot. That would be driving north, east and west. Vernelle Clayton: He doesn't think there are going to be many people corning from here. Famuflres: Right. So what I'm saying is. Vernelle Clayton: $o why can't we have this down here and then they'll be going out here or down here anyway. Hempel: I see. FarmR~e~s: I don't know that. I'm assuming th~ somebody with m~fl~ic patte~s. John: If I can try to answer what I think was the problem. Is this roadway is one of the .. main enlrances to Market Square shopping center so in theory it would have more wa~c at.a higher speed. People would'tend to drive through the main enlrance to get to wherever _. they're going. Farmakes: It's 25 mph, fight? John: Right. But their...they have a right to continue. Even though I was there this evening and it seems like the road stops at every intersection. However, that would be one of the main enmince~, just like this is one of the main enmmce~ into the shopping center. So from a traffic perspective, you would prefer to have, whatever decisions have to be made, happen in this area before you would get on the main entrance roadway. So that's what I think staff was trying to achieve ~ I didll't want to have any confusion at that in~m'section. So they wanted to have this line up with the passageway and the parking lot across the way so there wouldn't be any confusion in that area. The car would come up here. Stop and make a turn if they wanted to proceed across there... Farmakes: I can see what you're talking about. If a car comes, travels let's see that would be to the east, or west. It's coming down after getting their hamburger and they come to the 36 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, l~t access road and look north and south to see ff there's any trat~ coming and go out to the lane of uaffic. If they mm to the north where the 4 access points sort of come together there, they would sort of have to do a 360 to see exactly what was coming at them. John: No, not readly because to understand the flow, what you don't see over here is the stop signs. So when you come out of the drive thru. Pick up your product. You come to this point you swp. Same thing coming from this part of the parking lot. Fmmakes: But you have to look right and left...interseetion again. Look right and left again. Turn. Look to your left and then come down to the access road. John: But just remcO, that traffic's not even going 25 mph. You're basically idling. You're coming out, a way out of a parking lot. Farmakes: But it's a drive thru. $ohn: You're not going at the speeds someone would be going on an enlxance road. And from a traffic perspective, you're looking to say, we want to make all the resolutions or decisions happen on the lot. On the sit~. plan before you get into what would be the regular thoroughfare. Hempel: One other thing I'd liim to add is, this access point bm'e,' that's a pretty heavily.- traveled one. It's the one that rakes you behind Subway and out the back way of the west exit or entrance on Market Square as well So it is, it's more heavily used than either one of those two. Farmakes: But what I'm saying is, that doesn't mean that they couldn't drive straight across and the entrance would still be there. I'm talking actually about two ways to leave that property. One would be to enter where it ~tly is now, wanting to come straight down leaving Wendy's, which is probably only going to be deparUn~ I assume. But I'm just looking at that from a consumer's standpoint. I have no expertise on that whatsoever. And to me that doesn't. John: From Wendy's perspective we would not have a ~ce. However, I can see from your staff making decisions here, where people are Waveling slow. So it's easier to stop. Farmakes: Prom being a consmrmr, driving in these parking lots, those multi enmmces where you have several angles coming together, is usually where I have my problems in parking lots. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Hempel: It's similar to McDonald's drive thru that you have now currently. Fmurmkes: Kind of a free for all at some particular exit. Hempel: At some point you do with most drive thru's. This gives you an opportunity to go either direction where this one you're limited to going one way on and more congestion in this area competing with traffic for the retail site. I agree, it's not a perfect parking lot configuration but dealing with what we have on the other side of the street. With the access points. I felt it's probably the most. Mancino: Dave, on a scale of 1 to 10, how bsT~rdous is it? I mean would you desi~; I mean starting from scratch, something lib-. that? Hempel: That's a tough question. Mancino: Well you're evaluating public safety all the time. Hempel: On that size of a parking lot, it's difficult with a malL_those traffic geaera~ all of the uses. That's a pretty heavily traveled roadway. What helps here is it's a right-~t-out only or it would even be worse traffic. But I guess I'd,probably rate it at 7. 6 or 7. Mancino: Okay. A question for you. Can an 18 wheeler go in, drop off supplies, food, everything else and make those turns to the Wendy's in the parking lot? Can they do the radius tums? Hernpel: I would say they'd be able to maneuver at this intersection. I guess I would question that over there. Vernelle Clayton: Did we decide they could get around there or did we decide you weren't going to be using them much7 Jurij Ozga: Yes, we oriented them around the building, yes. Mancino: Because I know we had problems with the entryway into Market Square off of Market Boulevard. Judj Ozga: Yeah, we have roughly 22 feet here. We did look at...that configun~ion...Usually deliveries are made before the restaurant's open so the~'s no cars. Mancino: Yeah. I'm just wondering if they can actually make the tums. Getting in. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Scott: Any other questions or conunents for the applicant? Vernelle CLay~n: We have here a boat and pick-up and a boat. Vernelle Chtyton: A pick-up and a boat goes around too. Harberts: But is it a Suburban? Vemelle Clayton: Well, I had to make it more fun to make a pick-up so anyway. Harberts: The radius worked? Vemelle Clayton: It worked. We're essen~y then done with the site questions that you have of us on the site plan? Scott: Yes. Vernelle CLayton: Alright. Listen, if you think of other questions we can come back to it but we wanted to get back to elevations. A little discussion of what we .did for changes on .. elevations... Kevin Norby: Since the Last time we looked at this, again there were a couple of changes. We tried to address Nancy's concern about pedestrian safety and crossing parking lots and we've cxmu/ed thc sidewalks on either side of thc building here to directly inc~ the concrete pav~t in the parking lot. That will help designate...~tin§ a pedestrian crosswalk. The other area we looked at was this utility corridor and I've got a...Basically what we did was try to cluster those utility boxes and provide access to them from a central courtyard. What do you call it. Wc then screen them from the adjoining roads with valious plant material, roughly :5 to ? feet tall Some of that ms__tcriais is evergreens. A little bit is deciduous so we think it's a year round sort of screen_in§. We would probably need an easement dedica~.A for purlin§ those utilities in that location. Basically beyond that the planting plan hasn't changed unless you've got questions. Mancino: Kevin, one of the requests I think Sharmin made was on the south side she requested 5 trees and you added 3. You have a space there. Al-$aff: 5 in addition to what was there originally. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Mancino: Okay. Has that been done? Was the~ a reason not to7 Kevin Norby: Well we discussed that at the last meeting and I thought the way we left that, there was some concern about the viability of the plant mst_~ial in that parti~ location and we tried to put plant material that we thought would take the salt and the heat. It's a fairly narrow area with traffic moving and snowplows moving a lot of snow into that area. You'll have a lot of salt residue. This is exactly the same plan you saw last time with that regard. Mancino: Okay. Then refre~ my memory a little bit. Am any of the l~imeter plantings trees inside the parking lot or perimet~ plantings conifers? Besides what's around the utility. Kevin Norby: No. There are a couple here that are aco_,olly inside of that fight-of-way. It would be considered interior I suppose but they're really part of an exterior sort of planting. Those are not. Mancino: Any particular reason? Because I know when we drafted our new preservation ordinance, we asked for 20% be conifers. Kevin Norby: It was a mat~ of space limitations.:-Wanting to use. something we thought was appropriate. We thought they could be best used along the perimeter to provide buffcdng. The sort of spaces that were typically given here, along the building are anywhere from maybe 3 feet to 10 feet wide and we're talking about putting a conifer in there that's ... got a spread of 15 to 30 feet. We didn't think that was appropriate. Mancino: Gotch ya. Then people couldn't walk around it. Kcvin Norby: Right. Scott: Dave. H~I: I just had one question, or actually two questions. Has NSP been consulted with relocating these boxes, if it's even feasible? Vernellc Clayton: Yes. I called... Hempel: I know the city has a u'affic controller at that intersection as well for the timing of the traffic signals at thc intersection and I have some reservations on how much that can be' moved. Vcrncllc Clayton: I think we were hoping we might be able to build that into the line... Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Kevin Norby: It's currently shown in the location with the rest of them here but there's been some discussion and of course we want to talk with you about this but actually incorporating it here as adjacent to or as a pan of that monument. Hempel: One Last question I guess as far as if thc boxes are moved down to that location as proposed, I would assume that NSP would be given right of entry or access easement or something because I don't think there's going to be an access to it from Market Boulevard. Kevin Norby: This drawing I gave you would provide access from the, basically from the Wendy's site. And we'd maintain the 10 foot access conidor. Mancino: Kevin, can you also refresh my memory on the south side of the office retail building. Is there going to be any planting, any plantem, any welcoming green space there? Kevin Norby: There are some spaces there. I'm not sure that you can see them from there but along the entire perimeter of the building with the exception of where the doors are. In lieu of providing planter boxes like at Market Square in front of Lawn and Sports and Guy's and those places, we felt that, I felt that those would complicate the circulation. They create some awkward situations as far as trying to plant them and maintain .plant maimfiaL So I've . proposed planting strips along'the entire l~imeter of that bnilding. Mancino: About how wide? Kevin Norby: I think we've got them at 30 inches. Mancino: Okay. And will there be sprinklers to maintain themselves or drip system or something? Kevin Norby: My understanding is that the whole si~ will be irrigated, including the planters. Sc, om Auy other? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one more question. As far as the monmnent of that corner, what's the height of that monument sign? Vernelle Clayton: What is it Sharmin? You have it on that drawing. Al-Jarl': 12 feet 10 inches. 41 P/a~ning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Hempcl: I'm just a little concerned, would that monument fall into our sight triangle. Al-$aff: No. I measured that. Hempel: Okay, thanks. Farwai~e-s: Aren't we hearing from Wendy's7 Scott: Maybe next Vemelle Clayton: We had, we will talk a little bit about the martials that we're going to be using next And also put up thc boards on which you have the elevations for the new plan of thc retail office building. You saw it on thc overhead. I think the TV may be a little clearer on this and I also have some sketches. Ink drawings which will give you a Uttle bit of depth perception. One of thc things that you asked for was a chance to see what the mz__h~ri_'~ls look like and so Bill, our architect by the way, I should cxplain...This is the choice of brick that Bill selected and it's...It's got, we discussed thc fact that the comer, the buildings near the comer have a rosy cast as does this building and ~y thc Country Suitrs mo~eL So this is picking up on that and this is a piece of the bre.~ off block that would...There are a couple of remaining elements that tic in with Market Square. One is thc break off block all the way across thc bottom. All the way around and then thc other is just this kind of hint of...This is a sample of the asphalt shingle for thc roof. Farmakes: That would be gray, not green? Vemelle Clayton: I'm sorry. Farmakes: Those now would be changed to gray, not green? Vemelle Clayton: Right We kind of ~ you say you weren't too happy with the green and we feel that this style of building, begau~ it's a little less dramatig, that it probably needs the subtlety of the more muted colors. These are the colors, the Market Square colors. I'll just put them up here. This is the green and these are the pinlc colors. This is the green tile... Mancino: Where is the green7 Vernelle Clayton: Thc green, thc metal, the coping around thc building at Marl Square is this color. The roof, the pitch...the pitch on thc top of the monument signs are the colors. There are little insets of tiles here and there on thc gabled portions and that's thc green. 42 Planaing Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Probably more of the greea we're talking about though...and this, if you consid~ this as the way the building might look at night and this is the way it might look during the day. There's a fair amount of glass and I think it will be quite dramatic at night with the lights on through the arched windows and doors. During the day then you'll see this is..~for this trim: The windows is the burgundy so that will be kind of the hint of the tie-in's to the awnings over the windows at Market Square. The windows here will have a burgundy. And I think those will pick up the brick. This will give you I think a little better feeling of the depth of the building and the way these plans work and just jutting out here 2 feet and then back in and out here 2 feet and back in and...cutting in the corners. This is, she has outlin_ed these a sign bancL.. Mancino: Would the~e be any wall lighting? I know you have it over at Market Square. It looks like a ~t feel I see you having diff~nt light in the Mm'k~ Square but I just wondered if you had gotten to that degree and picked out. Vcrnelle Clayton: We haven't. Fanuakes: Thc gabled areas with thc larger window spac¢,~-is that ~e rn~ 01' i~ : · that transparent? Vemcllc Clayton: This is...cturenfly as glass. Farmakes: See thru glass, it's not. Vcraclle Claywn: Right. Right. Farmakes: Currently our window display ordinance for PUD, what is the issue for tenant display in thc windows? Is there a percentage allotted or what? Al-laff: It's not addressed. They may not display. You're referring to signagc? Farmakes: I'm talking about window spaces. You know when they tape up 15% off of shoes~ ~tly in the PUD for instance, MGM. Th~ eatire wall, window spa~ area is taped up with tcmpom_sr signagc. What would be, what we would be seeing there. What are the restrictions of what we would be seeing. The north elevation and the. Al-$aff: That no window signagc take place at all Mancino: Yeah, we would make that a condition- We could make that a condition7 Planning Commission Meeting - Match 2, 1994 A1-Jaff: Yes. This is something that weren't addressed originally in the PUD agreement. Mancino: Okay yeah. I'd like to see that not dup~ either at Wendy's or here. Farmakes: Are the large window areas pan of reutil space? Or is that a tln~ugh...The large window areas, are those pan of the retail actual square footage in the interior or is that a walk thru area or what? Vemelle Clayton: Right behind the window...directly behind the window you would see people sitting at desks working... Farmakes: Well if it's offi~ retail, one way or the other, it potentially could be somebody at their desk or somebody at a counter selling video tapes. So the iai'ge window areas that you see, the two of them in each north and south elevation and one in the west and east elevation, do you see through to the actual retail space or is that ~ike a walk thru hallway? . Verneile Clayton: No, that's right... Farmakes: What do you envision the problems that yotf would see for retail if the window spacing there was reflective and not transparent? Verneile Clayton: It would be devastating. Farmakes: For? Verneile Clayton: They need to be able to see in for retail. That's the whole idea of being in an area with a big window. Harbens: I would have a concern from a public safety perspective. If you can't see in, there could be some type of robbery or something that may occur so I would just lend my Farrnakes: Yeah, there are office buildings however that have reflective windows and the question I had, is the retail level, the question of goods, thc question of goods being portrayed pretty close to the street here in the main drag of Chanhassen, the question would be, how that would be applied. It's a pretty big window space. I question the definition of whether I put my 15% off of shoes in the window or just push my wooden shoes up within a foot of the window with the 15% off. Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Mancino: Yeah, that's a good question because so many people use their front windows as display. Have their mal~eqtfin$ or whatever. Farmakes: There's nothing wrong with that. Vemelle Clayton: That's the whole idea. Farmakes: I don't think that there's any intrinsicately wrong with that. This is a commercial area but what I'm saying is that, do we leave that type of application either to the PUD or restriction. Ekal with that in the ordinance or do we leave that up to the store manager? I'm not saying it should be excluded. I'm just saying it be considered as part of the signage. It seems to me that the sigrmge itself is pretty moderat~ what we would term moderate. Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments? Okay, what do you have next? Vemelle Clayton: Okay. I would like to introduce a couple of folks, and I learned two things after reading the Minutes last time. One is that I need to articulate a 'little better and the other is, it's a good idea to spell names from time...We have $ohn...from Wendy's and you read the name wrong...and next time we'll have Surij Ozga and that one is Jurij Ozga. 1ohn, would you like to come up and talk a little bit again about Wendy's7 We have one member that wasa't here last time and a new ~. John: As was discussed the last time, the reason Wendy's likes the area is that our market is .. - that we strive to go after thc market that's a little more upscale. A little more white collar... A little more upper income than some of our co~tors. -For that reason we design our building to fit into areas such as the downwwn area of Chanhassen, office complexes. We try to usc matefiah that are much more subdued and a little more amenable to that type of a bac~und. Incidentally, Wendy's will use the same materials that the office retail space will use. So we'll use the same brick and Sufij has a picture up here. We'll have a little relief over there that will be that gray taupe color...so from a market perspective, the Chantmssen market is the perfect market for us. Our interior of our stores, once again to appeal to a more upscale environment. We use carpeting on our floors in the dining area. We have free standing movable chairs and tables to attract the more adult and more upscale clientele once we gotten to that. Our signage is red or subdued. We use either red letters or white letters. We prefer the red letm~ They're our standard. From a perspective of the drive thru, questions were asked, would our drive thru accommodate an RV van with towing a boat. Again, we've calculated the radius and the width of the drive thru. We not only provide for a drive thru lane but also a by-pass lane, which is different than our major competitors have done...in your village and they don't provide for a by-pass lane. So for that reason we will accomrrsadate the RV van with the boat. Some of our marketing, we like to Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 get involved in the community. To get involved in marketing. Local mar~g and advertising that supports civic activities such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Junior League clubs, different types. Perhaps there's a local promotion where you buy a hamburger, fries ami soda and perhaps we contribute so much money for each combination...purchased. What else? In terms of our menu board. There was a question about that last time as to the size and when we looked at your proposed new ordinance, sign ordinance, the size of our menu board that's located on the drive thru is actually smaller than what we could in theory have as a menu board. It's substantially smaller. I think you allow something like 8 feet in height and our's in about $1/2 feet in height. 1urij, you have a picture of it. In terms of stacking. We recommend 6 cars of stacking, and we do provide that on our site plan. 6 cars of stacking would actually bring you up to this area here. If for some reason, someone raised the question, what if your operations was absolutely awful. You had the worst day in Wendy's history, we could actually provide for another 12 cars up to this point. It's not ideal That is not something that we would propose would ever be the norm. We find that in our operations, 6 cars is more than enough for us. The drive thru is designed with having two windows. The reason for that is in a perfect operation situation we could accorrmmdate up to 4 cars every 5 minutes. Now that i~n't, in the business that we have, we'd like that business but we don't have that business. But if we were having a time demonstration to see how fast can you handle that type of a drive thru business, you conld handle it that fast. And the reason for that is it's a two step process. Some of you may be familiar with that...w have two drive thru windows. The first drive thru window you pay for your products. Say arder your product at the menu board, then you move to the next stage which is where you pay for. the product and then pick up your product at the second drive thru' window. What that does is it allows for faster movement of the vehicle process so you don't have someone at one window saying I'm ordering and then pay for it. I've got to look for my money. Get my wallet out and then also deal with the products so it's a three step and it mak~ that movement flow a lot easier. Jurij could address perhaps the design elements as to some of the materials and the look. Iurij Ozga: From the previous meeting we made revisions in our elevations. On each side we have taken off the doors and put in a side...Also we include a facia..2~g Market Boulevard. So this facia would be the same type that we have here and this is the...~ni.~h. It will be a copper finish with...hdck. Mancino: Oh, on the mansard part? Surij Ozga: Yes. Farmakes: The trim that we discussed last time, what color is the trim th~ we ~ last time? Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Jurij Ozga: The trim, I have changed as requested. A bronze. I've illuminated the red band. However, I would, it gets to be...not going with a red band, I would prefer to go with the burgundy which would tie into the shopping center. Farmakes: So it would be similar to the awnings? Jurij Ozga: Yes. Farrnakes: So it will be a combination of red. The green maim'iai, is that bronze and burgundy that's currently on thc Market Square I? Jurij Ozga: Correct Basically what would happen is we have that bronze parapet taking the reda ~ Scott: ...please go ahead. Sorry for the in--on. Farmakes: Thi~ is the bronze sample that you just showed? Jurij Ozga: Right. The red would be burgundy and then we have a beige. Fannakes: And then this would be burgundy? Surij Ozga: Ah yes. And the only red would be the letmrs. Farmakes: And the difference that we would see here is that this part of the sign would be... Mancino: And what's thc square footage of the signagc? Juri~ Ozga: The square foot of that sign is, let's see. It's about 24 square feet. Farmakes: I have a question. Did staff, when you discussed this issue and we talked, we had this discussion before...interpretafion of the word compafi~ty. It takas two directions that we've got. One is the same as and the other one is pieces out of adjacent buildings. I was wondering, obviously in discus.~ing colors, and say for this instance you're talking about picking up the trim. The style of the buildings are slightly different but you're picking up some of the colors. Gray for instance of the brick. Was the inumt of the ordinanc~ and I wasu't here at the time of the ordinance. Was the intent of the ordinance to replicate a development to the extent that you have an extension of that development when you're talking about the verbiage. The way that it's set up. That that's a good thing. I wasn't aware in our discussion the last time that this was going to come back. That the base color Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 was going to be gray and then the other buildings were going to be gray and so on. I was wondering what your thinking was on that direction. Motivation for that. Al-laff: Well as far as compatibility, I think what the ogdinallge was flying to get at is you won't have a Victorian building next to a modern building. You would have some element of compatibility in style, design, materials, As far as why it was changed, I believe that the materials, it was often said that during the last meeting that the quality of the materials weren't what you were looking for. Farmakes: I was talking about the coloration. Duplicating gray...That was staff's input or you came back with that or how? John: No. At our last public heating meeting, it was recommended by all of you that we were striving to blend the colors of Markrt ~lUare more than the other three colors and what was recked to us was to try to use m~__t,~fials and colors that would try to blend in, so it would blend in with the whole four corners, was the recommendation. And how that arose was when we showed you the colored picture of the Wendy's, so you could get an idea of... the members that were here liked the use of those ms__~ri_'sls in the building.. Farmakes: I guess the interpretation of the word ~ble. That's the hang up. John: I think they were trying to blend in color scheme and you made a few recommendations as to office buildings. About some other office building down the street. which is...down the street and so that's what we tried to incorporate into this, Vemelle Clayton: Probably the only documentation that would have for compatibility, it could be thc design of thc buildings that were designed and...at the time to be built on Lots 2 and 3. And take a look at them. Everything...interpremfion of design. But if you look at them, they aren't just like the shopping cenl~r for cxample. So that's the only thing of record that gives dues. Farmakrs: What I'm trying to ~ with my question is that the~'s really two ordinances that contain this. One is the one for the PUD and the~'s an overlay downtown co~t that deals with this also and I still haven't even set up in my own mind exactly what it means and what's best for Chanhassen in regards to how that's interpreuxl. Whether compatible means same qn_s_lity as. Same archil~x,-mml style as. Same color as. It seems to be kind of interpreted as we go along depending on which version of what developer comes in or how they feel to compete is going on that piece. In the future I think we should maybe clarify that a little bit because I think there's some confusion even in the interpretation of the city... Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Mancino: What does compatibility mean? Farmakes: Well I don't think it's bad that you have different types of architecture. It gives a city some flavor and the issue of compatibility is that there's obviously some thin~ that don't fit in at all. I don't think that's the issue here so don't hang on my comments but you can make a boring city that way. You can make a company town that way. It might look like a military thing where everything's the same color and everything looks the same exactly. You still can have differences in archi~mre and have them go together. Anyway. Scott: Do the commissioners require any other information from the applicants at this time? No? Al-$aff: There is one thing that was mentioned a few minutes ago when we...and that was in regard to the roof top equipment... Surij Oz§a: ...lining up our roof wp units with this treatment. And that's from the standpoint of proportion of how high we'd go with this type of treatment ancL..proper ventilation. The other option I have this option. We have... Scott: So the roof wp equipment would in essence 'be no higher than the wp of the dormer. Is that what you're saying? Judj Ozga: ...this is higher. It's above the roof top units. Scott: Say again please? Sc, om Oh okay. Thank you. A1-Jaff: With this option, thc roof wp equipment wonld be guaranteed to be screened. I questioned thc clevafion of Highway 5 in relationship, to this building and I don't have an answer for you. Mancino: Can we get a perspective. A simulated perspective. AI-Jaff: From TH 57 Mancino: Yeah, from Highway 5 to see exactly what we're going to see in both buildings. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Scott: Okay. Unfortunately that item was tabled. Mancino: At your TH 7 and TH 101 Wendy's you have a satellite dish on the top. Now would that work with the other roof treatment, because it needs ~o be open I assume to allow. Surij Ozga: Yes. That's another issue...This type of screening I have no problem. Mancino: So you're saying on ~ otl~r one. Surij Oz§a: See this one is, if the satrllite dish goes in, it would be visible. Mancino: But if we said you couldn't have anything that was visible, you couldn't put a satellite dish on there. Surij Ozga: Then you'd have to go with... Mancino: Is that even workable for you? Surij Ozga: A satellite dish. Mancino: Not having one. Surij Ozga: Well yeah. We'll have to go with a different type of music systmn. In other words, instead of having a satellite, we will have to have tapes...This would be no problem doing this... Farmslres: How do you wish to refer to those7 Are them option numbers on them? Jurij Ozga: Yeah, this is Option B. Farmakes: And Option A then would be the other. Scott: Any other comments? Okay, do we need any more information on the project7 No.. Great, thank you very much- This is a public hearing. If there arc other me~nbers of thc public who would like to comment on tiffs pmxicttlar proposal, please do so. And all wc ask is that you state your name and your address. Go ahead. Brad John.~n: Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier TraiL I just thought I would comment that one of the things that we've been woridng on on this comer for about 4 1/2 years is that we probably have a fast food type of a restaurant. We've got people from Dairy Queen, Taco 50 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Bell, which we turned down because of conflicting with somebody oise in our center. One of the reasons we were kind of excited about Wendy's, which has been just displayed, is they're flexible. We were really worried that materials and things like that they would not be able to meet any type of a criteria that you set. I think they've domons~ between last meeting and this meeting, they certainly have demonstrated to us throughout the entire process with them that they have the flexibility and are trying to fit into the community and so they're fulfilling that. I think you should give them some credit for that. The reason we have the two type of roof types simply is, there's at least one person on the HRA that sort of likes peaked roofs and we're not saying that's good or bad but I guess you did set a pre~xi~mt with the Byerly's. There is no...so we maybe don't need to them there but I think we're flexible. I think they pointed out that the row of air conditioning equipment, you know we have to... some place and the worst place to have them is on the ground because they look over at our building on the professional building where you have everything on the ground and you have to have a big screened in area off to the fight on the side of the building because you couldn't put it anyplace else .... and I'm also, the architec~..must have spent 4 or 5 days changing quickly the design. I've never seen a design change so dramatic~y as far as the office building is concerned. I think they've done a very good job of trying to meet the compatibility probably from quality...than Market Square simply because we're ~ng a brick. But I wanted to thank Wendy's for their efforts. Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission7 Harberts moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public he, a_ring. All voted, in favor and the. motion carried. The public hearing was closed. (Joe Scott's comments were distorted on thc tape and hard to understand.) Scott: Comments? Well I'll start. I'm just going to briefly reiterate some comments that I made last time. City of Chanhassen takes very seriously..~it's citizen committoes...spent quil~ a bit of time assisting us at the Planning Commission as well as the City Council in deum~ining how buildings, land use and so forth wilL..My particular feeling is that this item should be tabled until we get input from the 2002 people...So that's the extent of my comments. Anybody else? Ledvina: Sharmin, I had a question. Is there going to be a pylon sign? A1-Jaff: No. Ledvina: Okay. I didn't think so but I just wanted to make sure that wasn't the case becau~ I saw that in the photograph. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Al-$aff: Thc only sign they are ent/tled to would be identical to what is at Market Square fight now. There are two existing signs. A third one would have to be identical to it out there. And then they have the wall signs. Ledvina~ Okay. I just wanted to finish up my comments. In arum of the archimcagal options that we saw for Wendy's, I would support Option A, which was the one that was previously presented. It provides a bit more novelty to this type of building. I think it's a nice way of setting it apart. As far as the office building is concerned, I think that the improvements that have been made are pretty dramatic and I'm not an architect but I like what I see in terms of the changes that have been mRde. I think we're definitely going in the fight direction here so I would support thaL I guess that's the extent of my comments. Conrad: Sust two thoughts. One, I like the changes on the building, especially the comer building on Edina. I think that's attractive. Two, Joe I'm curious what you think that delaying for the Vision 2002 will accomplhh. Scott: Well I think the important part of it is, we have this group of individuals who have been tasked with giving us some input as to what they would like to see in the downtown area. There is, this is really the first real time specific application for that particular group.. I think it's, and I know that Mr. Gerhardt could speak to this as well as Mr. W'mg who have been involved. Is that I think that group has come along from the standpoint of being citizens who were not particularly clear as to what'their charter was, to now starting to form some sort of a cohesive group and this is a very significant location in the city. It basically, it's pretty much the center point, the focal point of our city at this point in time,, and I think that we should give them an opportunity to give us some input on, in a real time basis, prior to making a decision on this. I think it's a good oppartunity and we have _this group. I think we should gather some of their input as well, and that's my feeling on that particular issue. What we will get out of it I think is some citizen input and from people who aren't necessarily parts of commissions. Who don't necessarily have a vested interest in the property itseff and that's one of the things I was very clear at the first meeting that I was at with this group is that each table was asked to select a spokesperson but it couldn't be a member of city staff. It couldn't be anybody on a commission. They were very, very careful about getting people who have a fresh input and really don't know all that much about how things work. So those are my thoughts. Conrad: And because it's your opinion this land is, could be put to different use based on that input? Scott: Possibly. But I don't know what the input is. And they really have been asked. They've been asked, what are the boundaries of the central business district. They have put 52 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 together a statement of intent. That it has to do with being pedestrian friendly. To be something that enhances the quality of the central business dislrict but they really haven't been asked a specific question such as what do you think should be here. So this I think will give them an opportunity to ~ with something that is very, very specific. It's here and now and I thintr it's an excellent opportunity for that group of people to do that. Farmakes: Are you suggesting that the option is open to rezone the property? Scott: No. No. But I think it's an opportunity. There are a number of different uses that' are applicable to this particular propa~ and my thought is, is that this is. Farmakes: Other than what it's currently zoned for or what it's zoned for? Scott: What it's zoned for within the existing zoning. And I think it's a good oppommity for that group of people to give some input. And that's basically the extent of my comment on that. Public hearing has been closed. Vemelle Clayton: I unders~ but we didn't know this would be discussed. You were told that it should not be a consideration so I'd just like a chance to add a little bit on that. Scott: Well the public heating has been closed. Excuse me. I think we have an opportunity for some organized citizen input. I think we should take that opporlunity. Mancino: I have a question for you. A question for all of us. You're referring W the Highway 5 and we certainly did_ look at some zoning issues and land use issues on Highway 5. We did next to the Arboretum on the north side of TH 41. Or on the west side of TH 41 there and we sought to change some land use desi~ons. Farmakes: The point here made by the applicant, the point here made by city staff, as I understand it, is that the city has a perfonmnce contract, an obligation of which the zonement for this is in place. What exactly goes on there is somewhat flexible within that zonement. Whether or not it's a realty company or whether or not it's a video star~ Onrenfly under that agreement, as I understand it, that option is up to the whoever wishes tO rent it. Within the restrictions that we have for that PUD agreement. And it seems to me that if you envision that, as I said, it could be a hw firm or it could be a video stare. I'm not sure if this is an agreement that was made 5 1/'2 years ago. I'm not sure within that agreement that has been made, if not having been to those meetings flint you're talking about. I'm not, you know I've heard and read some things but I haven't been fortunate enough to be able to go to the 2002 Vision. But I'm not sure how much of that is up for. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Mancino: left, it hasn't been brought up to re, zoning. I mean that hasn't been a question. That hasn't been where the thinking is going at aLl, that I've heard in the Vision 2002. At this point. Farmakes: As I understand and as I, Ladd you were here when they got into thac The one question that I had and I was going to bring up in my comments was, you have a specific piece of property. That property is either considered one lot or it's considered two lots. From a developmental standpoint, ff you have a free standing building like you have now outside of the main b~ildi~g, where you have two lots. One is a permiued commemial use and the other is office retail. I'm not sure specifically if they could be interchanged or not in those lots in the agreement but versus putting one building on the whole piece of property. Or one development on the whole piece of property. I'm still not clear in my own min~ exactly what those options are on this developmental plan or whether or not that is an option to be looked at. If the city does not wish to pursue putting a fast food operation and they consider it not to be compatible with using the compatibility issue of downtown development, one of the two ordinances, what else goes there? What other free standing small amount of square footage is going to survive as a free standing bnildin§? If it's not a fast food and I'm having a hard time coming up with something that amount of square footage that's going to be viable as a destination. So that was my concern on just the general site plan. I had some other comments here. Sho~_fld I go through my comments or are we kind of jumping around back and forth but I don't know if you wanted to discuss that further. If that works into your concept issue of what that's being used for or not. Mancino: I don't have a use but I was going to say that if you didn't do fast food, you would certainly have a much bigger building thst you con~ld put there because you wouldn't need the drive thru, etc area. So that the building could be, whether it be a book store or something else that could go there. It could be a family restaurant. It wouldn't be fast food. You could do something like that. Go ~ Farmakes: Are those the things that are being discussed? Mancino: They haven't even started that specific yet. Conrad: And that's a little bit what won-les me. You know I don't think they're, that group. is looking at that and I guess I'm pan of that group. I wasn't there at the last meeting but I don't know that they're chammxi to go out and come back and say this is the type of retail we want on that northeast comer of Market Square, you know. They could say we want a library there. That's a different issue altogether but Wnight that's not an issue I thini: we're dea_ ling with. And therefore the issue is what's in front of you and if the task force and the City Council wants to propose not selling it back or offering more money, that's a different Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 issue than what we're looking at. We're looking at Market Square and what's peamimd. Farmakes: I would lza<! to agr~ with you on that. Conrad: You know. If I thought that that group was out the~ and spozifically thin.rig about this stuff, it might be worth while waiting for song input but I don't, you know, it's bees operating for 4 months or 6 months and I guess I just don't know that it's got this as an objective. That it's going to come in in 2 weeks so I guess I don't have, I'm going to close my comments on that one. I just don't think it's worth while postponing for that. Their input can come to thc City Cotmcil but I think wc should matt to what's in front of us tonight. Harbea'ts: I have a technical quexdon for staff. Since this is going to be, I don't know what thc word is. From Ouflot A inw Lot 1, Block 1. Changed I guess. Is the h'upcrvious surfa~ guidelines still being met7 I don't know if, I reviewed the numbem. Do they exce~ 70%? Since it's moving into a lot. You know docs that change it? Al-Jaff: It's a PUD. It doesn't have a hard surface coverage. Harberts: Minimum or maximum? ALia.fi: Minimum or maximum. Harberts: Okay. Just wondered. Mancino: Going back to Ladd's question. Todd, can you talk to what the Vision 2002, what their mandate is and what to come up with. Will they be addressing this particular cmner? And do a site analysis of it. Is that part of what thc Hoisington Group is going to be doing with that committee7 Gerhardt: The meeting that's coming up in Mamh, it's the ad hoc committee. ~y when the larger Vision 2002 group gets togeth~ will be in April The ad hoc committ~ was trying. to narrow down more a vision staterncat for what the downtown really consists of. And what the Vision 2002 group were going to do, and still will do, is to take any vacant land and say this is what would be appropfiatr for that land. But you know as pieces com~ in and develop you know holding up dovelopments for that, I don't think we got into legal issues so. But we were going to do some visual elememts on the vacant pieces of land. Proposed stop lights and that. Manoino: If this were vacant, would this be one of those comers that you would do some Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 plnnning on? Mancino: Okay. Is thc City Council open to any sort of moratorium to wait for this? Gerhardt: I don't feel comfortable talking for the City Council. I think thc direction that Sharmin and Kate have given you on this, to review it and try to make a decision on what you've got and move with it. If that is that you can't make a dechion, pass it onto Council. I mean we have to go through thc process with this. Farmakes: It would seem to me that if we have this con~racp,al agreement to be inmprcted, whatever is interpreted between city's lawyers and who the contract is with, that that's out of our hands. That they have whatever options that they wish to use to control the protmrW, that's really not for us to comment on. Scott: Well thc question was asked what the City Council's position is and wc have Conndlnmn Wing here. ff you'd like to give us some input, we'd certainly appreciate it. Councilman Wing: At this point I wouldn't even be .willing to offer my own personal .. opinion. Scott: Thank you for that input. Harberts: Let me just kind of add a couple of comments. You know personally I sit here and I recognize the principles or the vision that's trying to be established for the city, which I support with regard to being pedestrian orienled. And I think that this piece of land would certainly benefit the conununity in some way but when I look at again the charge that we have before us tonight, in terms of what our role is, I would have to, this is what we're here to do wnight. I offer my comrncn~ that I like the color schemes. The blending. I have a- real tough problem yet with thc ciroflafion. Traffic pattern dwulafion. I think it's mo fight. I deal with circulation in my job day to day and I'm just not very comfortable with it and that's really the only piece that I'm uncomfortable. I think it would be a good draw for the mall It's a mall fight? Shopping center, thank you. I think it would ~y enhance the viabih'ty. It would certs__inly in a sense be attractive to members of the community in terms of the goods that will be offered. You know with regards to ~ ~on, I guess I'm just uncomfortable because I don't know what would be in that o/fice/commerchl site. We could have something that would be in demand for uaffic at the same peak time perhaps as Wendy's. Maybe that's an assumption. That's what I'm uncomfortable with with regard to traffic. That's basically my comments. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 199,$ Scott: Do you have a suggestion as to how to ease that issue or just making a smmnent? Harberts: I'm just making a statement. Again, I definitely support what you're saying ~oe with regard to you know, how many opportuniti~ do v~ let go in tm'ms of trying to stmcun~ things or plan things that would really compliment the community. But I think we have an obligation to, I think it was said earlier. This is a bonafide site plan and our purpose is to look at this bonafide site plan. The frustration comes in with, Nancy you're fight, with regard to planning. But I guess looking at the con/eat of this, I guess I'm just having a wugh Scott: Any other comments7 Farmolres: I'd like to make some commenm First comment would be, I don't have a problem with us discussing detail or even outside of the ordinance. Some of these issues that we have discussed in the last, previous meeting and this meeting. Where I expand my comments I think or my comnm~t base is if the city owns the property or the city has an interest, I feel an obligation to go as far as I can, even up to including getting my hands slapped. Getting into areas that are inappropriate outside of those that are legaL.But I do feel that if this was a straight application coming in and met the ordinancos. For instant~ I use an. example of a building I didn't like, the Rapid Oil Change over there. That wasn't a PUD. It met the ordinances. It virtually you couldn't oppose it even though you didn't lilr¢ it. I don't think it was an asset to the community that that went up but there was nothing that could be done about it. These type of developments are differ birds I think ond it seem_ s to me an obligation of what we're doing here is that we represent the community in this situation. Or we try to. In trying w enhance what is put in~ Now whether or not we get it or not, I think we're part of the overall equation of that. Whether city staff negotiates that or City Coundl does, I think that we need to put in that input. The final decidon does not rest with us and if it doesn't go outside of the legal contract or obligation, and particular when a community is in financial parm~hip, I think we should...as far as we can to have input into that. And I'll use an example of what we receive out of that. I think that we got a better building out of Target because of that. I think that we've gotten a better building here .than we're starting with. Than what we had and I think our commnnity benefits from that. You know going back to this specific building, because I know we have other business to do here. I'm just- going to critique these buildings as I see them. I'll start out with the Wendy's. I prefer Option A as it looks and I'm not sure that we should be doing the same color schemes for all these free stale_ding buildings. I'm concerned, and have been concerned for quite a while that our interpretation of compatibility not be looked at the same as. That we wind up with 3 blocks of gray buildings or that it be interpreled as an extension with absolutely the same architectural details and so on and I can understand where some of the app~ts, they get confused with what we're talking about and how we treat that. I don't have a problem when 57 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 I look at thc quality of thc building, say thc Chanhas~n Bank, or thc Country Suites and so on. Thosc arc dissimilar architcctural styles. I sec, wh~ I sec thc word personally of compatibility, I see qo_s_~ity of building. Cost per square foot and so on. If something is made, if it weren't plastic, it may have the square foot cost but it really doesn't belong I think in the downwwn area. So it's somewhat a gray area and subject to interpretation and it's hard to put into an ordinance. But I'd like for Wendy's, this seems to me to be a nice Wendy's. I ~ it's pretty compatible. It's pretty modem in how it's being proposed. Whether or not a fast food type operation goes there I think is something left up to the Vis/on 2000 or the City Council or whether or not they want to see that there. I'm not convinced that that shouldn't go more over by CR 17 and TH/i. However, I don't apply the same importance to that piece of property as I do to the office ~ section. I think that that area is pretty pivotable and screened somewhat, if particular screening of the mall area from whatever thc city does with the block The city park area across the way here that they're looking at doing. In looking at the offi~ retail section, I would be concerned about a couple things. One would be the window display areas and how that's enhanced. I would not be adverse to allowing the applicant to have some display to the south elevation where the parking is. That's turned inW the parking lot area and that type of flexibility is a good thing for retail as long as it's a moderate amount, or even allowing to put a stack of hair care bottles or something up by the front if they're a hair care place or something. It gives them. some flexibility and it is a commercial area. I am concerned how that would be abused however on the area north. Or it would be the elevation to the north and to the east in particular. There is no really traffic coming in from that direction so it's not as if you're stopping...coming by or walking along the side of the building and they're going to come in. As I interpret the traffic pattern, there is none there. That I can see along 78th to the east of Market Boulevard. The ~raffic and access would be from the south. Now I don't know if you want to entertain something like that or if you're banning it overall but as I said before...14 foot display. I'm not ~ring to be anti business there. What I'm uying to do is achieve what we're looking for, for a moderate amount of signage that fits into what we're doing overall in downwwn and allowing flexibility to retailers without letting it get overboard. Where it ~rashes up the s~xeet are~ I think that the quality of the bnilding that we've seen come back is an improvement. Quality of the materials and so on. Somewhat in looking at it, I think that it probably fits the bill of some of what we've talked about. I personally think that they get buildings Wo linear and too long but it does incorparate some -. of the things that we've talked about and the window treatments of some of the materials. Fsiling that, or just looking at the building as it is, the wainscoting that comes down below with that brick, I'd like to see some houndstooth limesWne or something that incorporates in some of the other elements that would be going in downwwn. The window treatments I think are a major improvement over what they were .... and so on and that sort of thing. That does give it some character. The long linear area at the top of the roof is what I'm talking about. It's just a total, there's nothing breaking it up but the problem of critiquing these type of Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 things and the applicant hearing that critique is that they start out with a building. They hear critiques so they move a couple things around and then another committee says, well move this or add this here. Pretty soon you wind up with a willoby of a building. What I was hoping to see or hoping to pass on, and I don't know if I would hold this up for that, but what I would like to pass on to the City Council is that they con,iaer, discuss with the lIRA a building of some architectural merit there. That goes beyond that. A comme~-fi~ what you'd expect to see with the retail but you do see it with sorm business office type buildings. It, to me perhaps is getting away from the overall zone flexibility offered in that contract and I'm not a hwyer and I'm not going to discuss that any more than that. I think that's something for the Council to look at seriously. Whether or not as owners of the land that's what they would like to see. Looking at this solely as a rrmJl, this is an improvement over what we've seen. I don't know if it's maximized the potential of what it could be. Mancino: left, can I ask you a question just so I'm understanding what you're saying. And that is, would you like to see it, one of the best quality architrcumd buiktings that I think we have in the city is the (21mnhassen Bank and it has a very contemporary architrcmml feel to..._.. me. Do you. Famudrcs: The question is, would I like to sec that th~? Mancino: No. Or this more contemporary. Having more contemporary. Farmakes: No. It's not the style of archilrclxu-e. I go back to comt)atibility and I don't think we should get into that can of wormg where we say that this should be a Oeor~ building here because I ha~ to like that. I'm looking at this, I'm seeing this incorpora~ some of the things in general terms of architectural discussion that we talked about. It has some shading, some delailing. It uses a betl~r quality of m~___t~_'a_ls than wood clapboard. And I think that when you build a city, 100 years ago you used to come by. The buildings were all made of wood...city developing and if you came by and it's made of brick You know our great grandfathers came by and they built buildings with brick like our church down hem because that ~t something. That ~t that was peamanent. It was, you know you built a brick house for you wife, that me~t something. And in loo_king at some of these things and look at the commercial aspects that are involved with this, that's a whole sepamtr game from what I think sorr~ of the things we're looking for here. We're looking to build a city that's going to be here a while and that's different from what's trying to be achieved from the applicant. They're looking for a successful commemial building. They're going to have flexibility. They're going to rent to a trnant that's going to be in and maybe out in 3 to 5 years and so somewhere in the middle there is, it seems to me fxom experience here, is what will go up there. The question is, how you can critique it. Thi~ is a specific plan or you could say show me another building. I haptx~ to feel that maybe we could get, maybe look 59 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 at another concept on that particular...but I'm comfortable with pas~ng this on and le~ing that discussion take place at the city level because it seems to me the comment that Ladd made is correcL This is part of a PUD that's been in place for ~ 1/2 years and there already is some commitments laid out here and how those are hashed out, it seems to me maybe it should be hashed out with the owners of the ~ and thc applicant. Of how th~ wish to pursue that. Mancino: So you don't see it our respongibility. You want to see a second rendering of the different style building, doing it here. F~: I would recommend that but I would not, I think that this issue of this app~on, the fact that it's an old zonement and an old agreement, that that should be probably dealt with first as to what direction we should get back from that. I would recommend that the city make that as part of their discussion of what type of quality building they want to see there and I think that if the flexibility that it's going to be commerd~ is not good enough. It's going to be bu~ness retail or retail business, that that flexibility's going .to be there. If it's goin§ to be more retail, you're §oin§ to have less of a square foot because you're not §oin§ w get retail in there that's paying $1,000.00 a square foot for rental space. So those are hard questions to ask and we can sit here and discuss whether or not we're getting. houndstooth brick or flat brick or something, that's a little bit more detailed than the fundamental question that's out there. Sco~ Ron, do you have a comment? Nutting: Were there any bets as to when I'd say my first words? Scott: You're on the spot now. Nutting: I haven't had the benefit of the pm~ous discussions and I can't say whether this looks better than thc last time. I do like Option A better than Option B. I think the issue, echoed by Ladd and Diane and I'm hearing it in different pieces and different approaches of philosophies but I think we need to deal with what's he~ on the table as opposed to deferring to the Vision 2002 and looking for something that may not be out there. For some period of time. We've got to deal with what's on the table. Scott: I think we've heard from everybody. You're welcome to rnak~ the. Mancino: I just have one last comment, and it's not a big deal This is for Vision 2002. Thig is for HRA. This is for City Council And I won't, and I couldn't articulate as well as Serf just did so I agree with him on the office retail building. I would love to see a second Planning Commisdon Meeting - March 2, 1994 option and see actually different architectural options for that building. On the fast food, the Wendy's. I think Wendy's has been just great. I don't feel that the traffic ckodafion is worked out. I just don't see a drive up window or a fast food being there for land use purposes. I tblnk we'll have ~ ~ problems there so I am not for that at all Scott: Okay. Can we have a motion? Ledvina: I'll give it a shot here. I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the site plan for the Edina Realty and Wendy's Case No. 89-2 PUD as shown on the site plans dated ~ber 6th. Well that's not correct Can you help me with that Sharmin? Al-laff: The date is March 2, 1994. Ledvina: Okay, dated March 2, 1994 subject to the conditions identified in the staff report with the following additions. Adding number 7(e) as it relates to the signage. The cost for relocation of the utility boxes for signage shall be paid by the applicant. Adding a 7(0. No wall signage shall occur ovcr thc pitched roof elcment of the office retail bu/ldin§. Adding 7(g). No window signage is allowed for the north and east frontage of the office retail buildinE. And the rest of the conditions as per the staff report. Famutke~: Can I m~ke_, an amendment on 9? Ledvina: Sure. Farmakes: To the last one on 9. South elevation of Wendy's building shall incaqxgate metal trim and... Can we incorporate the trim as specified in the notes by the applicant for the buildings. I believe it's bronze... Ledvina: Okay. I would also revise number 9. The last point of number 9. South elevation of the Wendy's building shall incorporate the trim com~. nents as discussed in the meeting this evening. Scott: And I just want to ask you a question. Do you want to specify which roof option, A or B? Ledvina: Well we could do that certainly. Scott: No, that's up to you. Ledvina: Well okay. And adding a condition 17. Identifying the pre~ for Option A as 61 P/a~ning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 it relates to the architecuge for the Wendy's building. Scott: Can I have a second? Conrad: Second. Scott: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we accept the slaff report with the. Famudr~: Can I ask a question of Ladd before we vote? Scott I was going to say, just make it part of the discussion. But you can tnke. it now. Farmakes: If we forward this or approve this as it is, based on the recommendation, how do we add to it some of the issues that I ~ about in discussion? Do we make that part of the ordinance? Do we do that as a separate issue? Conrad: I think you make the motion and then you add on some comments. Direction that you give staff to communicate. Farmakes: Do we do that as a scpara~ motion then? Conrad: You could do it as a motion or just as a footnote. I guess what you're trying to do is make it a significant comment, so however you want to do thag Farmakes: Well I do think that there's some si~nificant things that have to be answered here from the Council in direction. We can evaluate this plan and I'm not quite sure how I'm going to vote on this just yet. I'm racing in my mind__ Philosophically I'm not sure if we're going beyond what the contractual agreement is on that if they develop that at that use. As that use. So I've read the lawyer's interpretation of where that property is at. I'm not sure it quite answers my question other than to say who owns the ~. And it kind of seems to me that that's an answer that has to come back down if we want to get into further discussion or...somethiug that we're not seeing at this point. Scott: Is that the discussion of the motion? Is that acceptable? I should say it's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff report recommendation with the conditions as so stated. Is there any additional discussion7 Mancino: So everybody's willing to accept the ~ circtdation? Farmakes: I was willing to support your motion of revi~ng the traffic issue. I'm not sure if 62 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 I have enough expertise to know what the alteaamtiv¢ is. Mandno: I just know it doesn't work the way it is and I wouldn't pass it the way it is. Ledvina: Do you want to add a friendly amendment to stipulation resolution of the u'affic circulation? I ~ you're delegating that, if you. Mancino: Well my recommendation would be to not have the drive up window and not have the problem with the traffic circulation because they tried it 2 or 3 different ways already and unless they can come up with, I don't know how. So my recormnendafion would be not having a drive up window. Sco~ Would you accept that as? Ledvinm No, I wouldn't accept that. Call the question. Scott: All those in favor of the motion si~iey by saying aye? Could we have a roll call vote on thc aye's please. Farmakes: Before, I didn't hear the. Mancino: He would not accept the friendly amendment. Farmakes: So it's parking as it stands now. Scott: With drive up. We can just have a show of hands so we can get it on the public Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Co~mi~fion reconnnend to approve the Site for Edina Realty and Wendy's (#89-2 PUD) as shown on the site plan dated March 2, 1994 as amended. Ledvina, Conrad and Nutting voted in favor. The rest opposed. The motion failed with a vote of :3 to 4. Scott: The motion does not pass, 4 to 3. Harberts: I just want to go on record, my problem is the trat~ pattra'm So that's what my problem is. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Scott: So, I'd like for another motion please. Harberts: Well, I don't know. Do we need another motion or does it just go to City Council? Sc, oR: It goes to City Council, okay. Conrad: No, no. Thc motion failed. We need a motion that passes. Scott: Okay. A motion please. Harberts: I'll make a motion that we deny the Site Plan Review and Subdivision application for the purpose of consuucfing a Wendy's and an office retail bnilding based on traffic pattern configuration needs to be improved. I think we're setting ourselves up for a big Scott: Well I won't make a motion hem. Are we looldng, perhaps would we do something that is very surgical as that we, the Planning C. owmis~ion denies this particular application. It will then go to the City Council and then the application can follow the issue. Does that work? Fannakes: That's fine with me. Mancino: It works with me. Scorn Okay. Can I have a motion please? Harbcrts: I think I did. Scott: Well, do it again. Mancino: I heard that we deny. Hartm'ts: Well I move that we deny the application for the purpose of cons~g a Wendy's and an officc rclail building bascd on the site plan presented and I'm qualifying that by saying, I have a, I'm very uncomfortable with the traffic patta~ That's what my key clcment is. Scott: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Farmakes: Should we add our other concerns ~o that? In the form of a communication or? Sc, om I think that'd be appropria~ ff we're recommending denial based upon these issues. That's direction to city staff and the app~t as well as to the City Council. Mancino: And I would just add to tha~ to Diane, to clm'ify created by I think the drive up window. Harberts: Well and I don't know. I couldn't agree to the drive up window because is there an opportunity to reconfigure or reduce or something that could still incorpora~ the drive up window but it's the access points. Mancino: I'm just saying fight now it's ~xeami by that Now whether they. Harbcrts: Well I don't know if that's true or not. Mancino: Oh, okay. Harberts: I don't know if that's true. I'm just looking at the, I reco~oni~,e from staff's perspective, lining exits up. Entrances up but I just think, that was my previous comment at the last meeting that I just thought there was too much going on in fl~at small area and so I'm just, that's why I move denial. And as I said, I cemidy support what's being proposed but it's just the traffic patterns. Scott: Okay. i~-Jaff: Could we throw a suggestion out here? Dave just sugg~ that maybe what we could do is. Sco~ No. I think what we'll do is let's vote on this motion and we'll move it alonE. I don't think we can be traffic experts in 15 seconds. So would you mind restating your motion please. At least for me, if for no one else. Har~: I move denial of thc site plan and subdivision application for purposes of constructing a Wendy's and an o~c~ retail building and F m qualifying that motion based on I'm very uncomfortable with the traffic paliem circulation. And I'll see ff there's a second and then I'll add some discusdon. Scott: Okay. h's been moved that we deny the site plan. Is there a second? 65 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Farmakes: I'd like to add to that motion if I could_ A couple of the issues that I think should be added to that for response fi'om City Counail. The issue of should that property - have one or two buildings on it. Should the issue of fast food area coming into the downtown, on 78th and Market. Is that the correct position for that sort of thing. The other is the quality of the building architecturally on the corner of Market and 78th. At what level does that leave retail and enter business use and the viability of that to the Market Square developnx~nt. Mancino: I second. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we deny the site plan due to traffic circulation. The question of whether or two buildings should be on the site. Whether fast food should be located there. Architecv. nal quality and then a feeling of not being quite sure when it's retail and when it's commewiaL As to exactly what the use of that property is going to be. You could probably do a better. Farmakes: I think that says it. If you're looking for clarification. I think that it needs to be clarified in discussion. There's a point where they leave viability. Where it's no longer viable as a retail. They can't rent out the spaces for that. And it becomes an office building. Are we looking for more architectm'e. In other words, they're going to pay more for square foot for it. It seems to me that that's sometl~g that has to be harangued between the owner of the property and the person who's putting up the bnilding. And I'm not sure we have the... Scott: Okay. SO it's been moved and seconded and discuss/on. I'll open discussion. Hadnxts: My unders~g is that the applicant will have the oppanunity to perhaps work with staff and lake a new suggestion, a new plan for traffic circulation to the Council. Scott: Correct. They can, that will be following their issue. Any other discussion7 Okay, can I have a motion to close discussion please7 Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to d~e discussion. Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commlnsi_*on ra:o~d denial of the Site Plan for Edina Realty and Wendy's (#89.2 PUD) as shown on the gte plan dated March 2, 1994 due to poor traffic circulati~ whether there should be one or two buildings on that site, archite(~u~ and retail and comrr~rcial use questions. Ali voted in favor of the motion, except Conrad, Ledvina and Nutting who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to :3. Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Scott: Okay. The sit~ plan has been denied. This goes to the City CounciL ,al-la:fi: On the 14th. Scott: 14th? Perhaps that's not enough time for the applicant. Al-Jaff: Well Vemelle... Vemelle CLayton: That's plenty of time. Aanenson: There's still another. Scott: I'm sorry, you're right. The ouflot. The replat of Ouflot A, Market Square w Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square 2nd Addition- 41,193 square foot lot. Mancino: How does that happen? What do we do with this? Scott: Yeah, is this one from column A and one from column B? Are they both a package? I would think if we denied number 1, that acting on number 2. Aanenson: They're making a fmvrml replat so you have so many days to process tha~ application... Scott: Okay. Is this something that we can make a motion on right now? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the replat of Outlot A, Market Square to Lot 1, Block 1, Mazket Square 2nd Addition as shown on the plat subject to the conditions identified in the staff report. Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is the~ any discusdon? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the replat of Outlot A, Market S~mre to Lot 1, Block 1, Market Square 2nd Addition, as shown on the plat with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedica~on fees shall be paid at the time building permits arc requested. 2. Provide the following easements: Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the pcrimemr of the lot. b. Cross access easements need to be provided over the northeasterly driveway. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: I don't think I understand what you just did. Does that have anything to do with if you want to put one building on both lots? I mean let's say the City Council decides they want, well it doesn't matter. They can change it anyway. Scott: Yeah, the only comment I would have is if the most important of the two is obviously number one and ff denial of number one mak~ our approval of number 2 insignificant for some reason, which may be that's what happened, I think the direction is, thc only reason we had acted upon this is that your suggestion. Harberts: And I had underswod that it was kind of an odmini.~aative oversight. Aanenson: The first time. Scott: But this in no way should lessen the ~ of our action on the first item. I don't know how it would but. Al-Jaff: When you approve the subdividon, now if you wanted one building on both sites, you're going to have to replat this into a single lot. Mancino: Okay than I don't, excuse me ! withdraw my. I won't. Audience: Too late. Vcrnelle Clayton: This already is two parcels. You're just...the one. Harberts: I think we've made the motion and it's been seconded and it's passed. Mancino: I was just getting clarification on what we did pass. Harberts: I think it moves up to the Council at this point. Scott: Yeah, correct Let's take a 5 minute break. AM a)M rr TO crrv sI s $ .Cl OS. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Scott: So what we'll be doing is dealing with our sign ordinance at our next meeting. Okay. In 2 weeks. PUBLIC HEARING: KENNETH DURR FOR A PRELIMINARY IR, AT TO SUBDIVIDE 19.7 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT ~ SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF I~IGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY~ M]NNEWASHTA LANDINGS. Public Present: Name Address Gary Carlson 3831 Mary Colleran 6560 Kevin Ellswor~ 9601 Tom Wright 3611 Zoe Bros 6631 Donna Hoelke 3621 ~,nn Zweig 3601 Steve Emrnings 6350 Rick Sathre West 62nd Street Minnewashta Parkway Ironwood 1V[innewashta Parkway Ironwood Road Ironwood Road ~hriar Avenue 150 So. Broadway, Wayzata Applicant Kau~ Aanenson presen~l the staff report on this iron. Scott: Okay, questions or co--ts for staff. Hattm'ts: Did those green things. Aaneuson: Thc islands. Harbcrts: Yeah, thanks. It's bee~ a long day. Are all three of them proposed, or four. Four proposed to save significant trees? Ail of them? Or some of them just decorative. Aanenson: I'll let Rick answer that. Rick Sathre: When I speak I'll answer your questions. Unless you're really want~l to know. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Harberts: Oh, tell me now. Thank you. Rick Sathre: At the entrance we had saved a spruce uee in the island. The other islands would be to add greenery that isn't there. Harberts: Oh, so that would be decorative? Rick Sathre: Yeah. Harberts: Oh, I thought I was reading a mup~ ~e. Aanenson: The first entrance will save trees. Rick Sathre: There's a uice spruce tree here. Mancino: I'll ask landscaping questions. I think there's a lot that isn't here that we normslly do get on a landscape. Scott: That we need. Mancino: That I don't feel comfortable passing without getting it. Aanenson: I think what Rick and I talked about is these people have been waiting a long time. Before Rick goes through it, maybe give them an oPlX~Unity to speak. Scott; Okay. Because he'll want to take their comments into consideration- Okay. Are there any other questions or comments for ~ Farmakes: The issue that you raised on the cul-de-sac as Ouflot B? Currently it shows, it kind of looks like it shows like there's a road them currently. That it meets up on another adjacent piece of property. Aanenson: Right That's where the exis~ Ironwood is fight now. There's four homes off of that private drive. What we're saying is that these homes will now have access through this subdivision and ~is will be incorporat~:l into their plat. Rick Sathre: Plus a new driveway. Farmakes: That was my question. Does it meet up then with an existing road? 7O Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Rick Sathre: Yes. That wad is existing. Aanenson: Well it's a private drive. Rick Sathre: On this drive, this is a new driveway that ties into the existing driveway through to the homes of these people. Farmakes: That is a private drive then to the adjacent piece of pinta,? Aanenson: Yes. Rick Sathre: They own, yes. It is a private drive now that would be rerouted. Fanva~es: Is that also a single entrance? Do they have access? Aaneuson: They direct access onto Highway ?. Scott: Yeah, now. Aanenson: Right now. Through this we're brining two subdivisions getting over to the light, eventual light on Minnewashta ~y. Farmakes: So that then would meet our side ardinance then? Scott: No. Aanenson: Well what we're saying. Scott: Yeah, it's 900 and some feet. Farwairea: Well but they'll have two Aanenson: No. Scott: Ironwood is going to be vacamd and then the 4 homes to the west, or to the east, their only access, ingress and egress will be corning through what's called Outlot B out to Minncwashta so they're going to lose their direct access to Highway 7. Mancino: So it's going to be along culMe-sac. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 $co~ Yeah, I think it's 953 feet or something. I don't know what it is but it's. Aanenson: It's 1,320. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Kate, can any of those houses, those 4 houses. I walked over there. It's wonderful, lovely area. Can any of them ~ subdivide so that there would be more than 4 houses over there? Aanenson: I think all of the lots... Mancino: That would be my concern. Aanenson: The other issue right now, you'd have to amend the city orcUnance ~ th~'re still kind of off of a private drive issue...so you only have 4 homes off of that pHvalr drive so that's kind of... Scott: Any other cormnents or questions for Farwsires: Do we use the criteria then, as I uudersumd in reading the report, that the criteria then for a vm'iance? Aanenson: For a cul-de-sac length? Farmakes: Yes. Aanenson: There isn't, we looked at recommendation for 600 or 700 feet and there isn't anything in the ordinance. What we do is rely on the Fire Marshal's review of that. Farmakes: Okay. I thought we had 600 feet or something. Scott: We did. Fammkes: It never did pass? Scott: We passed it onto thc City CoundL I remember it well. That was like the first meeting in January. 72 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Farmakes: It was acumlly an existing ordinance, wasn't it? Farmakes: But I think the old one was never passed onto Council, was it? Conrad: No, the 600 was there. Sco~ We passed it on. Conrad: But then I thought we changed it. Mancino: I do too. I don't think we ever came to a conclusion. Famuflces: Well I still; it would not qualify, if we did not pass the ordinance, it would q,_,slify as a variance. Aanenson: I don't think there's a requirement of a minimum right now. Or maximum, excuse me. We Iry to tie them up when we can...and it works well Provide a safer entrance. Mancino: Than off of Highway 7. Fro'makes: Well yeah. It has criteria that the normal development doesn't. It's a highway boxed on one side and a lake on another. If we passed that for that reason, I guess F d like to know that there's criteria for that. Although it might not be an official variance but there is a public safety issue either way. Scott: Well I know that was our major concern at the meeting where we discussed the variance, or discussed the ordinance shortening the maximum for cul-de-sacs. Are there additional co~ts or questions for staff at this time7 Seeing none, would the applicant or their representative care to speak, and please identify yourseff. Rick Sathre: Yes Chaimmn Scott, I'm Rick Sathre. I'm an en~neer and planner with Sathre-B~t in Wayzata. I'd lik,-, to hold my comments and let the neighbom speak first because then maybe they can go home. And I'm going to be here anyway so if you don't mind, I'd defer to them first and then 1'11 come back and I've {lot a few conuuents. Scott: Sure, that's fine. Then what we'll do is we'll open the public hearing. Can I have a 73 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 motion to do so please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearin~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was open. Scott: At this late hour we're going to be using Bob's Rules of Order so the public hearing is not open. Please state your name and if anyone would like to address us, please do. Tom Wright: My name is Tom Wright. I live at 3611 Ironwood Road. I'm one of the four homeowners. We've got two others here this evening. We've met with Rick sncl Ken Durra couple of times ~nce this project has evolved. I think we've looked at it pretty carefully. One of our concerns has been the access onto Highway 7. We've been pretty happy the way we are with a private road but there's always been the concern on the access to Highway 7. This c 'luninates that concern. There's a lot of very positive things about this development. Maybe first choice for us would be to leave thc land raw as it is but that's not going to happen. Second choice, the way this lays out is, and they can speak for themselves, but us I think we're all generally very supportive of it. We like the way it lays out. We like the landscaping that's been done. We like the effect that it has on the overall environment so we are supportive. We know a change of our access over to Minnewashta Parkway, we thinir on balance that's a plus and so that's my comments. Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Donna Hoelke: My name is Donna Hoelke. I live at 3621 Ironwood Road with my husband Dave who had to leave. A couple of comments and then a question for the Commission. First I'd like to echo the things that Tom said. That we are, inasmuch as we'd probably like to leave the land as it is, if we are going to have a development that this by and large this looks like a good layout for us. One of the concerns that we have, we're on the first ~ here on the east side of the development. Our property goes on Lot 8, 9, 10 and 11. We're 450 feet deep there. Ckurently as we understand it, there's no ordinance through the City of Chanhass~ which would preclude where building a home would be in relation to our's. Our home is about midway in our lot which would put us about here. If a home on Lot 8 is built at the 7/i foot setback, that's going w, as far as we're concerned, that has a pretty big impact on our panoramic view of the lake. We bought the home undcrslanding that the land would eventually be developed but I know at least in our neighborhood, as each of the homes were built, there was a lot of care taken in not obsmicfin§ the existing home's views. There are other cities in the area, Minnctrista has city ordinances that says you can put a home up, you have to build it at least equal or behind any existing homes. So I know that's something we've expressed to Ken and I don't know where he's gone with that but that's a serious concern of our's. We bought the home and enjoy the view and would like to maintain that. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 The other concern that wc had, wc think about this development and the question I wanted to pose to thc commission is, what is the responsibility of the commission to insure the environmental impacts of this on the lake. I hea~ a lot of discussions tonight about whether there's going to be 3 trees or 5 trees in a parking lot and what the window coverings are going to look like and I've looked at the lake and the quality of life that it provides to my family and the community and how do you insure that there's not a big impact to the ecosystem and the whole quality of the lake. Scott: Well I think, and I'll take a stab at this and I know one of our en~neefing staff is here. Is that there's a couple of things and I believe it has to do with our surface water management policy which is something that is pretty far ahead of what a lot of other cities do. Not all but most. One of the items is a setback from the lalcc. Obviously because of an impervious surface such as a driveway or something, we want to make sure that there's ample vegetation inbetwecn the pr~ and the lake so that we don't have a runoff problem or an erosion problem. The second thing is that you'll notice that there are several retention ponds on the property which are basically desi~ to convey runoff from these hnpe~ous surfaces and as Director Aanenson was mentioning, conveying that runoff into the street through st~-n sewers to those ponds and then the purpose of those ponds is basically to settle out any particular matter, phosphate reduction and so forth. Also, in a lot of cases we try to preserve as much vegetation as we can because obviously that has a positive impact And I'm sure I have left out some other issues and items if you'd care to amp~ on the ones that I've touched on. Hcn-q~l: ...covered quite a bit of it. I'll just add a little bit more on the water quality aspect of it with these settl~t ponds which are proposed. We're looking at altering now msybe further as pan of our surface water manager plan_.designed for wat~ quality around the state. That we are nearing approval here in March... Harberts: Didn't (3mnhassen Dave, kind of were the role models or really led the cause with regard to that what the State is looldng at? Wasn't Paul? Helr~l: Yeah, the City of Eagan has now already entered into it but we're. Harbens: But we were really out ahead of the curve on this one. Hcmpel: Right. That's~ Harberts: So we've talked about this a lot so and I know Paul was involved quite extensively. But it certainly is an issue that we're all very sensitive to so you ceminiy raise a good point. 75 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Scott: Kate is there, I mean I don't have my code book in front of me but is there anything on our books that has to do with having similar or equal setbacks of adjoining residen~ properties? Aanenson: No, we don't. Donna Hoelke: Do you know if there's been any precedence set in Chanhassen? I know there have been in surrounding conm~unities. Aanenson: No. Mancino: So what are the setbacks that this development has to abide by? Scott: Well there's 75 feet. Aanenson: What you have to realize, is what we were just talking about with some of/hese lots along this southern s/de. They've got that steep slope and we're already w/lng to get them up higher. Push them closer to the street so we have that positive grade to get them into the storm sewer system. That's a tough lot as far as development in itself. Donna Hoelke: To that extent I mean, these homes down here would have no i ,mpact It would not be obslructing our view. It's really Lot 8 and probably to a lesser extent Lot 7. And should this really be two lots or should it be one lot. What can be done for placement of the home... Scott: I guess for the benefit of the Planning Commissioners, could you kind of point to where your home is. It looks like that white spot on the right hand side is pretty much your lot? Donna Hoelke: Yeah. Well, I think Lot 8's about 200 feet deep and our property goes about 450 feet deep. We're about halfway inbetween so probably just the beginning of Lot 9 there. Mancino: But you're way over on your western lot line. Donna Hoelke: Pardon me? Mancino: Your house is way over. Scott: How far over? 76 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Donna Hoelke: We had to obtain a variance to put the addition on the house. Scott: Relative to that blank spot here, how far over is your home from? Donna Hoeli~e: We're like 5 feet from the lot line. Scott: Oh! 5 feet from this lot line or that lot line? Oh, I'm sorry. Oimy, thank you. FsAnakes: To the south of your property, does it nm to the lake? Donna Hoelke: Yes. It will go/rom almost from the Ouflot B all the way to the lake. It's 450 feet deep so. Scott: So you're just right in the back ya~ Farmakes: Which way does your house face? Does it face east and west? Donna Hoelke: It faces south. Farwolres: Or it faces south. So you have a view of the lake. Donna Hoelke: I have a panoramic view right now. Farmakes: By pano~ do you ~ 180 degrees? Donna Hoelke: Right. I can't see any other homes from my house right now. And depending upon, I unders~ in talking to Rick and Ken that these aren't necesmuily what the houses are going to look like. They're quite wooded and...foster some discussion here on whether or not the city should look at an ordinance. Farmakes: There's a fair amount of trees between the Lot 8 and 9? F~: Is your home behind that/~)ve of trees or in from of them? Donna Hoelke: It's, the grove of trees is right here. h's pwbably about on the lot line. We're right here. Rick Sathre: There's a ucc line along the common boundary too. 77 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Farroaires: The trees but not the IoL.. Donna Hoelke: They look lilre they're spruce but... Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, do you have anything else that you'd like to mention? Donna Hoelke: Ah no. Just that that's a concern and as I said, there are other communities that.or certain andes... Scott: Okay, thank you very much for your comment Yes ma'am. Ann Zwcig: My name is Ann Zwcig. My address is 3601 Ironwood Road and I'm the fourth house in this neighborhood. As Donna pointed out, her house is here. There are four houses that are all along and I want to echo what Donna said. We're all set back quite a distance. She's 200, her house is 200 feet back fxom the ~ and my house is about 300 feet back from the lake so this house here changes the alignment dramatically from the pre-e~ig~g homes in the are~ It doesn't really affect my view but ~o you get an understanding that this is a high ridge, this right here, that will be changed. It will be graded and I'm sure that ridge...is probably going to change that grading. My main concern tonight is, I'd like some cladfi~tion on what Outiot A will be, and ! know that's not the discussion today but I want to verify that that is just beachlot use and it's not overaight Ix)aC Harbcrts: Oh she's been around. Scott I was going to say, since we've been stopping outside our boundm~es left and right this evening, Councilman Wing. Ann Zweig: I understand it's one dock with 3 boats on it. Scott: Well you probably also know that there is a beachlot next to Ouflot A and we're very familiar with Schmid's Acres. As a matter of fact, there's a resident here who represents that organization. Okay, help me out Kate. You can't build a building on an outlot? Aanenson: Well no. They can come in for a conditional use. Scott: Okay, conditional use but. Aanenson: Xt's a sc-~pamtc process. 78 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Harbe~: But there's no guaranlx~s. Scott: No, there's no guarantee and a beachlot is ii conditional use anyway. So, if you could perhaps, what's the worst case scenario? Aanenson: The maximum they could put on there, I mean if they want t~ put a gazebo, an outhouse, they could do that under a conditional use. The maximum based on the square footage would be one dock with moorings for 3 boats overnight. Swimming beac~ picnic tables. Scott: Okay, which is as I recall, now on the Schmid's Acres. Aanenson: A dock with no overnight moaring. Scott: Okay and that's because it's 50 foot wide versus Outlot A is? Aanenson: Well what it was was based on historical use. Scott: Historical use'/ Okay. Ann Zweig: Is overnight mooring for one night7 Or who regula~ that? Conrad: It's for~w~r. Ann Zweig: Oh it's forever. Aanenson: For the season- Ann Zweig: Okay. My other question is..Jnformation that I've gotten from your office said that a DNR study be done on that sh~. And I wonder how that could be done if the shoreline has already been desltoyed. I guess my question is, do you as City Council, that there was some weeds, some cattails there that have been poisoned and I'd like to know what the city policy is on that. If it's already been hit, or who authorized that pulling of those weeds and what the repercussions could be if it wasn't authorized? Aanenson: We were made aware of it. We called DNR. Below the ordinary high mark is their jurisdiction. They went out. Yes it was. They couldn't validate who did it. It's up to the DNR to prosecute. All we did was mm it over to the appropriate jurisdiction. It's our understanding they need a permit to do that son of thing but it's up to them to try to build a case on that. We tried to find out what we could and we were unable to obtain infomu~on 79 P/arming Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 on that. Ann Zweig: And my other concern is, on the same line is, that there were some, whe~ that lot was cleared, I don't think any permi~fion was gathered. We also called on that when we oune home one day and saw that the lot was alre~y c~ What are the city guidelin~ on that? Aanenson: We were also made aware of that...2 years ago. Ann Zweig: No, that was just this last fall Aanenson: Not this fall, the fall before. FarmA~res: Are you confusing it with the lot adjacent to it where they went ahead and they plowed their own access? Aanenson: No, that's Schmid's Acres. Farmakes: That's what I'm saying. Hempel: This lot here they cleared a lot of the ~ Scott: Ouflot A? Hempel: No, all three of these parcels. Ann Zweig: All three of the...When we called the city there were guidelines given that there were only supposed to be certain sized trees that are cut and bigger ones were cut. Scott: Excuse me, I'm still unclear on which lots we're talking about here. Ann Zweig: The whole lot. Scott: Thc whole plat? Ann Zweig: Yes. Farmakes: So all the beachiot. 8O Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 .A. nn Zweig: No, the beachlot really hasn't been ¢learexL Aanenson: We're talking about this whole plat. The three underlying parcels. The whole plat Ann Zweig: What was primarily clear cut was all this in here. I'm sure some of it was cut down here but they didn't take big trees down here. They took bigger lzees up there. Farmakes: Pan of the Shoreline ordinance thoulh; there's a setback line that shows that. Mancino: But that is a good question. I mean I've seen those trees. They're parallel to Highway 7. Ann Zweig: Yeah, they're all cut down and... Mancino: It's like they're being ready to be burned or whatever or for somebody to pick up. What do we have about clear cutting? We have an ordinance that says no clear cutting don't we? Ann Zweig: And it limits the size of the tree. And my question is, I mean it's too late for this development because they've already gone ahead and done it but what's the city going to do for other developments? To stop developers from corning in prior to proposing... Farmakes: We can. As I understand it, it's an ordinan~, ff they did that, it's a violation of that ordinance. Ann Zwei§: That's my question then. Mancino: Can they get fined? Farmakes: I'm not aware that anybody violalexi the ordinanc~ Ann Zwei§: City o~ials tUllled it in because wheal we called there they said that city officials had gone by and stopped it. Put a stop work order on it. ~: That may be more of an adwini.~.afive question that would have to be answered between 8.q30 and 5:130 in case it needs an in--on fzom the Attorney or ~rom the City Manager. But as I ~, there is an ordinance. If it applies to this case, I don't know if we're prepared to be able to respond to you but I think it's a question that perhaps staff ' might be able to investigate and look to the administt~'ve process. Or you might want to 81 Phnn/ng Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 talk to Todd Get.t, the Assistant City Manager. We can't answer that. It's a real good question but I don't think any of us are ~ to respond. F~: There a~e o~b~m~es r~garding that, Harberts: Interesting though, y~h_ Conrad: But that's when you turn it into a subdividom If it is just one lot before, you can take down, if you want to take your trees down on your lot Je/f, you can. Ann Zweig: But if they're on the lake, you can't. Conrad: Not that I know of. Farmakes: You can't within 75 feet of the shoreline you cannot, not without a permit from DNR. Conrad: Yeah but the clear cutting or the taking down was not there. Farwuire. s: Are you talking about farther up on the hill? Mancino: But you can't clear cut? Conrad: Sure you can. Harberts: It's your own land. Mancino: I don't think you can. Ann Zweig: It's done on this one. I just want you to be aware of that. Scott: I think we're getting a code book citation here. Harberts: Ls this appa'opriate right now? Scott: If it's quick. If it's quick. 82 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Ann Zweig: The other thing I want to add is that I am very happy to have access throu~ Outlot B to go this way. I think it's very dangerous for us to continue the Ironwood acces~ onto Highway 7. So that part of the development I like. Scott: Good. Well thank you for your comm~ Mancino: And we'll follow up. Scott: Okay. Does anybody else w{~ w. Richard Wing: This is a latu hour. Scott: Can you identify yourself please? Richard Wing: Richard Wing..aMinnewashta Height~ Can I make a totally irrelevant, non rationale statement at this late hour7 Scott: Please do. I encotua§e that. Richard Wing: This is xvaflly refreshing to be standing here with this development on my west side compared to the development going in to the east side that we dealt with Monday night. The neighbors and Spinnaker and trying to maximize it. This is the first time in my 4 years on the City Council that there isn't a single lot close to 15,000 square feet and it's really a delight to see some land being left open and the quality of the development coming in and space and density that we can live with. It's going to be developed and I think that...on everybody's behalf and putting a qn_sHty development in. They could have come in with this 15,000 square foot and then we'd have w ~ to staff and the PUD arguments you know down to 11,000. They could have gotten 50 lots in there ff they tried so this, I thinlc..I'm real happy with that access for Ironwood. That's really I think a plus for our future also. But welcome. I think also on the issue of trees, I just wanted to comment. It was clear cut. I think it was maybe done illegally but I was really sensitive about that and what I did notice was what went was mostly scrub and some of the bigger trees were real scrubby. I've been over there s~-~{ing trees prior to you owning it when the other folks had it and I couldn't find a tree to steal off of it anymore .... the issue of lrees on other properties, I think when you talk about very worth while trees, I think we've had some stands of trees in this city that were si~ificant but on that ~, in walking it yestmxtay, for myself personally and I was a homeowner, I couldn't find a handful of trees that I would save and you know how...I am on trees. There's just a few pines and there's limited this and limited that and a couple maples but for the most part, pretty limited wooded on that plan so it's not an area that I would be desparate on. I'd like to see maybe him come in with some 83 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 landscaping and perhaps add a few trees of a good variety for those that he mk~ out because...but what we take out...I'm concem~ about is maybe we strong arm him a little bit to get a few more of the other... Thank you. Scott: Thank you sir. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Gary Carlson: Just quickly. Gary Carlson. I live at 3891 West 62nd and I use the access that's on thc south edge of Ken's property. And thc way they've handled that pond down there on Lot A is very good because that is the lowest lot on that whole piece of property and the sewer drains to a big nnion on that property which proves it's the lowest lot on this whole piece of property is Lot A. So ponding there is a good idea and it's very well laid out and I hope to see it come to a rapid fruition. This wholc development looks really good from our point of view. Thank you.. Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Okay, could I have a motion to close the public ~g please? Mandno moved, Harberts seconded to dose the public hearing~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Scott: What we'd like to do is continue the applicant's presentation. There you go Mr. Rick Sathre: Thank you and thank you very much for pronouncing my name correctly. Scott: Oh I wrote the phonetic spelling down on the plans so it has nothing to do with my Rick Sathre: Well I appreciate it. I've heard it a lot of different ways and as most of you on thc commism'on probably have been mispronounced. Well, I guess I've got a couple more graphics to show you. One of them shows, I tried to very early represent Donna's house, and I don't know if it's really right but it will give you a little idea of where the Hoelke's live. This is a copy of an early sketch that we had done for the property and I guess the sign/ficant things that are different about it that you'll notice is at ~is time when we did the sketch we didn't have the outlot through so the Ironwood access hadn't switched yet. This is what we met the neighbors with when we first sulzted talking. At that time this was the layout so what changed this then was they punched the outlot through here and we've reconfigured some of the lot lines, including the one that would be between Lot 8 and 9. So anyway, this is appw~tely where Hoelke's live. Their house is tight up against this west line. As we were discussing earlier, there's a line of spruce trees that come east/west here and there's a Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 pretty significant, a nice tree line between this property on Hoelke's that comes right down this line. An old fence tine or, it's a nice demarkation line between the two properl/~ And I guess the issue is, the houses in this corner are going to i ,rnl~ some on the view. I guess we can't do much about it unless we stayed way back from the lake. This is how we've actually modified the plan. This lot line being mare east and west and following a line of spruce trees flint's significant and we want to save. The placement of the home is just a represenlafion. We don't know if the house is going to sit there or farther north or farther west or farther east but one thing we do know is we're not going to violate the setback to the lakeshore. But somewhere in this nice buildable area we would propose to put a home. That lot is so close to Hoelke's, it's 31,000 square feet I think. So it's, that by ordinance that lot should be 20,000 square feet. We've overdz~ it by about 50%. Which still doesn't speak to their issue, which is their view. The staff had raised the issued about the eastern cul-de-sac and the access to the Ironwood neighbors let's call ~ This driveway co~ng out and whether this island should be there. We'd like to put the islands in the cul-de-sacs because we want to plant. Ken's very serious about establishing a real upscale neighborhood. A really nice neighborhood and we want to add as much greenery and plantings as is practical, which means we'd be planting evergreens on the berm, bringing them in where they're needed and in the middle of the cul-de-sacs there would be plantings placecL Trees placed in those islands. So we're, Dave Hempel has an issue, a valid issue. When these people come and go, the neighbors come and go through the driveway,, are they going to go this way around the island or are they going to cut across this way. I don't know but if the island isn't there, they could chose the path of their choosing also. So whether we put the island there or not, I guess they'lL Harberta: Doesn't that argument also hold Izue though for someone that lives here. Are they going to go out like this or are they going to go around? Rick Sathre: Exactly. Whether the idand's there or not, you know they're either going to go the right way or they're going to cheat on it. But the thing that we do know about the island is, when we plant a 6, 8, 10 foot high evergreen tree or a nice deciduous uee in that island, it's going to start to break the view. When you drive in the street you don't see ~is whole house in the background and the people, this homeowner doesn't see this house fully. That island in the street breaks that view and it just softens the neighborhood. That's why we're doing those things. Harbem: Have you thought then as to talking with stuff as to the salt resistent type uz~s that really are limited to go in there? I mean you're talking a lot of salt potential.. Rick Sathre: We would tend to plant wwarcls the middle of that. The island would be 20 feet across, the way we've designed it. The uees that, they're planted rewards the middle. 85 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 They're going to get some of that salt spray. Harberts: Who'd take responsibility for pruning or if they die or something7 Rick Sathre: Well the homeowners association would own the beachlot and was responsible for that maintenance plus the ~ And the entrance monumentafion and all the little nice features that will go into the project. Scott: Mr. Sathre, just a question. What do those green cross hatches mean, if anything? Rick Sathre: Ali I was trying to do is represent the greene~ that would be ymxL As oppo~ to driveways that are coming out here, here, here and here and here. Kind of a poor !~ at. Richard Wing: ...I can't believe that even the standard Ford en~nes from the Fh-e Depot could m~ire that curb cut and there's a couple houses back in there we'd clearly like to have access to thc aerial. And I'd like to pro~-'t the islands. My choice is to have the islands but we've got to have a sizeable curb cut there to get those, any type of fire equipment in there. I think that's got to be. Rick Sathre: Raised. Richard Wing: Yeah. I think that we want to access it with the aerial without a doubt and the aerial would be real limiting. It would m~_nd~._~ the removal of the island or it's a real ~le curb cut. Hempel: That's correct. That's one of the things that was point~ out. For emergency vehicles is another reason. Another reason, I can't tell you the number of complaints we've re~ved this winter with a normal snowfall about cul-de-sac plowing. There's no place to put it when you have all these driveways. With mia situation here, Ouflot B's going to have a 20 foot wide driveway coming out and the remaining lots there are potentially aiL.fit really limits the green space and snow storage and so forth in this cul-de-sac. The idea with the island actually will reduce a liUle bit of the snow but on the other hand when you put a nee in there and an evergreen's 20 foot across, in 20 years that evergreen will be 25 foot. It will actually be curb to curb. It will look beamtiful but with all the salt and so forth... Another issue I'd like to bring up about the islands is that it's, I think we should get some direction or some, maybe some liability agreement that has to be waived on behalf of the homeowners association as the islands will carafe additional liabih'ty for the city. If somebody gets hurt, accidents and so forth. So they're really not for traffic safety purposes. They're Irately for. aesthetics, landscaping, and so forth so it's something to think about. 86 Phnning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Harberts: Well I thought the discussion we had, it was my understanding that center islands would be allowed if it was saving significant trees or something so that's what I recall. I thought that was in the same night we disoussed 600 feet for the cul-de-sac. Lost that one. Rick Sathre: I think you're absolutely right to try to...signifcant m~s and we're hoping to create something... Harbem: Well yeah, from a public safety perspective, I don't think the middle of the road is the place to do it. So you know where I'm going on this one. Rick Sathre: I do and I knew where Dave was going with it too and you know, the public works guys want to do their job and get it done and I don't blame them a bit. What we're trying to do is maybe at cross purposes with that. We're trying to create a better living environment. Our goals are lofty but you know, maybe it's a pain in the butt. You know you've been modifying the main street of town, from the way it originally got planted but the idea of the trw, dian in town is nice too. It has to work with the uafflc flow and it didn't work so good initially but then you learn and you're doing it better and we want to find that right level of what makes sense Wo. But this ndghborhood will have relatively little traffic compared to say the downtown median. We want it viewed by the neighborhood as much as we cain. Scott: Okay. Any questions, additional questions or comments for the app--? Farmakes: I have a quick question. Nothing to do with the road on this issue, I'm just curious. What is the price range of these houses? What you're looking at for the marketing. Rick Sathre: It's nothing we can tell you with certainty. Expensive. Sc, otc He said $80,000.00 to $100,000.00 a lot. Ken Durr: I missed the question, I'm sorry. Rick Sathre: How much would the range of the home prices? What do you think the least expen.~ive home could be? Ken Durr: Oh my, I don't know the least expensive. I know the Street of Dreams people want to do the event there in the summer, or early summer of '95. If that occurs, those homes would be at least $700,000.00. Scott: Good, any other? Any other questions or comments of the applicant7 87 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Rick Sathre: I guess Mr. Chairman and ~ of the commission. As I mad through the recommendations I had a few comments and I hoped that you modify, Kate suggesl~l a couple modi~cations and I would hope that you would allow us in number 17 to retain our median at that in--on even though we recognize the need to redesign it. And Dave is very opposed to it and so I guess we're in cross purposes with it. We'd liice to leave the median at the intersection of Landings Court and I2mdings Drive. We won't argue this with you but we have a problem with, or question I guess for the City Council on number 20 about whether or not there should be, the subdivision should pay the additional assessments for Minnewashta Parkway. In number 21 of the recommendations, staff has asked for additional fight-of-way for Minnewashta Parkway and I feel I must show you that issue. We'll take it up with the Council as well that we, the preliminary plat shows a small additional right-of-way dedication for Minnewashta Parkway. When the road was relocated and widened, the plans, the construction plans showed this. I don't know how to orieat this for you exactly but maybe like that. This is Highway 7. This is Church Road across the highway. This is new Minnewashta Parkway. The yellow and the red lines arc the cxisting right-of-way. This is Ken Durr's property here. Okay, in ardor to get the intersection to be across from each other, instr~ad of the way it used to be, and make it a lillle safer, the city approached Ken and said, we want to nm the road right up tight against this property line so that we can come in at right angles beuer. And he said okay, fine. The intent was to have the curb right up against the property line. Well, mistakes happen. On the ground, actually what happened was the road ended up on his ~ a little bit and so our preliminary plat shows the dedication of a triangle of land that would get the road back into the right-of-way, or back on the city's properS. And Ken's happy to do that but the staff has asiced for an additional piece of land, thc strip of land so that the city would own 33 feet from the center of the road. Clearly not the intent when the road was built or upgraded and we would ~ the commission to reco~ approval of thc plat as we have drafted it which would give you enough land to get the road back in the right-of-way but not give you thc extra land. l.~xi~ What was the error in the construction? How many feet? Rick Sathre: Oh I'd say the curb probably ended up about 5 or 6 feet from where it was meant to be. Not the end of the world but...So we would like you to slrike number 21 or substitute that staff, that the Planning Commission recommends the plat be approved as is for Minnewashta Parkway. I guess a point of clarification on 23 Kate mentions a cross easeuamt agreement should be done between the Ironwood neighbors and Ken. What he actually intends is to exchange the uack D from, that they own now. The Ironwood access to TH ? would be deeded to him and he would deed that Outlot B. So they would, either Wright's or the neighbors as a whole would actually own Outlot B rather than just an easement over it. They would have fee title to it. I guess the last thing I'd say and I'm sorry I've been so wordy but in the park and trail fees. We would request that the city only charge us for the 88 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 24 additional building sites that are being aralvxl. And there were 3 homes there to begin with. There's some question over whether we would end up having to pay pack and trail fees for all 27 lots or whether it should only be the 24 additional lots that are being created that we're asking for. Scott: Were, I guess were those, do you know if those homes are, are those the homes that are not there anynm~? Rick Sathre: Two are down and one is... Scott: Were we collecting park and rec fees when those homes were built7 Aanenson: No we're not. The replat, that's something that they understand they need to argue with the Council... Rick Sathre: It's not an issue for you really. Scott: Okay. I read the staff report and I thought hey, okay. Good. Rick Sathre: But I appreciate your time. Thank you. Scorn Anything else7 Good. Would anybody else like to speak as part of the public hearing on this issue7 Mr. Durr7 Actually this is the at~~t's. Ken Dun': I'm Ken Durr. I'd just like to, on the median and the cul-de-sacs. I feel for the type of neighborhood that we wish to develop that they add really greatly m the effect of being able to get additional green, additional plantings. We plan on doing a lot of plantings. Brining in a lot of evergreens and other good trees in. Neighborhoods that we have worked in, in Edina we have developed that. I know the city there at first was not too keen on the islands in thc cul-de-sacs but we have the homeowners association take responsibility of thc care of those and has been absolutely no problem at all They're maintained beautifully by the resident, the homeowners association. I would expect that would be the case here. But they do add a great deal of aesthetic appeal and I feel value to the pwlm~. Insm~ of looking out on a big mass of 80 feet of blacktop, having it broken with some green in the middle is entirely a different effect from all of those homes on the cul-de-sac. And particularly the cul-de-sac where the Ironwood realdata will be entering. We're now going to have an additional roadway coming into that and it will help to break up that. We want to accommodate them but on the other hand, if we don't have some plantings in there to break that island up, break up the site of all these driveways, is going to further devalue the properties around that cul-de-sac. So I would strongly urge you to consider the aesthetics of 89 Planning Commission M~ting - March 2, 1994 Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Resident: I just have a question. How big are those Ken Durr: 20 feet. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion to close the public ~g? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Hempel: Did you want any response back to. Mancino: Like reco~fion number 17. Scott: How about as part of our comments you can ask him if he has any. Mancino: Dave, do you have any comments on the rmxiiam and you know, I'm very much in favor of them. I see them in Edina. I have acq~tances that live there and they're wonderful in the cul-de-sacs and work well. So I'm a big believer in them and they do kind of cut up the asphalt. The whole asphalt of the cul-de-sac. I-Iernpel: I will agree with you there~ They do look nice. We've seen more and more...but we're adapting to them. But they're not right in every situation. This one, the very easterly one with emergency vehicles getting inW the private driveway. If we can facilitate them with the turning radius, it probably will work then. The median on Landings Court, here is actually Landings Drive. That, the way it's shown on the cons~on plans or the plat, it's really conducive to a free right mm. No stop, no yield or anything. It's just, you're out there. We would like to have a little more sense of order, even though it is a very low volume street. We understand that but it's really, the way it's laid out you're going to promote additional... Mancino: And can you work with the applicant to change that? Hempel: I believe we could but I've earlier stressed to the applicant that I didn't feel it was appropriate for this type of intersection to have a median. It is appropriate off of major collector type streets. We have them off of Kerber. We have them off Powers. Corning onto proposed TH 41, Lundgren's will have them proposed. Those situations are appropriate to Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 have enwance monumentation type sign for it but not at every inlersection_ It's over doing it a bit and from a liability standpoint and traffic standpoint, I think we don't need it. As far as the Minnewashta Parkway assessn~ts. That methodology for those assessments was for the area. Each parcel then took access off of Minnewashta Parkway because that's essentially the only north/~u~ street in the area for the adjacent ~ to utilize and they ail benefit from them. This parcel does too benefit from the upgrading of Minnewashta Parkway. That's how we're assessing our condition here that they should be assessed their fair share as well. Scott: Excuse me Dave, the people who are on Ironwood now, are they going to get assessed for Minnewashta Parkway upgrade since they're... Hempel: That's a good question. Being that they had Igevious access out to Highway 7 and as a result of this development they're altering their access, I guess L..rec~ thai they be assessed for it. Scott: I'm sorry. Hempel: I did not recommend it. Scott: Did not recommend it, okay. I suppose that's an issue that I'm sure the residen~ would apprecia~ an answer on. I'm sorry, go ahead. Hempel: As far as condition number 21 with regards to the fight-of-way. Whenever a -. subdivision comes in, the city typically has an oppommity to obtain the necessary ril~ht-of- way for thc subdivision that we feel is necessary for the development. It is unfortunate apparently Minnewashta Parkway was graded and thc appropfiale easements weren't pursued at that time to acquire it. One thought maybe was the hnd, that they did just enough construction, a temporary easerrumt. Build the roadway knowing well that the plat would be coming forth at some day and they could dedicate right-of-way at that time~ Other subdivisions up and down Minnewashta Parkway all have dedicated their fair share of 33 foot right-of-way so this would not be an uncommon or an undue burden I guess asking this additional dedication. With regards to item, condition 23. I think it's staff intent to...ingress and egress rights for those private proper~ owners along Ironwood. $o ff there's a different way that Mr. Durr will be trading outlots with the residents...fulfilh our needs to get the access for the residents. Scott: Let me ask you a question then. ff Ouflot B is going to be deeded to the reddents, the Ironwood ~nts, are they going to be responsible for the main~nauce and upkeep of that street? 91 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Hcmpel: That's true. That's correct It will be a private street and have to be mainmin~ similiar to what Ironwood is now. Scott: Oh okay. So it'd be a similar situation. Okay. Aanenson: AcumUy Dick Wing asked that question before he left. If we were to i .mlm~e that road and made it a public project, then they'd be assessed. So what we're doing just leaving it the way they are but what we're trying to do is provide a safer acces~ Scott: So fimm~y it's a zero sum game? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: Okay. Hernpel: There is one valid point though. One of the neighbors mentioned about future subdividing. A private drive ordinance only allows 4 homes on a private driveway. So unless there's another private driveway out to the east, or no ~ subdivide, th~'re essentially, they can't do anything fiuther without a public street and the ouflot that they're dedicating here is not wide enough to extend the public street on. A public street right-of- wayis 60 feet wide. Scott: And based upon the comments I think we're heazing from those residents, they would prefer not to have that subdivided anyway so perhaps that's good. Mancino: Kate, what about a trail system? Do we have a trail system up l~inn_ewashta on that east side? Aanenson: The only trail system that Todd had mentioned was the possibility along Highway 7. I believe on the Parkway, I guess that's on the fire station side. On the other side of Minuewashta Parkway. Mancino: I thini~ I said this earlier that I felt that the landscaping was rather incomplete what we have in front of us. Meaning that a survey has been done. I differ a little bit fwm Dick in that there are a lot of spruces on the property when I walked it that are dead and that won't be around far much longer. But on the south side of the property, which faces the, which abuts the lake and which is down on the same level as the hke, there are some wonderful, significant trees down there and I would like to see some sart of a conservation easement Kate for that area so that those trees are kept. They will help erosion. They'll help you know so seAirrmntation won't move down into the lake, elc, etc. So I'd like to see some Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 specifics on what trees will be remaining and if we can do a conservation easement so they can't be taken down. Aanenson: They do have a plan. What we didn't do is articulate that. I think you're fight, we missed that on the condition but the lots that probably have the most significant, as we mentioned, are up on this ridge line up in here which covers Lots 5 and 6. If you mm that sheet of your plan, it shows... Otherwise I think there's...significant trees, But their Largest trees, as I pointed out in the report, there's some very large cotwnwoods down here and you have some maples up in here. Mancino: Some big oaks. Aanenson: Yeah, fight. S~,nifieant. But basically, all these down hem along the lakeshore are being left. Again, there's some cedars that are being, some of these may be...but I think we could put something in there about the conservation easement. Mancino: And any son of custom grading that would need to haplxm to keep those trees or retaining walls or whatever it takes. Aanenson: We do know some areas that possiblys as noted in the staff report, that possibly some tree wells along in this area where those mapl~ are adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway. That's something that Dave and I had talked to Rick about and some of the other areas where adjacent to the hke there may be some additional tree wells thai need to be placed to save some trees. But we're not sure how this is going to be graded. I'm still trying to resolve that issue. Whether it be graded all at once or...individual ~. Hemal: Condition number 2 kind of corem that. We'll work with Mr. Sathre on that. Which lots will actually be cus~ graded because there are some trees that the applicant wishes to save. There's some large walnut trees out there and a couple lots will be custom graded but most of the lots more than likely will be mass graded. Probably overall subdivision grading. Aanenson: $o I think what we need to do if that's a big concern, is to say we need...mow fence be placed... Mancino: And be very specific on where the conservation easement is. Aanenson: Then the other thing that he did identify in the staff report is that we do need specifics about what this landscaping's going to be and our ordimmce does require landscaping. There is some trees that will be saved but we do require streetscape along Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 collector streets so that ham't been. Mancino: Well and on collectors, not only is it ~aping but it's berming also that needs to be done and I would like to see some sort of boulevard plantings on these inside, ln.~tead of doing you know, I think that these are going to be substantial quality houses. They're going to have their own good landscaping plans but I think that we could use some of the you know the I tree, 2 trees per lot and use some of those as boulevard plantings in this particular subdivision that I think will help. But it will probably have extendve landscaping. I just can't ~ that yet. Aanen~n: Condition 26 is the one that adds the hndscaping plans. You could say as well as a streetscape you want to see berrning along that. Scott: Any other comments from the commissioners? Harberts: Also, I'm going to supixn't slaff's recommendations with regard to the medians. I think from a public safety ~ve that's got to be one of your priorities. I've seen them. I think the medians look nice. They probably will add to value but I think the~ has to be a stronger value given to public safety as priority. Scott: Okay. Any other comments? Conrad: Ah yes. Dave, in terms of a second access. You feel we don't need to keep a second access on a 1,700 foot cul-de-sac? Hempel: It goes against what I usnolly put into these subdivision reviews but this really is a boxed in subdivision from Highway 7 to the north, thc lake to the south and ex/sting residents to the east. We have similar streets to the north in Gary Carlson's Minuewa~hm Highland~ And then the other sUeets on the west side. Linden Circle, which is probably the same length and those are the same scenario where they're boxed in by Highway ? on one side and similar constraints on the other and...viable secondary access. Conrad: So we are vacating. I'm not n~y for the seco~ access but there is a vacal~cl street. Aren't we vacating the street? Hemal: No we're not. Conrad: What are we doing? Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Herr~l: It's a prival~ driveway access for the residents of Ironwood and MnDot has also expressed some concerns of removing that along Highway 7. Conrad: For emergency vehicles you wouldn't want that as an access7 That's really my main point. Nor emergency vehicles with break away, whalzwer, you don't want that to be available? Scott: Say again. Conrad: We have a private drive. Scott: Yes. Conrad: And it is available for emergency vehicle~. This is a 1,700 foot cul-de-sac. I'm playing on a side of this thing that I normally don't play ~ I like long cul-de-sacs. But I get real confused by whether we're concerned with emersency, second c~mr§ency access to a siu~. We have one here. We could get an emerg~ vehicle through the private drive if we keep it, if we some easements through there. With a break away or whatever. Now again, I am not an expert. I just challenge staff on this stuff and if they way we don't need it, that's fine with me. But it is there right now. Scott: I always think of the wintertime when it's not §oing to be plowed. Conrad: Maybe you've got it for 7 months. Scott: Okay, which is fair enough. Fair enough. Conrad: But again, I raise that point Dave. I don't care. You folks are the experts and I'm not. Hempel: I think I'd like to defer that one to public safety maybe for review and see what their reply would be for that. Conrad: We get real confused. Scott: Any other comments? Conrad: Yeah. Lot 8. Rick Sathre: Do you want me to add to that? 95 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Conrad: No. It's late. I've got to get out of here. Lot 8. I keep looking at that from the standpoint of the neighbors. I don't know how to solve that problem I think there should be a lot there. I think there should be a house there. I think it's a fair development. I think the lot sizes are big. I don't know that we can xeally solve vistas by moving it back 10 feet, 20 feet~ It is, based on the situation and how close the neighbor is to the lot line, I don't really see a solution other than vegetation or whatever. So the only solution I can come up with there is, the vistas aren't going to be there. They flat aren't going to be there. I don't see any way that, I know we've never changed anything. We don't have an ordinance to protect the neighbors~ The neighbors went there for the vista but unfortunately this is what happens. What we can do however is mak~ sure there is some screening to help a little bit but I really don't see any stipulations on the developer that this can help anybody. Really. If a vista it goes by one, I just don't flfink we can make any impact here so that was my comment on that particular one. My comment on the center islands~ You know 1 love center islands as long as I know somebody's going to rnain~ them and if that's worked into the agreement for the association, that's fine. But I really question the one on the, for the folks going on that cul- de-sac going towards Ironwood. I just don't know how that's going to work for emergency vehicles going through there. It doesn't look like it works. It sure wozks in the other cul-de- sac. I sure would support the center island there. The median at least in the first, is that a median going up to the first cul-de-sac? Boy, I sure don't want one there. And then out onto Minuewashta, although somebody could persuade me on there. Aanenson: That one does save a tree. Scott: There'll §et an entrance monument. Conrad: You know if it's, I could be moved one way or another on that one. I think Dave's got a good point. They're valid issues that he raises. They really are. However, it's part of this, if the community's taking care of it, I guess we still have a safe~ problem. I don't know. That's it. Scott: Good. Yes sir. Ledvinm One of the conditions of this development relates to the variances from the flag lot setbacks and I see essentially just a couple of lines on that in mrms of the staff report. I guess as I read that, as it relates to the trees, tree preservation, various setback from the storm water ponds, and take a look at the lots that are involved and also the feamr~ that we're talking about and I guess I'm not convinced that those represent valid reasons for granting that setback. Bob had a good format when we reviewed the variance for the sign c~linance. He went through the 6 requirements ~s_t a variance must meet and I think we should do that on all variances that we see so I would like to see a little more rigorous analysis of a variance Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 as it relates to the criteria and the specific site conditions. Sc. om Are you in support of thc staff's recommendation7 Ledvina: Overall Yeah overall It's going to be a very nice development. I gue~ just echoing a little bit the concern for long cul-de-sacs. We had a lot of discussion on that and I thought we passed an ordinance on this but maybe not, still the concerns still are there as it relates to safety. And I think you raise a good point with that. That other private drive. Scott: Okay, good. Ron. You're on the spot. Nutting: I'm still new at this~ I don't have a lot of commits. Scott: That could be a good answer. Nut'dng: I guess on the one point that I'm hearing them say is in regards to the median and. specifically the one at Outlot B. And I'm hearing the comn~nts and I agree with the comments so it really just gets down to the question the question of, can there be a me, d/an and can it also meet the safety or ema~ency vehicle requirements for thac And if it can, then I see no reason to disallow it entirely. Maybe it needs to be m/xtified, Maybe the size a little different, you know whale, vet. So that's my only substantive comment. Scott: Good. Anybody else? Fmmak~: I have no further co~ts. Scott: Okay. Nancy, you're okay? The only concern that I have, I guess there's two things I'd like to see is, would be to have some, as I already mentioned, having some additional vegetation added along the lot line. The back side of 9 and 10. Possibly 8. For the benefit of thc neighbor next door. And one of the things I had difl:iculty understanding ~nd_ this is some specific direction for staff is that I would believe that the other commissioners would like to see this any time we have a prelimim~ plat, we absolutely have to have the building pad and siree~ and utilities overlaid with the significant vegetation. And also, I think it would be very helpfifl to see the existing canopy. I mean we have docks. We have one of these things. Aanenson: ...and that's the pwblem we had with Lake Susan. I think the canopy... Scott: Wellin an aerial. An aedal takes care of that. Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Mancino: Which our new tree preservation ordinance will address. Aancnson: Because what we found is, people arc putting the foundation right next to a 40 inch or 26 or whatever caliper and it's basically you're underneath the canopy and you can't save it so it's misr~6n§ that. Scott: Well see, that's the, I mean generally I'm in favor of this. I'm not going to go over some of thc public safety issues but personally I can't pass this on to thc next level unless I can see that overlay and see what the actual impact is. And I thinlr for the IV, cord, I think our first test case for that was Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition and we took that very seriously. Wc got thc right tools and I think we made some good recommendagons that were followed up on. So personally before I can get serious about passing this on, I need to see what's really going to happen hem. Aanenson: Okay. That's what this sheet represents. Sc, om Which sheet is that? Is that in thc packet? Aanenson: Yeah...it's got all the utilities plus, what we did was provide... Mancino: Yeah, we can't tell which ones will be removed. Which ones were slaying. Which ones would be removed and we didn't get to see the landscape berating. Aanenson: I agree, yeah. Sc, om I don't know how that impacts. This doesn't mean anything to me because I don't know how that impacts. But anyway, that's my comments. Can we have a motion7 Mancino: So would you like to sec it come back with those things? Scott: I would but I'd like to entemin a motion_ I'd like to have someone make a motion. Conrad: I'll try. It's probably going to take some friendly amendm~ts on this because I haven't written down what everybody had said. I'm making a recommendation that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat Subdivision ~1, Minnewashta Landings for 27 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 9, 1994 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following changes. Item number 17, item 17 stands. Item 21 stands~ Kate, you made some changes. Aanenson: Yeah, on number 13. On 13 it would be the house pads on Lot 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 98 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 of Block 2. Conrad: Okay, I accept the staff recom~on. You added. Aanenson: Number 27. Conrad: 27 for park and rec assessment. We will take your recommendation for that at this fine. Itrm number 28. Where vegetation would be placed on the back of Lots 8 and 9 to screen to the best extent possible the neighbors to the east. That City staff review emergency access practicality using the vacated driveway to Highway ?. Mancino: Friendly amendment here. Cul-de-sac center island liability that Dave brought up. Conrad: Yeah, I don't know. How do we want to say that Dave7 Scott: The horneo~ association will be the sole reliable entity for. Harba'ts: I think that needs to be subject to review by the attorney before you make a statement like that. Scott: No, we're making recormnendafions. We don't make decisions. Hern~l: Maybe I can just throw my two cents in there. Maybe how the condition should read is like the City Attorney's office address the liability issue with regards to cul-de-sac... maybe prepare at least a liability agreement or something to that effect. Harbens: And also I think that ~t should also include the review and comment by public safety with regard to the medians, all medians being proposed. Scott: Friendly7 Conrad: That's okay if you understand it. Harbens: I want public safety to go in there and say that this is okay for us. This is okay for us or this isn't Scott: Are you talking about the medians? 99 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Conrad: I'm going to add a new. Harberts: Twist? want public ~ to support. Conrad: Okay, I'll take care of thaL Kate the number 30 will, if we can have the liability issue explored. Number 31 is to maintain the islanch nnless public safety can demonstrate that the island on Landings Drive prohibits safe access for emergency vehicles and private vehiclea Anything else? Nutting: Does that mean if this prohibits access, that it's e 'hmhulied or that it can be modified? Ha_rberts: Let public safety decide that. Conrad: Yeah, I don't know. I don't care at this time. Scorn Should be u6~i~ed where necesmg, to preserve significant. Conrad: Yeah, absolutely. Conserv~on easermnts should be u~li~ed where necessary to preserve significant vegetation. Scott: Okay Kate, can I a~ you a question. Do you need to add a condition that Outlot B will be conveyed to the residents? Aanenson: What I was going to do...Rick had staled, we'll just change that condition to say that it was. Rick Sathre: Ouflot B will be deeded to the owners of Tract D in exchange for deed to the development for Tract D. Aanenson: Yeah, that would modify number 23. Instead of cross access easement 1'11 just say, exchange for Tract D for outlot B. Scott: Okay, any other friendly amendments? Harbem: I'll second it. 100 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Scott: All those in favor say. Mancino: Discussion? Scott: Discussion, excuse me. Mancino: ~h~stion for you Kate. I agree with ev~g that's been said but I would ~ to see it back again just W see the landscaping part of it and the conservation easement. So can we put that into the amendment or into the recommendation or do we have w get the whole thing back again? Conrad: Well we really would have to table it. Harberts: Well, the motion's on the table. Conrad: Well no, my motion is to pass it. Not to see it again. Mancino: Then I have to say no. ff I want to see it back again. Scott: And we'll just vote on it and see what happens. Any other discussion? Conrad: Because you want to see it. Scott: Specifically the. Aanenson: The landscaping. Mancino: And because every site plan that comes in, I want that to be part of our process. Because I want to establish some smwun~ about what we want to see and, I mean this would be the first one that we haven Scott: Yeah. That was my concern as well Mancino: I ~ we have set a precedent of making sure and even you've asked for it. Which trees are going to be removed. Which ones are going to be saved. Scott: Inventories. Mancino: It's a key value to our community right now and just to let it go without even looking at anything, I know the night is late but. 101 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Harbem: A conservation easement won't do that? Scott: No. Because we don't know what's coming. A conservadon easement does not do anything for trees that are going to be removed becau~ of streets, utilities, and potential building pads so. I've got the same hang up. Mancino: And we didn't get to have any remark-~ on the berming and the, because Highway 7 is a busy highway and the collector. Conrad: $o you feel that you want to see, they have to do it. I totally agree With what you're saying, although I made a motion, but. If you just want to see what staff is doing or what. Mancino: Sure, so we can give. Conrad: Because there aren't specific, good enough guidelines? Mandno: Yeah, I mean conservation easement's a little broad. Scott: That's not proactive. Conservation easement. That's what's lefL That's how you save what's left over after the streem and so forth have been in. Mancino: And I think it's a dgnificant area where, because it abuts a lake. Scott: Kate? Aanenson: I just asked thc applicant...not go to Council until the landscaping plan goes with it?...Wc won't forward it onto the Council until the landscaping is complete and that keeps them on track for the 28th. Scott: Yeah. I don't think we have any, I haven't heard any issues, substantial issues with the development per se and my thought is. Aanenson: ...have their landscaping plan at the next meeting, lust look at that inslr~! of opening up... Harberts: So it can still go forwl~ if the thing would pass because we would have the opportunity to go back to the landscaping? Aanenson: Well what you're going to say is that your mcommendat/on, if you want to make 102 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 that number 33. That that not go to Council until the landscaping plan and the tree sm'vey is completed. And if they come in and we get that in here on the 14th, then that will keep them on track for the 28th. Scott: So we add that condition. We have a motion on the floor. Harberts: Well that's a friendly amendment isa't it? Scott: It's a friendly amendment but if we recommend approval, then that baby goes to the City CounciL Harbens: But if 33 is a friendly amendment, then that slows it down. Ledvina: Yeah but we don't see the subdivision back again. Aanenson: Right. You just look at the landscape plan. But what you're saying is that the plat can't go forward to the City Council until the landscaping comes to you. Conrad: Which is okay. Scott: Okay, so let's, do we have any other discussion by the way7 Conrad moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commie--s'on recommends approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision ~4-1, Minnewashta Landings, for 27 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 9, 1994, and subject to the following le e Upon completion, the developer shall dedica~ to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for pemmnent ownership. All areas dis~ during sim grading shall be immediately ~ with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site grading unless the City's Best Managen~nt Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. wood-fiber blankec All utility and street improvements shall be cons~ in accordance with the htest edition of the City's Sumdard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approvaL 103 Planing Commisdon Meeting - March 2, 1994 e ® e e e e 10. 11. 12. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DN'R, Army Cozl)s of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the conlract. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and provide po_nrllng calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan far the City Engineer to x~wiew and approve. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Hre Marshal's reconmaendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance with the conslrucfion plans. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat far all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for ~ for main~~ of the ponding areas. Thc applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion conlrol plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. The lowest exposed floor or open_ ing elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12, Block 1 should be a winim, m of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. This may raise the house elevation to 971 ar greater requiring a very steep driveway, staff reco~ the applicant re-evaluate this and include exterior drsintile arollnd the house foundation. The draintile shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer along the propert7 line. The house pads on Lots 1, 3, 4, $ and 6, Block 2 south of Landings Dr., along the lake, should be a minimum of one foot above the road elevation. All low points should be located between lots to route ovedandflow around the houses. Also, catch basins should be located at the low point between homes to help route surface flow 104 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 away from lots. 14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side sl~ of 10:1 for the first ten feet and no more than 3:1 th~ for safety and water quality purposes. 15. The driveway enmmce for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right- of-way. In addition, a drainage culvert will be necess~ to maintain the neighix~ood drainage ~rom the east of this devclopment into the easterly proposed pond. 16. Existing welis and/or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned. 17. Landings Court intemecfion should be redesigned to be perpe~licular with Landings Drive and the rnedisn deleted. 18. The alignment of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway should be refined to provide more of a perpe~ intersection in accordance with the City's 0~linanc~ 19. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not l~[innewltshta Parkway or Highway 7. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessments units. The rate per unit is $760.00. 21. Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of right-of-way from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1. 22. The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through 8, Block 2. 23. An exchange between Tract D for Outlot B will be estab~~ for the use of Outlot B by the residents of Ironwood. 24. Lot 7, Block 2 needs to have a 90 foot lot width. Variance from the side yard setback to 10 feet on flag lots located on Lots 11 and 16, Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2. Landscaping plans for the larger berm along Hwy. 7, as well as streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway needs to be provided." 105 Plapning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1904 27. Park and trail fee~ in lieu of parkland dedication and trail con.ruction at the rate in force at the time of building permit application with one.third of the park and trail feea paid at the time of final plat. Where vegetation would be placed on the back of Lots 8 and 9 to screen to the best extent possible the neighbors to the east. 29. That City staff review ~ency access practicafity using the vacated driveway to Highway ?o The City Attorney will invesfilp~ the issue of liability on the medians and islands in ad-de-sacs. 31. Maintain the islands unless public safety can demonstrate that the island on Landings Drive prohibits safe access for emergency vehicles and private vehicles. 32. Conservation easements should he utilized where necessary to pFeserve significant vegetation. 33. This item will not go onto the City Council until a landscaping plan and tree survey has been reviewed by the Planning ~munission. Afl voted in favor, except Matt Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Scotc And your reasoning sir? Lcdvina: Well I guess, I think we're treating the variances tnvtty lightly here. I think it's a real substantial thing. I don't know, we talk about precedence so many times in tcmm of these things and variances aren't things you give out. Aanenson: ...a code amendment to thc flag lot variances because for some reason it's 20 feet and we've never understood why. That's one Paul brought in from 1Vfinn~,.But you're right, until it's changod it's a variance. Ledvina: And the other thing that I thought we'd have more discussion on relalm to the length of thc cul-de-sac. 106 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Scott Which Ladd touched on for public safety purpose~ Scott: Perhaps then as a comment, ~ince we've voted on this. It would be optional for thc applicant, or be optional, what we'd like to have is have city staff prepare that kind of variance analysis so at least, I mean we've already voted on it but at least we'd like to take a look at it. Okay. 1Vam~o: Yeah, and I didn't unders~ under those two, thc Lot 8, Block 2. I mean it didn't make sense. PUBLIC HE--G: CONSIDER MODIFICATION NO. 13 TO Itl~.DEVELOPMF. NT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR DOWNTOWN CI-IAN~ANSEN Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. Scott: I've got a question on the c~on of ! guess for public i ~mprov~ we've got $450,000.00 of TIF money. For the construction of the pedestrian bridge and did we not get a, I mean that looks like the total cost of that bridge. Gerhardt: The bridge is approximately $700,000.00. Sco~ $700,000.00 and that includes land acquisition? Gerhardt: Yes. Land acquisition is going to be roughly about $35,000.00. Scott: Okay. And how much money did we get f:mm, for ISTEA? $375? $3507 Gerhardt: $280. Scott: Okay. And then administration for $750,000.00. What's that? Gedmrdt: 6% of all the public improvements. Costs up and above. It's just an estinuue for consultants, staff time and that. It's typically around 6%. Scott: Okay so for staff time, isn't staff time pnid out of salaries? 107 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Gerhardt: No. You still have to highlight my time involved with the pedestrian bridge. Paul Kranss' time. Kate's time. There's a percentage of employe~ that are paid out of lax increment so you could have...has probably wadr~! on the front end of it almost 100%. $o it's just a rough estimate. Scott: So as the, do TIF dollars go w the city to pick up the salary? Let's say Paul spends 50% of his time. Let's say Paul gets $100,000.00 a year. He spends 50% of his time working on TIF related stuff. City of Chanhassea is paying him $100,000.00 a year. Because he spent 50% of his time, does thc city of ~ get reimbursed for $50,~.00 of his time because he's sp~_ndiqg his time_ working on tax in~t stuff? Is that why, how this works? I'm just trying to understand why TIN dollars would be paying for city staff, who are already getting paid. Gerhsrdt: h's a sophisticauxt computer s~ that we have and in there it breaks out where ~t funds or salaries come out of. So it pulls money out of each of those funds. So fight now the, Paul's time is paid out of the HRA budget. 50% of that. So and the rest comes out of the Planning depot's budget. 50%. So when he gets a check, they just draw off of my HRA budget and pay for Paul's salary. Scott: So they're just allocating the expense? Okay. Gerhardt: And in here we've just got to highlight 30%...In our estimate 6% of the total public improvement projects. Scott: And so with the, including the State Highway 101 up to Town Line Road, is that because Highway 101 is kind of an orphan of MnDot and we're charting the boundaries so we can ues TIF dollars to upgrade it so, okay. Mancino: Will all that tax revenue go into TIF? Gerhardt: No. This is just a boundary... Ledvina: You can spend it but you can't collect it. ' Gerhardt: ...where you're collecting on that. You cannot change that boundary. So it still retains on there where the tax increment boundary. The little squares highlight thc existing project areas. And the solid black line... Scott: Okay. I've beaten to death what I wan~! to do. Any other questions or comments? Can I have a motion please? 108 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Harbem: I'll move approval that the Planning Comuflssion recommends to the City Council approval of resolution that is attached to the staff report finding Modific4~tion No. 13 to the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. Scorn Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission approve the resolution that is attached to the staff report (Attachment 4~) finding Modifl~on No. 13 to the Redevelopment and Tax Increment Fimmein{ Plans ~t with the city's comprehensive plan. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimo~y. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO ~ CITY CODE TO BRING ~ WETLAND ORIHNANCI~. INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE WETLAND (~0NSERVATION ACT, Ka~e Aanenson presenmi thc staff report on this itcrn- Mancino: But it doesn't really say that. It says grealrr than or equal to 1:1 but not exceeding 2:1. Aanenson: Well this is out of the...ordinance of the State law and so that's what the State law language has to read. Mancino: $o that means 2:1. Aancnson: But in layman's terms. Scott: No. Mancino: But that doesn't mean 2:1. It means between 1:1 and 2:1. Sc, om That ~s 1.1 to 1 or something. That's not double mitigation. Ledvina: But not exceeding 2:1. Mancino: I have gotten thc impression that, and I hadn't read anything that it was 2:1 now 109 Planning Commi~ion Meeting - March 2, 1994 but it isn't. Scott: Is there any reason why we can't be, why we can't say that this ~ mitigation of 2:1 will be required? I mean I think it's pretty silly to have this kind of language in there if it means you do 1.01 to 1 and that's it. That ain't 2:1. If we're serious about it, we should change that. Ledvina: But we don't necessarily want to limit them to 2:1 as a maximnm_ They could do 5:1. What's wrong with that? Harlxums: So you're saying a minimum of 2:17 Scottz No. Ledvina: Or I ~ a maximum. Mancino: Yeah, maybe it's a minimum of 2:1. Ledvina: Or not saying that. I agree that in most applic~ons it's a 1:1 mitigation. But what this says is it's not exceeding 2:1 which means that the maximum. Aanenson: This is Diane's summary though. What you have to do is read it out of the Mancino: So Matt you would like to see, not having a maximum of 2:17 Ledvina: Yeah. Why take the upl~ cci'ling off. Mancino: And maybe a minimum should be 2:1. Hartnma: Well if you look on page 3 Matt, Section 7. It says mitigation will be perfm'med at a ratio required by State law. Aanenson: Right, there you go. Harberts: Does that take care of it? Sco~ But what's the State law? Is the State law what we see there? That's not 2:1. Aanenson: We're getting hung up on Dlane's summary comments. I think what we need to 110 Planing Commission Meeting - Maxch 2, 1994 do is leave her cornments...I think what Diane's saying is that's kind of how the lay people are interpreting right now 2:1 but the 8tat~ what it says in the ordinance that we're adopting, that Diane pointed out, is mitigation shall be as followed by State law. Go by Roger's. Mancino: Can you be more aggressive than State law? Harberts: I think you'd have to have sorr~ very strong rationale. Otherwise you're going to be exactly consistently def~ding it. Aanenson: There's a crim'ia that it has to be placed on site... Ledvina: And we are reducing the setback from 150 to 75 feet. Ledvinm For septic. Aauenson: Right. Yeah, ~ it wasn't consistent with the house setback and you allowed the house to go 75 feet. But then we said for the septic they had to be 150 so for some reason, when we looked at, that was originally in the wetland ordinance and when we rewrote it, of course we just left it in without thinking about what it came up to down the line... Ledvina: Okay. Scott: Wcll, are we ready for a motion7 Mancino: I move that wc accept, that we approve, that we adopt the proposed amendment to the Wetland Protection Ordinance. Mazleino moved, Har~ secollded that the Plalllliljg Comrnlaaioll reco~d to adopt the proposed amendments to the Wetland PFotection Ordinance. All voted in favoF and the motion carried unanimm~y. Sco~ Now can I congr~_p,l~_te you on your appoinmt7 I'd like to, on behalf of the Planning Commission congratulate Kate Aanenson as being appo~ our new Planning Director and since Paul is not yet cold in his grave, I didn't want to do this at the be~nning of the mee~g. But anyway, and I'm pretty excited too about Paul's. I had a chance to talk 111 Planning Commission Meeling - March 2, 1994 to the Human Resources person from Aumm I think it's called, and I did my best to dissuade her from hiring him but obviously others had gotten there before. Ledvina: Aurora, is that? Aanenson: Auburn. Scott: Auburn. It's a town of about 35,000, near Seattle and Paul's got family out them and I guess his parents are going to relocat~ to that area. But anyway, are there any Administrative things that we need to, because I know everybody would like to get out of here. Aanenson: I just want~ to touch on, you ~ at the meeting Soc. On Monday night th~ City Council, you'll see Spinnaker's Wharf back. They tabled it. They wanted to see... What th~ ~ed on flint is thgy f~lt it should go the l~tditional subdivision. Eith~ corning in with the PUD with ti~ 11,000 square foot minimum...which is already in pla~ or doing just a standard subdivision. Scott: And the direction was quite clear from the, they got kind of tied up in some ancillary stuff but I just made a quick comment and just said the ivason why we sent it up is not that we didn't know what to do with it. We wanmd some direction from them. Did they want to see 5,000 square foot minimum lots or 11,0007 And we wanted direction if th~ wanted to change the ordinance. But they didn't and that's why it's back. Farmakes: By the way, this is the Boyer development. I was at the open houses here which are the ones that they had in Minnetonka. It's a ~$00,~.~ house. On 5,000 square feet. Harberts: And were they selling? Farmakes: Only one was left. Scott: The~'s a mark~ for it. Aanenson: And the other one was the Harstad one that you saw on Minnewashta and Kings Road. They also, the applicant did meet with us a couple days prior to the City Council meeting and he's leaning toward the direction that we had recommended. Mancino: Oh the park? Aanenson: With thc park and the lot sizem and the reconfigumfion so he asked that it be tabled inslead of denied. You'll be seeing that back. 112 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 Farmakes: Are you going to get to the Minutes? Scott: Yeah. So this is our Administrative Section here. Anything? Mancino: What arc they doing on Highway 57 Aanenson: It's going to the City Council on the 28th. They'll be holding a public hearing. And I don't think at that time they'll, oh. What happens is I have two expiration terms in '94 and one in '95. Diane and Nancy and Joe so I was going to let you draw. Mancino: No we have them. They're up on our thing. I have a list. Scott Really, what's mine? Mancino: We've got our expiration dates. Aancnson: Oh you do? Could you let us know. Mancino: Yes. APPRQVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Scott noted the Minutes of the Planning Connnission meeting ~ February 16, 1994 as ~ by Jeff Farmakes on page 50, line 12. Changing the words "right attractive" to '"might attractant". Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the ~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepa by Nann Opheim 113