Loading...
PC 2000 02 16CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 2000 Acting Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Ladd Conrad, LuAnn Sidney, and Matt Burton MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson and Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR A TWO-STORY 2,464 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING ON A .50 ACRE SITE ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DAKOTA AVENUE AND LAKE DRIVE EAST ON LOT 1, BLOCK 2, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA, FINANCIAL INTERIORS OFFICE, JACK CHRISTENSON. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Any questions for Bob? Anything? Kind: I have one quick question. Infill, what does that mean? Generous: That's existing lots that are undeveloped or vacant or under utilized. Kind: Okay. I've never heard that term before. Generous: It's like the subdivision that they get in where they have one lot and they make two or three. Kind: Okay, thanks. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I have a couple questions for Bob and I think a couple for Dave. First, dumpster. Garbage. Recycling. Is that going to be in the interior? Generous: Interior use and they'll carry it out. They'll have to contact them. Blackowiak: Secondly, I noticed that specifically there's a wood fence that's existing that appears to encroach into the property and then there seems like there's a portion of a chain link fence that also encroaches. Is there any change to be made to those or are they going to stay as is? Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 Generous: That would be up to the developer. I believe his intention is to leave them stay, but you're right. The one definitely encroaches onto the properly and so there are issues about that. But not from our standpoint. Basically they're leaving the southern part of the site alone. Blackowiak: Right. That's what I was curious about. Generous: So maybe the applicant can address for you. Blackowiak: Okay, good. Dave, a couple questions. And I think Kate maybe talked to you a little bit about this. I had talked to Kate about the possibility of either some type of a path on the south side or a crosswalk. Of course seeing that report on the TV the other night, I don't know that crosswalks are going to do any good but maybe just sort of an area delineated for people to cross. What are your feelings on those items? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. There is currently a sidewalk on the north side of Lake Drive East to the intersection of Dakota. Given the use of this properly, which is relatively light, I guess I really don't see the need for a sidewalk on this site. As far as a crosswalk goes, it would only be appropriate to have a crosswalk at the intersection of Dakota and Lake Drive East. Have a striped... Blackowiak: Right. That's kind of what I was thinking. That there are some areas that are fairly narrow right along Lake Drive so I don't know that there would necessarily be room even for a trail, but in the absence of some type of a trail to the east, I would hope that we could at least do a crosswalk to kind of encourage people to make their dash across Lake Drive at the intersection as opposed to anywhere else. So what other criteria do we need to look at for a crosswalk? Hempel: Well one of the criteria, well each intersection would just have them. Typical crosswalk with the stop situation. That's on Lake Drive and Dakota which is just a matter of striping the intersection appropriately to designate that as a crosswalk area. There's not a sidewalk down Dakota. That's probably why it's not been striped in the past but we can certainly look into that. Blackowiak: Okay, I would certainly encourage that because I think there is a lot of traffic coming up from that area as it is. I mean I know that I live down a little further south and my kids and other neighbors often go up to McDonald's and that's a treacherous comer at best to cross so I would hope we could maybe at least look at that. And then the second thing has to do with parking. I know that they're talking four employees right now. Six maybe in the future. If they continue to grow, and if there's overflow parking, what would happen? Since there's nothing on Lake Drive. I've talked to some neighbors and there was one specifically who asked me to talk about the possibility of posting a no parking on either side of Dakota if indeed parking became a problem there, because again that intersection is so bad and you're coming, if you come out of that neighborhood, you come from the south. You're driving north on Dakota Avenue and it's, people just don't stop. I mean the people east/west on Lake Drive just simply, I mean it's kind of an optional thing for them and so I worry that if we're going to have more parking on either side that that could be a potential problem. And again I'm kind of anticipating something that may happen in the future but I would at least like to get that on the record for the people that I talked to 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 that maybe we could keep that in mind and if indeed they do continue to grow, that we could at least post a portion of that Dakota Avenue so that we don't have any problem with further visibility reduction on that segment. Hempel: Yes, we can certainly take a look at that. Blackowiak: Okay, great. That's it for me, thanks. Conrad: Anyone else? Sidney: Yes one question Mr. Chair for Bob. How many motions do we need and how is the variance included in the conditions or the motion? I don't know ifI saw it here. Generous: Ah, you're right. We could do it in one. Add a condition approving the setback variance. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I looked at, the variance proposal is actually there. It's just not made part of a motion. It's the findings and their recommendation are all there. We could just make that a condition when we make the motion to add that. I think. Conrad: Okay, good point. Go for it. Bob, what do you say about impervious surface? Generous: Oh, they'll be at 30%. They could go up to 65%. Conrad: They're on at 30? That's wonderful. There's no lighting on the back, right? There's no security lighting or anything like that? Generous: There's a small wall pack unit on the north side. Conrad: Okay. Parking, you didn't do a very good job on the parking analysis. How many stalls are provided and required? Generous: There's 11 provided and 11 required. Conrad: Okay. Just a point for a staff report Bob. Make sure you mark on the staff report where the site is located on the map. That's just an aside. Truthfully the applicant, it's really hard to read the site plan. To figure out where the building is but it won't be back for a while so anyways, it's a tough site plan to review. Anything else? Okay, we'll open it up for the applicant to make any presentations if you'd like. Jack Christenson: My name is Jack Christenson and I own Financial Interiors. We've been in business for about 30 years and we design bank interiors throughout the Midwest. Basically we feel that our building is well suited for this site because of the low traffic volume that we have. We meet most of our clients off site since most of them are a long ways out of town and basically it's, as far as growth, I think the building is really only suited, at least in my business, it's really Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 only suited for a maximum of possibly eight I would say. Although that's I think six is probably at least my vision is for about six maximum. As Bob mentioned we purposely designed this building to fit the site with the residential design. One of the things that attracted me to the site was the natural trees and plantings that were there that I intend to preserve as much as possible. With regard to the issue about the fence, I did talk to that neighbor and we're going to have an agreement that allows them to leave their fence because really, I see no point in taking it out at this point. That's about all I have to say. Unless you have any questions, I'd be happy to take any questions. Conrad: Landscape plan, how come you brought in a plan that was less than what our requirements are, just out of curiosity? Jack Christenson: Well, being unfamiliar with the requirements, I tried to do this over the phone with the staff and I misunderstood what I was hearing and so I actually went with the tree that they recommended and I thought there was enough of them but I was quite a bit off and my answer to that is that we intend to do whatever is required. It's just that ignorance on our part I guess. We need to site down with the staff and determine exactly what's needed and that's the way we'll approach it. Conrad: Anything else? Sidney: Yes just one comment. As part of the landscaping plan I guess I'd like to see a tree preservation plan as well. Where you're going to be putting up erosion control barriers and trying to save the trees. Especially to the south. Jack Christenson: Okay. I think that's part of the, yeah. Sidney: I wouldthinkso, yeah. Jack Christenson: Yeah I don't see any problem with any of the issues that were raised by the stafl~ I think we can address them all and work through them. Conrad: Good. Thanks Jack. Okay, this is a public hearing. Any other comments? Anybody would like to make some points? You folks are the only ones, you're welcome to make some comments if you'd like. Nothing? Okay. Motion to close public hearing. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Any comments? Any recommendations? Blackowiak: I think it looks like a nice plan and my questions were answered and as long as we can take a look into the crosswalk, parking issues, those are kind of my major hot points right now and again if the applicant has met with the neighbor regarding the fence, and they've got an agreement about that, sounds good to me. 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 Conrad: Okay, Deb. Kind: I think it's a good plan. I really like how it looks like a house. It fits great. Conrad: Yeah, that's really cool. Kind: I agree with the staff report. Sidney: Looks good to me. I guess the only concern was the saving as many trees as possible. Conrad: Yeah, it's a good point. Whoever makes the motion, make sure that you talk about the tree preservation. Make sure you talk about the signage on the street frontage. And then the crosswalks so whoever makes that, that's a requirement. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'd just add a comment that I looked over the variance request and I do think that this applicant does satisfy the requirements for a variance. In particular I would note that the hardship in this situation was not their fault entirely. It had to do with the layout of Lake Drive and so I think it's appropriate to grant a variance in this instance. And I agree with the other comments. Conrad: I'm glad you brought that up Matt just for the record. Can I ask for a motion? Sidney: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #00-03, plans prepared by Hickey, Thorstenson, Grover, LTD, dated received January 14, 2000, subject to the following conditions and also including Findings of Fact attached. We have conditions 1 through 19 and I'd like to modify condition 5 to include the statement, the proposed landscape plan will also include a detailed tree preservation plan. And I guess I'm going to need guidance in terms of what you would want to say about the signage. Conrad: Alison, do you have a comment on how you'd need another condition? Blackowiak: Yeah, a friendly amendment. Condition 20 that staff would investigate the possibility of a crosswalk on the east side of Dakota Avenue between the subject site and McDonald's. Condition number 21. That should parking ever exceed the lot limits, no parking signs should be installed on Dakota Avenue between I would say Lake and Erie on the west, Lake and Cheyenne on the east. And then probably condition 22 that we approve the variance request based on the Findings in the staff report. Conrad: Do you agree with those? Sidney: Sure. Conrad: Okay. Like the motion. Kind: Second. Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 Conrad: Thanks Deb. Any other comments? Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #00-03, plans prepared by Hickey, Thorstenson, Grover, LTD, dated received January 14, 2000, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. Separate sign permits are required for each sign. The wall mounted lighting unit on the north side of the building must be shielded from direct off site view. 4. The applicant shall revise the parking lot landscaping to provide acceptable screening. The applicant shall revise the proposed landscaping plan to meet minimum landscape ordinance requirements prior to the issuance of the building permit. The proposed landscape plan will also include a detailed tree preservation plan. Two exits are required from the basement if it will be used for any purpose other than building mechanical or equipment service. Using it for storage would require two exits. If the building is not protected with an automatic sprinkler system, the useable space under the first story (basement) must be protected on the basement side by one-hour fire resistive construction and be provided with a solid wood or 20 minute rated door. 8. The utility plan will be reviewed when plans are submitted for permits. The building owner and/or their representative should meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 10. The applicant shall provide the City with a financial security in the amount of $4,000 to guarantee boulevard and street restoration. The security shall be provided in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. The security shall be supplied to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within Lake Drive East right-of-way. 12. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for City review and approval. The plan shall include Type I silt fence around the perimeter of the grading limits and a rock construction entrance. The proposed 8" diameter storm sewer line shall be increased to a 12" diameter line. 6 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 13. The applicant shall be responsible for sanitary sewer and water hook-up and connection charges at time of building permit issuance. The applicant will be entitled to a credit against the sanitary sewer and water connection fees for the cost of extending the sanitary sewer and water service from the existing main in Dakota Avenue to the properly line. 14. The applicant shall be responsible for any repairs or relocations of the City's street light system along Lake Drive East. 15. The applicant's engineer shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year and 100 year, 24 hour storm event for pre- and post-development conditions to the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. The driveway access point on to Lake Drive East shall be constructed with a concrete driveway apron in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5207. 18. The proposed sanitary sewer and water services shall be combined in the same trench to minimize street openings. The applicant and/or their designee shall provide traffic control measures during the sanitary sewer and water extension across Dakota Avenue in accordance with Appendix B of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. One lane of traffic must be maintained at all times on Dakota Lane. If Dakota Avenue needs to be closed, a detour route and traffic control signage plan will need to be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to construction. 19. Construction traffic to the site shall be limited to Dakota Avenue. Parking along Lake Drive East and Dakota Lane shall be prohibited. 20. Staff shall investigate the possibility of a crosswalk on the east side of Dakota Avenue between the subject site and McDonald's. 21. Should parking ever exceed the lot limits, no parking signs should be installed on Dakota Avenue between I would say Lake and Erie on the west, Lake and Cheyenne on the east. 22. The variance request is approved based on the Findings in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: 7 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-908. YARD REGULATIONS. (5)~ TO ALLOW PORCHES TO ENCROACH 10 FEET INTO A REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Questions of stafl} anybody? Kind: Yes. Bob, one of the applicants that kind of precipitated this whole investigation was this Carver Beach applicant. Will they be notified of this change? Generous: Oh that, thank you for. If this goes through we'll notify everyone who either has been denied or quit the process. Kind: Good. Good. And you've got a good list then. Generous: Yes. Kind: Good. Glad to hear that. And then in the staff report it was mentioned that the possibility to limit the porches to just the first floor. I'm interested in your perspective on that. Generous: Well I love some of the designs you can do with a porch and then above that another porch. Kind: I think it's number 20. Generous: Yes. We don't see a lot of that but I think that would be an enhancement to the community if we would permit that. The only issue, you don't want them, again we're concerned with then creating permanent living area. Kind: That would be my concern with number 20. Generous: ... but under this the ordinance is specific. It's unenclosed. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'm just looking at what your recommended language is and the first sentence basically is intent and then you have the next sentence which is this area shall be limited. I guess a couple comments. One is I think it should be for a minimal seating area, but I wonder if that whole paragraph shouldn't be like a statement of your intent and then the next would be what you're actually saying the requirements would be. And when you say the size allowing for minimal seating area, I also question whether we even need to say that. If you only have 10 feet, I mean what do we care what they do in there? It's just 10 feet. So I just question, maybe you can say, part of the intent is to allow for a minimal seating area and then the next section be what the ordinance is. I don't know, those are just the thoughts I had. I just, I'm wondering a bit about the wording. 8 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 Conrad: Yeah, I'd buy that. What do you think Bob? Burton: I think maybe just make the two paragraphs (f) and (g). I think make (f) a statement of intention and (g) what the requirement is perhaps. And the semi colon kind of makes me think they run together but usually they say that... Conrad: You're trying to, basically you're saying to give people outside access in the porch but not to really occupy too much of that front setback area. That's your intent here for homes built before '87. So I think that's, I think Matt's right Bob. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have another question. If the applicant, or a homeowner goes to the building department to get a permit to enclose a porch, is that a flag that's raised to you to investigate what the setback is? Generous: Yes because it gets routed through our department. All remodels. Kind: Okay. I was just wondering how this not enclosing it would be enforced. Because you pay attention. Generous: Oh yeah. Kind: Thank you. Conrad: Anything else? Okay, public hearing. Open for public comments. Anybody? Anything? Boy, pick on you. You're the only ones left. Audience: Just watching. Conrad: Nann, would you pan over? No, we won't put you on camera. There's nobody watching, don't worry about that. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Anything else? Any comments on the motion? Kind: I'm interested in hearing comments from, when you do your discussion about the second level or not. Whether you like that idea of a porch being on a second level or not. Got you LuAnn. Sidney: I think I like this, well the look of the home that would, that you would get out of this type of a situation rather than the two story. Kind: But the motion does not exclude two stories. Two story porches so that would need to be changed in that motion, that's in our staff report. Right? 9 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 Sidney: I guess if you want to get that... Conrad: Why do you say that though? Why does it, it's not restricted to the second floor, right? Kind: With this motion you could have a two stoW porch. Conrad: Right. And so you don't like that idea? Kind: I'm not sure ifI like that idea. I'm interested in other people's comments. Conrad: Okay. Burton: I think, I have no problem with it. I think people would generally make a porch look nice and reasonable for whatever house they have. I don't think you'd have a really small house that would put on a two stoW porch, and I think that the picture we have in our packet of a house with the two stories, I think that suits that house very well. And actually there's a couple of them now that I'm looking here, so I don't have a problem with it. If it fits the house, I think it's a nice addition. Kind: My concern is if it's going 10 feet into the setback, that that's a pretty big mass out towards the street side. And it sort of becomes more house rather than a porch. Blackowiak: Well I have a couple thoughts. First, as long as it's not enclosed I don't think that it's going to add a lot to the mass of the house. It will tend to look a little bit lighter. And secondly, I don't believe there are too many houses or too many designs that will retrofit well with a two stoW porch. There might be some but I mean that's a fairly major you know remodel job when you're talking access from the second floor. I mean structurally to beef it up so it can have a second floor. I mean it's. Sidney: Footings. Blackowiak: Yeah, I mean that's a fairly major, I would think that people would maybe spend their money differently. I could be wrong but that would be my feeling. Conrad: It doesn't seem like a big deal. Blackowiak: I don't think so. I would say that there would be so few and far between that I would not, and you know if somebody really had their heart set on a second stoW porch and it worked with the house, and they had the space, go for it. Burton: If we find there are a lot of them and we think it's a problem, we could revisit it. I'm highly doubting that that's going to happen. Conrad: Well it's a nice question because, nice question. Can you screen this in? Is this meaning screened or is this open? Generous: This is open. 10 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 Kind: Screening is enclosing? Generous: Well we had that discussion at the staff level and we're still. Conrad: It's open. This copy doesn't say, so let's talk about it because people, that would be an issue. They will be here saying, it's not really a porch. It's a floor and in Minnesota to have a porch and not a screen, you know it's like, I'm not sure. Porches would be a misnomer here. Porches. Kind: So you think they should be able to be screened? Conrad: Well, I haven't thought about it seriously. It just struck me that if you do have a porch, if you want a porch, it should be screened because of the mosquitoes here. You can't typically in Minnesota in the summer.., so what do we want to do? Burton: Homes that we have, I don't think these are typically porches that you would anticipate being screened. Kind: Ohyes. Some of them. Burton: I think we should define then, define the word enclosed and exclude say just open air and make no screening or any other. Conrad: Keep it open Matt? Is that your opinion? Burton: That's my opinion. Conrad: LuAnn? Sidney: Yes I agree. Conrad: Deb? Kind: I have a screened porch in my house and I love it. Blackowiak: But there's lots of space in the back. Kind: Yeah the back. And I think putting screens on it does give it a mass. A certain kind of mass and it makes it easy for future homeowner or that same homeowner to say, well I want windows you know. Conrad: With screen you build a half wall and yeah. So what's the intent here. Just to give them a floor? 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 Burton: The intent here is to add some aesthetics to the house and that's why we're limiting the area. So I don't think that they're going to be hanging out in these small porches anyway. Conrad: Do you buy that Alison? Blackowiak: I do. Conrad: Okay. Make sure that's clear in the motion, whoever makes it. Because it's not clear right now and they'll be here. They will be. So I heard two good things. The intent should be cleaned up. I heard we should really, whoever makes the motion, clean up the language. Staff can clean the language up but somehow make sure that they do it on their time when we're not here. Anything else? Can somebody make a motion? Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll make an attempt. I would move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 20-908, Yard Regulations, to read as follows. The intent of this section is to allow homes built prior to the adoption of the ordinance that need to add a porch as an architectural feature to define the entrance into a residence, or to allow for a minimal seating area. Burton: Did you say or to allow? Kind: Yes. That's not a complete sentence. Conrad: What are you trying to do? Kind: Prior to the adoption of the ordinance, oh I hate to work this out. The intent of this section is to allow homes built prior to the adoption of the ordinance that need to add on a porch as an architectural feature, that they be allowed to do so. Do you get the drift there Bob? Generous: Yes. Kind: Okay. Homes, and then the second part, leave it the way it is and add two sentences after the second sentence. First sentence is, porches may not extend. Oh, I'm going to, never mind. You can just.., that one. Okay, one more sentence. Porches may not be screened or enclosed in the future. Conrad: Okay. Is there a second? Kind: It's a mess. Conrad: That's okay. Is there a second? Blackowiak: I'd like to make a friendly amendment before. I worry about the word need. That needs to add a porch. Desire. I mean choose. Is there a better word? 12 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 Generous: How about just delete that need and ordinance to add a porch? Conrad: I don't want to really word smith this. That's their job but the intent is important. Burton: Mr. Chairman, maybe we can, this is a discussion but maybe we just throw the whole thing out and just. Conrad: We're really out of, we haven't even got a second to this so. Burton: So I can't discuss it? Conrad: We're not supposed to. Burton: Okay, I'll second it. Conrad; But it's good conversation. Burton: But my comments would be I think we should just throw the whole thing out and say to stafl} redraft it based on our comments. Conrad: And bring it back? Burton: Well, sure. It's not a big rush here. Conrad: Yeah. No rush Bob is there? Burton: I would imagine. Is there something? Generous: Construction season's offa few months. Conrad: Yeah, and we've had the public hearing so you can bring it back really as an administrative. Well it's not administrative but really, yeah it's old business. Let's do that. Kind: You understand the drift. Burton: So I will. Conrad: Yeah, there was a motion made and seconded. And we could vote on it and turn it down or you could withdraw your motion. Kind: I withdraw the motion. Conrad: Okay, and you withdraw your second obviously so would there be a motion to table this? 13 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 Blackowiak: I'll move to table it. Kind: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to table an amendment to Section 20-908, Yard Regulations and direct staff to bring back a new draft based on the Planning Commission's discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: Thank you for coming tonight. Audience: ... Boy Scouts communication. Conrad: Well, they didn't learn much tonight. Audience: Well they fulfill the requirement. Burton: Picked a good night for that. Conrad: Yeah, how lucky is that? APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 19, 2000 as presented. OLD BUSINESS. Generous: Both Powers Ridge and Marsh Glen were tabled. Powers Ridge they wanted to give the neighbors additional time, or council additional time to understand the building constraints on the site and how it's designed. Then for Marsh Glen they wanted to provide neighbors with additional opportunity to think what else could happen there. Conrad: And they'll think about that. Generous: Ongoing items. The Planning Commission openings. They're being advertised. th They're closing on March 6th. March 15 the Planning Commission will interview applicants. And then on April 3rd the applicants will be interviewed by City Council at a work session. Conrad: Including current members too? Generous: Yeah. I think what they say is they want, the number of openings plus two more so hopefully we'll get a whole bunch in there and make it interesting. Kind: And what if you don't get two more? 14 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 Generous: I don't know. We might have to re-advertise. Of we can go out and say, you know there's all this controversial stuff coming in your neighborhood, you'd better get on the Planning Commission. Conrad: It's in your back yard. Blackowiak: Excuse me Bob, this is something that LuAnn and I talked about earlier since we are both up. Do we need to resubmit a formal application or can we just use the application on file? Or should we call Kate and ask? Generous: Yeah, I think they want a new application. You can just change the date on it. Burton: With references. Blackowiak: I'll put you Matt. Conrad: Have we done that? I don't think we've done that in the past? Generous: I don't know that. I think you just... Conrad: But it's probably a good procedure to follow here. That's a tough deal to re-apply. That's a tough deal. Generous: I think they just want to know that you're still interested. Let Kate know and then go from there. Conrad: Can you follow that up with Kate and let them know Bob? You can e-mail them. Okay. Generous: The next agenda we have, it's a little bigger than this one. We have West Village Center, Phase II. It's a lwo building site plan. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, where's that Bob? Generous: The end of the Byerly's lot. On the west end. It's an Office Max and another retail building. It's multi-tenant. We've been working hard on it. Sidney: Got some windows on that? Generous: Yes, they did submit some today so. Sidney: Good. 15 Planning Commission Meeting February 16, 2000 Generous: You'll have to look at that. And then Highland Development which is in the Chan Business Center. They're basically over doubling their space, which is good so. Abra's coming in. They want to do an amendment to the conditional use permit. Kind: Who? Blackowiak: Abra. Kind: Oh good. Generous: I think it's for parking on site but there's a variance application and then there's a wetland alteration permit on Kurvers Point. Conrad: Okay, good. Anything we need to have staff be doing? Anything that struck you? Okay. It's a good time to, you know to ask staff to do stuff2 Generous: I did give you all copies of a thing if you want to go to the conference, if you could let us know by tomorrow and have that in so we can get the check. Conrad: That's a Hawaiian deal? Generous: Yes, that's that trip to Hawaii. Conrad: That's obviously local maybe... Generous: It's in Bloomington I think is the closest one. Kind: Is there a problem if more than three of us go? As far as open meeting. Generous: No, you have to be discussing an item that's before the City. The Mayor and one of the council members are going to that. Those two and then two of the staff are going. Conrad: Thank you. Is there a motion to close the meeting? Burton moved to close the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 16