The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1999 07 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING JULY 7, 1999 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7; 10 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deb Kind, LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce, Alison Blackowiak, and Ladd Conrad MEMBEIlS ABSENT: Matt Burton STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cindy Kirchofl] Planner I; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer (There were audio problems with the first two items on the agenda.) PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: TEIlilY BOLEN IlEQUEST FOIl A VAIIlANCE TO THE 30 FOOT IlEAIl YAIlD SETBACK FOIl THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE SEASON PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED IlSF AND LOCATED AT 8451 PELICAN COURT. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Discussion by the Commission centered around the fact that the deck was already existing and if structurally an enclosed porch could be built on top of the deck, the Commission felt comfortable approving this variance. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-$ for an 8 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback with the following condition: 1. The applicant must demonstrate that the existing deck structure is sufficient to support the three season porch. All voted in favor, except Joyce who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: DON AND JOYCE WHITE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OPEN PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 8028 DAKOTA AVENUE. Public Present: Name Address Carlos Loudavid 8039 Dakota Lane Don & Joyce White 8028 Dakota Avenue Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Don and Joyce White presented pictures to the commission comparing what their house looks like to the neighboring properties. Commissioner Conrad stated that staff should relook at the ordinance for situations like this where the lot is a substandard lot of 12,000 square feet and 85 feet of street frontage. The other commissioners felt the deck was a good addition to the house. Joyce moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-9 for a 5 foot variance from the 30 front yard setbacks for the construction of an addition. All voted in favor, except Conrad and Peterson who opposed, and the motion failed with a vote of 4 to 2. PUBLIC HEARING: SAWHORSE DESIGNERS MARK AMBROSEN AND ANN SENN REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 3830 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE. Public Present: Name Address Kent Forss Fred Bruning Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn 3850 Maple Shores Drive 4740 42nd Avenue No, Robbinsdale 3830 Maple Shores Drive Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. (Taping of the meeting began again at this point in the discussion.) Fred Bruning: Hi, my name is Fred Bruning from Sawhorse Designers and Builders. I'd like to address a couple points in the staff recommendations. Adding a bedroom I think is reasonable use of a properly. The issue is not putting the addition on. There are many places that we could meet the setback requirements with the addition. The hardship is created by those recommended locations, what happens to the properly, views of the properly. The proposed addition is off the side... They've got a very beautiful back yard area.., side yard setbacks. While their deck's right off the dining room... Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn have kind of a unique situation. The design of the home has a master bedroom suite on the main floor, but all the other bedrooms are on the lower level. For a newborn they showed a desire of having a newborn close by. Other homes in the neighborhood appear from the outside to be construction has most of the bedrooms on the same level. So it is kind of unique with this home. The home is also at the end of a street that rises along the lakeshore. By the time they get to the end, the last lot which is Mark and Ann's lot, the bank in back here goes from 970, goes down to 942. That's a 30 foot drop... That's all I guess I wish to add. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Peterson: I have one. If you look at the rear lot is rather small. Can you give me some idea how much grass they have back there on the lawn. Fred Bruning: They actually have no, very little if no grass. They've actually chosen to pave it because it's so small to have room to get some chairs and things out front. It's 10-12 feet. There is an overhang of a deck, about a 4 foot deck so as far as your room to see the sky, you know it's probably 6 feet. The bank is pretty steep beyond that. I mean it's something you'd fall and injure yourself going down this bank. The soil, there's an erosion problem with the soil. It's that's steep. Peterson: So past the patio area, how fast does it begin dropping off? Fred Bruning: Immediately. It's a 30 plus percent grade... Mark Ambrosen: When we moved into that house, the walk out off the back was about 6 feet. And we have an erosion problem on that hill so what we've chosen to do was build a retaining wall and it actually moves that out to the existing.., so that's how we arrived at the 10 foot. Because of the erosion problem there.., rectify that. Peterson: Other questions? Fred Bruning: One other point I'd like to add .... the foundation itself is actually 7 feet from the lot line but because.., and cantilevers with bays and overhangs.., but the foundation is 7 feet away. Peterson: Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward and state your name and address please. Mark Ambrosen: I'm Mark Ambrosen. I'm at 3830 Maple Shores Drive. Fred did a nice job on the technical aspects. A little bit some of the background. We've been in for, in the house for five years and we obviously had no children five years ago. Master bedroom, main level and then bedrooms on the lower level. That was a pretty untenable situation with our daughter so we tried to rectify. Looking at our house and our neighbor's layout, the reason we chose where we are not only is because it's right off our master bedroom. We thought that it would have the least impact to the neighborhood. This side of the house is at, we border on our neighbors has no windows. We felt it was seldom used. It really wouldn't impact anybody's sight lines. On that side our neighbors just put a drainage ditch over this part of the properly with some outflow, which would make it even less useable. We're not trying to make a huge addition. We're just trying to make our house livable. This is a house we intend on living in to raise our two children. The nursery will evolve into an office. My wife has an office at home that is necessary. And our existing office downstairs we're turning into a bedroom at such a point when the other children are old enough to go down there. So we're trying to make this a livable house for long term with what we thought was a minimum impact. Kent Forss: Hi, my name is Kent Forss. I live, I'm the neighbor that is being encroached upon at 3850 Maple Shores Drive. First of all I'd like to say I respect my neighbor's right to build. I have no qualm about that whatsoever. I would like him though to stay within the legal limit of the Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 building codes, which is within the 10 foot setback. We do have a porch that's right in the back there and so this structure would look, their window would look 15 feet away from our porch. So that's a concern for me. Any time you start cramming houses less than the 10 foot minimum setback, then you're going to be decreasing the properly values of the adjacent homes so that is a concern of mine as well. In addition we have a cedar shake shingle and so do they and with the ignitability and combustibility of the two shingles, we're by 20 feet, I consider that a significant enough for us but by dropping it down to 13 feet, I think it's creating a fire hazard as well. And the last thing I'd want for his family or my family would have a fire spread from one house to another. So I do have concerns about that. Again I think a 10 foot setback is minimal enough. We're both approaching the 10 foot setback right now so to try and cram another bedroom in- between our houses seems to me not to make sense. I feel for them. I'd like to see them have some workable solution. We ended up having our baby sleep in a bassinet in our bedroom with us for the first five months. Again, I don't know if the north side of the house where right next to their master bathroom would be appropriate or not. But again I'd like to see a solution for them. I'd like to be a good neighbor but on the other hand I wish our rights weren't being violated as well. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none. Close? Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, thoughts on this one? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff2 On page 3 of the staff report it talks about, there's another option available. What is that other option that's available? I couldn't quite figure it out with the following paragraph. Kirchofl~ The other option is to build it on the south side. They could put an addition on the south side of the home. Kind: Because I was reading that next paragraph and I couldn't their other option in there. Totally lost. Peterson: Other discussion? Joyce: I was going to say, I like the looks of it but I'm not going to. Conrad: I think this applicant deserves an explanation. I think he's got a good, or I would do what he's doing. Again based on our ordinance, we do have to look at the hardship and there are other alternatives and again, if we don't play to the ordinance. You look for the rationale. Apply this to other people and I can't come up with a rationale so I think staff report is fair. The applicant would be concerned with that but I think the staff report is fair because I couldn't transpose this to other people. Other houses. And that's unfortunate but that's what we have to do. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Peterson: Motion please. Conrad: Well I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance #99-7 for a 6.7 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of an addition based upon the findings presented in the staff report. Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind: I'd just like to add to Ladd's comments. To me it's sort of goes without saying. I don't know if it's official in the ordinance but that you need to have the agreement of your neighbor that is being encroached upon and since the neighbor opposes this I would never approve it. Conrad: I would never put it on the neighbor. Conrad moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #99-7 for a 6.7 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of an addition based on the f'mdings presented in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct an addition within the required setbacks. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: DON GRAY REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 226 CHAN VIEW. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of stafl~ Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. May I have a motion and a second for a public hearing? Joyce moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward. Seeing none, a motion and a second to close. Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts? Kind: I like the idea of improving our older homes. As I said before. Peterson: So noted. Anyone else? Conrad: Yeah, looks good. Peterson: A motion and a second please. Kind: I move the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-6 for an 18 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition and a 10 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a detached garage based upon the findings presented in the staff report with the following condition number 1. Peterson: Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, yes I do have a question. Staff had recommended the garage be moved back. Should that be a condition of approval? Are you basing that on any findings or did you want it a condition? Kirchofl2 The recommendation is that a 10 foot variance be granted so they'll have to maintain the 20 foot setback for the garage. Blackowiak: Okay, so that's incorporated in moving the garage back. Kirchofl2 Yep. Blackowiak: Fine, I'm clear on that. Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-6 for an 18 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition and a 10 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a detached garage based upon the findings presented in the staff report with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit a survey completed by a licensed land surveyor at the time of building permit application. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PAT AND JUDY NEUMAN REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE 30 FOOT BLUFF SETBACK AND A VARIANCE FROM THE 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-4 AND LOCATED ON LOT 4~ BLOCK 4~ CHANHASSEN VISTA (CHIPPEWA CIRCLE). Public Present: Name Address David Segal Judy & Pat Neuman Laurie Clauson Laura Podergois Dennis Karstensen 2220 Cap Code Place, Minnetonka 1654 Portland, St. Paul 751 Chippewa Circle 720 Chippewa Circle 7482 Saratoga Drive Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: ... I assume we'll find out momentarily but does the applicant... ? Okay, I'll find out in a few minutes. Other questions of staff'? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have one question. What is the width of the lot right at the very, at the street? The street frontage. Kirchofl5 42 feet. Blackowiak: Okay, that is the 42 at the street. Don't we have a minimum street frontage? Kirchofl5 It is 90 feet at the 30 foot setback or in this case a 25 foot setback. On cul-de-sac lots you have to measure back to make sure it's 90 feet at the 30 foot. At the required front yard setback. In this case it's 25 feet for the whole PUD. Blackowiak: Alright and so, and they meet the 25 is what? Kirchofl5 If the subdivision would come in today, that's what they would be required to making. Blackowiak: Okay, and does this lot meet that setback is my question? Kirchofl5 Dave, do you have a scale? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Blackowiak: It's notto scale? Hempel: It's not to scale. The drawing's been reduced. Kirchofl~ No, it does not meet the minimum 90 feet. But again it's a PUD and they may have approved it that way. It looks like it's about 80 feet in width at the 25 foot setback. Blackowiak: Okay, and so you're, are you comfortable then with the size of the lot? Aanenson: Well the lot's existing. What we're looking at now is the standards that were put in place with that subdivision. Applying those standards for that. It's different standards. 15,000 square foot lot with 30 foot setback, front and rear. So what we're looking at is the standards that were put in place for this lot. Was your question for a building for that lot? Blackowiak: Kind of yeah. I mean it's so tiny. At the cul-de-sac. Aanenson: The house sits toward the front of the lot. Blackowiak: I mean just the lot itself is rather small. I guess my question was, are you comfortable with the size of the house on the lot? Kirchofl) Yes we are. It's comparable in size to the neighboring properties. Conrad: And how does the building pad relate to the other neighbors? Kirchofl~ You mean in terms of placement? I do have the surveys of the adjacent parcels and I could put that up on the. This is the properly that is directly to the south of the subject site. The home is, as you can see, it's shifted to, away from Lot 4. This is the properly that is directly to the north of the subject site and they have approximately 15 foot side yard setback so the distance between the two houses would be 25 feet if they were to maintain the 10, which is what they're planning on doing. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Kind: Condition number 2. Grading shall not take place beyond 10 feet of the foundation. Was it your intention for the entire foundation or just on the bluff side? Kirchofl) That's correct, it should be just on the bluff side. Peterson: If there's no more questions for stafl~ would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Pat Neuman: ... we've lived in St. Paul for 20 years and during that time the office that I work at moved to Chanhassen so I've been commuting for the last 4 or 5 years. We have two daughters... The house that we've selected to build on the.., two car garage as opposed to a three car garage... 8 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Laura Podergois' comments were not picked up on tape. She spoke in opposition to the variance request. Laurie Clauson's comments were not picked up on tape. She spoke in opposition to the variance request. Dennis Karstensen's comments were not picked up on tape. He spoke about when this subdivision was platted and the conservation easement that was put in place around Kerber Pond Park. David Segal's comments were not picked up on tape. He was the developer of this subdivision and spoke to the size and configuration of the lot at the time of platting. Pat Neuman: ... square feet. The second floor, 1,175 for a total of 1,997 square feet. For the most, essentially that's what we're proposing is what we see on the drawing here. This isn't, the builder is saying we'll have to, you know we'll have to accommodate the slope and so forth but basically this is what we're intending to put on the property and like I mentioned before, we did go through and try to find several books that we got out of the library. We went through drawing after drawing trying to find a reasonable house that we could put on the property that was comparable, you know for a family. A family home in the area. And I do, certainly do enjoy the neighborhood and I can understand why the neighbors would not want a house in that location. But then again I can understand why someone that has been paying taxes since the mid 1980's on this piece of property and now is told that well you can't sell it because you can't put a house on it. Well there seems to be a problem there. And another point that I'd like to make is, and it might sound kind of up in the air but basically you know we're all talking about trying to reduce urban sprawl and newer houses going out further and further and consuming farmland. But I think basically in St. Paul at least, what they're trying to do there is trying to utilize the land they have so I think, just my feeling from the staff report also be a part of that larger picture. Peterson: Anyone else? Come back up to the podium, yes. Laurie Clauson: ... giving a variance when the majority should... Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, a motion to close. Sidney moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Your thoughts on this one. Conrad: ... 9 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Kirchoff5 The home design is comparable with those in the surrounding neighborhood. It could have been a different design and it may have alleviated or some of the, what I'm trying to say is, any way the design is put on there, they'll still need a 30 foot bluff setback. There's such a limited buildable area that it's difficult to design a house for this lot. Peterson: Even if you find a smaller footprint... Aanenson: To make the lot buildable it has to be a variance... Joyce: Are the other homes approximately 2,000 square feet... ? Kirchoff5 Just a visual survey, I'd say yeah. Joyce: About the same square footage? Kirchoff5 Basically yes. Maybe a little larger. Peterson; I'd say this one is smaller than the other ones. Joyce: So we're talking about pitch rather than the style issues. Peterson: Any comments, questions? Entertain a motion. Conrad: A question Mr. Chairman... what's the rationale for that? What are we trying to do? Kirchoff5 I'll explain further. On the main level there is a covered porch, or an open porch. And underneath that the applicant, in the rear part of the house, the west part of the house would like to have a deck. With only an 8 foot deck he doesn't get any light in and it's not really useful so he wanted to do another 8 feet so therefore, that's where I got the 16 feet from for the maximum encroachment into the bluff~ Conrad: What protects the rest of the bluff'... ? Kirchoff5 Well, with the shift that staff recommended, the area of the foundation will be minimized that was proposed by the applicant. The applicant had a larger comer of the proposed house into the bluff and with the shift, two small comers of the house will be located in the bluff and actually did make a calculation and as the applicant has proposed, the deck would encroach 17 feet into the bluff and with the shift it was reduced by 1 foot. Conrad: And environmentally what are we saying this is doing? Kirchoff5 Well it is hoped that by eliminating the amount of foundation in the bluff area that there will be less grading into the bluffk Conrad: So staffdoes not recommend... 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Aanenson: Well that's always an option. I guess the fact is that it's a lot of record. We have to grant a variance for them to build. The question... The question the way that Alison asked before.., not have the bluff ordinance in place. The other homes are enjoying that. This one was penalized by that and.., variance comes in, what is the appropriate... Having said that, the applicant is requesting that style home. So that's what we're... Peterson: Other comments or thoughts? Kind: Mr. Chairman I have another question of stafl~ The two neighboring homes, what are the front setbacks? Are they at the 25? Kirchofl5 The home to the north maintains a 25.5 foot front yard setback. And the property to the south maintains a 25.7 foot front yard setback. Peterson: Other questions? If not, may I have a motion. Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance #99-8 for a 5 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a single family home based upon the findings presented in the staff report, conditions 1 through 5. Condition 2 stating grading shall not take place beyond 10 feet on the bluff side of the house foundation. Peterson: Is there a second? Kind: Second. Peterson: Moving and second, any discussion? Joyce moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #99-8 for a 5 foot variance from the 25 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a single family home based upon the findings presented in the staff report with the following conditions: The home shall be rotated to the south as shown on the plans prepared by staff to minimize the area of the foundation that encroaches into the bluflk 2. Grading shall not take place beyond 10 feet on the bluff side of the foundation of the home. 3. The lower deck cannot encroach more than 16 feet into the blufl2 A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. 5. The top of the bluff shall be noted on the survey submitted as part of the building permit 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CSM CORPORATION REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1~ (39.49 ACRES)~ BLOCK 2~ CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER INTO 5 LOTS AND VACATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND WEST OF DELL ROAD~ SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of stafl~ Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have one. Didn't we see this before? Al-Jarl) Yes. Blackowiak: So why are we seeing it again? Al-Jarl) They are splitting it. The original application was withdrawn. It actually was never approved by the City Council so it's a dead plat. Blackowiak: But it was effectively the same. Al-Jarl) It was three buildings rather than four new ones. Blackowiak: Okay. Al-Jarl) And what they're doing with this one is reducing the size of the lots, the size of the buildings, adding more office and reducing the warehouse portion. Joyce: Sounds good. Blackowiak: The Eden Prairie, yes I'm sure. And then I didn't see a sidewalk as part of the south side. I know that that was something we had pushed for before and it got dropped. Is there a sidewalk there or is there not one? A1-Jafl~ No there isn't. And we will address that with the site plan. Blackowiak: Okay, so we don't need to... A1-Jafl~ No. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Seeing none, would the applicant like to address the commission? If so, please come forward. Jon Dietrich: Jon Dietrich, RLK... We are the site plan and landscape architects and civil engineers representing CSM Corporation on the development here known as Southwest Tech Center. With me tonight is the project manager.., and we basically will be talking in more detail about the entire site development in two weeks. The reason we are here tonight is to look at the plats so that we can begin that process of review at the County as we're going through the site plan aspect of it so we are here to answer any questions in regards to the plat for.., submitted plans to the city. They are reviewing them for the site plan, landscape, grading, utilities. We have already estimated the south, we feel this is an improved plan over what was previously approved, and the plan was approved by City Council previously. There was just a disagreement between the landowners and the developers so it never was consummated and.., development did die. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chairman. Do you agree with the conditions stated in the staff report? Jon Dietrich: In terms of all the conditions with the lot lines that have been adjusted, there are numbers that are not quite right so we need to go through each and every one of the conditions and make sure that they are correct and I would like to address those in two weeks. Peterson: May I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address. Seeing none. Joyce moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, thoughts on this one? Motion and a second please. Sidney: I make the motion that the Planning Commission approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #99-8 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the plat received June 4, 1999 with the following conditions 1 through 24. Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #99-8 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the plat received June 4, 1999, with the following conditions: 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 10. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates or State Plumbing Codes. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted in conjunction with final plat approval for staff review and City Council approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The applicant and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage maps for 10- year and 100-year storm events for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide depending on pipe depth. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. The developer shall be responsible for acquiring any easements outside the plat prior to recording the final plat No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. Landscape materials shall not be placed within drainage swales or over utility lines. The applicant may place landscape materials within the drainage and utility easement conditioned upon the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume of Dell Road. Security or other acceptable means to guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic signal for the entire development will be required. If importing or exporting of earthwork materials is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction commencing. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). Cross access and maintenance agreements with the city shall be prepared and recorded against Lots 1 and 2 for the city The City shall be included in the use for accessing the regional storm water pond. The existing driveway access to Lot 5 shall be abandoned or reconfigured to accommodate emergency vehicle access. The developer shall be responsible to obtain a temporary construction easement from the property/properties for the storm sewer construction south of Lot 3 in the City of Eden Prairie. The rock construction entrances shall be shown on the Erosion control plans at every construction access point. The rock construction entrances shall be maintained until all disturbed areas are revegetated. All catch basin inlets shall be protected with silt fence, rock filter dikes or hay bales as well. Pedestrian access to and along Lake Drive East shall be incorporated in the site plan design process for each lot. The developer shall review the site conditions prior to construction for existing erosion control problems or damaged streets and utility improvements. Once construction activities commence the developer assumes full responsibility for site conditions and any corrections prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The developer will be responsible for removing the sand deltas in the regional pond and repair the associated erosion problem in conjunction with development of site. Increase berm height along the south property line adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 by three feet. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 22. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide over the trunk storm sewer line. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 23. The property lines Lots 1 and 2, and Lots 3 and 4, shall be made straight. 24. The proposed Industrial development of 39.39 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $93,957 and a water quantity fee of $88,421. The applicant will be eligible for credit to the water quantity fee based on oversizing the design of the trunk storm sewer system. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Second motion and a second please. Kind: I move the Planning Commission approve Vacation #99-2 of the utility and drainage easements over Lots 1 and 2 subject to the following condition number 1. Sidney: Second. Peterson: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Vacation #99-2 of the utility and drainage easements over Lots 1 and 2 subject to the following condition: The applicant shall provide the city with the legal description of the easements proposed to be vacated. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: EDEN TRACE CORPORATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION INTO LOTS 1~ 2~ 3~ BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOTS A AND B~ CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 8TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple. I believe they'll be to you Dave. First of all there is mention of a possible future traffic signal at Lake Drive West and Powers. Do you foresee anything at Lake Drive West and Audubon? And then my second question is the possibility of a daycare on the north side and a large park area on the south side of Lake Drive West, should we be considering a crosswalk of some sort or what kind of provision could there be for safely crossing in the middle of Lake Drive West? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. To address the traffic signal issue. The traffic studies... at the intersection of Audubon Road and Lake Drive West would not meet warrants for installation of a traffic signal. Only at the intersection of Lake Drive West and County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard). To address the crosswalk issue. That's a very valid point. I think we were kind of relying on... parcel on the south side of Lake Drive West... high density apartment type dwellings. To try and coordinate with their access point. Curvature of the road, horizontal and vertical alignment of the road to create a crosswalk area. There is one crosswalk being proposed down by the city park entrance west of the proposed cul-de-sac by the name of Upland Court I believe it is, which is probably in the range of 2 to 3 blocks west of this proposed cul-de-sac that's before you tonight so we can certainly look into the need for an additional crosswalk in that location but I think it would be more realistically looked at when that vacant parcel, the high density gets reviewed in the future. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Piggy backing off of Alison's. Are daycares required Sharmin to have their own play equipment? Al-Jarl) They're not required by city ordinance, no. Kind: How about State? Aanenson: Don't know. A1-Jafl) I don't know. Kind: I feel like that's a rule. Play school or a preschool that my daughter went to, they were required to have a play structure. It seems like it might fall under the same category. It's worth looking into. A1-Jafl) The State, as part of the approval we would require the State to submit in writing approval of the daycare center. So if it's a requirement by the State, I'm sure that they would have to provide it. Kind: Because the demand for going across the street to the public park would be less if the daycare had their own play structure. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 A1-Jafl2 Sure. Blackowiak: I agree but I still think they're going to do it occasionally. Kind: You're right. Blackowiak: A picnic, special... I just don't want, think ahead. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Kind: I have one more question along the lines of safety for kids. With the railroad tracks being right behind, obviously the fence is really critical. Is there any specific rules against a chain link style fence for instance that could be climbed by small feet? I just want to put that forth as maybe not a good fence for the daycare. Something slippery and with narrow slates that maybe could go through. Something to think about. Peterson: Okay, would the applicant like to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Just give you a key to city hall. Mark Undestad: Mark Undestad. I'd like to just point out a couple, in your comments Alison on the crosswalk idea. They do, they will take little field trips here and there. The initial industrial park has the trail on the north side of the road. That they would stay on that side until they got up to the park crossing and then at that crosswalk at that time. And they do have an area that... equipment, swing sets, that kind of stuff on site there. So it's mainly just special field trips that they'll wander off every one and then. That's it, do you have any questions? Peterson: My only comment, I think I give it to you every time but if you can get a copy, a color copy of that prior to the council. It's still a valuable. Any other questions? Thank you. Mark Undestad: Thank you. Peterson: A motion and a second for public hearing please. Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Motion to close. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, comments please. Motion please. Kind: I'll make a motion. I move the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat for 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Subdivision #99-9, for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition as shown on the plat received June 4, 1999 with the following conditions. 1 through 22. Joyce: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Conrad: Just a bit. I don't catch.., pedestrian circulation in here. Was everybody comfortable with that? It raised any issues. Peterson: What did you see that made you uncomfortable? Conrad: Tough time picking it up. No flags raised? Kind: Worth looking again. A1-Jafl~ There is a sidewalk... Conrad: And they go where? Just around. Connectivity to anything? A1-Jafl2 ... Conrad: And that site, that's okay? Aanenson: You want to see how it relates to the bigger piece? Conrad: Yeah. Yeah, that's really where I'm struggling. Aanenson: We've got the entire parcel. Conrad: So there's really not a circulation flow that we're. Aanenson: It's a cul-de-sac you're worried about, getting down to. Conrad: Yeah. Not really trying to make a point other than be comfortable with that in this cul- de-sac. A1-Jafl2 I thought I made it a condition of approval. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, there is a condition that the cul-de-sac street have a sidewalk installed. Along 8th Street. It's 21. Page 19. It's of the plat. Preliminary plat. Conrad: That's in which one? Aanenson: 21. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Peterson: Page 19. Other comments? It's been moved and seconded. Kind moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #99-9 for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition as shown on the plat received June 4, 1999, with the following conditions: The final plat shall revise the cul-de-sac street design to include a 30-foot radius at the point where the street connects to the cul-de-sac on the southwesterly comer of the cul-de- sac. The developer shall submit street names to the Public Safety for review and approval. The final street name shall be listed on the final plat and construction documents. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All side slopes in excess of 3 to 1 shall be restored with erosion control blankets after site grading is completed. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The street shall be constructed in accordance with the city's urban industrial street section. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7- ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Apron Detail Plate No. 5207. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and comply with their conditions of approval. No berming shall be permitted within the city's right of way. Landscaping may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. Street and utility improvements located within the public street right-of-way upon completion will become City maintained and owned. Individual sewer and water services through each lot shall be privately owned and maintained. Building permits will be required from the City's Building Department for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the public utility lines located outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration for access routes shall also be incorporated in the easement width. The developer shall escrow with the City a financial guarantee for a share of the local cost participation based on traffic generated from the site for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard. The cost of the traffic signal is not known at this time. Preliminary estimates between the City and County may be used for an security escrow. Driveway access points to the lots shall be limited to the interior street system and not Lake Drive West. Access to Lots 1,2 and 3, Bk. 1 shall be reviewed by the city on an individual basis as site plans are submitted. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The developer shall petition the City to vacate the drainage and utility easements dedicated over Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, prior to recording the final plat. The developer shall be responsible for adjustments to existing infrastructure impacted by site improvements. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. The applicant shall submit a boulevard tree landscape plan for city approval. The plan shall list location, species and size of materials. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 19. The lot frontage for lot 2 shall be increased to a minimum of 60 feet. 20. One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square feet. All signage must meet the following criteria: a. All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages.- c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. i. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. 21. A sidewalk shall be extended along A Street. 22. Fire Inspector conditions: a. All the post indicator valves going into the building must have tamper protection. b. Please refer to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policies for site and building requirements for plans to be issued to the Building Department." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Go back to site plan review. Is there a motion please? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Blackowiak: I'll recommend the Planning Commission approves Site Plan Review #99-14 for a daycare, office/warehouse building as shown on the site plan received June 4, 1999, subject to the following conditions and those would be 1 through 21. Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of Site Plan Review #99-14 for a daycare, office/warehouse building as shown on the site plan received June 4, 1999, subject to the following conditions: Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans shall be submitted to staff for review and approval by to the City Council consideration of the site plan. The applicant shall work with staff in revising westerly curb radii at the driveway entrance to accommodate fire apparatus vehicles Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Installation of the private utilities throughout the site will require building permits through the City's Building Department. The proposed driveway access shall incorporate an industrial driveway apron and pedestrian ramps on the plans in accordance with City detail plate 5207 The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee the boulevard restoration, and erosion control measures. Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow which will be returned upon satisfactorily completing the project. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans within two weeks the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility improvements shall be construction in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency, i.e. Watershed District. No berming is permitted within the City's right-of-way. Landscaping improvements may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. Site plan approval shall be contingent upon final plat approval of Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition. The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area. The applicant shall be responsible for any adjustments to the existing sanitary sewer manholes that are impacted with development of the site. The applicant shall modify the design of the building by introducing new architectural elements. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The applicant shall provide a detailed sign plan for review and approval. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping surrounding the parking lot. The height of the berm shall be between 3 to 4 feet. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions: a. Increase plantings for buff'er yard area in order to meet ordinance requirements. b. Increase parking lot trees by nine in order to meet ordinance requirements. c. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan that shows shrub quantities, sod or seed limits, landscaping for the daycare play area, and details of the landscaped areas and paving near the building. Building Official conditions: The daycare facility must be separated from an adjoining office, warehouse or manufacturing use by a one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation. The building owner and or their representative meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Fire Marshal conditions (Refer to attachment #2 for detailed policies): 24 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 a. Regarding the note referencing all trash and recycling to be inside the building it must be in compliance with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #20-1991. (Copy enclosed.) b. Submit utility plans for review and approval. c. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904.1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. d. Submit radius mm dimensions to the City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Section 9002.2.2.3, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. e. On the north side of the building provide approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for options available. f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. (Copy enclosed.) g. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Next motion. Conditional Use Permit please. Kind: I move the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit #99-2 to allow a daycare center in an IOP District subject to the following conditions 1 through 3, and I would like to suggest that number 3 specify a chain link fence is not acceptable. Peterson: Is there a second? Kind: You can take that out if you want. Joyce: ...type of fence. Sidney: I think that's something that can be rectified by them. Kind: Leave that out. Just 1 through 3. Blackowiak: They have that chain link fence with that slate stuff in it. Kind: They can come out.., small feet with those chain link fences. Adults can't climb them but little people can. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Conrad: Did you leave that out of your motion? Kind: I can leave it out of my motion. Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Other discussion? Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #99-2 to allow a daycare center in an IOP District subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Obtain all applicable state, county and city licenses. 3. Show type of fence and landscaping for the outdoor play area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN PROPERTIES, LLC, REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING CHANHASSEN BOW AND FILLY'S BAR AND REPLACE IT WITH EIGHT ADDITIONAL THEATERS WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF 1,400 SEATS, WITH AN AREA OF 30,000 SQ. FT. AND 9,000 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL SPACE, VARIANCES FOR SIGNAGE, HARD SURFACE COVERAGE, SUBDIVISION CREATING LOTS WITH NO DIRECT FRONTAGE ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, HWY 5 OVERLAY DISTRICT PITCHED ROOF ELEMENT REQUIREMENT AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND PAULY DRIVE; EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD; AND SOUTH OF WEST 78TM STREET. Public Present: Name Address John D. Rice Ron Krank Bob Copeland Gerald Rummel 551 West 78th Street KKE Architects 5300 Highland Greens, Suite 200, Bloomington Representing Chanhassen Bowl Sharmin AI-Jaff and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: A couple questions for you Kate. On the impervious surface. I mean I don't recall 26 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 seeing 95% before. That's an overwhelming number when you look at a percentage standpoint. Have we don't other similar projects with that high of a ratio? Aanenson: The only place would be more downtown. Medical Arts. Again this is a unique thing to do. You'd be actually adding landscaping to it but they are doing, providing additional trees and they are providing additional green space but they are providing additional landscape. There will be some parking lot... Peterson: You referenced a couple of the variances and I was trying to pull all of them out that we will be affecting with this. Over and above the ones you just mentioned, are there additional ones that you can see that we can see in the summary of really what we are granting. Aanenson: It's on the, Sharmin has it on the front page of that cover proposal. The non street frontage signs. Again, because it's an anomaly, it's a theater. It's a different type use. We would support that. Cinema in itself is, the only one in town. Peterson: Based on the ones you mentioned? Aanenson: Yeah. There was one other one and that was the parking drive aisle. Where the Hoisington-Koegler study included an unobstructed drive aisle entrance going to Pauly's Drive, which we want to have the continuity so not all traffic will be exiting out onto Market. It gives you.., to go out the other way onto Great Plains. We see that as an advantage, especially if we'll be doing shared parking. Not congesting that intersection. The engineering department's recommendation to have an unobstructed drive aisle. What that does is it takes away approximately 50 parking. Hempel: I believe 37. Aanenson: Excuse me, 37 parking stalls. So that's some of the loss so it would be our recommendation to have it unobstructed. The applicant is proposing, was showing the Hoisington-Koegler study to leave the drive. They would prefer to leave the parking in the drive aisle and slow the traffic down. Peterson: A couple more questions. Aanenson: That's one of the variances. The drive aisle was, or... Peterson: Is there a style Sharmin that, on the recommendation you say should the Planning Commission recommend. Normally you're more straight forward in asking for recommend approval. Is there some hidden agenda, Freudian slip perhaps? Aanenson: No, I think the conclusion speaks for itself. We're saying, this is an entertainment complex. There's been a lot of discuss on the council. I think the decision before the planning commission tonight is, there's been a lot of discussion and what includes the entertainment district. The Vision 2002 looked at what constitutes the downtown. What should be a proponent of the 27 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 entertainment, in the downtown district. Certainly entertainment is a component. It's different than retail.., for this is you're actually providing a different service and that is... different and it adds certainly a lot of energy to the downtown. Certainly there's been a lot of discussion internally in the staff2 The 8 versus 16, but the proposal before us tonight and for the job of the planning commission is to say does this meet the standards. You feel strongly about this project that you think it's appropriate to give those variances because you think this is going to be an asset and it's a good design to the, and you would support it. I guess that's what we're saying. That's kind of how that language came about. Just to sum up to say, if you feel strongly about the design of this building and the project itself and what it can bring to the community, then by doing that you are accepting the fact that it needs variances to make it happen. That was our attempt to explain that. Peterson: One more question. Pedestrian flow. Trying to get an idea of, obviously there's a main entrance to the cinema but if there going to be a main exit over where the old cinema entrance is? Parking? I think it's a pretty substantial difference between your entrance and exit and that affects the parking and then also whether you can address or the applicant, traffic flow in that alley way. Is that all pedestrian? Or is that going to be garbage units in there? Kind of help me understand that if you know. Aanenson: ... let the architect... Peterson: So the intent, are there entrances to the retail in the back? Aanenson: Service entrance, yes. Peterson: A strong likelihood that that will... Al-Jarl) There's a condition of approval that nothing can be placed within that 10 foot corridor. Aanenson: Building code. Peterson: Chances are it will though. Other questions of staff'? Joyce: I'm going to piggy back on what Craig was just talking about. Or mention about the alternative parking, and I think we have a nice little, well I wouldn't call them alley ways. A street on the east side of the building. Are those garbage enclosures are all, I mean how old is this? The garbage, 2-3 years old. And the garbage enclosures, the doors are smashed up. Today there was stuff all over the street. So I'm saying, I'm really, I think this alley idea is a beautiful idea but if it's going to be, you know if you're going to have containers at the end of it and people not taking care of it, it's just not going to last. I don't know, I don't have a recommendation as to how, where we're going to put the trash but I think that's a concern. Aanenson: The trash is not in the alley. It's to the north... Country Suites has a sitting area. They've got a pool and window.., but it has been revised since the... 28 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Joyce: So you're saying the enclosure, that's where I'm trying to figure out this flow. Maybe I should just wait for the applicant to come through but my question is how people are going to walk back and forth between there. Al-Jarl) ... Joyce: But you can walk all the way through that alley, past the trash enclosures into the hotel? Al-Jarl) Yes. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Currently Southwest Metro either, I'm assuming they lease spaces or use parking spaces. What is their.., at that location should a proposal of this size go through? Because it appears that they're counting all the Southwest Metro parking spots as well in their parking, you know their number which I don't, to me it doesn't rationally follow. Aanenson: Well they're non peak times. On Saturday and Sunday. And also 5:00. When we did the count last April, it disburses quickly between 5:00 and 6:00 so it will not be a conflict as commuters... Sharmin can talk about the lease and how many parking stalls they have and have reconfigured. Blackowiak: Yeah, I mean it just looks, what's the future? I mean does Southwest Metro plan to, I mean they built that little. A1-Jafl~ They plan on staying there until they can find another location. And even if they move, it would, they would move, or vacate a portion of the parking stalls. They wouldn't vacate the entire area. Right now with this proposal what they will end up doing is reconfiguring their parking spaces. It would remain in the same overall area but the area immediately next to the building will be dedicated to the retail and movie theaters and as you reach the outskirts of the parking lot, that's where Southwest Metro would end up parking. Blackowiak: Okay. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. Question for Sharmin. Condition 19. You asked that all new painted, precast building material shall be upgraded to a better material. What do you mean by better? A1-Jafl~ Right now what you have on the existing movie theaters is precast and it's painted and we've heard numerous negative comments regarding that material. It could be upgraded into... Sidney: More texture is that? A1-Jafl~ Something with more texture. Something that's more appealing than what you have on 29 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 the existing precast building. Conrad: Do you like the design? Aanenson: It's a large building. A lot of discussion was held about trying to make the building look like one theater. The theaters, retail space look different. Than going back to... kind of reduce the scale. Comparing the 50,000 square feet, comparing it to Target. 100,000... It's going to be imposing so some ofthe...make it look like it's not one building. Some of the.., as far as the material use on the existing building. How do you make some of the same... It's going to walk and talk like a theater in scale but... Conrad: In your staff report the window issue. In your recommendations you resolved your concerns with the architect? Aanenson: Yeah, I think for the most part. We went through a lot of iterations on the sign. ... material and tried to, if going through the attachments... I think that's what happened on the first page. What was done wasn't what we understood.., and modify that which has been accomplished. The green line running along the top, there was a lot of discussion on that...up or down the scale of the building. Little details like that. Then we go back to the.., expertise on that. Conrad: So you're comfortable? Aanenson: Well I think we can certainly resolve... I think if you listen to their explanation... Conrad: Do you like the marquee? Is the marquee as spectacular as we'd like it to be? And maybe that's me and not you. Is it. Aanenson: Again that's been a moving target too. I think we're getting close. Conrad: I'd rely on you to tell me. It should be spectacular, and again I'm probably the Lone Ranger here. It should be spectacular. It should be very good. Aanenson: Yep. Al-Jarl) It will be a very festive look and that's the look we would like to achieve. Conrad: Some things that I don't understand here and I've got to go back to where Craig started on the impervious surface. Your staff report, did you change condition 14 Kate? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: To 95% Aanenson: Right. That's what's out there now. It's all, pretty much all. They are taking out some additional green by providing the unobstructed drive aisle. That takes out additional. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Conrad: Market Square impervious surface? Aanenson: 55% Festival... Conrad: Condition 6. You're addressing the parking issue backwards by limiting the seat size? Or maybe that's forward. Aanenson: No. No, actually we modified that condition to say that we are recommending that but you have to accept that there will be times when there will not be enough parking. And that's why I showed the overall, there may be places that you'll have to walk further to get there, but. Conrad: What is the parking capacity that you're comfortable with? A1-Jafl~ Seating capacity. Conrad: Now I'm ofl~ Give me the parking capacity. Aanenson: I think we're relying on, we've got a standard. Is that the best number 4? 4 per. Al-Jarl) One stall per 4 seats. Aanenson: That's the number. Is that the best number? That we allow proof of parking. That's what this... 1 per 5.9 seats. We're saying that number.., and it may be, they've been trying to track what the use is. Again, going by the Hoisington-Koegler study with the shared parking, that was that 525 number so we're not that far ofl~ We may be again.., with unobstructed drive aisle. Conrad: And they're providing 487? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: Are there opportunities in softening that parking area that we have? Aanenson: That's what we talked about with the applicant. You know we want to make sure that it is pedestrian friendly. Have street furniture. Have an easy access. If you're going to walk, you've got a ways to go across the parking lot and to make it human and you're going to have kids walking through that parking lot. Conrad: And what do they walk on? Are there sidewalks that are natural that get you to the theater? I don't see them. Al-Jarl) There's a sidewalk that surrounds the theater itself. Conrad: Yeah, once you get there you're fine. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Aanenson: We talked about.., then we end up giving away additional parking but that.., talk about stripe and painted walking paths. Conrad: So they have proposed more vehicular use, landscape area than is required based on. They've put more green space in the parking lot than our ordinance requires? A1-Jafl~ No. Aanenson: They're putting in additional landscaping. There's minimal there now .... there is a sidewalk Ladd that's going. Conrad: Yeah, show me that. Aanenson: Here's a sidewalk... A1-Jafl5 It's an extension of the sidewalk by the bus shelter. Conrad: Okay. So that's on Pauly Drive. Aanenson: Right, so if you get off the bus and you want to walk that. Or walk to the bus. Conrad: And your chart on page 8, it's vehicular use landscape area. Required 8,144. Proposed 9,150. Help me with that. That's what I would interpret the green space in the parking lot. They're exceeding our ordinance. Aanenson: It is to fit the buff'er yard to your parking lot... Conrad: Can I tell that staff feels uncomfortable with the interior landscaping in the parking lot or is staff comfortable with it? The staff report says increase, and I'm not sure, that's all it says. To meet ordinance. And I'm not looking for the ordinance. Aanenson: Right. And that's when I say that they're putting additional landscape and going over towards Market. Green space.., the sidewalk along the south side of the building. Conrad: Pauly Drive. The vision for extension through the Dinner Theater, is it, what is the vision for Pauly Drive? How does the rest of it play out? I probably should know but I don't. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, the Hoisington-Koegler report showed one alternative. Basically running parallel to the railroad tracks. North of the railroad tracks. I think the applicant is, through negotiations with the Dinner Theater, we'll maybe let him address that future. Conrad: Is it an asset right now or is just a way to get out of the parking? Is it just a second way to unload this parking lot at peak time? Hempel: Essentially yes. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Conrad: Is it easy to get, who owns the right-of-way for that right now? The balance to the Dinner Theater property. Would it have to be condemned or is it, who owns it? Hempel: Who owns it right now, I believe the Dinner Theater owns it and the applicant probably will address this but I believe that he would be negotiating with. Conrad: Is that a condition of approval? Hempel: Yes it is. Conrad: That's all. Peterson: I'm starting to feel as though, I think it may be good for us to go onto the applicant presentation if there are no other specific questions. Hearing none, would the applicant like to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Ron Krank: Good evening again. My name is Ron Krank. You've probably seen me here many times through the years. And you probably have seen me here with this project, which we've been working on for the last year, year and a half. We are very aware this is a very important property and project in your community. We are aware of that through dialogue we've had with the staff2 Through the past history that we've studied and numerous discussions with a lot of people in the community. We know that this is a very important entryway to the site so as such we appreciate the fact that staff has spent a great deal of time with us and they have given us a great deal of direction and we've tried to be responsive to that and frankly we feel that we really have, I hope Mr. Conrad, this will be a spectacular project. That is our goal. We want this to be a project by which you can measure other projects in the community and tell them to look at what we've been able to accomplished. I'm going to show you some pictures here in a minute of projects that we have designed. Similar scope. Similar character. Similar importance. Give you an idea of the kind of care and quality that we're talking about in terms of proportions, materials, detailing, signage, canopies. All the things that are so important here. But those are other communities and we just want you to know that we have walked the streets here. We have looked at the details of the surrounding buildings which we have tried to use in terms of bringing some of the historical character and detail and main street theme and character that you have in your community. You're a very charming community. I know you and many others before you have put a lot of effort into that and we're here to tell you that our program, dictated to us by our client, as well as the city, has been through a really excellent job with this project. We also are aware of the past history and that the building that's there right now hasn't necessarily met your expectations originally. We were not a part of that. Can't comment on that. All we can do is tell you we're taking this existing building and we're doing a lot to it to change it's character, it's quality, the detailing. Everything we possibly can to change it so that it will tie into what we're proposing and be a better building than it is. We're basically in agreement with most of the staff report. There's some minor details and some things that we'd like to bring to your attention. And I'd like to maybe begin by showing you some photographs, ifI can use this and if it will work. Projects that are very similar in quality and character of what we're proposing here. It's very hard of course, 33 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 even though it's a large scale elevation, to really get the three dimensional character so if you would indulge me, I have nine photographs I'd like to show. Is it possible to zoom in? This project is in Golden Valley. It's called Golden Valley Commons. It's at the intersection of Winnetka Avenue and Highway 55. It's about 43,000 square foot project.., coffee shop. Small restaurant.., and it truly is a gathering area. Even though it's small, we hear from people that they will travel great distances just to go there because of the environment. And because of the design and that's what we're trying to achieve here in terms of the character we're proposing. This is another view of that. This is a little closer detail. Gives you an idea of the kind of streetscape that we provided there and what we intend to provide also in this project that we're doing here in this community. Showed in the plan. What you see here are some roof details. We have some peaked roofs. Metal roofs. There's again some awnings. They're textured with sidewalk. There's street furniture and that's the general character again of what we're trying to achieve. Next project that I want to show you is a project called the Plymouth Town Center. This is on Highway 55, near the Plymouth City Hall. It's a small project. Only about 15,000 square feet and it has an Applebee's. It is a double loaded restaurant and small shops and it serves a lot of... Large Cub Foods across in that area. This is a view of it at night time. We think it's spectacular. We do pay very careful attention to lighting. Not just lighting of the parking lot but lighting within and lighting.., building and copings and other locations on the building. This is a photograph of a project called Plymouth... Also in Plymouth. When you go past City Hall on Highway 55. View of the sidewalk and.., architectural sidewalk with brick.., and concrete rock face... Again we have a roof form, architectural... Another shot of that. A building that undulates several feet.., the roof height varies somewhat and this is a view of it at night. You can get an idea of... internal proportions and details and things of that sort. So this is the character that we're trying to achieve and we believe that the project we're proposing here is going to have, is similar to kind of Main Street schematic here with a... give you more information about those. In terms of the plan, there was some questions on that the alley way or walkway between the cinema and retail building, this is just a portion of it but remember there is a walkway and that's between the two buildings. 10 feet wide. Required by code. The cinema has screens or theaters on this side here. They have to have a second exit. There's a required exit. You cannot block it. The Fire Department would issue a citation. It can't be blocked. There are service doors. Trucks are expected to either park on the side or in front because these are very small shops and you would service through the front or through the, call this an alley way. An arch and columns which staff recommended on the side... It has to be nice. You can't have trash. You can't have it because the building code requires, the fire marshal require it. We're not going to let it happen. That's why we have an enclosed roofed over, trash enclosed area. On the other side of the buildings so anybody in the area can go out the front door or the back door down there and dump their trash. That exposure has an overhead door so that a truck can come up, back up to it. Open the door. Take their trash out and close it. Somebody that wants to put trash in there will have a manned door and at the end of this corridor where... So hopefully that answers your questions in terms of what that's all about. Another question was on the side of the building, the side facing the, this would be the west side. I think there's just some misunderstanding what the material is. The existing building up to this point.., precast concrete. The rest of the building.., is all masonry. Concrete block with material added to it. Brick, drivit, brick, concrete block. A beige which I'm showing you on some of these details. This is also masonry with drivit over it. This is, it's hard to read. There are so many things happening out here. We can understand that. I have to look at 34 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 this continually myself frankly to be able to tell you where all the pieces are. It starts here with the existing cinema. You might recall that this is all like fairly flat.., is what's flat. We're taking that surface. We're adding to it. Columns that are a little different location than you see now. We feel the proportions to be changed a little bit. These are forged projections. We're adding a drivit cap which right here is a stucco like material that allows you to do a lot with it. So we're creating this dentil kind of detail. We're taking existing roof flashing and moving it out so that we can in effect have the same detail. It will be a dark green or having the coping underneath it or the horizontal band. We're having dentil, this.., in-between will be set back in probably a couple inches set back in from that space and then the brick beyond that. There's some comments in the report that these should be 12 inches out. I have to disagree with that because here's what happens. We're starting here with a comer.., flashing. It comes down three steps. 2 inches is what we have there now. Also we... detail on the building to the west of us which has a hair salon and coffee shop. It's the same detail, same proportion.., steps in. If we then take that, we're out 6 inches at the top. Come back to the stucco, the drivit, back 2 inches and then 2 inches more to the brick and then.., if we make that 12 inches high... I think it's going to be just huge and.., so I show you these pictures of other projects because that, they just have to trust us. We're not saving any money here by doing this. We just want it to look right and our opinion is, if we had.., dentils sticking out...just way too much and we want to call attention to the building with pedestrian access. All this nice detail.., provide here. So that's one.., we would have a diverge from the stafl~ Secondly, a very, very minor but staff has indicated in the report the.., and then recessed in. Wood window and the.., about 4 inches projecting out... I think what you saw in the other details, in photographs we showed you, we can do it in rock face block to give the same texture as the rest of the, the old part of the building. We can do it in brick to match the soldier courses of the brick we're doing elsewhere. To me that's the right detail and again, that's what we would recommend very strongly as opposed to what we believe is what we're being directed to have in stone... If it's just meant that they're supposed to recess these.., give a sense of scale. You walk by. It just kind of feels right. That also is how we lined up the base of the windows with the 18 and the 24 inches wide. We called it field brick but we're really saying it's the field, the background of brick that is going to represent most of all of this new building except where we have drivit accents. On the existing portion of the cinema, the remaining, the existing precast will be...this brown color to match as close as we can to match the brick so that we'll have the same feeling here and here where we're building the new building to add brick, to make it out of brick as well as this area. And then we're proposing some accent brick so it will be soldier and/or roll off portions in various points of the building. And that's the kind of detail that continues on obviously around the side of the building or we continue to do the same thing. Have a soldier course here. A low lot course there and then we have a series of difl'erent awnings that we encourage flexibility and innovation with the various details and do some things that.., given that it works with the general colors we have. And this is the colors that we're proposing for the drivit. These services the upper band. It's there and also here and here. Now what we've done with those details with the band on top of the building is try to lower... We want people to realize.., that's why we have taken that and that's why we have these various levels of materials. That's why we track this line down by having the dark base and a lighter band and same thing here. And of course this is a transitional element in the middle. We don't need the height all the way to the top. We're doing it as a transition. The lower portion of the existing building which is not... Anyway, we'll just label it. It's intended, this is the original, new precast. We're not using 35 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 any new precast anywhere... Otherwise we concur with staff and... Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Joyce: Yeah I had two, just a quick question. You're disagreeing with the staff on the dentil block and I'm sorry, the staff is suggesting a projection of one foot and you're suggesting? Ron Krank: I'm suggesting that it is, well this is a section of the building here. That dentil block is 2 inches beyond the face of the material.., so we come down from this.., we've got three steps. Each one which are metal and.., so we're already 6 inches down. Then we come vertically down to this dentil block. Then we come back 2 more inches to a 4 inch column and then that returns to the wall so it's hard to describe except that I know what we're doing here. Everything is 2 inches from the next surface except the column is 4 inches up. I'm just concerned sticking up 12 inches is just over power and the first thing you look at is the roof detail. Aanenson: Can I ask a question of what's out there today on the cinema? As far as articulation on that top. That's our concern. It's not enough. Ron Krank: ... metal flashings... Peterson: I'm getting more confused the more we talk. manenson: ... Bob Copeland made a comment from the audience. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: Questions for the applicant. I guess I still am bothered by the painted precast... I'm one who has a large aversion to it. Large spaces of painted precast concrete. Bob Copeland: The reason we chose not to is... because it is concrete. It's not falling. We do intend of course to go over... Sidney: I guess I'd suggest that as something like personally I would think it'd be much more appealing.., putting the two buildings together. You know the old and the new rather than... Peterson: Okay. Other questions? Kevin? Conrad: The vision for the alley way between the cinema and retail, is that really not a pedestrian friendly corridor? Would you consider blocking that off'? What's the code for that? There may be another way to... them out. The applicant's comments from the audience were not picked up on tape. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Conrad: ... detailing is back there... I mean to the front. This diagram is labeled concrete sidewalk through the parking. Is that just the island? Other than in front of the marquee? Ron Krank: Yes. Conrad: Right in front of your main entrance you've got some islands it looks like. Ron Krank: ... Conrad: And what's the idea of the horizontal sidewalk that you have? Is that really functional or is, what are you trying to accomplish there? Are you trying to focus people on that to get them through the center? Sidewalk. Ron Krank: ... Conrad: Okay, Pauly Drive is, okay it's in there. And the extension to the east of Pauly Drive is where? Where does it exit? Ron Krank: ... Conrad: In peak periods you're asking for, the report says that based on other municipalities you may need 745 stalls here basically. Almost 300 stalls short so where are those people parking and how are they getting into the theater? Ron Krank: ... Conrad: But it's such a disparity. And I think we would endorse what you're saying. We're trying to do that here. I don't see that many pedestrians walking. You're so far of 12 How can you comfort, you're so far of 12 We're not talking about 20 stalls or 50. We're talking about hundreds and how can we, how can I. I don't know where the planning, the rest of them are but how can I say this is good planning? How can you sell us on that, and it's not new urbanism. That's... Ron Krank: ... Blackowiak: I'll piggy back on that too Mr. Chairman. You've been in operation for two years but retail.., buildings is relatively new. How can you assure us that their needs won't increase at the same time yours do... further compound the whole parking problem. Ron Krank: ... Peterson: Tough one. Other questions of the applicant? Sidney: One I was thinking, you don't show an east elevation for the existing cinema. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Ron Krank: The east elevation, right now it is precast with some brick tiers. It will be our intention to keep that. It's sort of an alley way in effect. Concrete block I think on the Frontier Building on their side. It'd be our intention to paint that so it ties in with the front of the building. Sidney: You know I was going to say. But I guess I'd suggest you have that for city council as well. Peterson: I have a question for you. On the west elevation, there's some overhead doors. Now is that for the trash? Ron Krank: Yes. Peterson: And on the north elevation where you simply have block down the alley way. Where does that wall come in, what's that made out of? Earlier you said you wanted the alley way all the way through, yet on this side, the north elevation there's some kind of small... Aanenson: Actually that's the... Peterson: More questions? Kind: I have a question about the trash enclosure. Is it totally enclosed on the top? Ron Krank: Yes. Kind: So odors will emit or anything like that? Ron Krank: ... Kind: And Kevin I think spoke to the fact that these doors tend to be left open all the time, and I was over at Houlihan's too. Their trash enclosure doors are always open. Is there any assurance that those will always be closed, because they're on a pretty prominent front, that west frontage. And they tend to be left open I'm guessing just based on history of other places. Bob Copeland: ...that's their job. They're supposed to do it... Kind: Could it be put on the north elevation along the side of the retail so that you're not seeing if the doors are open? Ron Krank: ... Peterson: If no additional questions, thank you for your time. Is there a motion and a second for public hearing please. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward. John Rice: My name is John Rice. I'm an attorney here in Chanhassen. I'm the attorney for Bloomberg Companies Incorporated. I have my office at 551 West 78th Street in the Frontier Building. I'm here on behalf of Bloomberg Companies Incorporated. They request that the Planning Commission adopt and approve and recommend that this project be approved with two exceptions to the recommendations of the staff2 Those two recommendations to which we take exception are number 3(a), which is on page 14 of the staff report. It is the... 28 foot unimpeded street from Market Boulevard to Great Plains Boulevard. And the second one is paragraph 7 on page 15 of the staff report which requires the applicant to acquire a 30 foot easement to Great Plains Boulevard. An easement for a street is not acceptable to Bloomberg Companies Incorporated which owns the land to the east of the current cinema building over to Great Plains Boulevard. Do not promise to deliver an easement for a street to Chanhassen Properties LLC. There are other reasons I think not to include these two recommendations as conditions to the approval of the project. One is that you are casting a burden upon the applicant that is uncertain and asking for difficulty. In effect compelling him to acquire from someone else, from some third party landowner that just happens to be my client, a 30 foot easement. I didn't measure out the distance from the east end, east boundary line of the cinema property to Great Plains Boulevard but I think it's something like 2,000 feet. That's... If you cast this burden upon the applicant, what will happen is the project becomes in danger of withering and not going through .... well all Bloomberg has to do is to agree to the easement. That's not possible. And this gets to the third reason why I think this is an improvidence requirement to put on the approval of the project and that is, we have got a large area which everybody has been talking about off and on behind the Dinner Theater. East of Great Plains Boulevard. West of the Frontier Center and west of the current cinema building. There probably isn't one of you who has seen that property that doesn't say that eventually you want something to be done there. To ordain now that in some place through that area there shall be a permanent street or easement of 30 foot width for travel of vehicles, not counting the additional width that gets consumed to provide for the 30 feet, is going to provide or is going to restrict what can be done in the future with that piece of property which is not beneficial to Bloomberg Companies Incorporated that owns the land. And it's not beneficial to the city. You folks who have got to decide and hope for and expect and try to bring to the city the best possible project that can go in there. Both to provide some enhancement of value. Enhancement of the city services and what can be done. There had been talk, it never quite came to fruition but talk about an office building to go in there. Well right now I don't think there's anyone here that can predict where is going to be the location of an office building would go on that space and the parking space and how it would fit in and where the streets would then go. And that is a far more important project to consider and to talk about when you're talking about laying out the streets. To alleviate an egress problem for the cinema parking lot. What really is apparently driving, and somebody asked the question what's the reason for this street. Solely to provide access. The difficulty according to the traffic report seems to be a stacking for left tums onto Market Boulevard off Pauly Drive. The solution to run to compel an easement or a street off of Great Plains Boulevard is totally disproportionate to what that stacking egress problem would be. Solve the stacking egress problem. Work on that. It seems to me that this report and I'm not 39 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 going to claim to be a traffic expert. I have enough trouble being a properly lawyer. But that this solution, without considering whether or not there's a way to create a stacking lane for left tums, without considering what are you going to do? Just dump the problem on Great Plains Boulevard? Without considering there's a significant business entity over there. Their theater patrons exit onto Great Plains Boulevard off of that driveway and that's the Chanhassen Dinner Theater and there's not a mention of that in those traffic reports. Just shifting it over there is not a solution to the problem when it's just even putting that in as a condition, it seems to me is grossly disproportionate to the problem. There is no mention that I, at least in my reading of the traffic report, about use of the northwestern comer driveway for egress to get out of the parking lot when the movies are over. So that's why we want this properly, the bowling alley properly developed. We think this is a great project. We have worked with Mr. Copeland. I happen to live not in the city of Chanhassen and I go by that Golden Valley Commons, not daily but 3 times weekly and I'm there at least twice weekly. I didn't know that Mr. Krank's finn had done that but that is a beautiful project and what he says about it, that it's both pedestrian friendly and effective and a beautiful addition to that city is true. So we can have confidence in what they are proposing. But we need to have this go ahead without having this impediment of the mandatory easement for a street compelled to go across the Bloomberg properly. Questions if anybody has any. Peterson: Kate, do you want to care to comment on that? Aanenson: Yeah. With the condition of the staff report and Mr. Bloomberg, and I'll let Dave speak to it but I see a big red flag and we've got to actually go back and do the traffic study because everything is predicated on shared parking. The study that the city paid for, the shared parking and all of a sudden I'm just shocked the roles have kind of changed. Caught me off guard. I'd let Dave discuss that but I would recommend that you either go back and do the traffic... I'm just flabbergasted. Peterson: Dave any comments? Hempel: It's quite a surprise to me as well .... problem with the east/west connection out to Great Plains. Traffic report indicates a vital connection to help alleviate the congestion that's going to be created at the intersection of Pauly Drive and Market Boulevard. The left turn movement out of the site. Left turn from Pauly Drive southbound on Market. I'm not a traffic engineer either but a traffic engineer looked at it actually twice and that was a concern. An additional report and an updated report. Both reports indicate the necessity to have an east/west connection to alleviate the traffic congestion out to Market Boulevard. Now we can certainly go back and revisit it again without this connection to Great Plains Boulevard to see what the traffic study results.., possible traffic signal on Pauly Drive/Market Boulevard .... if that's the way they want to proceed, then we'll have to revise the.., and request an update of that study. Comments as far as burdening the applicant to obtain the necessary easements... I agree it is a burden. However it'd be a considered premature development of the site if you don't have...just like any single family residential development. If you don't have adequate sewer and water and street circulation to provide for a subdivision, it will be premature. The city could certainly go ahead if we want to see this happen and City Council could order a condemnation proceedings to acquire the necessary easements.., but I guess I would encourage leaving those conditions as they are or adding another 40 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 condition that the applicant's engineer go back and prepare another study without an east connection off of Great Plains Boulevard and recommend the appropriate traffic mitigation measures on Market Boulevard. Peterson: Are we asking for more work than, it's more work but is it logical? We've already been there twice and it's clear. I mean going back there again and spending additional time and money doesn't seem prudent. Hempel: I agree and at some future point the Dinner Theater, behind the Dinner Theater will develop. If this is an interim connection, it's an easement. An easement can be vacated to facilitate future development of the Dinner Theater properly. It's flexible. Peterson: Can I have a motion to close the public hearing. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Who wants to tackle this one? Blackowiak: Well I'll jump right in. I saw the surprise on Kate's face when the east/west connection street issue came up and that makes me think maybe staff needs some time to take a look at this and prepare some options. I think one over riding concern is, from my point of view that the city is pledging $1.3 million of TIF funding to do this. I think the city has every reason to make sure it's done right and every obligation to make sure it's done right. If that means an east/west connection, then so be it. We have to do it. I certainly wouldn't want to spend my money on something that's going to snarl up traffic for who knows how long. So if we need to look at it, no east/west connection and doing a traffic study, well maybe we need to do that. But I certainly am not comfortable going forward with spending that kind of money on a project that's going to effectively block a lot of people in a parking lot for an awful long time. I don't think the parking is sufficient. I'm really worried about the numbers. We're talking about a 35% variance in the required parking spaces. The idea that it's going to be pedestrian friendly and people are going to walk from location to location is great but I don't think Festival's going to want people parking in their lots to go over and use the theater. I don't think pedestrian circulation is adequately addressed, and I wonder what happened with the boardwalk on the initial proposal that we did see on the theater Phase I. We were supposed to have boardwalk and streetscape and all this wonderful stuff and it's not there. I don't see it here. I don't see anything that encourages pedestrian movement. I'm worried about the hard surface coverage. 95% is amazing. And also I'm worried about materials. We need to have high quality materials. We have every right to demand them and I'm not sure that I've seen them here tonight. I'm not seeing a cohesive package yet. So I would certain support a motion to table so we can resolve those issues as well as specifically the street connections and traffic issues. Peterson: Do you still recommend tabling if east/west wasn't an issue? Blackowiak: I believe so, yes. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Peterson: Other comments? Joyce: Well I'd have to disagree with Alison, except for the point that I think the east/west thing has to be resolved. But I've heard a couple of commissioners worry about the parking. I don't have that feeling about the parking. I think parking's over emphasized. I think there's an ability to share parking here. I think there'd be adequate parking in front of the Frontier and retail. So up until 5 minutes ago I was very much in favor of this project. I think it's a good project. But I feel the development is premature if they can't figure out the traffic situation. Peterson: ... can't be done. Joyce: Well I think you're subjecting it then to being, if it was tabled it might be worked out where we can get a better feel for what exactly is going to happen. I have a feeling that there's some negotiations that have to be taken place here. That's a good point. I don't have any problem. My opinion is I don't have any problem with the, what's being presented. I guess I would have to leave in those, I'd like to leave... Peterson: Other questions? Kind: I have a question I think of stafl~ I'm wondering if somebody could speak to the parking that's proposed along Pauly Drive. How that compares to the on street parking that's in Village on the Ponds and why you like it in one area and not in the other? Aanenson: That is a good question because... It is a private street. As far as traffic, slowing traffic. Forces safety. Kind: You like it? You don't like it? Hempel: They like it, we don't. Kind: That certainly adds parking spots. Aanenson: Right. Kind: And then the turning radius for the bus, that doesn't, to me it looks like you can avoid being there. I'm talking about this spot right here. It would be left the way it is. It doesn't have to be realigned with the... 20 degree radius. Hempel: I would concur. I think there's some slight modifications that could be done to that intersection to accommodate the bus radius. Kind: I'm sure that's the issue with that turn around there. Sidney: Mr. Chairman I guess a question of Dave. About a traffic study, if that were to be done 42 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 about the east/west connection. The east connection. How long would that take? Could it be completed before council? Hempel: That's a very good question. I'm not comfortable, I'd estimate 30 days. Sidney: Really? Okay. Peterson: I've just got a couple. I think that I still am not comfortable with the alley way. Part of it maybe I just can't picture it other than an eyesore. Doors being traditional, very dark metal doors and over lighted it's going to attract more eyes to something that I think is a negative. ... lighted you've got safety issues .... like the first time, I guess I don't like it now. I don't have an alternative. As it relates to the parking, I feel like Kevin to some degree. I don't think parking, the number of spots is as much of the issue as the impervious surface is an issue to me. I don't think we should lower the parking. That says lower the number of cinema's. And I don't want it to look like Target parking lot that it's one big, wide area of people walking down the blacktop. ... usage and quality of the structure that the parking lot is speeding to. Lastly, I'm a little bit concerned about the, if you look at the old entrance to the theater, you've got an area up there that is pretty big as far as the "boardwalk" in that area. Essentially it's going to be vacated. It's going to look like something that was meant to be pedestrian friendly but is never going to be used by pedestrians in all probability. Nothing other than exiting the theater that you're going to want to walk up those steps in one area. That part doesn't fit. Other than that, it gives me the feel that I was hoping for. I haven't got a problem towards for the recommendation for approval this evening. Conrad: I would recommend we table Mr. Chairman to get a traffic review of the impact of not having an east/west corridor through this site. Blackowiak: Second that. Aanenson: Point of order. We're at the end of the 120 days so if you are going to table, I'd like to have the applicant's consent. Otherwise... talking to Sharmin. We're at the end. Peterson: Hearing that, would the applicant agree to that or not? Aanenson: We're at the end of the 120 days so we have to have a letter, write something, a letter for the extension. Bob Copeland: ... Peterson: Based upon Dave's comments earlier, I don't really see a compelling reason for another traffic study. If it's that obvious that it won't work, why go through hoops? Blackowiak: But then this will go to council before the traffic study's back and they won't know. Peterson: I'm saying we already know about the east/west... It wasn't a question. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Aanenson: I guess the point was maybe put a signal or something like that... There may be other ways to mitigate it. Hempel: Maybe some traffic mitigation measures along Market Boulevard that could be incorporated. Peterson: Okay. Point noted. We have a motion to table and a second. Any discussion on that? Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission table the Site Plan Review #95-21 to demolish the existing Chanhassen Bowl/Filly's building and construct eight movie screens and a retail element, variance to allow non street frontage signs, marquee sign, and hard surface coverage and preliminary plat for the Cinema Addition and direct staff to prepare a traffic study regarding the impacts of not having the east/west connection to Great Plains Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Peterson: For the reason I noted. I don't think it's necessary. There was a question asked from the audience that was not picked up on tape. Peterson: Dave. Hempel: I would use the existing traffic engineer that you retained previously. He's got all the data. Conrad: Mr. Chairman could I comment? Peterson: Yes. Conrad: I don't think, until you solve the parking issue and make it clearer for me, you're going to have a hard time persuading me. I think it's a pretty project .... that point. I want it here. Until you can tell me where those excess cars are going to park, and until you can somehow significantly tell me that they're not ever going to be needed. I know I'm talking about hocus pocus. You never know. You have to assure me there's a place for them. It can't be across the street until you get, if you get a commitment from other merchants that said it will happen, I think I can start buying some of the building. I think you have to also solve some of our, the impervious and landscaping issues. The staff report, I'm still not, the staff report was in conflict with what I heard. Staff has, there's a lot of reasons this should be tabled. It's not just one. I'm hoping you're hearing some of the things that we said and come back. I don't want it to just.., with one issue here. There are several. It's a good project. We'll try to make it happen if it's justified but... 95% impervious surface, there has to be something that resolves some of what impervious surface is meant to accomplish. That's either take out concrete. We've got to do something. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Aanenson: What I heard is the east/west, number of parking stalls. Particularly how that works. Landscaping. Hard surface coverage and the quality of materials. I think what we had asked in the report is to show a cross section articulating, see how much back and forth. Conrad: Did you hear pedestrian circulation as a concern? Aanenson: Yes, and I also added to what Craig said is that boardwalk. What happens over at that other end when it's no longer the emphasis and how that works. And the alley way. Conrad: Yeah, the alley is a big deal. Peterson: Talk myself out of my nay. One of the things about traffic you may want to do, with Mr. Copeland leaving but I think I'm sure he's done proforma's on percentage of vacant seats in the theaters at any time. I think show us those. You know they're not going to be full 100% of the time, if ever. So that can be very compelling to us too as far as the number of people. Aanenson: Okay I've got a, we're in a legal bind here and I'm not sure how to resolve it. If you want to call the City Attorney. We need a letter tonight to keep, I mean you've recommended tabling. The applicant is not going to give us a letter to keep the contract with the timeframe. Bob Copeland: ... Aanenson: What happens if you don't get the letter then I would recommend denial or approval with conditions. That's what I would recommend. Otherwise. Peterson: Then it moves on. Otherwise it's not going to move on. Aanenson: It exposes us to the possibility of getting it approved because we passed the time frame. I don't have a letter that's existing in the file in front of me. A1-Jafl~ I haven't either. Blackowiak: He said verbally. I mean.., he said he would do it. Aanenson: I'm not the City Attorney. I can't address that. Bob Copeland: We've given a letter. You did ask for it. A1-Jafl5 We don't have it. We never received it. And that's what we're asking. Aanenson: We're just saying if you can write it and sign it tonight, and I'm not sure that that's happened before. Conrad: The time limit expires when? 45 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Aanenson: The next City Council meeting. I don't have it. I'm relying on Sharmin. Peterson: The efl'ect of letting it expire is what? Aanenson: It gets approved. A1-Jafl2 It's automatically approved. Bob Copeland: ... I already did this but I'll do it again. Peterson: Okay Kate, what do we at a minimum need tonight? Or can it be done tomorrow? We won't be here tomorrow so we can't. We have to get it. Aanenson: Exactly. Therein lies the problem. I can't get you back. I have a letter on file, we're asking for 30 days extension. Peterson: So we either need a letter tonight or we'll reactivate the motion and either accept it or not. Blackowiak: So is it 30 days from tonight or 30 days from the end of the original? Aanenson: Based on the end. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: Sharmin said end of this month. Blackowiak: So an additional 30 days. Peterson: Are you comfortable giving us a letter tonight or would you like us to vote on it again? We're just talking. This is... politics per se but we have to do it the right way to make it work. Ron Krank: ... we would like to work... Peterson: Let's do that tonight. Sharmin, do you want to do that? Gerald Rummel: My name is Gerald Rummel... and my comment here about.., and he's in limbo with what's going to happen. If it's going to be extended for 30 days.., get the traffic study done and bring it back... Peterson: Kate, when will that start? The 30 days? 30 days is a maximum. It won't necessarily be extended the full 30 days. Aanenson: It's all predicated on their traffic study. The next available planning commission, it's not going to be until the first one in August. I don't think they can get the traffic study done, so 46 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 that would put you to the first one in August. We've got a full agenda. I don't know how we'd get it on. Then we would go to. Peterson: I'm willing to dedicate 20 minutes to a half hour to it... If we can work towards that and let's do the 30 day letter and see it signed and move this out. Aanenson: Even if you get... Peterson: Everybody comfortable? Okay. Let's take a 5 minute break. PUBLIC HEARING: STEINER DEVELOPMENT REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD FOR ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK TO PERMIT CHURCH ASSEMBLY WORSHIP AS AN ANCILLARY USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Could you explain, I did not get the City Manager's cover memo as to what he's trying to say. Aanenson: That we can't require that. Peterson: The part I didn't get was specifically that. Aanenson: The applicant can speak to that but they are leasing the space so it's really moot. It's a non issue because they're leasing the space so the underlying property owner is paying taxes. They are leasing as a tenant. So they are paying taxes. Peterson: Paying the prorated portion of the expenses. Blackowiak: I kind of like that idea though. I mean theoretically that, I mean there's a PUD agreement. Certain things were discussed and okay. If they want to change the rules, we're counting on a certain tax stream so I mean theoretically it's a good idea. So I mean it doesn't apply to this one specifically because it's a tenant but I like it. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Conrad: So this is just applying to this PUD? Aanenson: Correct. Now as I stated, the way this reads that, say 6% of any building. It would open it up to other buildings... Kind: Does that mean, we're getting back to this tax question, and I probably have to hear it three different ways. Will 6% of that building not be paying taxes? 47 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Aanenson: No. Kind: It's just a rental thing. It's not, yeah. Non issue. And there's no way it could ever be converted to non taxable status so the city manager's recommendation really. Aanenson: To take that a step further. If they are located in this community, more than likely they'll be looking for... Peterson: Other questions? Does the applicant care to make any further comments? You waited this long, you have to say something. Fred Richter: I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. Appreciate you taking such a long time and still letting me talk. I'll be very brief, and I'll just reiterate. We did go in front of the council for an interpretation. At that time we just stated that this is really an interim use. A lease for a church called the New Life Christian Fellowship that's located now in Chanhassen. They would have a four year lease in this building. The building is owned by ourselves and the anchor tenant. It is going to stay on the tax role. This is just a lease situation. Don Finger, the Pastor was here for the interpretation so he understood the rules of what we're getting into and it really is just a clarification on our PUD to allow this tenant, which we feel works well in the building in terms of parking and type of use and all. And we also thought there was some logic in the PUD which two parcels to the north are guided convention, hotel and a sports type, sports health club so this is right adjacent to that. So the real issue became, because this was not industrial or office, that they wouldn't actually have like a big conference room or an assembly space and we would get this clarified. So we're here tonight to just clarify the PUD and then we can get on with leasing the building and it will stay on the tax roles. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address us, please come forward. Motion to close. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thoughts commissioners? Kind: Looks good to me. Peterson: Motion? Kind: Move approval. Do I have to read the whole thing? Peterson: Yes. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Kind: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to PUD #92-6, Arboretum Business Park to permit a church as an interim use within the Arboretum Business Park development. The following criteria shall apply to churches as interim uses. There are three of them listed. And do I read that second part? Aanenson: No. New motion. Kind: New motion, okay. Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: Do we have any discussion? Conrad: Do we need to specify, like Kate said in this motion, what lots, block we're talking about? Are we talking? Blackowiak: There are two motions. Aanenson: You can either apply it. Conrad: Well the issue is, are you applying it to the entire business park? That's what that motion says. The second one says specifically, which is okay. Blackowiak: So maybe we don't want to do this? Conrad: No, no, no, no. I'm just saying, how broad is that motion? Kind: I'm find with it being in the whole PUD. Peterson: As long as they're paying taxes. Blackowiak: Well that's what I'm saying. That's why I looked at this, I think this is good. I think it's a good idea because this person number one is a tenant. Person number two may not be SO. Conrad: Okay, let's vote. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of the amendment to PUD #92-6, Arboretmn Business Park to permit a church as an interim use within the Arboretmn Business Park development. The following criteria shall apply to churches as interim uses: Church facilities, i.e. assembly or worship halls and associated office, meeting and other required spaces shall not occupy more than six percent (6%) of any building. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 The church congregation may not exceed 200 adult members. Shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city code for conditional use permits. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Interim Use Permit for New Life Christian Fellowship for an office and assembly 4,400 square foot space on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition subject to the conditions 1 through 3 of the staff report. Joyce: I second that. Peterson: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the interim use permit for New Life Christian Fellowship for an office and assembly 4,400 square foot space on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2''4 Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The church must vacate the building prior to exceeding 200 adult members. 2. The church facility is limited to 4,400 square feet of the building area. 3. The church shall submit to the city annually the number of adult members in it's congregation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Kind: I do have a couple changes to the Minutes. Peterson: What? It's quarterto 11:007 Kind: I read them and there's a couple, I don't know, minor changes. Should I just give the written changes or should I speak to them? Peterson: A lot of it is... I wouldn't bother with them. Kind: Don't bother. I don't make any sense when you read them. Peterson: Get used to it. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 Conrad: Read other people's stuff2 Peterson: Yeah, read somebody other than own. Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 16, 1999 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: I'll just give you the ongoing, what's going to be on for the 21st. The RSF Golf... coming in. They want to amend that for lights. Second, a deck on top of the, I mean the driving range. A second deck... Joyce: I thought we already gave them lights? Sidney: No. Joyce: So they have no lights out there? Blackowiak: Kate, could I just make a comment on that issue? Can we make sure that we notice the Hesse Farm people that are not actually in the 500 feet but we made a point of including them last time. Can we get them this time? Aanenson: Chan Business Center. Amcon's coming in with a building on the comer, south of the Jehovah Witness on Audubon. And CSM, who we saw the subdivision tonight will be coming in with four buildings... We have one, just one variance up in Carver Beach. We are looking at the bluff ordinance. Had a problem at Lake Riley with boulder retaining walls. The ordinance allows you when you have lakeshore lots a 30 foot clearing. We've had conflicts with the bluff ordinance so we're going to have... We also want to spend some time going over the landscaping. We're not doing. Sidney: BuffEr yard? Aanenson: Yeah. We're not doing a good job communicating how we came up with the criteria and going back to the buffer ordinance so we'll have that and then... Kind: I have a question for Kate along these lines. The criteria for variances. How old, how long standing is that criteria? Is that something that's up for change or? Aanenson: That's I believe pretty standard. Kind: Because the hardship part of it seems to be hard to. Aanenson: Well it's the hard and fast roles. If something, topography. An anomaly in the lot. Odd shaped lot. Pie shaped lot. That you're being denied something that somebody else would 51 Planning Commission Meeting - July 7, 1999 have based on no fault of your own. Generally if there's a lot that doesn't have a garage, is that a hardship? It may not be the best place to put a garage but... Peterson: Okay, anything else? Conrad moved, Kind seconded to adjourn the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 52