The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1999 07 21CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING JULY 21, 1999 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, Deb Kind, and LuAnn Sidney MEMBEIlS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; and Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: DISCUSS THE ADOPTION OF A PIIOGIIAM FOIl DEVELOPMENT DISTIIlCT NO. 4 AND A PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4-1. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item and asked if there were any questions from the commission. Peterson: Questions? Kind: I have a question. Are there any other planned uses for the TIF money other than a, b, c, or d? Gerhardt: Not at this time. The goal of the City Council is to basically pay off Lake Drive West public improvements, pave the parking lots and then put the industrial properties back on the tax rolls within a 4 to 5 year period. Right now it's approximately $1.4 million worth of public improvements. $350,000 allocated back to the city for it's portion of the roadway and parking lots. Approximately $600,000 back to the industrial user and the rest would be the Lake Susan Apartments development. The white piece here. And we'll probably be back in probably 6 months with another tax increment district for that property to try to provide affordable housing on that site. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: A general question Todd. What happens next if we were to recommend approval? Gerhardt: The City Council is also having a public hearing on Monday night for the approval of the development plan and I will provide a verbal update on your action tonight to them. The school district and the county have reviewed the plans and have not provided any input back to the city regarding the development of this tax increment district. Kind: Did you say what the duration was going to be? Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Gerhardt: Well it's 11 year district. You get to collect 9 years of increment. And the City Council through our projections would see a 4 to 5 year period for that district to last. Last up to 11 years. Kind: But 10 years is the maximum according to this stack. For economic development. Gerhardt: 11 years is the lift of the district. You get to collect 9 years of increment. We give you a two year window in the beginning. You don't want to collect those first two years. Typically it takes a year for the developer to get the improvements put in and then you have a one year delay in taxes being generated. It's always a one year delay before they're on for full taxes. So you get a two year window and then you want to collect the last 9 years of that district. In this case the City Council work have enough increment probably in 5 years to pay for all the improvements based on the development that's going to be occurring. Right now I think you've approved 4 buildings. I think you have another one on tonight for the Eden Trace development and that's really unusual to have 5 buildings in before you even created your district. So we're going to start off fairly quickly on this. And the developer marketed the site with tax increment so that is to the credit of those 5 buildings. Without the incentives you probably wouldn't see that many buildings right away. Peterson: Okay, other questions? Kind: One more question. In the staff materials about TIF there was a section about 10% being used for administrative costs. Are you going to do that? Gerhardt: We'll probably use less than that. You do have some administrative costs that can, or the increment can pay for the feasibility study for the roadway. Bonding costs and selling the bonds. Right now I do not anticipate us using any for staff time. We will be having expenses and having private redevelopment agreement prepared for each of the developments that go in, which will allow the city to give them incentives back based on minimum market values. So you can determine how much increment would be generated. Kind: Theoretically though shouldn't we be trying to get the maximum.., outside of that district? Gerhardt: Well in this case the City Council wants to try to get the parcels back on the tax rolls as soon as possible. So any money that we free up we can reduce those assessment costs and then get it back on the tax rolls. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I've got a couple questions. Generally, I'm not sold on TIF as it stands and I'm curious as to why you feel that this parcel would not be developed in the near future if TIF wasn't available. Question number 1. Question number 2. What do the school districts in general think about TIF because they're the big losers in that. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Gerhardt: The schools districts aren't losers in the TIF scenario. The losers are the county and the schools districts break even. School funding is determined by new development that occurs. They get less in state aids so if you've got a building, let's say it pays $100,000 a year in taxes, the school district would get half of that. So the would get $50,000. So that means they would get $10,000 less from any state aids. So if you create a TIF district, the TIF district would then capture that $100,000 and then the State would kick in the $50,000 to the school district so they're not, their net, or they break even. Blackowiak: It's a wash. I mean assuming no formula changes or anything. Okay. And then my first question again was, the reasonably foreseeable future was the statement that was used in here. Do you feel that this land would not be developed in the foreseeable future without TIF. Gerhardt: This property has been on the tax rolls for, I've been here 13 years and this development has been a part of the Chan Lakes Business Park for 20 years. And we've done 2 or 3 feasibility studies already for building Lake Drive and we had one interested party six years ago to Redmond Products was going to build a corporate headquarters there and decided not to. And so since we decided to put tax increment on this parcel, the development has come in with five buildings. It's not a science. I can't sit here and say those 5 buildings would have come or wouldn't have come, but from what the developer tells me he probably would have lost 2 or 3 of those buildings if he didn't get the TIF. Those are his comments to me. And when you have surrounding communities like Waconia, Chaska, Shakopee having TIF, why would they choose to locate in a community of Chanhassen where it costs more to build their building versus those communities. So there's a whole other argument is all cities stop using TIF, we wouldn't have to compete against each other and this would you know chips fall where they may. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Peterson: Thank you. This being a public hearing, may I have a motion and a second to open for the same please. Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission or board state your name and address please. Seeing none. Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, any comments? Thoughts? None, may I have a motion and a second please. Kind: I move the Planning Commission recommends considering, or recommends approval of Development District No. 4 and Tax Increment Financing District 4-1 consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Burton: Second. Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion. Kind: ... on duration or making it... ? Peterson: Why? Kind: That we desire it to be shorter... ? Peterson: Why? I'm just asking you know because I don't see a rational reason for it but. Kind: I would rather it be shorter so that we can get them on the tax rolls for the general fund. ... get our projects done. Gerhardt: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. Your role tonight is to look at it from a planning standpoint and that it is consistent with the overall development of the community. Is it zoned properly? Are we meeting the guideline for the comprehensive plan? The City Council will be asking those questions of me Monday night. Duration and they really control that aspect of it. Your role tonight is just to make sure that you want to see industrial development occur in that location. That you want to see Lake Drive built. You want to see it built with a trail. Do you want to insure that the development is consistent with your comprehensive plan? That's your role tonight. As to the other questions. I'm more than willing to answer those. I just want to make one more point for Alison regarding upcoming referendums. The State has now allowed market value referendums. So if the school district with their upcoming $42 million referendum, they will capture revenue from these industrial buildings which will support that referendum. So I will not be able to capture that increment based on the increase in taxes from that referendum. That will go directly to the school district. That was not the rule several years ago. So these businesses will also support the new referendum coming up. Kind: I leave my motion the way it was. Peterson: That's good practice for Todd. Resolution #99-01: Kind moved, Burton seconded to approve the resolution declaring the program and plan for Development District No. 4 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 4-1 consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole (Attaclunent #3). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 6870 NEZ PERCE DRIVE~ KIM AND JOHN WARNER. Public Present: 4 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Name Address Susan Albee 6871 Nez Perce Drive Roger Beckman Contractor for Applicant John & Kim Warner 6870 Nez Perce Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of the staff'? Kind: Question. Is this an urban myth that if you maintain a properly for x number of years, I thought the number was 7 years, that it's yours. Aanenson: Are you referring to the setback? Kind: No, just maintain. Blackowiak: Adverse possession? Kind: yeah. A1-Jafl~ That has been debated. Kind: That's not true. I've heard that and I was just wondering. That's an urban myth? You heard a bigger number? Peterson: Other questions? How does changing that setback, or changing the variance, how does it afl'ect their building? If at all. Al-Jarl) Their building? Peterson: Or addition. Burton: Is that your Attachment #5 and #6, is that what that shows? Al-Jarl) What happened was, and through a conversation with Cindy Kirchofl} she said that she did speak to the applicant and that it is possible to shift the addition, to maintain the exactly same setback as the rest of the home and be able to accomplish the required addition and yes, that would be the southern side elevation. Peterson: Thank you. Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? John Warner: Good evening. Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: Name and address if you would. John Warner: My name's John Warner, 6870 Nez Perce Drive. This is my wife Kim. I'm not sure exactly what papers you guys have to look at. This is kind of all new to me so. What I'm basically looking for on that is where the, our addition is planned on that. There's a staircase inside of the house and there's a second level addition, that's where the stairs all on the house itself. The only feasible way of putting this addition on the house is the way that I've got it set up where I need a 25 foot variance. There's no question. I've got a gas main that comes in on that side of the house that I'd have to move the meter, the gas main. I'd have to move the staircase within the inside of the house. Financially it's really not feasible for moving it up to the, even with the house. It's just to put it honest, it's going to cost us a bundle anyway but the city does state that the residents should have a two car garage on the property. That's basically what I want to do is comply with that and the only way of putting it on is the way that it's set up on the plan. Anybody got any questions? Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Burton: Yeah I do. Can you explain the stairway thing again because I'm looking, it looks like what you proposed and then what the staff} how the staff revised it. I don't understand how a stairway wouldn't work with the stafl~ John Warner: On here, the back side of the garage is here. It comes into the house here. There's a staircase in the middle and that's where the staircase for the second level would have to go right to the top of that. So the stairs will enter into the living room on the house but yet they'll come out on the second addition. In order to put it up as they have it here, I'd have to move the staircase completely. Peterson: Other questions? John Warner: And one of the other purposes of going off the original wall of the back garage is because of the fact that the garage is block wall. And my intention was only to take part of the back wall of the garage off and the foundation and to incorporate it into the house. Peterson: Can you take a pencil and just draw on there the two options? Now that I'm spending more time looking at it, I'm more confused than I was. John Warner: This is our original plan. Put the garage back. Put the staircase in. Burton: Can you draw where the stairs would be? John Warner: The stairs are right in here. They're all right in here. It's all foundation. This original garage was the original garage and about 3 1/2 foot span between the side wall of the garage and the side wall of the house and that's where the staircase from the second to the basement. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: Alright, thank you. Kind: Mr. Chairman I have one more question for the applicant. Did you talk with your neighbors who.., the land about this encroachment? John Warner: The Carlsons in the back and behind us? Yes we have spoken with them. They did intend, they did intend on selling us the 10 feet of property. The only problem is that the city requires me to have their lot surveyed and my lot resurveyed, then incorporate the 10 feet in it and just them two costs alone go outside of the range of what it's going to cost to actually purchase the piece of property. It's basically not financially worth it. Kind: And that being not possible, did you talk with them about their feelings about your addition plan and it being 5 feet off the newly found property line? John Warner: Last summer when we did this, this has been a two year ongoing thing with us trying to get this set up so we can put an addition on the house. We did speak with them because our intention was, we wanted to purchase the 30 to 40 feet of land behind our house because we have, my wife got a permit from the city of Chanhassen to put up a chain link fence on their property and the city never told her it wasn't hers so we've maintained the property. We had the lot surveyed so we could plan our addition and found out that the property was not ours so we had contacted them and did talk with them because we wanted to purchase the whole piece of property and as far as our addition goes, they really said they didn't care along with the fact that they didn't care that I put up a, I have been putting up a 6 foot wood privacy fence around the property because we have two black labs. They're good dogs. They need a fenced yard but the Carlson's expressed some interest in the fact that the dogs seem to scare their kids when they're in a chain link fence. So we decided to put up a wood privacy fence so the dogs can't see them and they can't see the dogs. And as far as I got from them, it didn't seem to bother them. There is basically right behind the house on that comer is all woods. You can't see through it in the summertime. Peterson: Based upon what the staff has heard this evening, any additional comments? May I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. Sidney 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 and state your name and address please. Susan Albee: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Susan Albee, 6871 Nez Perce Drive. I'm the property directly across. This is appearing to me that the nature of this request is based on more convenience than a variance hardship. There are several alternative plans to this property. Bringing the garage forward, there's ample room. Their setback on the property. Going to the south of the property, even bringing it back off the lot line would eliminate the second variance. The additional family area could be added onto that side of the house. Carver Beach is based a lot on weird lot configurations. If we look at a 5 foot rear yard setback, coupled with a stockade 7 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 fence, that's going to give us about a 4 foot rear yard setback. Bad precedence. For the whole neighborhood. It really categorically is a starter home. You know there's only so much you can do with it and I really think an addition on this properly could be accomplished without variance. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Roger Feckner: Hi, Roger Feckner, New Hope. From New Hope and I'm on the contractor working with John and Kim on their project here. If there are any questions or still confusion with the layout that has been designed here, as to where it's going to go. Why it's got to go there, I'd be happy to answer those questions from the structural standpoint and design standpoint. Peterson: Questions? So from your perspective there is zero alternatives for? Roger Feckner: From an economical standpoint and the overall design and usability of the second level, the staircase has been best located to go over the top of a masonry staircase leading to the basement at this point in time. As far as the utility tie ins go, because there is proposed up here two bedrooms and a full bath, in the living area over the garage. And for running those utilities up there, lying into the sewer system in the existing home, and getting water supplies up there, there is a channel that's going to be, a heated channel that's going to be constructed on the end of that staircase leading to the basement at this point in time so that we can effectively feed that bathroom on the second level. If that addition were pulled forward, 11 feet that's been proposed here or what staff is recommending, that's going to push that staircase to almost completely to the back of that addition. And as far as the interior layout and usability of that floor space would be greatly hindered by doing so. Kind: Question. Could you slide.., and just slide the addition forward.., that second floor? Roger Feckner: No because then that would put the bathroom to the rear of the home and basically as far as the tie in capability for mainly the sewer system, the drainage for the bathroom, would be very difficult and additional cost from that standpoint. Kind: So it can be done, it's just a cost issue? Roger Feckner: It's a cost issue as well as they have a sitting deck coming off of the master bedroom in the rear comer of that unit on the, which would be the west comer I believe of that addition off the master bedroom. Northwest comer. This area here. Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, motion and a second to close. Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, thoughts on this one. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Burton: I guess I can venture forward Mr. Chairman. I think that it's, what the applicant requested probably doesn't technically qualify for a variance and I thought that the staff reached a fair compromise in their recommendation and I understand the applicant's cost concerns but I think it most likely could be reconfigured and could incorporate the stairway the way the staff proposed so I guess I'm inclined to follow the staff recommendations in this matter. Peterson: Other comments. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Matt. And I also would hope, they could also look at the south side of the home because there is adequate space on that side to do an addition. I do feel the 11 feet is a fair compromise. I would think that the applicants would probably want to get it surveyed and get that resolved, even if they choose not to do an addition. That's a fairly major issue when, make sure where your back yard ends and your neighbor's begins so I would certainly encourage you to look into that. I would feel more comfortable personally if that happened at my house but you know if you want to go, if you have to go back that way, if that's the only way you want to go, then I think what you need to do is talk to your neighbors and get that worked out and get the additional land from... Otherwise I think there are opportunities for...this addition forward or on the south side of the home to do something so I would go with that. And I do agree with the staff report in this case. Peterson: Anyone else? A motion. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission deny the request for a 25 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback but approve Variance Request #99-10 for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition with conditions 1 through 3. Kind: Second. Peterson: So moved and seconded. Any discussion? Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for a 25 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback, but approves Variance Request #99-10 for an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the construction of an addition with the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor that indicates the existing and proposed elevations of the addition. 2. The rear yard setback of the addition shall be measured from the edge of the eave. 3. The existing garage shall be demolished. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: This item may be appealed by the applicant or any aggrieved person by appealing this decision to the city council by filing an appeal with the zoning administrator within four days after the Board's decision. This appeal will be placed on the next available city council agenda. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 35~000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD TO BE LOCATED AT LOT 6~ BLOCK 1 CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION (NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND AUDUBON ROAD)~ BOEDECKER COMPANY~ AMCON CONSTRUCTION~ LLC. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staflk Kind: I have one question Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, in your report you talk about the west and north elevations and on the blueprint it's the south elevation. That's the blank wall? A1-Jaflk No, actually it is. Kind: Or is it because of the angles and stuff'? That's really hard to tell. A1-Jaflk The entire rear wall that faces the... Kind: It's hard to see on the plan what's going on. Thank you. Peterson: Sharmin, in your beginning narrative you really spoke of some design characteristics that you weren't happy with. Quality as it relates to PUD, yet a little bit at a loss as to why you're still recommending approval, rather substantive points that you aren't necessarily agreeing with yet. A1-Jaflk The condition is there to change the architecture of the building. I mean the approval is contingent upon the design and the materials changed as highlighted in the staff report. Peterson: That begs to question, are we trying to approve something prematurely? I mean my sense if we're talking about some pretty substantive changes that I don't know if I'm real.., on passing onto council without seeing the changes ourselves because it is. A1-Jaflk You can definitely table it. Require the applicant to revise the design before you send it to council. Peterson: Any questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Name and address please. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Dennis Komelius: My name is Dennis Komelius. I'm with Amcon, 200 West Highway 13, Bumsville, Minnesota. Mark Huis who is the designer is with me, will speak to the architecture first and then I'd like to speak to the various points that staff has directed the project. Thank you. Mark Huis: Thank you. My name is Mark Huis. I'm with Amcon, 200 West Highway 13 in Bumsville. The architect for Boedecker Company. First of all about Boedecker. They design and assemble equipment for the food processing industry and Boedecker will occupy approximately 2/3 of the building initially. The other 1/3 of the building will be leased to a second tenant. If I might I'd like to just do a quick tour of the surrounding buildings in the same industrial park. First off starting with our neighbor to the west, Paulstarr. The building here. Basically the building is a concrete block building.., color and there's one color band... Peterson: We really can't see that so... Mark Huis: Just a quick tour of our site. As Sharmin mentioned, there are two entrances to our site. One off Lake Drive West, and that's essentially the public entrance. That's the balance of the parking, that's where most of the employees will park. And for visitors would park.., off Commerce Drive which is a cul-de-sac. That's essentially the entrance for this site. That's where trucks would enter the site. There's also a small amount of parking on the back side of the site. Along Audubon Road there's a large berm that continues along the full length of the properly. ... and we will be putting a retaining wall in the back side of that berm. You can see that on the perspective here. So the parking lot will be quite shielded from Audubon Road. That berm is approximately 4 to 5 feet high at the parking areas. We've also continued the retaining wall around the entry in a semi circular fashion and created a plaza at the entry. There's also a patio to the north along that wall and that will be an employee lunch patio that will work in conjunction with the lunchroom in the Boedecker portion of the building. There was a mention of a trash enclosure in the staff report and we do intend to work with stafl~ We've had discussions with Boedecker on the location of that.., back of the building and we will construct that in accordance with the building materials. The materials of the building are architectural precast concrete panels. They will have an exposed aggregate finish and a rib texture. There's also pre-finished aluminum panels at the entry. Those have a 2 inch by 2 inch reveal vertically and horizontally articulation. The window frames are also prefinished with a color to match the metal panels and the coping at the top of the building. The glass is a bronze tinted glass. The brick and precast concrete sills which occur at the bottom of all window openings. This brick here, I think Sharmin showed that to you already. Peterson: Angle them up. We can't really see anything from here. Also the big box. Mark Huis: The exposed aggregate... I did also bring along pictures of the buildings we have completed with very similar wall panels. Some of the reasons for the choice of building materials. Number one, durability. Boedecker Company was very interested in having a maintenance free building. Energy efficiency as well. They're very concerned about that and precast panels do have a better insulating value than a concrete block wall. And also Boedecker wants to project an image of quality. The layout of the building is essentially in response to the site again. The office portion of the building will happen at the main entry and all the service 11 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 functions towards the back of the building. At staff's request we have increased the size of the window openings to give the building more of an office building appearance and I do believe that with very few exceptions this building probably has more windows than the other buildings in the industrial park. One correction too. There are windows around the end of the building that are shown on the elevation... Dennis would also like to address some of the staff recommendations and I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have. Dennis Komelius: What I'd like to do is in your packet from staff there's a list and I think about 16-17 items that they have listed as recommendations for the project. I'd like to go through those and respond to each one of them. How we feel and what we think we can do on the project. Items 1 through 3, we take no exception to the items. We're prepared to proceed with the items as addressed. Item number 4. There's discussion about providing additional landscaping in the truck dock area to the back of the building located here. In 1997 Planning, and I think the City Council approved a plan for this specific site in which they approved the parking of the building as it's laid out. We've replicated that event or that design so we're questioning why the additional need for landscaping when the approval is already given for the design as it was proposed. So that would be one of the questions we'd ask. Item 5. We do not take any exception with. We're prepared to do that. Item 6, there's discussion about landscaping and there's shortfalls in trees and overages in trees. We're prepared to rework the site.., probably overages in some spots and underages in others and we'll rearrange it to accommodate it. Plus there's some overstory trees that we intend to add to the landscaping plan that weren't shown in the plan as presented. Item 7 talks about adding additional berming along Lake Drive West. That's from this drive entrance to the comer. We don't really have a concern with that other than the fact that we question if it's not a safety issue. When you go out and look at the site, berms along Audubon actually drop down at the entrance to the park on both sides of the street and gives you a view down Audubon when you drive up for exiting that park. We're concerned that if we bring that berm around the comer and add more mass, when you're taking a look to the north, you're going to have difficulty seeing the sight line onto Audubon Road. So it's not a, again in the '97 approval of this project, that was not called for. It's called for here. It's more of a question of why on that one. Item 8, we take no exception with the item they suggest there. Item 7, again there's really no question. There is a call for a fire hydrant that has to be added on the south side of the building. We recognize that's a requirement by the fire department but a technical point, under the '97 approval it allowed excavating within the road to tap into this line. Under the current report it's asking us to mn a water line full perimeter around the building to the back side in order to connect with the water line. We would like to revisit that issue. Item 10 we have no exception. The other items within the list, there's a sequencing and number problem but right after 10 there's a number item 9 again. We have no exception on that one. And then item 10 is again no exception. 11 and 12, no exception. 14 no exception. And 16 we talked about the trash enclosure going in and item 15, I think that's just an administrative item regarding payment of park fees. Item 13 is really the issue at hand and that's the design of the building proper and I guess that's the one we'd like to talk a little more detail on. Reviewing back through what the staff was recommending, they envisioned a higher quality design in the comer. We haven't, in the 1997 approval of this project, a building identical to Paulstarr I believe it is, was approved which is a concrete block building with some accents of brick. Under this current recommendation we're being asked to do the entire building in brick. Our question is what's the difference in the last two years that have raised the standards 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 for that comer properly? The other question we have is under the PUD criteria, if we read it correctly, precast wall panels are an approved product for this park as long as it has textured finish and rock exposed aggregate which we're providing. In addition we've added banding to provide accent to the building. The other question I guess we have is, looking at all the other buildings in the park and addressing the question of the PUD's criteria for a design standard. We feel that the design we're proposing meets or exceeds the standard that's been established for this entire park. There are precast buildings that are masonry buildings and brick and we've incorporated all of that into the project we're doing. And then I guess our position on this, we feel that we meet the material criteria for the PUD. We feel the '97 project was approved on this site using identical site plans with a block building and we're now proposing a precast which we feel is a comparable product to that block and we feel it's a justifiable product. And we feel we meet the quality standards of the design of the park. We think we have a good design for you. But as a compromise to that, we are prepared to add some additional brick and modify the second entrance to the building. Currently it's just an entrance recessed. We would add metal panels. Add brick at each side of the entrance to accentuate that... Based on those ideas, those concept changes we would ask the commissioners to consider our project to be passed onto council. We feel that we do meet the design criteria and the project did have some approval, some type of approval in '97 because it was prepared to be built and for some reason the developer decided not to in a concrete block building. Any questions? Peterson: Thank you. You brought some story boards with you. Dennis Komelius: Oh sorry. What I had here, these are the boards of the original building and you do have pictures of Paulstarr but these are the elevations of the Paulstarr building as originally approved and again we just felt by the, we expanded the size of the windows. The original windows are like 4 x 4 windows. We've gone to much larger windows, more of an office characteristic on the building. We don't have the projected entrances but this building was designed as a multi tenant building rather than a single tenant where Boedecker is really corporate center for one company with kind of a secondary entrance established for the interim tenants but ultimately they hope to be occupying the entire building. Peterson: Thank you. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I do have one quick question. Mr. Komelius made me think of something. You said the Paulstarr building, now are you saying the building you're proposing is similar to that building? Dennis Komelius: No, what I'm saying in the original approval in '97, which was approved by council to be built was identical to the Paulstarr building. And we're of the opinion our building is comparable or greater in design character than that building. And we feel it provides a gateway to your park and is not a detriment to the image that your park presents. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff quickly. Sharmin, when was Paulstarr approved? Or approved and built? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 A1-Jafl2 Building or phase II? Blackowiak: The existing building. A1-Jafl2 '95 or '96. Dennis Komelius: I do, maybe you want this. This is the site plan permit 97-3 which is the approval for that project. And. Al-Jarl) Second phase. Dennis Komelius: That's the second phase but it's an identical building to the Paulstarr building. Aanenson: It's our opinion that they're not the same. I mean I think you know, it's not the same. In our opinion. Peterson: A motion and a second for public hearing please. Dennis Komelius: John Mueller who represents the owner would like to say something if he may. John Mueller: ... in Minneapolis and we found this site in part because of city assistance. I talked to Todd Gerhardt about any land that would be available in Chanhassen in picking out a site and he directed me to the Paulstarr organization and also the owners of Paulstarr. The land wasn't formerly for sale when we first discovered it through the help of the city. The issue we have, and I have in particular is based on some assumptions.., conversations I had with the city, I recommend to my clients that they go forward and purchase the land which was done probably 2- 3 weeks ago at the cost of $350,000.00. And I met with the city planning department, a representative of the city planning department. The person that previously approved the plans that were done in 1997. This is the exact same footprint. It's the exact same site plan. The only thing we've done really is take the building up a little bit and also do some exterior changes on the building itself. I was given verbal assurance that it would be no problem whatsoever approving the building with precast panels provided they were of an upper level kind of design. What we were told we could not do is painted panels or... I took that message back to my client. My client made the decision to buy the land and build the building. Now what we're being asked to do is spend $250,000 more in design elements... Had we been asked to do that, we never would have bought the land. I've been doing this long enough to try to clear the path before recommending a client to do something so I did come to the city with the plans in hand .... going to build practically the same building. We're going to build a 35,000 square foot building. These plans I think Alison you asked about when the plans were first approved. Paulstarr built their building I guess '94-'95. Okay. They bought this neighboring land with the anticipation that they would build speculative.., the dock was moved to the back as well. So we didn't do much at all to the original plans that were approved. I think some of these that are being asked now, I can understand times change, people's minds change. The thing I take total issue with is that the city asked us to upgrade the material of the building when the building was approved once before with a lesser exterior. And when I went to the city planning department and specifically asked about 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 the.., no uncertain terms would we have no trouble whatsoever with precast panels, provided that they were above the first.., which is exactly what we're doing here. This is an upgraded panel. So based on that advice and based on that information I recommended to my client to go ahead and buy the land and proceed to construct the building. It does, you're putting an individual in a very, very difficult situation if in fact you go forward with the recommendation on the exterior of the building... Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Blackowiak 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 and state your name and address please. Burton moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, thoughts on this one. Kind: I'd be interested in stafl's comments regarding...representative. Aanenson: I think there's a lot of issues here that we hadn't heard before. They were apprised quite a while.., we feel the discussions about the material came up before that. I think.., facts we need to get clear here. Peterson: What about the architectural changes? Aanenson: It's always been a policy of the Planning Commission if there's issues, that we'd like to know ahead of time. It's been a policy we've adopted for a number of years. Issues that they address with staff ahead of time. We haven't had an opportunity to have some.., fire hydrant. We haven't... John Mueller: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear those comments... Aanenson: It's a general policy of the Planning Commission if there's issues with the staff report, that we'd like to go through those before the meeting so we have an opportunity to address those. I think there were several issues that you brought up that we had not had a chance to address, specifically the fire hydrant, the landscaping berm which I believe was in there before. Some of those items. As a general we try not to resolve those in front of the Planning Commission. We try to have those internally agreed to with the staff that we can say there's concurrence. That if we need to correct it, that we have that resolved before we get to the meeting. That's generally a policy. John Mueller: What's the message to me? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Aanenson: I'm not giving any. I'm talking to them. John Mueller: Oh okay. Aanenson: You asked me to repeat it. What's what I was doing. John Mueller: ... on the panels you had asked what you felt, what you folks thought about the comments... Peterson: It wasn't specifically asked about your comments. It was just generally. What I might do is off'er, I think that what we have here is a failure to communicate. Not to use a clich6 but I think that what I'd like to do is probably recommend that we table, and I'm certainly open for feedback from my fellow commissioners so that both parties, staff and the applicant can address some of these outstanding issues. I think what we may be benefitted by doing is offering our respective comments back to the applicant and staff so that if we do decide to table it, they'll know what they have to work on. Okay? Burton: I agree. Peterson: So with that, why don't we move our comments to what the recommendations would be, if we have any regarding some of the contentious issues that we have before us tonight. Commissioners. Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I can start ofl~ I do agree that the materials should be upgraded and I do feel because the properly is a prominent location in the development, this is something that we need to take into account. Another thing I would like resolved is landscape islands in the rear parking lot. I do feel that that's an important issue to be resolved, as well as the lighting plan. I'm concerned about any lighting which might be visible to the neighborhood to the east. And also the fact that we have several blank walls which need some architectural... Peterson: Other comments? Kind: Next time around I'd like to see color copies of the elevations. It's very helpful to see those.., even more helpful to see them in advance. And I agree with LuAnn's comments that we really would like to see higher quality materials. Most of the buildings that you showed us in your schematic were of rock face block and I think especially in it's prominent location, it should be rock face or better. John Mueller: Can I ask you a question? Peterson: Let's finish our comments. Burton: I would just say, I think I agree with the other two commissioners and I would like to have a better visual representation of what it will look like before we can pass on it. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Blackowiak: I agree and also some more concurrence between staff and the applicant because I don't feel that, don't get the feeling that we're there yet so I'd like to feel like everybody's behind a project. That we're getting the best possible project for this location before I see it again. Peterson: My thoughts are probably the same. Architectural interest as noted in number 13 I think is lacking. And that could be just from the presentation. The blueprint that I saw in the package was very difficult to get a sense off feel of the building. Even the color renditions we have before us tonight was, there's only a small portion of the front of the building. I just don't have a sense of what the building is like. It might be something I like. I don't know from what I saw tonight. My sense is that it needs a little bit more tweaking, but again I'm guessing because I can't get a feel of it. So you had additional comments? If you'd come up. Dennis Komelius: Oh I'm sorry. The only question I had was, there's been a number of comments made tonight. I'm looking more for an explanation rather than to comment on it but I've heard said on several occasions that because of it's prominent location on this particular site, the building itself should be something special. And are you saying it should be more special than what is in the park? It should be representative of what's in the park... I think that's what the story board attempted to show is that in most circumstances it's of a higher grade quality than what you find once you go into the park itself. Peterson: I think the answer to your question, it's difficult to answer but I think that what we're looking for on a prominent entrance building per se may be different than what had been approved in the past. I think you also have to put in a lesser concrete than what's already been approved. Somebody commented we do change. Design standards change. A lot of things change over a period of years. That also could be a factor. Again, until we have a better perspective of really what we have tonight to answer that question specifically. Kind: Also Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. My question to Sharmin about the elevations is, I figured it out after puzzling over this. North and south are revered and east and west are reversed, and I puzzled over it and it would be helpful if they were labeled the right way. Hurt my little brain. Although next time I'll know. Peterson: Motion and a second. Blackowiak: I will move that the Planning Commission, and the number here. Table Site Plan #99-15 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition. Burton: Second. Blackowiak moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #99-15 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: Do both parties understand what the issues at hand are? ... met with staff2 What have we got available for the next time, any idea? Aanenson: August 9th. Peterson: Potential for. Aanenson: It's not the 9th. It would be August 4th. Peterson: Time on that one potentially? August 4th. Aanenson: If we can get everything turned around. Peterson: Okay, thank you. REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #98-8 TO ADD A SECOND TIER TO THE GOLF DRIVING RANGE~ INSTALL LIGHTING AND PERMIT ON SALE LIQUOR SALES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT TH 212 AND TH 101~ RRS GOLF. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of Kate. Burton: Kate I guess I do have a question. When you say you don't want further intensification. I'm not sure what that means in terms of like building another floor. Aanenson: Sure, I'd be happy to. Intensification is, well it would be more extended hours because with the lights you have in the winter, you know longer hours of operation with the lights. And then the other intensification is in the flood plain you're adding more building value in the flood plain which in our judgment is not good planning practice. You're putting additional building evaluation in the flood plain. And as indicated on the Fish and Wildlife, it's a matter of time. We've had two floods there within the last two years that it wouldn't make good sense to add. Burton: It's not really our nickel. I don't know why we'd care. Maybe if they want to build a building, if they get demolished, why do we care? Aanenson: Well as planners we have the responsibility to do good planning, just like we wouldn't allow someone on the bluff if it's going to slide or something like that. Use good judgment to say that as the folks down the river, that good planning practices would be that we don't want to add additional pollution and have that slough off2 Just make sure we have the pesticides that are being applied and what that does to the surrounding properties. So we think as local jurisdiction that has the authority to control that, or the ability to regulate what uses go in there, that is our 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 responsibility. The Fish and Wildlife can't control the use. That's our responsibility. So we think that there is reasonable use and further intensification is unnecessary. Burton: How about the beer? I believe they want to sell 3.2 beer, and I know that they do it like at Bluff Creek and other golf courses around. Aanenson: They don't do it up at Swings. Burton: Well not Swings but I mean most of the true golf facilities... Aanenson: I guess we felt this was a driving range and not that, your stint, your time there is probably shorter than you would be if you were on a golf course. 4-5 hours as opposed to an hour lesson. I guess that was our response. Burton: Okay. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Kind: Piggy backing off of Matt's comments. They do have a 9 hole golf course. Aanenson: Yes. Yes, that's true. Kind: And do we have to amend the Code or could we give a variance to this specific parcel? I'm talking about the alcohol right now. Aanenson: You could do it as a variance. That's, for this specific. I'm not sure how many more we're going to get on this one but that would be fine. Kind: Why change the code for everybody. Aanenson: That's another approach of looking at it, sure. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: One question. A question about the calls you received. Intensification was a concern but was it the structure or the lights or what? Aanenson: Oh, lighting and more people being, hours of operation. Night time. Winter use. Later at night and then yeah, with that would be the lights, correct. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I have a question. I don't want to forget it. On the last page, page 11 it talks about the status of conditions of approval and there are three I guess are pending or haven't been fulfilled. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Aanenson: Yeah, I've talked to Mr. Helstrom about that. We did make a site inspection. Things seem to be in pretty good order. It's a lot of it's the paperwork. He is working on the sign. We didn't get enough information as far as regarding the signs so he's got a temporary which could have been resolved sooner. The report of the fertilizer, I believe is just a matter of the paperwork and the building code issue he is working with the building department on those. It's door handles and those sort of things. Blackowiak: And then I just have a suggestion for us internally. At some point, maybe Planning Commission or I at least personally would like to have a discussion of conditional use permits and enforcement mechanisms. So I'm throwing that out so at some time in the future can we talk about that because I so often see not enforcement of things and we've happen to give approval and they're never enforced and what's the point? So. Peterson: My question, and I'll probably ask the applicant too Kate, but as the artist rendering that we have before us, if we were to approve that second story, would that actually be higher than the house? Aanenson: I put it in the report. I believe the house was like. Peterson: I missed that one wherever it is. Aanenson: Almost 24 feet. I scaled it off and it would be 28 feet with the. Peterson: Questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward. Jim Eggen: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jim Eggen. My wife and I live at and own the Bluff Creek Inn which is the Bed and Breakfast on the far lower end of Bluff Creek Drive. Peterson: Are you the applicant or not? We'll have a public hearing in a couple minutes. Jim Eggen: I'm sorry. I jumped the gun. Jeff Helstrom: Well last time I jumped up here before I was supposed to. Well thanks for looking at this. Kate has said there's been some comments from different people from public hearings in the past that have had a problem with this project. So I wanted to bring down, we put up, put together a little sign up sheet here. People that were in favor of lights on this project itself.., pass this around. Not everybody's from Chanhassen. We've got Eden Prairie and surrounding areas so I just think it's important to know that there are a lot of people who love this project and there's a lot of people who don't have the opportunity to get down there in the winter and hit balls. Kind of like I figured initially, the hours of operation just don't cut it. And if you work during the week and you get down there on the weekends, it's just packed and we've got basically 900 square feet and there's 40 or 50 people sitting in there waiting to get in and hit. A lot of those people could come you know during the week and hit some balls but they just don't 20 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 have the opportunity because they work until 5:00 and by the time they get home, it's just too late. We're closed. You know normally it's 4:30 or 5:00 by the time it's dark in the winter. So it's, I just think, I've put a lot of work into this place to make it as nice as I can, and I hope that all the members here have been able to at least look at what I've done and know that I want this to be nice and if it's a matter of a second level, maybe not tying in with the wildlife area down there, I have no problems kind of maybe modifying the look of it. We've got some stairways here that are on the outside and would be fire exits. You know we could go a cedar siding on that. Eventually when the siding gets changed on the house, I'd go a cedar siding on that and on the roof, maybe get it looking a little more rustic because I think that was one issue. There was a comment in the staff report that you wouldn't be able to see the wildlife refuge as well with the second deck but you can't see anything past it now with the elevation change so I don't feel that that part of it should be as much of an issue. I think I've done more than I initially proposed doing. I mean basically I've put everything I've got into this project and I just see people coming down there all the time. Why don't you have lights? And basically the consensus that people have is, you know I could understand if this was in the middle of the wildlife refuge but this particular project is right on the comer of two of the busiest roads in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. Right where 212, or 169 and 100 connect. It's a busy intersection. We've got a small motel across the road. A landscape company. Kennel. Down the road you've got a salvage yard. I mean it's not like this thing is thrown in the middle of Glacier National Park or something. And even if it was, I mean Glacier National Park has a park with lots of lights. And I just feel that I've done everything that I can to preserve what's there and I really don't feel that this would do anything to hinder that at all. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Thank you. Jeff Helstrom: Thank you. Peterson: Motion and a second for a public hearing. Blackowiak 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 and state your name and address please. Jim Eggen: Thank you. I'll start over again. My name is Jim Eggen and my wife and I live at and own and operate the Bluff Creek Inn which is a Bed and Breakfast. Very old farmhouse on the south end of Bluff Creek Drive. Just oh within a quarter mile or so of the golf development. And I guess my wife and I object to the project because kind of an off site impact if you will, but the traffic situation is very severe and kind of out of control and has been for a number of years on Bluff Creek Drive. And my primary objection to really any development in that area, not to discriminate against golf or anything else but that this would only serve to exacerbate the traffic problems on Bluff Creek Drive. And what I've done is talked to some of the neighbors in the area, some of those folks I think Kate you said may be people within 500 feet got letters. Some did and some didn't. Actually I'm more than, I think I'm more than 500 feet away but 21 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 nevertheless I got one or two notices on the golf project. And I talked to some of the neighbors, primarily some of the people who live up and down Bluff Creek Drive and they say unanimously that the traffic problems on Bluff Creek Drive, having been there for the past 20 years or more, have steadfastly been essentially ignored by the city over the years and I guess I kind of see this as another opportunity for the city to ignore those problems. Or perhaps to address those problems or somehow control them. So I guess I agree with some of the other questions that were raised too. In fact I'm a little bit surprised that there would be a significant development like that in a wetland and near a wildlife area and a floodplain and so on. So I guess what I'm saying is I object to that kind of development and the additional impact that it might have off site, which admittedly is seldom the kind of impact that is considered. But I think knowing that you already have a significant excessive problem on Bluff Creek Drive with traffic and trucks and speed and so on, this is another reason not to... facility itself but that's the comment that I have and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have too. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close. Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Who wants to take a stab at this one? Burton: Mr. Chairman, I like the facility. I've been there since it was built. I've seen how they operate. I've been there in the winter and I know that that lobby there just gets packed and people, I don't know how long people typically hit golf balls for but maybe like 20 minutes to a half hour, but there are people that wait, I've seen them wait an hour to hit balls and they could really stand to increase their ability to service their clientele. I know that their parking lot, I don't know how that fits into traffic, because all those people are going there right now anyway and waiting and they couldn't park this winter very well but I think that they've, it seems to me like they've fixed that by paving their lot and cleaning it up quite a bit. I think Kate said that this was one of the better alternative uses for this site and that's why we let it go through in the first place and it just seems to me if we're going, since we let it go in, I think we should try to help them succeed and I was in favor of just about everything they proposed last time also so this is nothing new for me. I think that extending the roof 14 feet is consistent with what's already there. I understand the concerns about flooding but I think they've already got so much there already in terms of poles and fencing and a building and the deck they've already built. I don't think it's that much more. I read the letter from the United States Department of Interior and I'm jumping ahead I guess to lighting but one of their objections was if they were allowed to put in lights, and there was a flood, the lights are just one more thing that they'd have to pick up and I think that's kind of laughable. I don't think that that's much of a factor at all. They've already got the poles. I think they're just sticking the lights on the poles that they already have. And I recall from the last time we met on this issue, there were some literature distributed about the type of lighting they were going to use, and I don't see it this time. And I don't recall it that well but I remember it was the type of lighting that was shielded and it didn't put a lot of glare out and just kind of lit up targets.., thing they were for and that would help reduce the visibility from around the community and at our last meeting when we knew this was coming, Alison made a point of 22 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 making sure that the notice was given to the people in the area. To talk, so we could get concerns about lights and nobody apparently came to talk about lights. So I don't think that that should be, I'm in favor of them putting in lights, I guess I'll cut to that. The beer I think is consistent with the other golf facilities in the town and the nearby areas and I would not oppose them having 3.2 beer for sale there. And I understand Kate's concerns, but I think it is more of a golf facility than a driving range. I do think people spend more time there, although I'm not convinced that the time there is that much of an issue. I'm guessing that there's others on the panel here that will be against some of these things but I just, I think I'm in favor of their proposal right down the line and even with the concerns that we heard. Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in. Diametrically opposed to what Matt said, more or less. First of all I think the scale of the building at 28 feet would be much too high. It's, I think I've used this analogy before. About as long as a football field. 275 feet of building. You're going to have this huge brown mass of painted metal which I think is not going to fit in at all with the surroundings of the club. And I would even kind of beg to differ. I don't think it's a golf course because it's just, I mean a golf course is used more than a couple of clubs, and this is like pitching and putting and that's all. So it's not really a golf course. I would say that I wouldn't, I don't buy the argument that it is a golf course. I say it's a driving range so that's semantics I guess but that's what I'm thinking. The lights, I don't think the lights fit in the area either. Granted this is on the edge of the wildlife area but still it's by the wildlife area. I just don't think that it fits there. The applicant requested to come in, knowing what the conditions of approval were. He went ahead and built accepting those conditions and he's got every right to come back but I don't feel that that my mind has been changed at all. I don't think the lights are appropriate. I think the scale of the building is wrong. In terms of the beer, yeah I guess I could go either way. Again it's not a golf course. If it was a golf course then I would say yes. But there are other driving ranges and they generally don't serve beer from what I've heard. I've talked to some people that golf so that's what I'm hearing. I guess I'm less concerned about that. The building and the lights are my big concern and I don't feel that they are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and I would vote no. Peterson: Other comments? Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I'll chime in. I guess I'll split the difference. I do have a problem with the massive scale of the addition and I guess I don't feel that it really fits that comer. Two stories and huge wall.., so I'm not really convinced that the way the addition is designed at this point I could really put in ... If it were open, maybe I guess that defeats the purpose, but if it was redesigned possibly I might be more in favor of it. I did go down and look at the light that's on top of the bunker, which is representative of what you're proposing. And I also looked carefully at how I compare it to other lighting in the area. And actually the lights on 212, 101, very bright and I couldn't really even see the light that you put up because it was facing south when I drove in the parking lot. And really it wasn't offensive to me so I feel as though I could be convinced to vote in favor of the lights... And also 3.2 beer is fine to me. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Kind: I'll go next. Second story I think is a good idea to increase the volume of the demand. I'd like to see the whole siding changed to be more rustic .... looking at budget wise. The cedar's the local thing or what. And I'd like to see it a darker brown. I know it was specified to be brown but it's really beige.., like to see it a darker brown that blends more into the wildlife area. And I'm guessing the elevators are a big cost issue so I'm wondering if staff has any information about if they reduce their bunker size to 30, they avoid the elevator. Aanenson: That's a building code issue. We can check with the building official on that but it's based on occupancy. So that's something that we can work on internally. Kind: But the way it is with the metal siding, I'm not in favor of that. Although I'm very impressed with the landscaping they've done out there. The size of the trees are very impressive and if this addition of the second story, I'd like to see them maybe put more of those trees.., what they've done. Lights. I went and looked at the light as well and could not see it at all when you drive up. I think even the bluff you would not see it. It would be less of an impact than the ballfield lights at Lake Ann are quite bright... And again this is the city... We're not talking Glacier National Park here. And 3.2 beer, I think that's fine. I view the pitch and putt course as a par 3 golf course. I would golfa course like that. I think that it's considered a golf course like many par 3 golf courses. Peterson: Thank you. My thoughts I guess have to be dissimilar to somebody's. I haven't got a problem with the lights. I was there two years ago when the lights were tested and again, I just don't see them as being an issue.., the liquor license. I do have architectural design standpoint an issue with that enormous of a wall. Perhaps it can be toned down. I can't look at it tonight and say I can approve that based on what I see. I doubt that I would be able to approve it... more of the size of the house and... So those are the comments of the respective commissioners. Is there a motion? Burton: Mr. Chairman, it looks like staff broke it into a series of motions. Peterson: First in the series. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to allow for the expansion of a second story to the driving bunkers for RSS Golf. Sidney: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to allow for the expansion of a second story to the driving bunkers for RSS Golf. All voted in favor, except Burton who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: For the reasons Matt already mentioned? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Burton: Correct. Peterson: Motion for the second variance please. Kind: Mr. Chairman I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the request for eight lights and extended hours for RSS Golf to remain open until 9:00 p.m. year round. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: Discussion. Noting that you had lights specifically sited out? Kind: What do you think about that? Peterson: I'll pass on limitations but I don't know whether eight's too many or eight's too. Kind: I think eight is what they're requesting. Peterson: I'm comfortable with that. Other discussion? Kind: And what do you think about the hours? 9:00 p.m. year round. Peterson: I'm comfortable with that also. Burton: I am. Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of the request for eight lights and extended hours for RSS Golf to remain open until 9:00 p.m. year round. All voted in favor, except Blackowiak who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: What you mentioned? Next motion. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance from the city code to allow for the sale of 3.2 beer at RSS Golf. Peterson: Second? Burton: I'll second it if we can discuss it. Peterson: Discussion. I had a question on why you say 3.2. I don't know whether or not... Kind: That's just what they were requesting... 25 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Burton: My question is for stafl~ I'm wondering if we're better ofl} it looks like we're going to allow it. Aanenson: I would just leave it blank. I'm not sure there's criteria based on different things that that's a whole separate ordinance so I would just say that. Burton: Approve it and not say how? Aanenson: Well you may want to limit it to, I don't know the different classifications but. Kind: Beer? Aanenson: If you want to just say what your intent is. Just say allow alcohol but it's our intent that it be. Burton: Right, because my concern is whether we amend the ordinance or approve a variance. I'm not sure what's the best way to go. Aanenson: Well I think the point that was brought up by Deb, and maybe would be if we had another one that would come in, we would still.., alcohol. By giving a variance will allow this use to have alcohol. Peterson: So we would have a motion that would recommend a variance to allow. Aanenson: Alcohol at this location and you may want to forward onto City Council any concerns you have as to what type. Full service bar or something, right. Right. Blackowiak: As a point of discussion, they would have to go through the normal liquor license approval process, is that correct? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Pay the liquor license fee and all that. Aanenson: Right. Right. Blackowiak: So we don't need to say anything about that. That's kind of understood? Aanenson: What I would ask that you do after you motion is direct the City Council that it's not your intention that it be a full service bar and then that would therefore define what type of alcohol license. And we'll get clarification on that when it goes to the Council. Kind: I change my motion. Peterson: Well we've got a motion and a second so I'd recommend changing your move. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Kind: I'll withdraw my motion. I'll try another motion Mr. Chairman. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance from the City Code to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages at RSS Golf. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: Discussion. Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance from the City Code to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages at RSS Golf. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR FOUR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS WITH AREAS OF BUILDING A - 46~800 SQ. FT~ BUILDING B - 54~000 SQ. FT, BUILDING C - 54~000 SQ.FT, AND BUILDING D - 49~500 SQ. FT. AND PARKING LOT SETBACK VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1~ BLOCK 2~ CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER (SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND WEST OF DELL ROAD)~ SOUTHWEST TECH CENTER~ CSM CORPORATION. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of stafl~ Hearing none. I just had one. You talked about the berming and landscaping. Is that meeting our current ordinance or is it exceeding it? A1-Jafl) In some areas it meets it and some areas it exceeds it and there are other areas where they're short. Peterson: ... between homes and the building. Al-Jarl) That exceeds the minimum requirements. Peterson: Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward. Dave Cumin: My name is Dave Cumin. I'm with CSM Corporation. We're the property owner of both existing property there and the developers for the four new properties. I have Jesse Symynkywicz with RLK who will address some of the landscaping and site issues and Paul Klein who will talk to you a little bit about the architecture. I want to apologize for some of the things that we sent out. The color rendition was not real good in those as they reduced. We do have the originals that will show a little bit better what the color difference is between the buildings and Paul will also go over the architectural difference between the two sets of buildings. At this time 27 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 we do have leases pending on the first two buildings A and B. Those are the ones closest to Dell Road. And that would, what we'd like to do keep this moving on to the City Council for their next meeting. In all likelihood we have strong activity out there, leasing activity and in all likelihood we'll start three and possibly even four buildings this year under construction. The leases that we do have commitments on are first quarter occupancy so obviously we would like to get moving on them. We're prepared to go along with all the staff recommendations. Jesse with RLK will discuss a little bit item 32 which was a 6 foot sidewalk running the length of the property from Dell Road basically all the way down to Park, which is about what, 3¼ of a mile of concrete. We have, we met with the neighbors, I believe it was July 1st that we met with some of the neighbors and addressed their concerns with these buildings and we have addressed their concerns. Jesse will also talk about that. Jesse Symynkywicz: Thank you. My name is Jesse Symynkywicz from RLK Associates and basically we're a civil engineer, planning finn and we did a lot site development and landscaping and civil drawings for this development. What I'm here to talk about right now is the landscaping and primarily the landscaping between the residents and the use here proposed in front of you. And basically about a year ago Welsh came through here with a proposal that was approved and I'd like to go over just briefly how this one is an improvement from that previous proposal. The Welsh development was more of a distribution center so we were talking more about more truck traffic. This one that's before you right now is more of an office, light manufacturing so I think it's a better fit and a better use against a residential area. From there the buff'er landscaping on the south side is actually bigger than what was approved before. Previous approval was 50 feet and we have a larger green space and it's been expanded up to 70 feet. With that, that gives us a better opportunity to increase the height of the benn basically 2 to 4 feet above what was previously approved. And from there we have added some more landscaping and also added some landscaping on the south side of the existing building and parking lot, which provides a better buff'er for that existing use. That existing building is also, has more parking islands and I think that helps break up that large mass of asphalt that's out there right now. From there, if there's any other questions for landscaping. There are some recommendations that have been included in the staff report and we are comfortable with meeting those. We will be revising our site plans to meet the recommendations so we feel that we are all comfortable with that. From there the number 32, the sidewalk issue is the next issue I'd like to briefly touch upon. We feel that there is an existing sidewalk on the north side of Lake Drive. We feel that is adequate to service both of the uses. This is a non-residential area so we feel that there's not going to be a lot of families or children activity and primarily the only time people would be walking out there would be 12:00 to 1:00 lunchtime. And from there we do not believe that there's a lot of activity. As we all know, unfortunately we don't get a chance to take walks during lunch more often as we do. Mainly we take a drive and go somewhere and grab a bite to eat. And from there we think that most of the people that do take a walk are going to be trying to cross the street right away to go to the commercial development, McDonald's further to the northwest so we feel to have a sidewalk on the south side would be under utilized. The park that's been a referenced further to the west of this development is more of a neighborhood totlot, so we do not believe that there's a lot of, going to be a lot of interest from the employees to walk over there. And lastly, the sidewalk issue as far as how the rest of Chanhassen is consistent. We noticed as we drive through Chanhassen that most of the streets have sidewalks on one side. As you look further down East 28 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Lake Drive there is just one side with a sidewalk. Market Boulevard, Great Plains Boulevard, Highway 5 and Center City Drive also has sidewalks on one side. So we would like some discussion and some recommendation from the Planning Commission on whether having sidewalks on both sides is a good idea here. From there I'd like to answer any questions that you might have about landscaping or site issues or bring it for architectural presentation from Paul. Peterson: Thank you. Paul Klein: I'm Paul Klein with CSM. Project designer on this. I guess some of the confusion on the elevations is due to the color reduction. Aanenson: Excuse me a second. It's always nice if you could put it here.., so then people at home. Peterson: Yeah, I agree. Let's put it back down there. We've got TV's up here so. Aanenson: Yeah, they've got TV's up there so if you want to just lay it flat then that camera can zoom in on it. For the audience at home. Paul Klein: Part of the confusion is when Building C/D get reduced it tums out the same color as A and B. The intent was to keep A and B similar and group those two buildings together. Because of the height variation on the site there's roughly.., about 100 feet apart That was quite a bit different when you get to full sized drawings and I was just brought here to clear up some confusion. Peterson: ... let's say a person like myself would be concerned.., sooner or later for lack of a better way of articulating it, too much of a good thing. The buildings still are pretty close in design and I've always had a concern that.., a lot of the same thing right in that area... These are different from what's already there but four buildings that are essentially the same real close together... Paul Klein: Certain differences on the projections. Not huge but a projection on Building C and D will project out about a foot and a half with right here.., that area entryway. That's the major difference then the difference at the comer... Also we looked at if this property.., masonry colors in B and D... That just seemed too scattered trying to be, and then also looking at four different, completely four different elevations and they're all linked close enough where this might be too much for one industrial park. There could be one tenant taking out two buildings in that area also. Peterson: You didn't convince me but it seems good. Paul Klein: ... Kind: Could you show the building materials. I think one of the things that actually hurt your case with me is this color elevation that was mailed, because they look the same and I'm guessing that they're quite a bit different? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Paul Klein: Building B and D are... The accent band is... Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if you're going to have any lighting on the walls, especially if you could comment about anything to the south. Paul Klein: Most of the lighting.., basic lighting. It's not overwhelming. We're trying to reduce it... Sidney: What kind of fixtures are you putting on? Paul Klein: Shoe box. Sidney: Well in the parking lot but on the building itself. Proposed lights. Paul Klein: Yeah, it's a round, about a 9 inch light. Sidney: Oh is that like what's on the buildings. Paul Klein: ... Chan, I believe right now in Chan... Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have one question. I'm not sure who it's for so feel free to jump in. Staff report talks about the 25 foot minimum setback from the parking on the north side, which is Lake Drive East. And that there are a couple buildings that only have a 10 foot setback as opposed to a 25 foot setback. And I'm wondering what that does to either the building, the siting of the building of the building itself or to the number of parking spots. And also what potential effects would it have on north and south berms. Paul Klein: We revised the plan, so the only place where it does not meet the 25 foot requirement.., building and the parking... Everywhere else it's 5 feet... Blackowiak: Okay, I didn't understand that was from the existing building. Okay, that's it. Good, thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing. Burton moved, Blackowiak 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. John Swain: My name is John Swain. My address is 18942 Winfield Road in Eden Prairie, which is the development just south of the proposal. The folks from CSM met with us on a couple of occasions and they made a number of changes to the landscaping design based on our 30 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 wishes and we're, I'm speaking for myself, am quite satisfied with what they have done and provided that what they are proposing is accepted. I'm perfectly happy with their landscaping. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Sidney moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Any thoughts on this one? Kind: Mr. Chairman. Peterson: Please. Kind: I, like you, see the similarities between the two groupings. I'm in agreement with the developer. I like the idea of kind of keeping them as those are two buildings rather than four. And keeping them clustered together. To me... same designer designed all four buildings. I know from working in an ad agency, sometimes it's helpful to assign two different people to get a totally different look then. I'm wondering... I know it's going back to the drawing board but no matter what you do you kind of have your look. Your thumbprint on it and I think they're nice. I think they're attractive but there's four of them. I really would like to see two of the buildings treated much differently. Peterson: Other comments? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in too. Yeah, I agree. The four of them are, they're four buildings. They're the same. I mean there might be 1 1/2 foot indents and some slight variation but as you drive by from Highway 5, which most people will be doing, they will look the same. They also look the same as the buildings right on the north side of Lake Drive East, that border Highway 5 so I mean I look and I saw these little color squares of color and I thought, you know this is exactly what's there right now. It's the same thing. I don't know that we as a commission necessarily have to hold it up because of that but boy, I certainly would like to see something a little bit different and a little more creative to enhance this because it's the same old, same old. It could maybe use a little bit, something a little bit different for this. Spoke a lot about the sidewalk and I'd like to clarify that when this came through from Welsh Company, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition that the sidewalk be in place on the south side of Lake Street. The City Council was the body that ended up deleting the sidewalk. I do not agree with that. I still don't agree with that. I'd like to be on the record as saying I want the sidewalk on the south side of Lake Drive. It makes perfect sense to go from that, which is not a totlot. There's a basketball hoop and everything down there. I'm sure there's people that will use it in that little park down there. That Chan Estates mini park. The south side is also the side that would wrap around the connecting sidewalk on the west side of Dell Road. It makes sense. The sidewalk stays as far as I'm concerned and I'd like the Council Kate, or Sharmin, tell them. I would like to see the sidewalk on the south side. Do not delete it this time. So that's what I've got I guess. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: Thoughts? Burton: I agree with Alison's comments. I think they're nice buildings. Each one but I think that they are very similar and I'd like to see more variation. Peterson: I think I've already shared my comments. I just, give me a second to close and I'11. Dave Cumin: What I'd like to add to that is you know. Peterson: That's alright, go ahead. Dave Cumin: What I'd like to add to that I guess to answer Alison's, your questions about or comments about the existing buildings. Those are architecturally you know a lot different. They've got a lot of brick to them. These other ones that we're, what we tried to do was come back and improve what was proposed and approved by the Welsh plan which were completely identical buildings going in there. So I think we've struck something that does give them some different flare to them so they do not look completely identical in there. There are architectural differences that may not come out entirely on the plan but the elevations.., staff recommendations on this based on the fact that we do have two of the buildings leased and they are much more attractive to both the planners that we worked with and the neighborhood. Thank you. Peterson: I think what you're hearing, my initial comments and some of my peers this evening is this is an area of Chanhassen that we've discussed as a group is clearly predominant entrance into Chanhassen and that we have a desire to not just have it look like a standard office industrial area. Knowing that there are costs that have to be... and otherwise doesn't mean that we as a commission can't send it to council with our respective thoughts. I think that's what you're hearing tonight. I would like to see it different and unique. Based upon the comments that... I don't dislike the buildings. At all. I don't dislike any building there. I just like the intensity of the structures themselves and where they're at. That would be the... I would off'er the council as they make their respective decision. With that, motion and a second please. Sidney: Mr. Chairman I'll make the motion the Planning Commission, the recommendation the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #99-16 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the plans received June 18, 1999 with the following conditions, 1 through 35. Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Kind: I'm looking in these conditions to see if there's any architecture mention and I don't think there is. Do you all fellow commissioners feel that our discussion is enough to pass forward to the council or... ? Peterson: Depends on how we vote. No, I think that I think we have to vote what we want to individually and if you want, certainly you can add a friendly amendment addressing some of that. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Kind: I'm going to leave the motion. Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of Site Plan Review #99-16 for Southwest Tech Center as shown on the plans received June 18, 1999 with the following conditions: If the trash dumpsters were located outdoors, the materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building, and that the trash enclosure be located within the loading dock area. 2. Signage criteria: All businesses within a single building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. Wall signs for Building A will be permitted along the north and east elevations. Building B will be permitted signs along the north and west elevations. Building C will be permitted signs along the north and east and Building D will be permitted wall signage along the north and west elevations only. Signs will be located within the sign bands located above the entrances and windows. c. All signs require a separate permit. 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. 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. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height and logos shall not exceed 30 inches in height and consistent with the standards for the signage. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. 3. The development shall maintain a 25 foot parking setback from Lake Drive East. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Building Official conditions: Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss commercial building permit requirements. b. Each building will require 6 accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. All rooftop and ground mounted equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the recording of the final plat for Southwest Tech Center with Hennepin County. Increase berm height along the north property line to three feet. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. Increase plantings for Lake Drive E. buffer yard in order to meet ordinance requirements. Revise plant schedule to specify an average of 7 feet for evergreens. Increase parking lot island width to 10 feet or install aeration tubing in islands that are less than that. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan to the city for approval. Fire Marshal conditions: A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. II. Install and indicate on plans the location of the P.I.V. (Post Indicator Valve). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. III. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact number and location. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. IV. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29- 1992. Copy enclosed. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #4-1991. Copy enclosed. VI. Contact 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. 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. 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 and inspections from the City. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage maps for pre- and post-development conditions for 10-year and 100-year storm events for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. In addition, the applicant's engineer shall verify that the existing storm sewer system in Lot 5 has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional drainage areas being proposed. The applicant shall provide an emergency overflow for storm drainage for the properties south of Lots 4 and 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. The applicant shall be responsible for relocation of any street lights in conflict with the proposed driveway access points along Lake Drive East. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way of Lake Drive East or Dell Road. Landscape materials are discouraged 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. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive East shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). 28. Cross-access and maintenance agreements shall be prepared and recorded against all lots for the utilities and driveways. The City shall be included in the document for accessing the regional storm water pond on Lot 1. 29. The existing driveway access to Lot 5 shall be abandoned or reconfigured to accommodate emergency vehicle access and meet City Ordinance 20-1101. 30. The applicant shall be responsible to obtain a temporary construction easement from the property/properties for the storm sewer construction south of Lots 4 and 5 in the City of Eden Prairie. 31. Two rock construction entrances shall be shown on the Erosion control plans. The rock construction entrances shall be installed prior to grading and 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. 32. Pedestrian access to and along Lake Drive East shall be incorporated in the site plan design process for each lot. A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be constructed along the south side of Lake Drive East from Dell Road to the west property line of Lot 5. 33. 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 any erosion that has washed into the regional pond and repair the associated erosion problem in conjunction with development of site. 34. Increase berm height along the south property line adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 by three feet. 35. Depending on phasing, an interim stormwater management plan may be necessary depending on which lots are developed first. Each lot must maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern as it develops." All voted in favor, except Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Peterson: Thank you. It goes onto Council the 9th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Matt Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 7, 1999 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Just to let you know on the next Planning Commission meeting we'll have the theaters back on. We tried to get it on this meeting. There were still some issues regarding the traffic that we didn't have concurrence on. And it looks like the Boedecker will be back on. So we don't have any new items. We will be having a large residential project coming in. We've been talking to a couple other small residential pieces. Things are coming together but so there's a little bit of a lull. If we do have a short meeting next time, we'll try to put some other housekeeping things on that we wanted to discuss as far as upcoming projects and budget issues for next year. Blackowiak: Kate, I will be gone next meeting and I believe I told you that like, there was snow on the ground. I don't know if you remembered but I will be gone next time. So don't talk about conditional use permits and enforcement while I'm gone because I'd like to be on that one. I think it's an important issue. Peterson: Other ongoing items? What I'd like to do Kate is on Board of Adjustments tonight, it would be very beneficial if we get specific feedback as to which ones the Council is over riding and/or. Aanenson: That's great. If it stays with just these two items we can talk about that next time. And then go a little bit into some detail about criteria. I'm sorry you won't be, but we'll send you the packet and if you want to come in and talk about it but a little bit of a training on some of that. And we can kind of give you a checklist of which ones they've approved and which ones they haven't. Peterson: Bob have you been waiting around for 7 through 9? Aanenson: Actually I'm covering 7. He's doing 8 and Sharmin's doing 9. Peterson: My only concern is that we've got really a hefty portion of our commission out on some stuff that we as a group have requested. I'm wondering if. Aanenson: Do you want to just wait for these three? That's fine. Peterson: To have Bob sit here for the last 2 1/2 hours. Aanenson: He's been working. Generous: Remember Villages. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - July 21, 1999 Aanenson: We can save it for next time. I think that that's a good idea Craig. If everyone's here next time, except Alison won't be but. Peterson: She's an expert in all three of these. Aanenson: We can go through that with more specifics.., and if she has any questions. Peterson: We're probably always going to be missing one but two is, this is important enough where I think it would be valuable for everybody. Aanenson: That's fine. Kind moved, Burton seconded to adjourn the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 38