The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1999 08 04CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING AUGUST 4, 1999 Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Joyce, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Deb Kind and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson and Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer IlEQUEST FOIl SITE PLAN IIEVIEW FOIl A 35,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAIIEHOUSE BUILDING ON PIIOPEIITY ZONED PUD TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 6, BLOCK CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION (NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND AUDUBON ROAD), BOEDECKER COMPANY, AMCON CONSTRUCTION, LLC. Public Present: Name Address Susan & Bob Mortenson Mike Salvador John Mueller Dennis Cornelius Mark Huus 3944 Enchanted Lane, Minnetrista 2086 Majestic Way 2078 Schefler, St. Paul 200 W Hwy 13, Bumsville 200 W Hwy 13, Bumsville Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Are there any questions for Sharmin? Aanenson: I believe the applicant did do some cross sections and as you have other questions, they've provided some additional information and we did have the renderings sent out to you in time frame but they do have, if you want to go through the site plan in more detail, they do have that. Joyce: ... Aanenson: Set that right up on the table. Mark Huus: Good evening. My name is Mark Huus with Amcon, the architect on the project. You are fairly familiar with the project so I'll be brief and just run through the changes we've made since our last meeting. As Sharmin indicated we have increased landscaping in the rear of Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 the building, along the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure itself is an addition as well. We've increased landscaping buff'er from the north properly line by 5 feet. And we've also added additional landscaping along the building at the back wall. As you remember from last time, the front of the building faces the intersection of Lake Drive and Audubon Road and we feel the actual front of the building is that southerly elevation, due to the fact that there's a large berm along Audubon Road and a good share of the building is hidden from Audubon Road as you're traveling south. If you're traveling north on Audubon Road your first view would be from the intersection. The berm as well, we have kept in place and will continue around the comer and the berm is back by a large retaining wall. Not large in height but long in length that continues along the easterly side of the parking lot. And then we've undulated it into the entry area where we've created a plaza, and that is nearly as it was last time although we've changed the retaining wall slightly for the addition of a fire hydrant. The patio we discussed along the Audubon side will be nearly invisible from Audubon Road. We have prepared sight sections. The first section labeled Section A is cut at the very north end of the building, through the patio and on through Audubon Road. And that shows the berm and those sight lines that you'd see from Audubon Road. Second Section B is cut just a little bit further down Audubon Road where the building's the closest to the road. The berm is approximately the same height all the way along Audubon. And again you can see that the berm will obscure all but about the top 2/3 of the building as you're driving south along Audubon. Section C is actually a diagonal cut from the entry area, through the parking and to about the comer of the site. Again the berm along the side that tums the comer will obscure views of the parking lot from Audubon and then around the comer on Lake Drive West. The materials on the building. We have a precast panel. Architectural precast panel with exposed aggregate and a ribbed texture. The red that you see is metal panels and they have 2 x 2 horizontal reveals. The white metal that you see on the red, that's also a metal panel. And that continues from the front entry across the two other entries and to the comer element that we've added. The glass will be bronze tinted glass. We have brick accents below the windows and the, oh the brick accents below the windows are also capped by cast stone sill. In response to staff recommendations we've also, we've added the comer element with the metal panels above and that will be a comer window that wraps around the comer 8 feet either side. That will also have the brick and some cast stone sills. We've recessed the tenant entry and built the canopy over that entry. We've also added a section of metal panels above the entry at about the other third point on the building. And then we've also added the light colored accent to tie all these metal panel pieces together along the entry. That's all I have and I'd be happy to answer questions of any of you. Sidney: Mr. Chairman? Yeah, I had a couple questions. Is there going to be any lighting on the outside walls of the building? Mark Huus: There will be at the dock area. To light the docks. On the front of the building the lighting will occur in the two islands. Sidney: Okay. Mark Huus: With pole mount lighting. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Audience: And right at the entrance... Sidney: Yeah, I was concerned about anything that might be able to be viewed from the neighborhood across Audubon. It doesn't sound like you're having. Mark Huus: I believe we have to submit a photometric and we'll make sure that that doesn't happen. Sidney: And one more quick question about materials for the trash enclosure. What is that going to be made out of? Mark Huus: Well the trash enclosure will also be precast to match the building with the ribbed texture and exposed aggregate. And then we'll have sound steel gates. Joyce: Anyone else with questions? I wasn't here for the last meeting, and maybe you went over this but the parking requirements, you're going to be 50% more... Mark Huus: Well the parking as provided is per Boedeckers requirements and I realize we're above and beyond the city's requirements. Joyce: What's the reasoning? Office? Mark Huus: Well yeah, they're fairly intensive in their office use in this building. So it's a more intensive use than a typical office warehouse. Joyce: Kate I was just looking, because there was a mention about recovery of service and I was just wondering why... Aanenson: Right. I guess on this circumstance you go with what the tenant that's going in there as they explained. They have more engineering office component. The impervious surface number we balance as part of the PUD. Joyce: No, I understand that. I don't have a problem with it. I guess it's more of a question. It seemed like a lot more parking. Aanenson: And also they're doing some leasing until they expand and fill up the rest of the building so it gives them the flexibility that they want for tenant mix. Joyce: The only reason I'm just pointing it out because... Thanks very much. We should open this up for a public hearing. Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: This item is open for a public hearing. If anyone wants to address the commission at this point. Seeing no one, I guess we're voting to close the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: I'll bring it back to the commission. One quick question. Do you have to clean this up? It seemed to be... Should we be aware of that before we make the motion? Aanenson: As far as the fact that they've been revised? Joyce: Right. Aanenson: The strike outs? Joyce: Right. Aanenson: I would just say, if you want to make your motion as revised or as stated in the staff report. Joyce: Okay we don't, item number 2 was really a duplicate so we can strike that. Okay. We'll bring it back to the commission. Kind: I have a question for stafl~ Are you comfortable that the exposed aggregate meets the higher architectural plan or concept that we had for the entrance? A1-Jafl2 It's one of the materials that are permitted within the PUD. And our main concern was the articulation and the design of the building and we feel that they have definitely improved the design. Joyce: ... the project itself? Kind: I think it's a good project. My only concern is the material being used is not my favorite. I understand that it meets the requirements but I would support it because they do meet the requirement. And I do appreciate their effort in improving the architectural look of the plan. And the color rendering helps a lot. My only comment. Burton: I would just add that I think that the staff and the applicant both did a good job in cleaning this up and making this presentation and I think it looks really good. Joyce: Yeah, I'll echo that... I think it's a lot easier.., appreciate you going through the process of tabling this thing and can we have a motion? Burton: Mr. Chairman I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #99-15 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plans dated received June 18, 1999 and subject to conditions 1 through 18 as amended in our packet. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Joyce: Alright, can I get a second on that please. Kind: Second. Joyce: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 99-15 for a 35,000 square foot industrial office building, located on Lot 6, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plans dated received June 18, 1999, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained at all access points until the Class 5 gravel has been installed. 2. The applicant shall supply the City with detailed stormwater calculations for a 10-year, 24- hour storm event using the rational method for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The applicant shall incorporate more green space in the northerly parking lot adjacent the building between loading docks. 4. Existing trees planted by City and developer will remain on site, be incorporated into the proposed landscaping plan and replaced by the developer if they are damaged by construction. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet buffer yard minimum requirements, boulevard tree minimum requirements, and to meet parking lot tree minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan will be submitted to the City before final approval. 6. Additional berming shall be constructed in the southeast comer of the south parking lot to screen the parking from Lake Drive West and Audubon Road. 7. Upon completion the utility and street improvements, they will be owned and maintained by the property owner and not the city. The appropriate building permits and inspections will be required for extension of the utilities into the site from the City's Building Department. All utility improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates and/or state of Minnesota plumbing codes. The driveway access to the south parking lot from Lake Drive West shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide to accommodate two-way traffic and the radiuses expanded to 20 feet for emergency vehicles. In addition, the grade of the driveway at Lake Drive West shall be reduced to 4.00% to accommodate fire trucks. The driveway access width at Commerce Drive shall be increased to 28-30 feet wide. Both driveway accesses will need to install industrial driveway aprons in accordance with the City's Industrial Driveway Detail Plate No. 5207. The applicant shall provide a security escrow to the city in the amount of $6,000.00 to guarantee street and boulevard restoration Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 and driveway apron construction. 10. Fire Marshal conditions: 11. 12. 13. 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. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. Copy enclosed. III. If the Lake Drive West address is to be used, the street name as well as the numbers shall appear in 12 inch numbers on the rear of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of wording and numbers. IV. The proposed fire hydrant on the south side of the building shall be relocated to the island which also has the post indicator valve. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of hydrant to be relocated. 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. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement/development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. The site shall be limited to one monument sign. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 14. Revise the building design by adding architectural interest to the building as described in the staff report. 15. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the properly line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off-site and no more than 1/2 foot candle of light is at the properly line. 16. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements. One third of the fee was paid at the time of platting. 17. The applicant has not shown the trash enclosure location. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of block used on the building. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Joyce: We're going to make a little change in the agenda and we're going to call item number 3 up right now and then come back with the Chanhassen Bowl after that so. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK TO TEMPORARY STOCK PILE 30~000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AT 8301 AUDUBON ROAD LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND THE TWIN CITIES WESTERN RAILROAD~ DAVID STOCKDALE. Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Any questions ofstafl'? Conrad: Sure. The pond that you recommended, that is the solution for any kind of runoff contamination or whatever. Hempel: That in concert with the erosion control fencing that will be in place. Conrad: In your estimation there really isn't, no. In your estimation what issue is there with erosion? The pond. The fencing will solve it. Hempel: The requirement is to restore the vegetation, the stockpile area within two weeks after the material's been hauled in on site so we'll have a vegetative growth over a majority of the stockpile area. We've required that the applicant, when he removes the material, take it from the easterly side of the stockpile so it will not disturb the entire stockpile area. Minimize the exposed 7 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 area surface prone to runoff2 That and the sediment pond that we're proposing and silt fencing, we're comfortable that erosion control measures. Conrad: I like the logic of that. How do you monitor that? Hempel: Generally interim use permits we do visit the sites on a quarterly basis if you will. Depending on the activity on the stockpile area. If it's, we envision it being used on a daily basis. There may be times that it may be left alone for a week or two depending on weather conditions and so forth so. Burton: I have a question Mr. Chairman. When I look at the motion that it's proposed that we approve, I can't tell from looking at it what it is that the applicant's actually going to be storing there on the property and what it would be limited to and I'm wondering if maybe one of these things by saying, I don't know, for instance that you have to make it comply with all the requirements of the watershed district. Whether that takes care of it. I just don't know. I'm sure that whatever the applicant's intending to store there's fine but I also would like to make sure that we don't allow more than that. Aanenson: You're talking about to quantify it. Burton: Yeah. Aanenson: I mean how much material he can move. It's not stated in the conditions, is that what you're saying? Burton: Yeah. Joyce: So you're saying what the material is that he's.., that he doesn't do anything above and beyond. Burton: Right. The stockpiling additional items there. The dirt, I don't know what it is even. Hempel: Stockpile material is limited to topsoil material that's being hauled in from the adjacent parcel. Burton: Okay. So I'm just wondering where in the recommendations it limits the additional storage to that topsoil. I just want to make sure we're not opening a door for some other type of stockpiling. Joyce: You're saying to stockpile, the definition of stockpile is dirt? Hempel: Correct, topsoil. Burton: That is the definition of it? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Hempel: That is our definition of it. You may be right. It's not definitive in the conditions of approval. We did put a condition that there's no expansion to the existing contractors yard being approved by this permit on condition number 10. But we can certainly specify that the stockpile area will be limited to topsoil material. Burton: I think that would be good. Kind: Mr. Chairman, should it also be specified to be the 30, the quantity? ... 30,000 cubic yards. Do you think so? ... want more. Hempel: We do have a grading plan that has to be followed and they will provide an as built survey to quantify that that material is in place. That is one avenue but we can certainly add a condition to limit it to the 30,000. I would suggest specified compacted volume versus loose volume. 30,000 cubic yards of compacted topsoil material. Sidney: One question. On the.., we received it says black dirt stockpile. Is it truly black dirt that they're talking about or it's just topsoil that is? Hempel: It is a mixture of black dirt material. Probably clay like material mixed into it. It will be used as topsoil material in the landscape business. Sidney: So it really isn't black dirt 100% that we're looking at. Hempel: A mixture basically, yes. Joyce: Alright, would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission? You came down, you might as well say something. Mark Undestad: I really don't have anything to add to this. We will, as Dave said, seed it up right away after we get it in there and take it from the east side so the back side will be the last to go. Not much to put in there. Joyce: Okay, thank you. Alright, well this is open for a public hearing. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: This is open for a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please come forward. Seeing none, can we close the public hearing? Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Commissioners. Burton: Mr. Chairman with the condition that we discussed, I'm fine with it. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Kind: I do have one question for Dave I think. What is the normal, we're approving one year. Is that a normal duration for a project like this or will it be likely they'll want to come back? Hempel: Interim use permits are good for one year. Annual review and depending on business activities, we anticipate it probably being a two year operation. Maybe the applicant can address that a little bit further but. Kind: I just don't want it to be there for 5 years or something... Hempel: The parcel could also be developed here in the near future and any material that's on site there, if any is left, could still be used as additional berming material on the outside perimeters of the lot as well. We don't feel that it will have to be removed from the site after it's once been placed. Kind: I don't have any other issues with it. Seems fine. Joyce: I'm fine with it too so can we have a motion... Kind: Mr. Chairman I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approves Interim Use Permit #99-1 with the following conditions 1 through 14. Or actually 1 through 15 and 15 will read, the stockpile should be limited to 30,000 cubic yards of compacted topsoil. Joyce: Second on that? Conrad: From the neighboring. Kind: Brought in from the neighboring lot. Period. Burton: Second. Joyce: Okay, motion and seconded. Discussion? Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #99-1 with the following conditions: The applicant shall provide fl~e city wifl~ a letter of credit h~ fl~e amount of $5,400.00 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration and compliance wifl~ fl~e h~terim use permit. The applicant shall pay fl~e City $457.00 for fl~e grad'mg permit fee. In addition, applicant shall pay for all city staff and attorney t'nne used to mo~fitor and enforce h~terim use permit. The h~spection fee shall be billed at a rate of $30 per hour. The applicant shall obtah~ and comply wifl~ all permit requirements of fl~e Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 The applicant shall supply file city Mill a mylar as-bu'flt survey prepared by a professional surveyor registered in file State of Minnesota upon completion of excavation to verify file grad'mg plan has been performed in compliance Mill file proposed plan. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be restored wifil topsoil, seed and mulch within two weeks after grad'mg is completed. Noise levels stemming from file operation are not to exceed MPCA and EPA regulations. If file city determines filat filere is a problem, walTant'mg such tests shall be paid for by file applicant. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday Mill work not permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. Prior to start'mg grad'mg activities, erosion control measures shall be installed, inspected and approved by stafl~ All material for file stockpile area shall be imported to file site by October 15, 1999. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be seeded and disc mulched by October 31, 1999. Tile interim use permit shall expire one year from file date of City Council approval. Tile applicant may submit a written request to file city for renewal of file permit up to 45 days prior to file expiration date of file permit. 10. No expansion to file exist'mg contractor's yard is being approved Mill tiffs permit 11. The removal of material from file stockpile area shall be restricted to file easterly side. The westerly 50 feet of file berm/stockpile area shall remain in place at all tunes. The final side slopes shall be 3 to 1 or less. 12. Tile applicant shall construct and maintahl an interim sedimentation pond east of file stockpile area. Tile pond shall be a minimum depfil of 3 feet. Erosion control fence shall be maintained between file pond and wetland unt'fl file interim use permit expires. 13. Import'mg of material is restricted to file approved haul route. No hauling shall be permitted on any City street. 14. Export'mg of material from file stockpile area in conjunction Mill file landscape business may require file appropriate traffic control signage along Audubon Road. Tile City shall determine when traffic signage is needed." 15. The stockpile should be limited to 30,000 cubic yards of compacted topsoil brought in from the neighboring properly. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING CHANHASSEN BOWL AND FILLY'S BAR AND REPLACE IT WITH EIGHT ADDITIONAL THEATERS WITH A SEATING CAPACITY OF 1~400 SEATS WITH AN AREA OF 30~000 SQ. FT. AND 9~000 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL SPACE~ VARIANCES FOR SIGNAGE~ HARD SURFACE COVERAGE~ SUBDIVISION CREATING LOTS WITH NO DIRECT FRONTAGE ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY~ HWY 5 OVERLAY DISTRICT~ PITCHED ROOF ELEMENT REQUIREMENT AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BG~ GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT~ LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND PAULY DRIVE; EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD; AND SOUTH OF WEST 78T}~ STREET~ CHANHASSEN PROPERTIES~ LLC. Public Present: Name Address Gerald Rummel Vemelle Clayton Bob Copeland 2300 Firstar Center, 101 E. 5th Street, St. Paul 422 Santa Fe Circle 570 Pauly Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Before we ask questions I want to make a note that the application time limits are up so we have to make a decision. Do we have any questions for staff at this time? Conrad: Yeah. Why have you recommended approval with conditions versus denial? Is there a reason? Aanenson: Well the conditions in the staff report reflect changes that we think make it acceptable. Our policy is that we like to... if modified... We did recommend approval with the cross access agreement. There is another way to meet the reduction of parking. The issue is the parking. The significant deficiency in parking. The only other way to resolve that issue would be to reduce the square footage or the number of theaters. That would also solve the problem. So that is another alternative. Conrad: But you didn't recommend reduction. Aanenson: No. We said the cross access agreements. But that certainly is an option that you could, you could also propose that option. We can't force a cross access agreement, but we can enforce that they have the required number of parking stalls. The two ways to resolve it is cross access agreement, which we verified through the parking study, or reduce the amount of square footage. Those are the two ways to solve the problem. Conrad: Do we have a vision of how the Bloomberg properly will be developed? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Aanenson: When we did the parking study, there were some assumptions made as possible locations for buildings. That information was shared with the EDA. In part because they funded that parking study that was done last April of '98. So we did look at some options of circulation, build out. Conrad: What could it contain? What's the potential of the balance of that properly? Aanenson: It could be office. It could be retail. Both of those are permitted uses. A1-Jafl2 Any of the uses that are permitted within the central business district. Aanenson: Most intense retail, office district so. Again it's being driven by parking. No matter what goes in there it's going to have to accommodate parking. A parking ramp was also talked about as part of that parking study. Conrad: Under good planning practices, could you see the theater developing separately from Bloomberg properly? Could there be a separate parking that goes to each without a? Aanenson: No. We're deficit 400 parking stalls. That doesn't work. And the whole premise was based on shared parking arrangements because there was going to be peak times. I mean that's their answer is that they'll manage it by the time showing and by having a police officer controlling those peak traffic times. And it's our opinion that that's too significant an amount of deficiency without allowing the cross parking. Conrad: How many parking stalls does Target have? I mean any guess. Okay. Aanenson: 65,000. We could do the math really quick. 65,000 times. Conrad: In your memory bank Kate you would just have that automatic. I'm looking for comparatives and that's why. Has a case been presented to you that shows we need less parking for the theater? Aanenson: Right. We acquiesced on that already. They've come back and said that they're using a different ratio as far as seating to cars and I think we agreed that we would accept some of that based on what our parking standard is. They're using a higher number and we agreed to that. Conrad: So a case has been made for a different ratio than what we use? Aanenson: Correct. Didn't they use 5.7 or. A1-Jafl2 5.9 or 5.7. Aanenson: 5.7 or 5.9. So we conceded on that. We would go with the higher number but we're still short. We just think the gap is still too big without that share. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Conrad: So you would be willing to accept the, whatever the case was for the ratio. Aanenson: Yep. Joyce: Any other questions? Kind: Not right now. Sidney: Well I guess I have one question for staff Mr. Chairman. Maybe you could just review when this went before the EDA, you mentioned TIF was approved based on architecture and also they had an understanding there would be an east/west access point. Aanenson: I mean that's also going to be an issue for the EDA to resolve. I guess the role of the Planning Commission is to say does that meet the standards of the district. As Sharmin's pointed out in the staff report, there is a significant number of deficiencies. The position the stafl~s taken is, we want the entertainment component but at what price? And that's the balancing act we're trying to come forward. We're just saying right now, based on the parking study that was done in 1998, it was always assumed that while we would accept the deficiency, that it could be picked up somewhere else and we believe that gap is too great. The architecture, I mean the impervious surface issue. And landscaping. Some of those things we're saying okay, if we want this to happen we have to acknowledge that and be willing to say this is an important element of the downtown and we would forego those and give those variances because we feel strongly about it. But the counter balance is, is it architecturally pleasing? Does it merit those variances and are we creating additional problems by having, by not having enough parking? Stafl~s position is right now that without the cross access agreements or without the reduction of the building, there's too big of a gap. Conrad: Mr. Chairman? Joyce: Yes sir. Conrad: The cross access agreements could pertain to Market Square? Could pertain to Americana across the railroad tracks. Aanenson: The only thing I think at this point that we studied was, and I would guess we looked at what the people as a net study of that center. Off the top of my head would there be less at Market Square at certain times of the night? Yes. On a Saturday afternoon? I'm not sure. You know I feel more comfortable what we studied to say that we recognize the numbers were there on a certain square footage. We didn't study the peak demands over at Market Square and how that relates to the operations so I'm a little less comfortable speaking to that but off the top of my head, at night there probably is some additional parking over there. Conrad: So they could go. There are other places other than Bloomberg properly to get these spaces. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Aanenson: Sure. I mean we looked at the hotel. I mean we included that whole area in the interior of that super block. Conrad: But not across the railroad track? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: And maybe not at Market Square? Aanenson: Correct. That was not a part of the study. Yeah we did look at peak times. Conrad: Does the railroad let you put pathways across the railroad track for pedestrians? Is that an issue? Dave? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It's an expensive permitting process to get a street across railroad tracks. I'm unfamiliar with a pedestrian crossing to be honest. I would assume though that it would be pretty difficult. Aanenson: I'm sure that'd be in conjunction with a street. Unbarricaded and a liability issue. Kind: I don't know if we'd want to encourage that anyway. Conrad: Well there's only one train a day, or lwo trains a day. There is parking over there. I've counted. I've asked the tenants, I've asked the owners has anybody approached them. Nobody has so we haven't really explored that opportunity. There's probably 100 spots over there. There's probably some at Market Square. If they want to give them up. It's a pain in the neck but nobody's asked at this point in time. They're there. You talked about, the last time we were here we were talking about making people walk. Kind of neat if you can. If you take a look at that area, you can bring them across. Is it dangerous? Yeah, there's a train now and then but man, it's just. But again there are the rules and I don't know what they are but it's relatively easy and they're relatively, there are pathways that are relatively easy to cultivate right now to get people across. But anyways I'm just looking. If we want people to walk in town, this is one way to do it. You know we don't need more parking. Well we do here. We've got to find where it is, and I don't think we've really explored those avenues. And I'm not pointing at stafl~ Aanenson: We talked about that as an option and I think that's a possible option. We'd have some concerns about if we approved it over there, and not checking with the railroad, encouraging people to come across and liability of approving that. But certainly there are probably, and we talked about the city as one of, that that'd be a possibility. Joyce: I can think of one example right now is over in Chaska... over by the library. That's kind of a discussion and I hope I'm not screwing up the agenda but I'm saying someone had to get permission there in our neighboring village. They made it pedestrian friendly. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Conrad: How nice would it be to park at a restaurant and walk to a movie theater. Now the restaurant wouldn't like the parking because they want to turn traffic and they only have so much, so you know we're talking philosophy but that's how you really do get pedestrian flow. Some of the stuff that we talk about is real artificial. It doesn't work. You know people won't park 3 miles away and walk. But if you park at a restaurant, park at a shopping center, you may. You're doing multi things and that's kind of cool. Those are the things that get people walking downtown and this is an opportunity but I don't think we pushed it. I don't think the applicant has pushed it yet. Joyce: Other questions of the staff'? Kate, I just want to understand from my point of view, in essence we've changed a couple of these conditions. One of...that you're accepting the fact the 95% impervious surface. Correct? The City's basically fine with that, correct? Condition number 147 Aanenson: Yes. But again I guess I'd like to frame it in the fact that we're saying we feel that we want the theaters but based on the design that we're willing to give up some things to make that happen because we feel it's important. What we're saying is there were some changes that needed to be made, even in the architecture to get to that point and that's reflected in this condition. Our recommending approval we think entertainment is an important component but ... balance act to say. Joyce: Your problem is the seats, right? What it boils down to. Aanenson: And architecture were still some of the issues. Those are the two issues .... do we want it to look like one big building. The two different segments and was there enough on the back of the building. But the architecture. And the use. Do we feel that strongly about it that we're willing to, we don't feel comfortable waiving that much parking. I mean Ladd's come up with another suggestion that we talked about too. You've got to somehow solve that. We agreed, even with the shortage and there's going to be times that, Christmas break, whatever, that they're going to be short and that's going to happen and that's okay. We'll accept those times that's going to be really busy. But as a general operating practice, unless they can resolve some of those. Joyce: Getting back to the seats. Let's say you keep the building. Configure it somehow so there are less seats. Is that kind of what we're looking at here as far as options? Less seats. I don't know. I mean I don't know.., but if there's less seats there less need for parking and as far as bodies. Aanenson: That's one option. Also get more cross access agreements when you can. Joyce: You're saying that the size of the building.., if they could address the parking situation. Aanenson: Our ordinance does allow off site parking. Proximity but you have to get those agreements and demonstrate that through a parking study that you're not creating like Ladd said, the restaurant problem somewhere else. That's why we feel more comfortable with the study that 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 was done in '98 because it did look at the mix and different times and demonstrated how that worked. Conrad: Mr. Chairman. Last time we were talking, we had some concerns with the little alley. Anything change on the alley since the last? Did stafl} the old part of the building really didn't change too much. And it still hasn't. Aanenson: That is one of the recommendations that we have in here. Conrad: Okay. Joyce: Have you taken the situation out of those conditions? I just thought of it now... So if we pass this we're saying, kind of putting the onus on them to get, figure out a cross access is what you're saying, correct? Alright. Anyone else? Kind: I do have one question Mr. Chairman. On number 19, condition 19. All new painted precast field material shall be upgraded to a better material. Do you think that we should specify what we mean by better material? Aanenson: Sure. If you want to give him some direction. A1-Jafl5 They could use brick or EFIS or. Kind: Is that pretty clearly understood in the builders terms that that's better than precast? A1-Jafl5 What they have on the existing cinema is precast and there has been numerous negative remarks regarding that facade. We didn't want to see a duplication of that. And that's why this condition is in here. Kind: But you feel there's room if we did decide to specify what that material might be. Aanenson: The Council would appreciate that. Joyce: Okay. Would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission at this time, please step forward. Bob Copeland: Good evening. My name is Bob Copeland. I know you're all fired of talking about this project so let's get right into it and I'll be as brief as I can. What I would suggest doing is just running down these conditions and then try to hit the highlights or the points that are, have the most discussion about them. First of all condition number one, putting the, or the concern about the utilities underneath the building. We will comply with that condition. That's no problem. Item number 2, restoring the disturbed areas. No problem. We'll do that. Item number 3(a) has to do with this east/west connection. Now we commissioned the study with Benshoof and Associates that brought up this east/west connection. And maybe that was a mistake to hire those folks to bring this up because this thing keeps coming back to haunt us in a way. But we 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 agree that the east/west connection is a good idea and I'm confident that it will be done. The difficulty we have is that Bloomberg won't grant a connection across their property to the east of the cinema at this time. Now they've indicated that they expect the city will dictate such a connection across their property when they redevelop that property. And they expect that they will have to do it at that time. And they also anticipate there will be cross parking and cross access agreements. Formal agreements at that time. But the, we were never going to have parking there until they redeveloped. The EDA never envisioned that we would have parking there until they redeveloped. Nobody anticipated that so in terms of parking, now I want to separate traffic and parking. But in terms of parking, there's no change. In terms of traffic, there is a slight distinction now in that Bloomberg will not permit access across their property at this time. So what we did is we went back to Benshoof, who originated the idea. He's the one that came up with this idea of this east/west connection, and we, I talked to him about it and I said Jim, they won't grant access across their property at this time. And I said, what can we do you know to deal with the traffic in the meantime. And it might be 6 months, it might be 6 years. You know none of us know when that's going to take place. And we came up with the idea of two things. One is staggering movie starts and ending times to spread out the traffic load, which we are willing to do. And the other one is to hire off duty police officers to direct traffic at Market Boulevard and Pauly Drive. And I have a letter that Jim Benshoof wrote to me that states that, this is the next one.., and I've highlighted his conclusions in the back and I don't think I'm mischaracterizing his feeling about it when.., he's recommended he's strongly in favor of it and he says it will take care of the traffic situation. And remember, he's the one that originated this east/west connection idea. And I also went to a different traffic consultant to get a second opinion on the issue. We hired BRW and Harold Preston over there to take a look at this situation also and to get a second opinion. And he concurs that the combination of these staggering these start times and the off duty police officers will work. It's a good solution to the traffic congestion and they both concur. These two experts concur that this will work. And that it's really not something that any of us need to be concerned about if we follow this strategy. Now also we are willing to, you may wonder well how can you be assured that this would take place. Well, you really have two things that we would off'er. One is that assuming the EDA continues to have TIF involved in this project, that TIF is a good lever. In other words, twice a year they have to rebate the taxes and so if we're not in compliance with everything, they can just choose not to rebate the taxes. So we would have of course a financial incentive or you'd have a lever on us twice a year. The other thing is if that's not a satisfactory, we will agree to give the city a check to, up front to cover the cost of off duty police officers for this purpose. We feel that this might be an issue as many as 12 weekends a year. 12 out of 52 weekends. But we're willing to say let's be conservative. Let's double that. In other words, we're willing to commit to have people there 24 weekends a year. The top 24 weekends that we expect to be doing the most business. So I think that will, you know should be, provide ample comfort to all of you that this is a very workable situation. We're willing to step up and do this and guarantee the city that it will happen. Also I think that we all need to keep this traffic issue in perspective. It's an internal, within the site issue. It all has to do with here. It doesn't have anything to do with any public roads. And further, what we're talking about is in the worse case an annoyance to our customers. So all this discussion is about an annoyance and trying to avoid an annoyance to our customers. Now we're of course very concerned about annoyances to our customers and we don't want to have annoyances and we want people to be happy with their experience when they visit the theater and we want them to 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 come back. So we don't want to propose a solution that we have any doubt at all that is going to work because this is a very big investment. This is probably the biggest single investment in downtown Chanhassen. So we aren't going to proceed with something that we're not very comfortable with. And so keep all those things in mind about traffic and I'll just stop there with traffic. Now are there questions that I can answer for you related to the traffic or anything that I've said about it so far? Joyce: Well I think this might be the time to... probably the biggest issue we have. Bob Copeland: I'm going to go onto parking soon but just talking about the east/west connection. Joyce: Well I appreciate you, I think we should, are there any questions regarding traffic? ... okay. Conrad: Well the issue is having an access point to the site obviously. There's going to be another one with the east/west and now you're solving it through, you don't know when... I don't know how you can answer that traffic question. You're going to put people in the place and say to us well, the problem will exist until Bloomberg decides to develop. Bob Copeland: But that isn't the traffic problem. That isn't the traffic problem that Benshoof discovered when he did his traffic study. The traffic problem was taking a left turn from Market Boulevard, I'm sorry, from Pauly Drive onto Market Boulevard. When it's busy. That's the issue. In other words right here. There is a right turn lane. I don't know if you can see this. There is a right turn lane here turning onto Market Boulevard. And there's also a left turn lane. What his concern was is that the cars could stack up here. It might be difficult to make a left turn onto Market Boulevard. Now this is something that's very easily solved by an off duty traffic person. Joyce: Dave Hempel, is there any... I see that, we're not going to get the cross easement. Talking about traffic stacking up, and I don't know what the implications it would have into Highway 5 or whatever we're talking about. Bob Copeland: Our traffic expert says there aren't any onto Highway 5 or West 78th. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I did talk with Mr. Benshooftoday regarding that issue about having an off duty traffic officer out there directing traffic and what ramifications does it have on the adjacent intersections. West 78th Street and Market and Trunk Highway 5 and Market. It was his belief that it would not because of the adequate spacing between the intersections. And I guess the other issue with regards to the traffic problem, Mr. Copeland did address it correctly. It is the left turn movement from Pauly Drive out onto Market Boulevard and the intent was to alleviate that with an east/west connection to Great Plains Boulevard. It's not, there will be significant delays and people how do you say, get fired of waiting. Take more chances in pulling out and that's where you see more of your accidents. I guess it's staff's position from the engineering department that we definitely want the east/west connection, or reduce the size of the theater 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 seating to accommodate, make use of the site. Don't exceed the site capacity with traffic and/or parking is our belief. Bob Copeland: Well again we've had two professional traffic experts look at this and they both agree that the off duty policeman is an excellent solution to this occurrence to the situation that occurs maybe as many as a dozen times a year. Alright, well let's move on then. The item number 3(b) on the recommendations, or the conditions is to have 28 foot drive aisles. I don't think there are very many places around town, around the Minneapolis-St. Paul area that have 28 foot drive aisles. We can't do that. We can't have that as a condition. We can't comply with that. That is, we'll have less parking if we do that. And we have 24 feet. The City has 24 feet in their new parking lot right here. It seems to work fine. I really don't think that should be an issue to turn down the project. It says 3(c), prepare a traffic control plan. We'll certainly do that. Item number 4 is report any drain tiles. We'll certainly do that. Number 5 is get permits. We'll do that. Item number 6 is limit the seating to 2,800. We'll certainly do that. That's what we want, but this brings up the parking. So let's talk about the parking here for just a minute. There are several things that have been said this evening that are not correct. So I'd like to ifI can set the record straight on this. When we came to the city about doing this addition to the cinema, the city was rightfully concerned about parking and they commissioned a parking study. They hired the Hoisington-Koegler Group to do a study. At that time Hoisington studied on how to just to deal with this site. They studied a 2,400 seat addition and a restaurant and MLT being here on the Bloomberg property. As big as 100,000 square foot office building right here. And Hoisington determined that it would work. And we went back to Hoisington and we said well that's not quite right. We wanted 2,800 seats, not 2,400. And he redid the study based on 2,800 seats, which is what we need to have. Aanenson: Excuse me for interrupting but that is a big point. We do not have a clarification of that study. Bob Copeland: Well. Aanenson: We don't have that in our files. Bob Copeland: Well there are two things that I can say, well three things I can say about that. Here's a copy of it with 2,800 seats here. That's the page he redid. And we used the parking ratios that he used to determine the parking requirements. I think you all have a copy of this document. It's a four page narrative that we prepared and you probably got it a month ago or whenever you got the initial package. It's got a little table of parking requirements. The demand and the stalls available. The ratios that are there are the exact same ratios that Hoisington used in his study. And what it showed was that there is a demand of 525 stalls. Joyce: What's the ratio please? Bob Copeland: The ratio for the cinema for seats was 1 to 5.88. He used the inverse of that. He used.., calls for 1,000 square feet for a retail and so on. And he came up with using those ratios, you come up with 525 parking stall requirements. Now we had 539. When we submitted our 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 documents originally. But the staff determined that it was important to have a 30 foot wide east/west connection. In other words this connection across the cinema-retail site. The staff felt it important to make that 30 feet wide. As opposed to 24 or 26. And so we complied and we did that and we told the staff well if we do that we're going to lose stalls and they said well it's still more important that we have that 30 foot wide drive aisle and so that's what we did and we took out 52 stalls. So now with this plan that is before you for your approval we have 487. So we're 38 short of the number that would be required by Hoisington's study and that's about 7%. So from our standpoint we'd be happy to put the stalls back in and shrink that drive aisle but that's not what the staff thinks is best. Another point about all this is that people talk about shrinking the building and so on. Our preference would not be to have the retail building. If that solves the parking problems in people's minds, let's do away with the retail building. We'll be able to park more cars here and there will be less demand. Now we've talked to the staff about that. They don't like that idea. They feel that it's important to have the retail building there. That it provides additional things happening on this site and they think that it breaks up the view of the building from the west and it does do those things. And so we have gone along with it but keep in mind that we've been guided here along the way and we've responded and we've done what we thought we were supposed to do. What we were being asked to do. So are there any questions about parking? That I can answer. Joyce: Let's do it this way so we don't have to complicate.., are there any questions about the parking? Burton: I want to back up. Bob Copeland: I'm sorry for interrupting you sir. There's one other point that I failed to make and I want to make it before I forget and that is that some people said well where would cars park if this parking lot was full? Well there's a city th owned parking lot right across West 78 with over 200 stalls that are available every evening and so that's why we didn't go to private neighbors and ask them for permission to park in their parking lot because there are city owned stalls right across West 78th. Right on the other side of here. There are over 200 stalls there. Where the so called Medical Arts buildings are. And the city owns that property. The city put in that parking lot and it's available to the public. And no easements are required. So I'm sorry for interrupting you. Burton: Oh that's fine. I was just backing up a second because I was wondering about the drive aisles and the 28 foot recommendation versus the 24 foot and I was wondering if Dave or staff could address that. Hempel: Sure. IfI can clarify for the record. We're recommending 28 foot drive aisles for the main drive aisles around the building to facilitate fire apparatus vehicles. The other drive aisles for parking are 26 feet wide is what the city code requires. They're proposing 24. Not much difference. Joyce: Any other questions regarding parking? Kate I guess I do have one question. I think when we were initially talking to staff here before Mr. Copeland stepped up, Ladd mentioned that 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 you had taken this study and used their figures... 5.75 or 5.88 seats. Accepted that. There is kind of a, where do we come up with the 4 seats? How do we go from 4 to 5.88? It seems like a lot. A1-Jafl2 One is ordinance. The other one is, yes proof of parking based upon the number of seats that they are providing in relationship to number of parking. Joyce: What I'm saying is, from my understanding, I didn't do the math but are you saying that you'd be satisfied with.., the amount of parking that's needed? Aanenson: Which study? Joyce: I'm talking about the 5.8. A1-Jafl2 We looked at other cities and what they have used for ratios. I believe the highest one was 4.5 that we saw. Bob Copeland: May I make a comment on that specific issue? Joyce: Yeah, I don't want to argue this back and forth. Bob Copeland: No, this is something I failed to say before and I think it's significant. We really don't need to do much guesswork. We don't need to really have a consultant at this point. Last fall we maybe did because we hadn't been through a full year of operation but now we have. And what we're talking about doing is doubling the number of seats and if we doubled our business, that would be tremendous but you know that's the outside or the most that could happen. Sowe know how many cars that we have on the parking lot on busy nights and it's not going to exceed this 1 to 5.88 ratio. Because we already, it's already half in place. So we don't have to do much guesswork to figure out what the parking requirement's going to be. Joyce: Alright. Let's move on. Bob Copeland: Okay. Item number 7, the 26 foot road width over Bloomberg's properly, we've talked about that. Meet with the inspection division. We've done that. We'll do it again if people would like. Items 9 and 10, we will put more plantings on the properly as long as the space permits. We would prefer not to lose any additional stalls. Item 11. I can only find one item that, or one island that is less than 10 feet. It happens to be right here. This one right here. All the others are 11. This one is 7 feet and the reason it's 7 feet is it provides this 30 foot width across this drive aisle. We will redo the landscape plan as item number 12. Item 13, we will comply with all the fire marshal's conditions. Item 14. This hard space versus green area. Let me just clarify one thing and that is that with just the 95% hard surface coverage refers to the area in pink here. This area that I'm tracing with my finger now. This is the area that we would be buying. This is the properly that we own. The rest of the properly is either owned by others or it's owned by the city. So you can, if you can the area in pink there, you can see why there isn't any more space to do anything to have anything other than hard surface. If you look at the whole thing, the entire cinema site, which I think is maybe possibly what should be looked at more than 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 that particular land locked piece of property, the parking ratios are somewhat better. Or I'm sorry, the hard surface coverage and that green area. Actually now instead of just 5% green in this whole site, we have 15%. Now that still doesn't meet the technical standards of the ordinance but it's three times as much percentage wise than this particular parcel. Item 15. Dedicate the easements. We'll do that. Item 16 is meeting with the building official again. That's done or we'll do it again. Item 17. This dentil block projection. I believe our architect adequately addressed that last time and hopefully you'll agree that that should not be a 1 foot projection. Item 18. Apparently the issue there is just will the windows be set into the walls and we will do that. 19. This upgrade new precast. We are not proposing nor have we ever actually proposed any precast. The city has made it clear to us that they don't like the precast so we have not even proposed any new precast so I don't think there's, there isn't any precast on the new structures so it's all brick and EFIS. And item 20. The sign restrictions, we'll agree to those. 21. Build the retail and the cinema concurrently, we would agree to that. Item 22. Screen rooftop equipment, we'll do that. And item 23. Add columns at the arches at the alley, we will do that. So those are my comments on the recommended conditions of approval and with that I'll answer any other questions that you may have. Joyce: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Bob Copeland: Thank you. Joyce: Appreciate your plan. Kind: I did have a question. Joyce: Mr. Copeland, could you answer a question please. Kind: Sorry. I flipped back my page. Sorry about that. On number 7 you just kind of zipped right by condition number 7. Are you willing to build a driveway across Bloomberg property? In your letter it stated you felt that they would be agreeable to such a driveway. Bob Copeland: Well, number 7. They will not permit a driveway at this time. And so we were agreeable to do that but we cannot do that. We don't have permission to do that. But Bloomberg, Bloomberg's attorney and their representative Clayton Johnson have told me that they fully expect that there will be a requirement placed on them by the city to do that when they come in with their plans to redevelop and that they are resigned to doing that. And they also understand that there will be cross parking easements and access agreements and so on at that time. They don't want to do it now for a couple reasons. One is they think it will tie their hands in terms of where they position their building or just how it's configured and so on. And then number two, they have mortgages on that property and they think their lenders won't approve an easement or something that they might perceive reduces the value of the property. Kind: Thank you. Joyce: Okay, this item's open for a public hearing. Can I get a motion? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: This item's open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please step forward. Vemelle Clayton: I just want to clarify something. I'm Vemelle Clayton. Just that you looked perplexed when he mentioned that there's parking on the north side of the street so I just want to explain where it is. Basically it's everything from the Oasis Market to the end of Colonial Square. And it was done on purpose. The plan was that even way back then, we always think that nothing was done right that was done before something that we had something to do with, but that is one thing that was carefully thought out and the idea was that that way there could be cross parking and more density downtown. And I should also point out that in older, or earlier traffic studies done for this project, that parking was taken into consideration. So there's some historical precedence for considering that for this site. Joyce: Anyone else like to address the commission at this time? Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Anyone like to take a stab at this? Don't all go at once. Kind: I'll go. Joyce: Great. Kind: I like the idea of having something on this site and I like this project. There's some issues....my point of view. However I feel that part of my wanting to like this so much is determined by my loathing of what's there right now. And I don't want to be twisted, be arm twisted into approving something that compromises too many of our codes or variances or whatever because I don't like what's there. Regarding the thru street and the solution of having an off duty police officer. I think that's an excellent idea. The church I go to has used this method for 40 years. It's a long term solution to their every Sunday problem and I think that's an excellent idea. I applaud your creativity for coming up with it. The no cross access agreement with parking, I think Kevin spoke to this in our last meeting. I don't know if cross access is the right term for it. I don't know, I think of it as joint use parking. I don't know if that's the correct term for it but Kevin touched on this at our last meeting that parking.., over rated and I am un, I'm asquirm a little bit at the lack of parking but Vemelle's comments about that public parking across West 78th and Ladd comments about available parking all around have swayed me to be a little bit more comfortable with that aspect. So I'm okay with that. My biggest problem is the 95% hard surface coverage and I know the existing occupant had the same problem. That they are 95%, if not 100% surface coverage and I think this may be an improvement by adding those islands with trees and such so that part is probably an improvement over what we have. I still feel though that the 95% is a huge number and I can't help by feel that this is over building for that site. Pedestrian circulation. To me yeah, we could justify that it's no different than Target or Byerly's 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 as far as getting around in the parking lot but yet I kind of hoped for a little bit better solution for this site. The original vision, the way I understand it, allowed for a plaza area to encourage people to linger and I don't see any of that in this plan. As well as streetscape kinds of items with benches and those sorts of things. I'd like to see that included. And then the landscaping issue overall. I think Mr. Copeland hit on the point which is they would be willing to add if there was any place to put it. But since the parking is so short, I don't know that they could really meet those requirements so I'm tom. I like the idea of seeing something there but right now I guess I feel like we're compromising... Joyce: Anyone else like to address this? Conrad: Sure. I think that the 95% is okay. After touring the site, that was the big issue that I had and I tell you I think, I agree with the staff report. That says let's go with it. I think that is not an issue anymore in my mind. I never said that before on any project. And overall I like the project. And the landscaping can be taken care of and issues but, but. I heard some good comments tonight on things. Things I hadn't heard before but it's, we're supposed to be planners and it's sort of non statistical stufl~ Well we can get them there or it might be someplace. I don't have, it's real uncomfortable because our job is to plan and the City Council can figure out if they want to loosen some of the standards because they want this project in. But right now I'm not persuaded on the parking. I think some cases are being made. I think we've compromised on ratios that's of interest. It sure, and there may be spots. I haven't seen that presented, other than the last few minutes and I guess I'd really like to know if there was a plan, I'd expect somebody to show it to me. Here are 20. Americana has 26. Colonial whatever has 200 and here's our signage that will get people there. And here's our advertising program that will be included in our ads. And here's our agreement with Market Square because they are really right there so they're going to be, so there are, I think we can possibly solve the problem. I just haven't been shown that. I think there's hope tonight. The first time in the last 10 minutes I think this probably, some potential. But it's not, it's words right now. So I think there's some potential but there's not, it's just words and I don't know how to make a motion. Not a clue how to make a motion to get us out of tonight that's positive, aggressive. I'll let somebody else do it. I think we do need a design in front of us with an east/west, we're planners. We need to see the east/west design going through here. It may stop at the Bloomberg property but we are planners. We're supposed to figure this out how it works. I had some other smaller issues. The alley stills bothers me a whole lot. The pedestrian circulation a little bit. Has never been able to get good pedestrian circulation on any of our bigger projects so maybe I'll never get it. It's not quite right. And I would like a little bit of an update look to the old part of the building, and I didn't really see that coming through on the staff report. Maybe it's there. I think the staff report on street widths is probably right. If somebody could make a presentation and show me where the parking really would be, I think a lot of these, then I'd be really very favorable to put a positive twist on the whole thing. IfI don't know I can't, my biggest problem, I just don't know. I mean I think there's potential here. I think all the other, and I think the applicant has some problems with the staff report and that may make some things economically a problem. That's hard for me to deal with but I think as the parking issue is one that we have to really feel comfortable with. Solutions presented but not very concise. And not to the point where I can say we've solved it so, and pass it along to the City Council. I think in my mind I don't know how we're doing it. I think we have some potential but 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 I don't know how we're doing it right now. So the only way I could pass this on tonight positively is by reducing the size of the seating capacity or by getting retail out of there. We can't table it. Kind: Would you support getting retail out of there? Conrad: It's okay. I don't think the retail that's in there, I like how the retail looks but I don't think it's real significant. If we like the movie theater, I think that adds some pizzazz to the site. I don't think it really services a great huge need for the city. But it sure makes that wall better. But it's an option. It's an option to me. I'd prefer to find the parking. I'd prefer to have staff agree with the applicant that we know where people are going. I think cross access agreements and off site parking is great. We talk about that and love to do it but right now it's uncomfortable for me to say that we've got it in the bag. We don't know when Bloomberg's going to develop. So right now I think we should know where it's going to be coming from. So the only thing I can think of is to restrict the seating. Or review the retail. And that doesn't mean I'd like to get it out of there. Burton: No, I guess I concur with both of the comments and I'm at a bit of a loss as to how the motion would go this evening too. I've been spending time thinking about that and I think I probably need more time to think about it here but I concur in all the concerns. I like the project a lot and I'd like to see it go through. Actually I do like the retail and I'd like to see that remain. I guess I don't have much more to add at this point than that. It's a frustrating situation though. Sidney: Yeah I do agree with many of the comments. I have felt that looking at this application that it does seem like we're over building on the site and we've really compromised a lot in terms of parking and hard surface coverage for the project. And as a result I had hoped that we would see some improvement architecture materials, you know like we're talking about more definitive plans for parking. Signage and such things. And we just haven't seen it. I guess my feeling is disappointment, especially since the applicant really didn't address the pedestrian circulation, boardwalk or materials of the last discussion we had at the Planning Commission. And like what Matt said, I guess I have a real hard time trying to formulate a motion to look at this in a positive way and send it onto council. Help from my fellow commissioners. Joyce: That makes my job easier because.., you guys figure it out. And I don't envy you. But you've got to do it and I guess that's a little bit of my disappointment is that, just from a personal standpoint, I think we tabled this kind of expecting to see.., and it seems like he is over here and the project's more over here and their idea of putting the traffic officer there really hasn't changed anything. There are some issues here. And my disappointment is I think I really feel we're close here. I really feel that for one, I've said this all along. Personally I'm not a big proponent of parking. I think we can get around the parking issue. I don't know. It's Thursday night. Beautiful night. Probably people aren't going to the movies but that part.., tonight. I don't know what's playing. We all know it's going to be a Friday, Saturday night parking problem. Maybe a Thursday night during the holidays or other nights during the holidays but I feel that that is manageable. I think with some effort, I like the idea of using traffic officer. I think Ladd hit on a good point. I mean in that business but marketing sure could help. Showing where there are additional parking areas. I don't think parking's an issue here. I really don't, but I do think 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 something like pedestrian circulation is an issue in the parking scheme and I think if there was some discussion on that or some sort of improvement on that, it would have pushed a couple of us maybe further along. And there was absolutely no change in any sort of pedestrian circulation. I felt uncomfortable after hearing about pressing that cross easement. I'm in agreement with Ladd. I think that should be part of a plan but not part of a condition. I can accept that as part of a planning process but not a condition. That's back there to the developer to force your hand to try to get access so I think that's a problem in the conditions here. The street width, you have to abide by that. That's 26 feet. And as far as the impervious surface, once again this is a downtown project. That's what we have... I think with a little bit of imagination this thing can work. I guess the biggest question, you know really the question is this a premature development? I mean isn't that the question? Is this premature or not? Can Chanhassen handle this development? I think it can. I think with a little imagination it can. That's my opinion and, but we have to make a decision tonight and then somehow give him some sort of direction. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, could I ask staffa question? Is there a seating capacity that would justify what has been presented? We changed it from 1,950 to 2,800 and then there was a 2,400 number in there. I'm just curious, is there based on the plan that has been presented, parking plan, is there a seating capacity that we would feel would utilize? Al-Jarl) It depends on the parking ratios that we're willing to accept and at this point we said we would accept the applicant's, which is 5.9. Conrad: Which would give us how many? Which would give them how many seats? Hempel: 475. Plus retail. Al-Jarl) 475 times 4.0? Hempel: Oh I used 5. 5.8. Joyce: That's the question. 5.8... Hempel: 483 plus the 30. 45 for the retail is 528. Conrad: So what's the grand total of seats that they could have? Based on 5.8 and 487 parking stalls. Hempel: Right. Conrad: What's the grand total Dave? Hempel: And the retail was another 45 stafl~ for a total of 528. Al-Jarl) Number of seats in the movie theaters. Grand total. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Conrad: How many seats could they then have in the movie theater? Hempel: Based on the available parking now? Conrad: Yeah. Hempel: I'm sorry. Conrad: That's presented. Hempel: Minus 45 gives you 442, by the 5.88. I came up with 26, 2,599. Conrad: Based on the new ratio and based on parking stalls that they can put in, they can have 2,600 seats. Okay. Kind: Are you formulating a motion? Conrad: Yeah, well I'm trying to. It seems, it's obviously something we can't dictate to you but it's a way to get the motion out of here so Bob you can go on and talk to City Council. But at least there's a standard for, we need something to justify. We need ratios we feel comfortable with and capacities we feel comfortable with and allowing a capacity that we don't know where that people are going to park. This is pretty bad planning and at this point in time nobody's told us really in a good comprehensive parking plan where they would park. I think that's an opportunity for the applicant but at this point in time we haven't seen it so we could table it and wait for him to come back but that's not an option so we can either vote it down and say no or we can vote it positively so anyway, do we have other comments? Otherwise I'll just make a motion and mn with it. I would make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #95-21 to demolish the existing Chanhassen Bowl/Filly's building and construct eight movie screens and a retail element. Variances to allow non-street frontage signs, marquee sign, hard surface coverage and preliminary plat approval to replat two lots and three outlots into two lots and one outlot, Cinema Addition as shown on the plans dated Received June 23rd still, 1999, with the conditions in the staff report with the following changes. Condition 6, that the maximum seating capacity will be 2,600 seats. I'm going to make the rest of the conditions but I'm going to stop and come back and ask staff a question before I get a second. That condition 24, that a long term parking plan be provided to City Council, excluding the, showing locations and justifying seating capacity. And also presenting again to the City Council why the 5.88 ratio should be accepted. Condition 25 is to review the concerns that the Planning Commission had with the alley between the retail and the cinema. In terms of screening, lighting, presentation, gating. Condition 26. The applicant review and recommend any facade changes possible to the old part of the cinema to make it reflective and consistent with the new. Condition 27. That the applicant show City Council pedestrian circulation flow coming from any off site locations and also the internal pedestrian flow. That's the end of my motion and now I'm going to ask staff a question. Have you seen a street design that's acceptable on any plan presented? The east/west corridor, have you seen it on any plan that is the way we'd like it. Ending where we'd like it. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Hempel: The plan that's been submitted is I believe the east/west street is limited to the properly itself. It doesn't show anything off the properly limits through the Dinner Theater. Conrad: And that's where it curved up and out? Hempel: Right. Conrad: Now is that what you envision as a visionary Dave for streets connecting to the Bloomberg properly? Is that what you envision as this east/west street? Being hooked like that. Hempel: Our first preference was for a more parallel east/west street with the railroad tracks to provide less turning movements with the parking lot. That's our first preference. It's really difficult to say without seeing the other site, the use on the Bloomberg properly. Conrad: But we only have, again if we're positively passing on this and you know, it's hard to say. But then again that's what we. So we haven't seen really an east/west corridor on any plan that we feel pretty good about at this point in time? One that shows at least it goes there but none that we've seen. So again that would give us great cause to mm this down until we found one that was acceptable but we don't want to do that. So the leverage, by us approving the plan as it stands, does this give us the applicant the feeling that we like what the traffic. We're saying we want an east/west but what's the leverage to say we're not, we don't like the way we see it right now. Aanenson: Can I make a suggestion on number 7. Originally in number 7 we had that the applicant acquire a cross access agreement. If you describe in there what type we want. Something to the effect, my concern is that if we don't make it onerous on this application and the next project says well I'm not going to give it back the other way. I guess we would like to have some language in there that, assuming that, yeah. Well the way you've written it now will solve the problem. You've reduced the parking or he's got an opportunity to solve it by demonstrating he can get it off site. But I guess we still want to provide the cross access. We think that's good planning, which is what you're saying. So what if we say the applicant shall provide a cross access agreement and that he agrees, we work out some language belween now and council and working with the attorneys that he's willing to work to provide that at such a future time that we can see where it goes. If that makes sense. Conrad: I'm okay with that Kate. Aanenson: Something that he says I'd be willing to rearrange my parking ifI need to, to get the street in the right spot. If he's willing to give us that flexibility and we can hold that in abeyance until the right time. As long as he's willing to do that. Conrad: That's what we want to do. Aanenson: Okay. So we need something like that. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Conrad: As long as you know that it's not good right now. Aanenson: Right. Right. Conrad: It simply isn't right. Aanenson: Change acquire to provide and then somehow we put in there something about study that in the future to make it in the right spot. Conrad: I'm not even going to try to word that right now. That's my motion. Kind: On the cinema site or on the Dinner Theater? Aanenson: Well what we're saying is there needs to be that east/west connection. That's the guiding principle. The unknown is, where is the correct location so we want a condition that says he is willing to be flexibility and if he needs to shift some of the parking to make that road be unimpeded, wherever the design works. So we want to put a condition in here that says he will provide an easement for a roadway at such time in the future, that makes sense. Kind: On the cinema site? Conrad: On the cinema site. Not Bloombergs. Aanenson: Right. Correct. Right. Conrad: But what we don't want is, you know we really don't want it angling up and through. It's just, it could be heavy traffic, it could be a fair amount of traffic. We don't want it winding. Aanenson: No, we're going to change acquire to provide. Provide an access point and then we'll. Joyce: Unimpeded access. Aanenson: It should be subject to staff approval. I mean that pretly much says it right there. Staff approval and but somehow we're going to put some language in there beiween now and council. Whether we need to say that there needs to be escrow. Whatever we need to do to insure that that comes about. We'll work on that beiween the attorneys and them beiween now and council to somehow resolve that quick language on that but I'm in concurrence on what you want. Joyce: Okay Ladd? We have a motion... Do we have a second? Burton: Second. Conrad: That takes a lot of guts to second that. Nann, what did we say? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Joyce: Any discussion? Kind: I'm discussed out. Conrad moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review 95-21 to demolish the existing Chanhassen Bowl/Filly's building and construct 8 movie screens and a retail element, Variances to allow Non-Street Frontage Signs, Marquee sign, and hard surface coverage and Preliminary Plat approval to replat two lots and three outlots into two lots and one outlot, Cinema Addition as shown in plans dated received June 23, 1999, with the following conditions: The applicant shall redesign the building plans to avoid conflict with the City's sanitary sewer and water lines. The applicant shall have the option to relocate the sanitary sewer or add additional manholes and case the sanitary sewer line underneath the building. The water line shall be relocated a minimum of 10 feet away from any building structure. The applicant shall also dedicate all new drainage and utility easements to encompass the relocated utility lines. All utility construction shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant shall be responsible for all adjustments to existing gate valves, manholes, and catch basins on the site. The City's Utility Department will require an inspection of these adjustments. A security escrow in the amount of $25,000 shall be supplied by the applicant to the City to guarantee utility relocation/adjustments in conjunction with site plan approval. The security shall be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be restored with sod and/or landscaping materials within two weeks of completion of the parking lot improvements. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and to guarantee restoration of the city boulevards and adjustments to the city infrastructure. The plans shall be redesigned to incorporate the following items: A) Incorporate an unimpeded street from Market Boulevard easterly to Great Plains Boulevard. The minimum drive aisle width shall be 28 feet, face-to-face of curb. Parking shall be prohibited on both sides of the street. B) All drive aisle and parking lot stalls shall be redesigned in accordance with City Code 20-1118. C) The applicant shall prepare a revised traffic control plan for city staff to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. The plans shall include placement of stop signs and pedestrian crossings. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of draintile found during construction. The city engineer shall determine whether or not the draintiles can be abandoned or reconnected. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Health Department, Watershed District, and the City of Chanhassen's Building 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 10. 11. 12. 13. Department. Seating capacity of the theater complex shall be a maximum of 2,600 seats for the both the first phase and the new addition collectively. (Approval of this nmnber of seats wffi result in a 35% variance in the required parking spaces; 745 required -487 provided based upon one stall per 4 seats as required by ordinance). The applicant shall provide a cross access easement 30 feet wide over/through the Dinner Theater site out to Great Plains Boulevard and construct a bituminous driveway over the easement. The applicant and staff will work together to provide an acceptable location for the east/west connection that will be constructed in the future. The driveway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide and constructed to a 7 ton street design. The alignment of the driveway shall be subject to staff approval. The building owner and/or their representatives meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. The applicant shall increase plantings for buffer yard areas in order to meet ordinance requirements. The applicant shall increase plantings for parking lot trees in order to meet ordinance requirements. The applicant shall increase landscape island width to a minimum of 10 feet or install aeration tubing. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for city approval. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. Fire lane signage and yellow curbing will be determined by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1 1997 Uniform Fire Code. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. Submit radius turn dimensions and parking lots to determine fire department vehicle access. Submit turn dimensions to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Section 902.2.2.3 1997 Uniform Fire Code. In the proposed alleyway between the Cinema and the proposed retail there will be absolutely no storage of combustibles allowed at any time. Appropriate signage 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact wording of signs and location. The hard surface coverage shall be 95%. This coverage will exceed the maximmn hard surface coverage permitted by ordinance by 30%. Dedicate the typical utility and drainage easements on the plat. Meet with the building official to address building issues at the applicant's earliest convenience. The "DENTIL BLOCK" imitation,, when built, shall have a minimum projection of one foot. All windows shall be constructed in a fashion that resembles the attached illustration of windows with a windowsill. All new painted precast field material shall be upgraded to a better material. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the sign area shown on the plan. The letters and logos shall be restricted to 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall have a minimum depth of five inches and shall be constructed with a translucent facing over neon tube illumination. Tenant neon illuminated signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and logo. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area. Projecting signs are permitted. The size of the projecting sign should not exceed three feet in height and 6 square feet. One sign is allowed for each tenant. All signs shall be double-faced and have a decorative hanging bracket. Illuminated letters may be attached to the exterior of the projecting sign. Projecting signs may not be illuminated from within. All signs will require a sign permit. Both the cinema addition and the retail building shall be built concurrently. All rooftop and ground mounted equipment shall be screened from views. The existing rooftop units above the existing theater shall also be screened. Columns shall be added below the arch at the entrance and exit points of the alley." The applicant will provide a long term parking plan the to City Council showing locations justifying seating capacity. Also presenting to the City Council why the 5.88 ratio should be accepted. Review the concerns that the Planning Commission had with the alley between the retail and the cinema in terms of screening, lighting, presentation, gating. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 26. The applicant review and recommend any facade changes possible to the old part of the cinema to make it reflective and consistent with the new cinema. 27. That the applicant show City Council pedestrian circulation flow coming from any off site locations and also internal pedestrian flow. All voted in favor, except Kind who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Joyce: One nay. Would you like to? Kind: I think I can go on my former comments. Joyce: Former comments. Conrad: Which was? I think it's good. You know I read the Minutes and when people say, when the question is asked in those Minutes and the City Council is reading them and you just say well I've already said it. They've probably forgot what you said so it's probably good that you would reflect one or two things that made you say no. Nay on this one. Kind: Okay. I'm concerned about over building the property. 95% hard surface coverage is too much. And... better here with more landscaping opportunities because I don't think there's going to be any chance that they'll be able to meet those requirements. The parking requirements. And I hope for more pedestrian friendly streetscape, plaza area kinds of places. Those are my main ones. And that we're making too many compromises. Joyce: But we did pass the motion. It will go on to City Council on the 23rd. Aanenson: Correct. Joyce: Vemelle, did you want to mention something? Vemelle Clayton: Yeah maybe for the record since it deals with the last thing you talked about, just for clarification here so we're not off track. And I don't know why I'm doing this because every time Minutes I can never figure out what I said so I'm sure nobody else can either. But this particular property, as I recall, the condition of approval of the Frontier Building was that there be cross access easements. So there is that condition this property is required to have them. What you did though tonight is something that this fellow can't quite comply with because he doesn't own this. Just so you know. The part that has this come up here is owned by the same people currently that own this. If that gives you some comfort unless, until they should sell this to someone before they develop it. The reason this.., right now is because they'd like to have people get out of here right now before this is built and there's a building right there. So those are the... Aanenson: We'll look at that before City Council. Issues understood. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Vemelle Clayton: Just so everybody knows... Joyce: Kate mentioned she's going to contact the attorney... Vemelle Clayton:... Aanenson: On items 5, 6 and 7, Craig had mentioned last time since not everybody's here he wanted to wait so I guess I'd recommend that again. What I think I'd like to do is at the next meeting, we just have one variance and then we have Ruby Tuesdays, which we're making progress on. That's the only things on. I think we'd like to discuss, we talked about taking some time to go through the variance criteria so we'll do that and then we'll discuss these, if that's okay. Joyce: So that was, scratch open discussion. Kind of our ongoing items, correct? Aanenson: Correct. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 21, 1999 as presented. NEW BUSINESS: Conrad: New business? Joyce: That's what we were just talking about wasn't it? Aanenson: Well yeah, Ruby Tuesdays. Conrad: There's something I'd like you to look at or report back. We had the Brozovich subdivision where we had the issue of interpretation of the rule where we split the difference between one side and the other side. There's going to be another one coming in and it's also in my neighborhood so where we had the same issue and it's on a peninsula and it's screxx~ so I guess I'd like you to review the ordinance and maybe there's an intent statement that should be in there. And I'm not even trying to smooth the way for the next one. I'm just saying I saw the. Aanenson: Every community does it different when you've got the averaging of setbacks. It causes a lot of consternation. That's a good point to look at. Conrad: Just to review it again and see if we're real comfortable as the next one comes through because it's coming. No, they haven't submitted it but it's here. Joyce: Okay, any other? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 4, 1999 Kind: I have one question of Kate. Phillip's letter about the bluff ordinance he attached, or somebody attached the city code that was pertinent to it. I could not, I read this over and over again. I could not find where it's implied that you could clear cut a 30... Aanenson: That might be, maybe we didn't include the shoreland regs which allows you on the shoreland to have a 30 foot area to do that. So we need to put that in there. I think at this point we're probably going to go ahead and put together a draft and you'll be seeing that shortly too. Saw the pictures that were attached. That's sometimes how we learn how the ordinances really don't work. Kind: I just couldn't figure out where they got from these ordinances the idea that they could do that. Aanenson: We do allow, so you can view the lake, if you've got a lot. The problem is that it's conflicts with what the intent of the bluff ordinance. So one should supercede. Obviously we're going to go with the bluff because yeah. In order for him to get the 30 feet he had to make a switch back road which pretty much wiped the site out. Vice Chairman Joyce adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 36