Loading...
PC 1999 09 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER IS, 1999 Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deb Kind, Matt Burton, Alison Blackowiak, Ladd Conrad and Kevin Joyce MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney and Craig Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Cynthia Kirchofl] Planner I; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 75 FOOT LAKE SHORE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD, DONALD AND KATHRYN SITTER. Public Present: Name Address Don & Kitty Sitter Peter Pemrick 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. 9251 Kiowa Trail Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? I guess I just want to clarify one thing Cindy. We're allowing, the original garage had a 16 foot setback, right. So we're 16 foot setback. Kirchofl5 It has a 59 foot lakeshore setback. It meets the side yard setback. I think there's a note on the plan that it meets the side yard and it's. Joyce: I guess what I'm saying is when the garage that's there right now, is that set back 59? Kirchofl5 That's correct. Joyce: Okay. And that would encroach 16 feet into the setback, right? Kirchofl5 That's correct. Joyce: Okay, and we're allowing an 18 foot encroachment now. Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Kirchofl2 That's correct because there are 2 foot eaves on the proposed garage. We measure setbacks that have received variances to the edge of the eave or any type of architectural feature can't have an additional encroachments into a setback that has received a variance. Joyce: So you're saying the eaves are architectural versus actually an addition or an intensification of the. Kirchofl2 That's correct. Joyce: Okay. And you're seeing the, alright. Okay. If the applicant would like to make a presentation to the Planning Commission, please step forward and state your name and address. Don Sitter: Good evening, my name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard. This is my wife Kitty here. We have lived in this residence for nearly 19 years now, and I'd like to just explain the photos a little bit to kind of get your oriented. I don't now how to do this. Here is the garage as it exists today and just to get oriented, the lake is to the left here and the house sits up here to the right. If you look at this photo right here, end of the road. Our lower driveway goes down to the garage and upper driveway comes up to the house by the front steps. If you stood on the front steps, this is end of the upper driveway over the garage and then.., background there. I think Cindy already captured the situation here. It was built in the early 60's. Both the garage and the house have been there since then. It was destroyed in a storm. Insurance says we need to replace it and obviously the setback is where we're in difficulty here. If you read the staff report, Cindy noted that it would be a significant hardship to move this back to the full 75 foot setback so we are proposing to construct it in the same location as far as distance to the lake goes. Staff has recommended that gets approved if it's the exact same footprint. We are asking for an additional 6 feet towards the west. Not towards the lake. What we want to do is make this two stories tall to allow additional parking and our main effort here is to get it on the same level as the house. Two stories gives us much safer access to the cars in the winter time. As you can see, we have to come down these steps outside to the garage. Having the garage up on top at the same level of the house would much safer access. It's still not attached, which would be ideal but the situation on our lot does not allow that. To get the two spaces up on top we need to add the existing, or 6 feet to the existing. What we're proposing is two cars coming in from this direction on the lower level. More spots coming in from the upper level up here. Here is the 28 foot dimension of the lower level. What we're asking for is to use the same.., upper level cars in up there. Officially that means we are adding to the non-conformity of the building, but by only 6 feet. I believe the only people that would have a concern with that would be our immediate neighbors to the west. We have shown them our plans and they are in favor of the plans. In fact our neighbor is here so I'll let him speak for himself. As far as the other staff concerns, I did draw up my own grading plan which is in your packet and I understand I need to have a professional prepare one for the permit. Dave Hempel has been out and looked at the property. Has reviewed the grading plan and I don't believe you have any issues with it. I also understand about the height requirement. We'll take care of that at the time of the permit. I've already looked at a truss design book. We can drop the slope of that roof down to a 3/12 pitch if we need to get it underneath the height requirement. As for precedence being set. We live in an area of the city that was developed about 40 years ago under different guidelines and our neighborhood has numerous variances 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 granted previously. As the staffreport indicated, at least 14 of those variances have been previously granted on our road alone in the last 10 to 12 years. We believe that we're asking for is not excessive. It fits in with what others have already been granted and will certainly not set any precedent. In conclusion I think if you review the stafl~s report and the findings, they all support the granting of this variance. The only point of discussion is this last little 6 feet right out here. That's going west. What we are proposing will take care of the safety issue, it will provide enough parking space for us to get our cars in, and our teenager's cars, lawn and lake accessories all under roof. As well as we hope to enhance the looks of the property greatly. We don't see that it impacts anyone in a negative way in any form and with all of the positive points of what we're going to get, we would ask you to grant this variance. With that, thanks for listening and I'll answer any questions. Joyce: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? Conrad: Why can't you move the garage closer to your house? Don Sitter: We're supporting a hillside there and if we try and go closer to the house, all the retaining walls have to move then. The whole area of... it's about a 12 foot high hill that we're put into. That was, well it would change the entire feel of the house. You couldn't drive up to the house at all. Haul groceries up the stairways all the time. Joyce: Thank you. Oh. Kind: I'm sorry, I just thought of one. Technically the 22 foot width is wide enough for two cars. With the double garage doors separating one. Would that be. Don Sitter: And the service door? Kind: Not with a service door. Don Sitter: That's what I have now. I don't have a service door and ifI ever lose power in the garage, I can't get my garage doors open with the garage door openers. So we really, well I think it's almost mandatory that you have a service door in there, and that's. Kind: Put the service door around the side. Kitty Sitter: It's on a slope. Kind: Okay. So it's retaining walls and that sort of thing. Don Sitter: It's a tough hillside. This is going to be an expensive project. Kind: Yeah. I did go out and look at the site... I think you'd have bluff ordinance problems... Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Joyce: Thank you very much. Alright this item is open for a public hearing. Could I get a motion to open it up? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: It's open for a public hearing. Step forward. State your name. Peter Pemrick: My name is Peter Pemrick. I live at 9251 Kiowa Trail. I adjoin the Sitter's properly on the west side. And in fact on one of these photos you see my house in the background. Right there. And I probably would be the most affected and I fully support this. There's one suggestion I would make, and I don't see a problem with it. I've got a house that's got a 3/12 pitch and it's not very good. And I would support him putting like a 6 or a 7/12 pitch on that. In fact in the future I plan to do that on my house when I remodel it. So we fully support Don and Kitty doing this and we don't think it's going to affect anyone else either. Thank you. Joyce: Thank you very much. Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission on this subject? Seeing none, could I have a motion to close the public hearing. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Okay, anyone want to take a stab at this? Kind: Sure. As I said, I did go out and take a look at the site and their garage definitely needs to be replaced. It looks like it's almost sitting kittywompas off the foundation. And it would be major earthwork to move the garage so I don't see how that's possible. My only question was about the 22 foot depth.., and the service door... I would support their request. The roof, the neighbors concern was that it's just not steep enough to get rid of the snow? Is that what? Peter Pemrick: Those roofs are a real problem... Kind: The 24 thing I'm not quite sure about. I'd be interested in other commissioners comments. Joyce: So you're in favor of allowing the 28 by 28 foot pad? Kind: Yes. Especially with knowing that the neighbor does not object. That's the side of the encroachment. Joyce: Anyone else like to comment on this? Burton: How high was it going to be? 21 1/27 I guess I can comment. I guess I agree with Deb's points. I believe I would support the extra 6 feet because I think it's nice. I think it's important that we support the improvement of the properly and I think it just makes sense to do that now. And I think it would also, if we apply the variance standards, that the same standards that allow 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 them to rebuild the garage in the same place would allow this additional 6 feet. And so I would support that. And I'm kind of torn on the roof one. It seems to make sense to give them the extra foot and a half but I'm not sure how I feel about that one either. Joyce: Okay. Alison, I'll go down the line here for this one. Blackowiak: Yeah. I guess I could support a 28 x 28 garage. Initially I was thinking that 22 by 28 would be sufficient but again when we talk about the side access door and knowing how hard it is to get into a garage when you don't have power, I certainly wouldn't want to wish that on anyone so since it's not attached to their house, that would make sense that they should have another door or another way to access the garage. I don't know from the plans if there would be the possibility of doing anything upstairs or if there are stairs that are going to attach, that are going to connect the two garages. I wasn't clear on that. Don Sitter: We didn't plan any. Blackowiak: Okay, I didn't see any so that. Don Sitter: We're going to redo the stairs on the outside so that they... Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, I really feel that they need to do, need to have a secondary access. Not only the garage door but also some type of a door so that does make sense to me. As to the height, the applicant is comfortable with 20 feet and using the 3/12 or whatever that happens to be. But I would say let's go, maybe they need to talk to staff about that. My only other question would be to Dave I guess. Are you comfortable with the drainage and erosion control plan as presented to you by the applicant or should it remain a condition that they have a plan prepared by a professional engineer? Hempel: I'd like to leave the condition in there as a part of the ordinance requirements for a building permit. To have a certificate of survey and a grading, drainage erosion control plan prepared by a professional engineer. Blackowiak: Okay. That would be my only other question then. That's fine, thank you. Joyce: Ladd. Conrad: Well I agree with the staff report. I think the applicant would like this. I think you're expanding a non-conformity. I don't know again, that's what you don't want to do. The applicant can get to the garage. They're expanding a non-conformity. It's a garage on a lake. I would rather have the house on the lake, not the... I think staff report is... Joyce: I don't like the idea of expanding on a non-conformity. The only thing I can say about this, and I have to take these variances on a case by case basis. I think that a garage that was built in 1963 versus one now, I think there's some, obviously some modernization that's involved. I think you need a bigger garage nowadays so I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt. In my 5 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 opinion, to give the benefit of the doubt of expanding the garage to the applicant just because the original garage was there before the setbacks were, the ordinance was set up by the city. I think they have a valid point that I can see them needing an expansion of the garage. Something that's at the age. I do think they have to stay within the 20 feet. I wouldn't be comfortable doing anything over the ordinance on that so I'm in favor of the.., footprint on this but the 20 feet I would stay within that. So we have the comments, would anyone like to make a motion here? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission approves Variance #99-14 for an 18 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback for the reconstruction of a detached garage with the following conditions, 1 and read number 3 to 2 because.., number 2. Joyce: It's your motion, I mean that's. Kind: I'll leave it. With the following conditions 1 and 2 with number 3 now becoming 2. Burton: I'll make a friendly amendment to add another condition that the garage's footprint shall be limited to 28 feet by 28 feet. Kind: Sounds good. Joyce: Why don't we, I think you should redo number 2 then. Strike it or something. Kind: Okay. How about number 2 reads, the garage's footprint shall be limited to 28 feet by 28 feet. And then number 3 as it was before, the garage shall be 20 foot height requirement. Joyce: We have a motion, do we have a second for that? Burton: Second. Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #99-14 for an 18 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback for the reconstruction of a detached garage with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a drainage and erosion control plan prepared by a professional engineer at the time of building permit application for staff review and approval. 2. The garage's footprint shall be limited to 28 feet by 28 feet. 3. The garage shall meet the 20 foot height requirement. All voted in favor, except Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Joyce: Okay, do you have any comment Ladd? 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Conrad: You're expanding a non-conformity. Joyce: Okay, fair enough. I believe that passes, doesn't it? Yeah, that passes. That's where it ends, right? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 30 FOOT BLUFF SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, LOTUS LAKE WOODS 2ND ADDITION, WESTAR DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Gene Dabrowski Bert & Phyllis Swanson Mike Weis 6107 Creek Ridge Court, Minnetonka. 401 Del Rio Drive 400 Del Rio Drive Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Questions for staff'? Kind: I have a question Mr. Chairman. Cindy, do you know if the 2,600 square foot number for the whole first floor footprint? Kirchofl5 No, it is the first and second floor. The basement is unfinished I believe on the plan. The applicant can answer that question. Kind: And then, in the next paragraph on page 3 of the staff report it talks about in this case a reasonable use is a single family home with a lwo stall garage. This plan I believe has a three. So if it was a lwo car garage, then the... Kirchofl~ Let me briefly go over the site plan. This is the house footprint right here, and the third stall is right here so it is part of this larger area that is the house, and these are the lwo other stalls. So it's not, in the case of the garage is 30 feet wide protruding out from the rest of the house. Kind: But it's protruding into the living space. Kirchofl~ That's correct. Kind: Which forces living space towards the bluflk Kirchofl~ I wouldn't say that necessarily. It is reasonable size. It's not an excessively large house and the house that was just approved for Lot 3 was like 3,300 square feet. So it is smaller 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 than that and the applicant did come in originally with a much larger proposal and he did downsize the house pad. So he is working with us in trying to reduce the size of the footprint and reduce the encroachment into the bluff setback. Kind: Thank you. Joyce: You'll have your chance. Kind: That's it for me. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I've got a couple questions of stafl2 First of all regarding the grading and encroachment into the conservation easement. Do we want to make a condition, as a condition of approval a revision of sorts of the grading plan? So that it does not encroach into the easement. Kirchofl) Do you want to answer that Dave? Hempel: Certainly. That would be a recommendation that I'd recommend. Joyce: Well put. Blackowiak: And my second question has to do with, let's see ifI can spit this out. I have a timing issue. We have a preliminary plat in 1993. We have an ordinance in '94. We have a final plat in '95. We have a replat in '96. How come, when the final and the replat happened after ordinance that the final and the replat did not have to take into consideration the ordinances in effect at the time? Kirchofl) When it was preliminary platted they were conditions and when it came through for final plat, they just reviewed the conditions that were in with the preliminary plat. And at that time there wasn't a bluff protection setback city wide. It was only in the southern portion of Chanhassen. Blackowiak: So that if something, if you preliminary plat something, it kind of supercedes any ordinances that come after that? Kirchoflk But they would still have to meet the required setbacks when it is built upon. Blackowiak: Okay, then how come they're not meeting the bluff'? I'm sorry, I don't follow. Kirchofl) Sharmin would be best suited to answer the question. A1-Jafl) When this first came in 1993 it predated the bluff ordinance. When they came in for the replat, originally they wanted to do a metes and bounds. Technically they didn't need to come in for a plat at all. It was staff that encouraged them. It would be just a legal description that moved the property lines because they're not doing a subdivision. So the plat in our opinion was just a 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 clean way of describing those lots. And that's what came before the Planning Commission and City Council. Blackowiak: Okay, so then. A1-Jafl2 So the original conditions were the only thing that applied. Blackowiak: I guess I don't understand why if something is changed in effect after ordinance, why the ordinance doesn't apply. In other words, you've got something that happens before an ordinance, and I certainly understand why ordinances don't apply. When you go to change, I would think that you would have to meet the new standards. And that's my question. Why these new standards weren't met when the change happened. A1-Jaflk When the new ordinances were adopted, we did not point out that they needed to meet that new setback. In the '95 plat we did not point that out. Blackowiak: I understand that. So then are we just stuck, is that what you're telling me? Okay. Hempel: If I could just add to that. As Sharmin mentioned earlier, we encouraged the applicant to go through the final platting process to change those lot lines. As Sharmin mentioned they could have simply done it by a metes and bounds description and wouldn't have had to go through the platting process. So it was really more to the City's advantage to have them final plat it again to show the correct lot lines. So if they would have went the other way, the ordinance wouldn't have been applied at that time either so I think staff's logic was well, it wasn't going to apply. They didn't apply it to the final plat either. A1-Jafl~ If we would have imposed those conditions, they would have dropped the plat immediately because it's not to their advantage. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, thank you. Joyce: Okay, anybody else have any questions for staff'? Conrad: So in the staff report, we don't have any conditions that would mitigate the impact on the bluff other than the grading plan. So Dave, is that our way to in essence help what the bluff setback had to do? It would seem in a case like this we would try to impose something that would solve the perceived problem. The problem of the bluff setback put in there to do. Hempel: I guess from an engineering standpoint, we've looked at it that the plat was a lot of record. The grading was limited when the plat came through to preserve as much trees on the slope as possible. And now to go back and penalize them if you will, because of the new ordinance that's in place, made it a little unfair. I mean we've approved the subdivision. We approved the grading for it. It's been graded, rough graded. And now you have a house being proposed on the lot. The grading plan for that house meets the development plan with the exception of a little encroachment into the tree preservation area. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Conrad: Okay. I buy everything you said but, so there really aren't any mitigating factors that we'd like to impose? Hempel: Correct. Conrad: Or could, but like is really. Hempel: Certainly could as you put, insert something to be in compliance with the ordinance but I guess the stafl~ Conrad: But no, they get what they get. That's real clear. But then on the other hand you try to take out whether the ordinance is there or not, you try to solve what it was intended to solve. If you can't set it back more, then what do you do? And in this case you're not making any recommendations. Which says to me there isn't a problem. A1-Jafl2 The majority of the site is under a conservation easement. So the bluff is under this conservation easement predates the tree preservation ordinance. So at the time we really worked very closely with the applicant and in '93 it appeared as if we were truly accomplishing something that the ordinance wouldn't typical allow us to do. Conrad: One question Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, you said that the preliminary plat supercedes the final plat. Is that true? Nothing's in, until there's a final plat. A1-Jafl~ If the preliminary plat has been adopted, and if the. If the preliminary plat has been adopted, the typical, or a very good example is in 1986 when the Met Council said no more parcels under 2 1/2, under 1 unit... We got a lot of applications before the '86 and it was preliminary plat that was approved. And as long as they came in prior to the '86, we had to give them final plat approval. This is the same scenario. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I have one more question too and I don't know if it's for you or Cynthia but we talked about, you mentioned that the house was comparable to the other houses in the neighborhood and I question, I mean it may be to the houses to the east, but since this is accessed off Del Rio Drive, it's not comparable in size to any of the houses on Del Rio Drive. So how do we answer that question? I mean can we go with a smaller house to better fit with the neighborhood? Kirchofl5 When we say neighborhood, when I say neighborhood I mean within 500 feet. So you have a kind of a mix. You have bigger houses on the lake and you may have smaller houses on Del Rio because that was platted in the 60's. They're going to be smaller. But if you take the average, particularly within this subdivision, it fits right in with that. With the newer houses. Blackowiak: Okay, but the newer houses you really don't see because they're down. Kirchofl5 That's correct. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Blackowiak: I mean you're going to see Del Rio Drive and you're going to see a few houses on the end which in my mind don't fit with that neighborhood. Kirchofl2 A lot, as I mentioned, Lot 3 had a house approved on it and it's 3,300 square feet. Blackowiak: When was that? Was I gone or something? Kirchofl2 No, the building permit was approved for it. It wasn't, they didn't require a variance. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I thought I missed something. Okay, so then you're comfortable with how it fits with, again from my mind on Del Rio, this is going to be a house on Del Rio Drive. It's not going to be a whether, you know you call it Lotus Lake Woods or I don't care what you call it, but basically to me this is right there. So do you feel that this is going to work with what's there? Kirchofl2 It will appear to be a new home in the neighborhood but I think it will fit in. Blackowiak: Okay. Joyce: Okay, good questions. Thank you stafl~ Would the applicant like to make a presentation to the Planning Commission, please come forward. Are you the applicant? Why don't you step forward and state your name and address so we can kind of officially. Gene Dabrowski: I'm Gene Dabrowski representing Westar Development and my address is 6107 Creek Ridge Court, Minnetonka. And I was just going to make a comment about the square footage of the roof area. There was a 3,000 square foot plan submitted with the garage being about 700 square feet basically and the house was going to be 2,100-2,200 square feet. When we found out this condition existed we redrew the house to basically about 1,300 square feet, which is, if you take any one of the split entries or the ramblers that are up and down Del Rio, that's basically about as small as you can get a suburban house with a three car garage and that ends up being about 3,000 square feet. And that's what the roof area of this structure is so. And the lot is 28,000. You know it's 28,000 square feet so this is 2,000 square feet of roof area. Joyce: Thank you. Okay, this is, we'll open this up for a public hearing. Could I get a motion to do that please. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: This is open for a public hearing. Would anyone like to address the Planning Commission on this topic? Please step forward. State your name and address. Bert Swanson: We're just the Swanson's. I live next to this lot and we got nothing against the variance. We're just glad he changed the plan of the house to save that row of trees in-between 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 us. And hopefully, I guess if he didn't get the variance there really wouldn't be enough room there to build a house because I think there's only, I was measuring, there's only around 80 feet from the cul-de-sac back to the trees there and that don't leave much room. So if there's any way we can make it so them trees between us don't get cut down in the future, or a guy can't do that I guess. I don't know. Joyce: Dave, can you answer? Bert Swanson: It sort of divides our places. Kirchofl) ... the applicant did shift the house over... Joyce: Those are under a conservation easement so they're there. Bert Swanson: They're along side between our two houses. Or his lot and our house. But they divide the properly there so nice. Yeah, I should mention, they are on his properly. They aren't on ours. Joyce: Okay, well thank you very much for your. Bert Swanson: We haven't got nothing against a variance anyhow, thank you. Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission on this topic? Yes sir. Mark Weis: My name's Mark Weis and I live at 400 Del Rio Drive. I just live to the north of the Swansons. I guess I just have a concern like they did on the Planning Commission. This isn't going to turn out to be like a Big Horn Drive kind of deal is it where Big Horn ends and these, I don't know what the, well I know, I guess I just found out his is 1,200 square feet but the other two houses in the development are 3,300 square feet. I'm just, I don't know. I'm just asking. The other houses. Joyce: Do you want to answer that Cindy? Kirchofl) Could you repeat the question please? Mark Weis: I found out his lot, his house is going to be 1,200 square feet approximately right, 1,300. Conrad: 2,000. Mark Weis: 2,000. The other two houses. Kirchofl) That's the footprint, yes. Mark Weis: But the other two houses are 3,300? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Kirchofl2 They meet all the setbacks though. Mark Weis: No, I'm just asking because I don't know. You just had mentioned that you didn't think that this was going to be like. I picture this being like Big Ham Drive. They're both going to be real... All three houses? Just your house? Gene Dabrowski: Just the middle one is ours so I don't know which one... Mark Weis: The one next to my properly and the one next to Mr. Swanson's properly are your development? Gene Dabrowski: ... Mark Weis: Okay. See I haven't seen the plans for 1 or 3. And they had just mentioned that they didn't want this to be, that they thought this would not conform to the neighborhood and I'm picturing this as Big Ham Drive where you know you've got the houses like kind of on Del Rio and then all afa sudden you've got this cul-de-sac with $300,000 houses. Big Ham. Joyce: I can't picture Big Horn so I can't help you with that, and we're talking about this particular item and I think what we said is we've got a 2,600 square foot house on this particular lot that we're discussing this evening. Mark Weis: Right. If it conforms to the ones on Frontier, you know it seems fine to me because those, it's pretty congested down there but. Joyce: Do you have other questions because we really don't have the information in front of us. I apologize. I appreciate that. Okay, anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Could I have a motion to close the hearing then. Conrad moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Who'd like to take a stab at this one? Burton: Well Mr. Chairman I think there's a lot ofhistary with this lot and I think stafl's done a good job af taking a look at it and I think that their recommendation is right on and I support the staff recommendation. Joyce: Great. Anyone else? Conrad: Looks good. Joyce: Sounds good. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Blackowiak: Yeah, I would support staff recommendation with an additional condition about the revised grading so that the grading does not encroach into the conservation easement. I think that's the least we can get out of this. Conrad: You've got to make the motion then. Blackowiak: I will do that then. Kind: My only comment is I have a minor reservation about the three car garage. I think if it was a double garage like the rest of Del Rio, it would fit in better with the neighborhood and that is, I agree with Alison on that. But I understand a three car garage is pretty much standard these days so I can support the applicant. And I agree with Alison's third condition. Joyce: I do the same. I have to say that 2,600 foot house is a nice sized house but it's moderate. I mean it's not excessive. I don't think this is going to be, going to stick out and, it might not totally blend in to the neighborhood just because the neighborhood was built before this. It predates it but I think it's a reasonable size house so I'm in favor of it as well. So let's get a motion going. Blackowiak: Okay, I guess that's me. I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission approves Variance Request #99-15 for a 22.5 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a single family home as shown on plans prepared September 6, 1999, and subject to the following conditions, 1 and 2 as outlined by staff and I will add condition 3. That the grading plan be revised so that no encroachment into the conservation easement occurs. Kind: Second. Joyce: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance Request #99-15 for a 22.5 foot variance from the 30 foot bluff protection setback for the construction of a single family home as shown on plans prepared September 6, 1999, and subject to the following conditions: A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. The top of the bluff shall be noted on the survey submitted as part of the building permit application. That the grading plan be revised so that no encroachment into the conservation easement occurs. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 17~544 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL CWINGATE HOTEL) AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THREE STORY BUILDING IN THE HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT LOCATED ON LOTS 2 AND 3~ BLOCK 1~ CROSSROADS PLAZA 3R° ADDITION~ NEIL WEBBER ARCHITECTURE. Public Present: Name Address Tom Schneider Brian H. Burdick B.C. "Jim" Burdick 5000 Suburban Drive 684 Excelsior Blvd. 684 Excelsior Blvd. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Are there any questions for staff at this time? Conrad: Yeah. Sharmin, how do we, how does the City go about selling this property? What do we do? We wait for somebody to call the City Hall and say do you have any, so we're not aggressively marketing it? Al-Jarl) We've had numerous proposals on it. Conrad: And we placed a market value on it and we're waiting for somebody to give us that market value? Al-Jarl) Correct. Conrad: Are we under roomed hotel wise in the City? We all got a letter from Americlnn saying they're having trouble. We've got 3 or 4 hotels, 3 hotels in town. Basically one more hotel divides the market by 20%. Whatever the.., can be. Do we need more hotels? Is that the City's, to justify variances, say we need more rooms? We need some incentive to bring in another hotel. Americlnn, and I haven't talked to those people but they seem to say they're, they have... There's a lot of hotels so are we looking for a hotel? We just kind of said that. That it looks like a use. A1-Jafl) The last study that I am aware of took place, it was 2002 Vision and at the time a number of the business community members attended the meeting looking at uses. There was housing and restaurants but one of the most is that need still exists. Conrad: Do you know what the occupancy rate is for the hotels? A1-Jafl) No. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Blackowiak: I've got a few questions to Sharmin. First of all we've got some conditions in the development contract about brick and about hard surface coverage. Why are you recommending approval if we're not meeting those conditions? Al-Jarl) As far as the 65% hard surface coverage. Blackowiak: I mean it was stated we would make it up on the other iwo sites. Al-Jarl) It is clear that the ponding and the storm sewer capacity can handle the proposed 65%. 3,000 square feet is a large area for this site to lose. As far as the brick. Brick is a high quality material but at the same time other materials could look attractive if used in a proper manner. In this case staff believes that... Blackowiak: Okay. I would just worry that we had other businesses that were required to use brick and probably their understanding was their neighbor would be required to as well so, but that's I guess a different issue. Finally, what about the possibility, have you explored at all the possibility of a iwo story hotel with a pitched element as opposed to a three story in that location? A1-Jafl~ They need 83 rooms.., performa work. And it was discussed. The cost of the land would not make that site feasibility for a iwo story. Blackowiak: So then if we want to sell it to this buyer we have to budge is what you're saying. A1-Jafl2 Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Joyce: Any other questions for staff'? Kind: So Sharmin, if I'm understanding you right, then on condition, or under the findings c, the finding would be that the purpose of the variance is based on income potential for the party. A1-Jafl) To a certain extent. Now the main thing is the fact that they would have gone underground with their parking lot to free up room for the building. That wasn't an option for them because of the high water table. Burton: Could you explain that some more. That's what I'm struggling with. I don't understand what that means when you say. Al-Jarl) I had to have it explained to me as well, and Todd Gerhardt described it as a swimming pool that you keep taking water out of and it will continually keep filling in. The water table is fairly high in this area and you would, a sump pump, that would be running year round to keep the parking, the underground parking dry. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Burton: I'm sorry to interrupt Deb but my question's along the same lines. I guess I'm wondering how does the going underground affect the stories above? I'm having a hard time tying all that together. Al-Jarl) You take the parking lot. Put it underground. You will free up some hard surface area. You will increase, so rather than putting a parking lot for hard surface, you would just put in a hotel. Or you would put building and you would meet the 65% hard surface coverage. Did I explain it? Kind: For a two story hotel. Bigger footprint for a two story. Conrad: With the parking underground you'll have more green space. Kind: But that's still a financial consideration. So finding c is based on income. Al-Jarl) Correct. With every variance you would have, you would be able to add the financial elements. I mean the variances that we looked at earlier, is there a financial gain? Yes there is. But there is a hardship. Kind: ... I just was surprised at that finding. The reason is to get more income potential. Al-Jarl) Absolutely. Kind: But the finding, your staff report doesn't say that. Al-Jarl) Correct. And you'll find that with every variance that we process. We concentrate on the hardship, yes. Kind: And then the finding on a, which is the hardship aspect. Wouldn't you say that a reasonable use for that site would be a two story hotel? Al-Jarl) Yes. Joyce: I don't want to make a comment here, but I have to elaborate on what Ladd said. And maybe the applicant can give me some insight into this. One, I don't know the difference between a hotel and a motel, and this to me seems more like a motel than a hotel. I imagine, I think of a hotel as having meeting areas and room service and restaurants and things like that and a motel is more of an overnight type of destination. You'll have to help me out there. And then to elaborate on what Ladd was saying is maybe more specifically do we have, you know when you look at how many rooms we have in town, fine. But the types of rooms we have. I think that we got the note from the American Inn. It's along this similar vein so I guess my question staff is, you said we had a report, we've done reports as far as. Al-Jarl) It's been a few years since we did that report. 2002 Vision Statement was done in, I believe it was 1996 or '95. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Blackowiak: Excuse me, but Sharmin that was just a survey. Al-Jarl) Correct. Blackowiak: Yeah, it was not, I mean it wasn't a statistical. I mean it was just kind of a surveying the business and what you feel are our problems and opportunities. Joyce: Because the City has such a vested interest in this. My concern is the product here I guess is what we're saying. Are we getting over too much of this product. This is a certain product we have. Leave it at that I guess. Starting to make a comment here and I don't want to do that. Okay, I'll leave it at that. I'm not going to start commenting. Al-Jarl) Over the past two months I've had phone calls for two hotels that would like to come. So they obviously know what kind of market is out here. They don't just build a hotel if there isn't a market .... read the marketing study in this area. Joyce: I'm sure they know what they're doing.., but if people are saying that there is an under occupancy here of hotel rooms and okay. Once again I don't want to start commenting. I'd like to hear the presentation. So are there any other questions for staff'? None. Would the applicant, are you the applicant? Okay, what we'll do is we're going to have the applicant come up and make his presentation then we open it up for public hearing and you'll have plenty of time to say whatever you'd like. Jim Burdick: Thank you. Joyce: No problem. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I do have one more question of staff2 Sharmin, on the variance findings, the one about the light and the air. I never get that one either. Could that pertain to sight lines from Highway 5 to other businesses? Joyce: No. It's just breathing air. Kind: And shadows, that kind of thing. A1-Jafl~ Yes. And there is enough setbacks and room between the surrounding buildings to where it wouldn't be an encroachment. Joyce: Okay. Why don't we get to the applicant and let him make the presentation. So with that, would you like to address the Planning Commission at this time. Step forward sir. State your name and address. Neil Webber: My name is Neil Webber. I'm the architect on the project. Dan Wright is the owner. The signer on the purchase agreement that the City now has. You've addressed a number 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 of issues and I guess I'd like to just directly address some of them initially and then maybe you can just ask questions. I think that Sharmin has presented the project as it is so, regarding the market for it. You're absolutely correct. These people know what they're doing. The Wingate is a hotel and hotel, I think motel is basically an outdated tenn. Hotel is just, you have different levels of service. The Wingate is a hotel that caters to upper end business travelers. They have conference rooms with multi-media capabilities for smaller groups. I think it's up to 40 or 50, something like that. They do not have restaurants. They are doing for instance Wingate is building right now that is under construction in Oakdale that has a Damon's restaurant on the site next to it. Damon's is paired with Wingate and they look for sites where they can either do that or they can associate with restaurants like Applebee's. That's an ideal site for them because they help the restaurant. The restaurant helps them. That type of synergy so that they don't have to run a restaurant in the facility. This isn't that kind of hotel. And Shannin is absolutely correct. The real estate agent, John Schean who basically put this owner in connection with this site has 4 or 5 hotel clients, all of which are looking out in this area. I think that the demand is here for this type of unit. I think I can't address whether other hotels do not, are not perfonning up to capabilities but my guess is that reflects on management more than the market. I happen to be doing, I won't name them but I'm doing a major addition for a business in Chaska right now which is just right down the street who would bring in, I think they said 60 to 80 people twice a month for training sessions and they complain that there's no hotels around that they feel comfortable putting them up in. So there is a shortage here because I can tell you there's 3 or 4 chains that are looking at every site that you see a sign on Highway 5. They're looking at every site available so the market is definitely here. The whole west, I mean if you look at Eden Prairie by Eden Prairie Center, I'd have to say that's a better market than here because it's in closer but the fact remains it still is here and probably the area could support 2 or 3 hotels. And the reason that this site was attractive to this particular client is because of downtown Chanhassen. The amenities that exist in the downtown area. The synergy. It's a little bit nicer to go to a hotel where you can have those kinds of amenities than when you get a little bit further out where you don't have them. It's as simple as that. When we approached the City, talked about this site. I think that quite frankly, I think we understood all of the limitations on the site except for one and that was this 65%, or the more that we had to make up. I think Shannin just discovered it a couple hours before you finished your report because she made a call to me and we didn't even realize that so, because we were always, since we started we were going for that 65% and that's exactly what we hit. This is the brochure that was given to the staff as well as the City Council when the original purchase agreement was negotiated and I don't know if they can show that on there. This picture right here is exactly what we are providing on the hotel except this is a four story. The way these facilities work is, Dan would tell you that they've never built one less than 80 units so that's a magic number for them. When they have a market study that shows they can maintain the occupancy that they can get. If they drop below that it becomes not a very feasible so on this site it's basically what we've done is we've dropped it from a nonnal of about 110 units down to 83 and it actually, it may end up when we get through internally to drop another unit. I'm not sure if that's going to work out or not so we've cut back down to the three story in this area to try to meet as much as possible the standard. I think that the exterior of the building is an extremely well designed building. I think particularly.., do you have the colored ones like these? In the lower left there's an elevation of one that is a three story and that's exactly what we're talking about building. And the EFIS material, both below and up above has an awful lot of 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 architectural detailing which gets the shadow lines and so forth. It's a high quality material. I think that there's a number of, there's a lot of things that are going on here. The owner is a franchise holder so everything he does has to be approved by the franchisee out of New Jersey. Basically this is their standard so anything we vary from this has to be approved by them. So what we have talked to them about, and what was originally discussed with stafl~ I think it was Todd mainly, and then the City Council when they approved the purchase agreement, is that this was the product that we would be bringing in and that's exactly what we have brought in. I think that as the report shows, I think we've met just about every requirement that we can meet and still maintain the viability of the hotel. Of this particular one and I think it would be an excellent addition to Chanhassen. Sharmin was concerned on the samples that we sent around. It's a rough texture. I brought some samples of the sand, which gives it a totally different flavor and as an architect I can appreciate that because 99% of the stucco or EFIS that you see in this area is that kind of texture. The sand finish, which is this and I can pass this around, is something that's much more used in southern states and that is the finish that we're using. You can see by that the kind of colors that are available in EFIS by the way. It's almost infinite. But I think that gives you a little bit different, a finer texture. Gives you a little different feel on the building and when you look at the photographs you can see with the horizontal lines, the detailing and the EFIS and so forth, the kind of architectural quality that we get. Now when we get up on the top, the green EFIS there along with a matching green flashing for the cap on that is a detail that goes around the building. So I think that Wingate is extremely concerned with developing a consistent product. It's no different than any other one. They cater to business travel, as I said earlier and they want people to, as they travel around the country to know that the same type of facility in every place. That's the way they build a following so I think that the owner, Dan is very excited about coming into Chanhassen. I think that we can add something to the downtown area as well as mn a good business so, I guess that's about it. Like I say, Sharmin has done pretty well on her report. Not often we get a what, 14 page report on a project like this. Anyway, I'd answer any questions that you might have. Joyce: Any questions for the applicant? Conrad: Sure. The daily room rate is what? Neil Webber: This is not my strong point, but I believe the one in Oakdale that they're building I know is something like $83.00 to $110.00. Conrad: So pretty comparable to what's in town. Neil Webber: Yeah. Conrad: And the owner is not here or is he? Neil Webber: No. Conrad: Is he in the Twin Cities? 2O Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Neil Webber: The owner lives in Rockford, Illinois. He's the franchise holder for Minnesota, Western Wisconsin and Northern Illinois. Joyce: The south elevations, what we're going to see from Highway 5. Neil Webber: Okay, yeah. Joyce: On the site plan I see a pool plaza. Can you explain a little bit? Neil Webber: Yeah. What we have on the lower level, there's an indoor pool and what we've got is a little plaza outside with some seating and so forth. Just outside of the, if you look at the. Joyce: I didn't pick that up on the rendering here. Is it on the west elevation? Neil Webber: Yeah, you can see the glass there. Joyce: Oh, okay. Alright. Neil Webber: That would be the pool area and then coming out from that would be a plaza so people can sit out there. And I think that the, at least the revised plantings, landscaping plan that we did, we revised it after we had originally turned it in. Do they have that? Okay. You know we've tried to sort of frame that and make it a little bit cozy if you would and so forth. Joyce: Okay. Kind: Mr. Chairman. What do you think about staff recommendations of using brick for the darker EFIS to meet the purchase agreement requirement? Neil Webber: Well this afternoon I talked to the corporate architect in New Jersey on this and they really feel very strongly for the consistency of the chain that they not do that. I guess they go back and I guess this is what I'm really telling you is that they feel as a product this is a, when you look at these pictures, it's a quality designed product. In a sense what you're doing is you're taking a design element and saying well jeez, instead of this material we'll stick another material in here when it's not really intended to be that. You cannot say that it can't work, it's just that I don't believe you have the architectural integrity. It looks like you've substituted material so I mean it's stupid for me to say that it wouldn't work that way, but I think it's a bad decision. Kind: How about the coloring rendering, the color copy that we were given, this is a white building. Is it really the same color as that rendering? Neil Webber: Yes. Yes, it's just a matter of. Kind: Bad reproduction? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Neil Webber: Yeah. If you pass the picture around, that's a better representation of the picture, of the colors there. The ones I colored up came up yellow and the originals didn't look yellow either so I, it's bad when you go from Kinko's to here and then you have to tell Sharmin don't pay attention to colors because it came out wrong. Kind: This is very helpful. Neil Webber: Yeah, I think that is exactly what those samples are with, only with the sand finish. And again, the thing that's a little bit frustrating from our point of view is that brochure is what was given staff as well as the council when we went through the negotiations for the purchase agreement and so that was from day one, before we even you know had staff recommend a purchase agreement, that was representative of what the product was that we were going to be bringing and that, outside of cutting off the floor to make it a three story building, and obviously the standard plan is a rectangular building and this site doesn't work for that so we had to modify it to make the L shaped building. I mean that's really the only modification that we've made. Kind: But you signed a purchase agreement that said you...brick or glass. Neil Webber: Well, the purchase agreement as close as I think about it, a couple hours before the meeting we were led to believe that was originally taken out of the purchase agreement and then when it was presented to the council was put back in and we attended a meeting the next night I think it was, a workshop with the council to talk about the EFIS and so the intent was that we would go ahead and present that. If the 80% requirement is held, the project's over. It just isn't going to go. Corporate will not allow that. I mean it's not a threat, it's just, we've already discussed that with them as a possibility and they just will not accept that. I guess the owner feels, I mean I believe he's paying essentially what the City is asking for the site and I believe that the City is making over $600,000 profit on this piece of land. Plus we think we're bringing a use to the City that's compatible with the surrounding uses and would add to the downtown so I guess it's awful difficult for us to understand taking all those steps why this isn't a logical use for this particular site. That's maybe a very prejudicial viewpoint but nevertheless that's the way we have to look at it. Joyce: Alright, any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much for your presentation. Kind moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: This item is open up for a public hearing. If you'd like to address the Planning Commission at this time, please step forward to the podium and state your name and address. Jim Burdick: My name's Jim Burdick from Excelsior. It's nice to be back in Chanhassen again. I was here quite often some years ago down at that Target development and others. Anyway, we're going to take the position, these people are going to be our neighbors perhaps, that you strictly adhere to your regulations. Two story. Brick. Surface. The works. It seems like they 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 want exception after exception after exception. Now there's one way they can get rid of our objection. The position of this building is going to do a great deal of harm to us. And when I say us I mean Brian and I own the 79th Street Center. Cheers Wines and Spirits, Safari Tanning, InstyPrint, Kitchen and Bath, and Hour Glass Dry Cleaners, because they hide us from the west. It sticks out. I don't mean to say anything about the architect but you get to the last two pages, it most certainly has a barn like appearance .... institute appearance. And it's right out in front of us. If you drive down our street, you visualize that you see which, it just hides us. It particularly hide Cheers and Safari and Kitchen and Bath. So I'm opposing. I'm going to put this on the screen. I don't know if you can or not. Oh I see I'm on the screen. Joyce: Do you want to put something on the table to show? Jim Burdick: I was just going to try to show, but it isn't drawn very well. As showing our strip center. Coming from the west would be right behind this building. But going east, Applebee's is behind and it hides Tires Plus completely, which isn't fair to them either. So now that's about all I had to say and I'll let my son Brian take over who's a better speaker than I am by all means. Kind: Mr. Chairman I do have a question. Jim Burdick: Unless somebody has a particular question for me. Joyce; Sure. Kind: Do you think a two story building would be okay? And not hide. Jim Burdick: No. Not in this position. Kind: You'd still be hidden by a two story building as well? Jim Burdick: That's right. If they move it back on the lot, to me it's the logical place for it. Have the parking in front. Many years ago they tried to develop shopping centers, shows how old I am. And they had parking in back, they just wouldn't go. It's insecure. It's dark. Could be crime. What have you. Like the old Montgomery Wards on University Avenue, if you remember it. Right up to the street. With the windows. Parking in back. Just didn't go. So I'm going to suggest to these people very respectfully that they move the building back. We don't care if it's 10 stories high. It's just when it's right in front of us, in our front yard so to speak, that we object to many things about it. Okay, thank you. Joyce: Thank you for your comments. Appreciate them. Jim Burdick: Thank you, I appreciate your time. I'll let my son Brian take over now... Brian Burdick: Good evening, I'm Brian Burdick with Burdick Properties in Excelsior. 684 Excelsior Boulevard. I think that was probably very well spoken of our point and concerns, but maybe a couple other items for thought. I mean this is a huge building, and when you look at it 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 it's out front towards 79th Street. It's a monster. And the road curves there. I'm sure you all know it quite well, and we own the 79th Street Center next door. It is just, it's going to be behind that. It's just going to dwarf our one story, rather nice looking one story building there. Today I came, coming from the east on 79th Street and I was just looking for the views there at the Applebee's and Tires Plus. They have a nice view right now, of course there's obviously there's nothing there and you can see the Tires Plus signage and their building very clearly. It's certainly going to dwarf them when you come from the east there too. I just cannot see that, and I'm sure you're, and you're all aware so I was trying to get a comparison. I think the Americana Inn is a three story building and that to me looks very large. I mean it's going to severely hurt us, our view and our light and so forth. There's no doubt about it. I guess the other thing, we're not opposed to development on this properly. We'd like to see something here. Any good commercial development that makes sense to you folks. That fits with the criteria that have been placed on there for many years with the materials and so on. A good commercial development. We'd like to see that. I think that'd be good for everybody. It's good for the city. It's good for us. It's good for Applebee's and so forth. I think that makes sense. You look at what Applebee's did with their building up towards the street and you can compare the size right on this drawing here, and it's so much smaller and the Tire Plus in the back. That'd be one way to develop this site. I think if the hotel or a building of this size were moved to the north, to the rear of the properly with the parking placed towards 79th Street, it could make sense. It certainly wouldn't just dwarf us behind there so we'd really appreciate your consideration on that. Joyce: IfI understand your father and your concerns.., about the sight lines, correct? This properly here, you won't have the exposure from Highway 5, is that how I'm reading this? Brian Burdick: Well that's part of our concern. I also agree very strongly with what I've heard from all of you this evening to adhere to the brick, the materials that are required on here. Two stories. Not three stories. All of those items. I'm not sure exactly where the parking requirements, if they're meeting all the parking and the setbacks. I don't know. I apologize, I just don't know this evening. Joyce: Thank you very much. Brian Burdick: Thank you. Tom Schneider: IfI could speak for a minute. I'm with Cheers Wine and Spirits and I'd just like to confer that the sight lines are terrible. I mean we're battling the best kept secret in Chanhassen. The theory that no one's heard of Cheers Wine and Spirits and boy that's a big building. I don't know if we had that, you just head, what is it northwest, or northeast like this on TH 5 coming this way. Without the building there Cheers Wine and Spirits... With that building there it's impossible. I'm not even sure if you moved the building back that it would help.., but that would hurt a lot. That's my only statement. Thanks. Joyce: Thanks. Kind: I have a question of the speaker. Do you think that you would benefit by the guests being? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Tom Schneider: Yeah, I kind of like that idea and I do, I really go so it's kind of a two edge sword but I do like the idea of a hotel. Kind: Okay. Tom Schneider: I'm not opposed to that. Kind: That occurred to me as you're talking. Tom Schneider: No, as I was sitting there thinking, I was thinking that's not a bad idea. I'm not opposed to that, but the sight line would kill us. It really would. I mean we truly are battling this. We've got competition of Byerly's and MGM and their, I think MGM probably doesn't have as good of a location either, but they're better known and I think they've been around longer. I think. I'm not sure. I don't know quite the history of Cheers Wine and Spirits. We've only owned them for a short period of time. But we've been told numerous times that we are the best kept secret in town. We've got good prices, great service and all that great advertising stuflk It's just getting the fact that we're there. People just don't know that we're there and that would kill us I think. Okay, thanks. Joyce: Thank you. Jim Burdick: ... about the line sight from TH 5 and that's valid, but also on 79th Street. If you go over to the bank and drive to Applebee's, if this hotel was there, they wouldn't see Cheers at all until they're straight in front and the driver would have to turn his head 90 degrees to look at Cheers. And Safari. And of course coming from the east, it's the same thing on 79th Street. The hotel is right out next to the street. You get past it, take a look at Applebee's and then try to see Tires Plus back there someplace. Instead of looking at them at an angle as they go down the street, which is what you normally do. You drive down the street. You drive along and look for a place by turning your head 90 degrees, you turn 20, 30, that's 40 degrees. To spot that business place. And that's what disturbs us. Thank you for your time. Joyce: Okay. Do you want to make a, it's a public hearing. Neil Webber: I did want to put a little bit of perspective on it. The building meets the setback requirements and we just were following those. Relative to the height, what we're talking about here with the variance with the third floor is a total height of about 12 foot 6 addition to what would be. Now if we for instance built a two story with a sloped roof, now I realize, do you count height halfway up on a slope? Okay. So if we did a 5/12 pitch on that building with a roof, I believe we'd be up about 7 or 8 feet. So the reality is the difference in height from a two to a three story with this kind of detailing is about 4 or 5 foot difference. So I know it sounds like a lot but I mean when you talk about 2 or 3 story but the reality of the height, if we did that sloped roof thing is really not that much different so, and of course it makes the whole project feasible and allows us to pay what the City wants for the site, quite frankly. I mean the easiest way to go to a two story building is reduce the price of the lot. Simple as that, and even that in this 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 particular case probably wouldn't work because this hotel chain won't go below that number of units so that's the reality of the business I guess. And again, I think that, and he's right. I think the hotel on that location can help a lot of businesses. Applebee's is thrilled. I mean they're going to have a lot more dinners served. And that's exactly what the hotel wants, is they want some, that synergy with the businesses. I mean it will happen obviously to the ones right next door but it will happen to the whole of downtown Chanhassen. And I guess, I don't have to tell what other sites are available. All you have to do is drive down Highway 5 and you see the signs. Every one of those sites are being looked at for hotels. And I just, our thinking was, and the reason that we pursued this one was because we figured this was the best for us, as well as for the City. Joyce: Anyone else like to address the council at this time? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Okay. We'll bring it back into the commission. Can I get some feel for this project? Conrad: Yeah I'll start Kevin. I wish the owner was here. It's always nice to have the owner here. West 79th is my favorite street in town. Now you all know that. It's the prettiest street we have. It's really cool. It winds. It's neat. I think we're doing a good job of developing Chan but that is the best street there is. I have some problems with this, and not with EFIS and I think what has been presented is okay. But the three story, it kind of appears like a wall and there was sort of a vision that at least I had that we kind of scaled it and maybe it's not that big a deal but in terms of the difference between the two story and three story with a pitched roof but still, there was a concept there that made some sense to me. The three story building very definitely is not a hardship. It's real clear. Not being able to build an underground garage is not a hardship so don't believe the staff report. Excuse me, but I know. I know. But it's not true. The materials, we signed a purchase agreement. The City should live up to that. You know it's a philosophic deal. It's just philosophic. We signed it. And EFIS is a good material but we signed the deal, you know. I don't know. The hard surface coverage. We always knew the City owned property would make up the difference and now we're saying no. Ah, the rules should apply to the City just like anybody else. We knew what we were doing. And it is a loss of revenue to the City. Make sure when you take 3,000 feet out of this lot, it is a definite loss so you've got to know what you're doing here. You're taking money out of the City's pocket if you require that. But we always knew we were doing that. At least I did. Here when those were acted. Considered so for me personally the hotel is fine. I don't think we need one right now. I know some numbers and they're not great in certain properties so, but that's not our business. It is really not our business. But we don't really need to force it because we do have hotels and there are some real serious, there's no reason to over compensate and that seems like what we're doing here. I think if they can fit in, I think that'd be fine. I think if they put a two story with a pitch roof and met the hard surface and we probably could compromise a little bit on the materials. Because it's not a bad looking thing but we probably, if we only had one left out there to screw around with, I might be able to say yeah we can do something. They're good folks and if the owner was here, we could talk to the owner about it but he's not. Those are my opinions. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Joyce: I'll go right down the line. Alison. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I agree with much of what Ladd has said. One thing I don't really agree with is the EFIS issue. I would like to see some brick on there. There is a condition in the development contract that stated brick. 80% brick. It was spelled out. I think all parties knew about it. And it shouldn't come as a surprise. If we say let's follow what the development contract stated and let's hold everybody to this. So because Ties Plus had to do it. Because Applebee's had to do it, I think the City should do it too. And whether the City's owning it or selling it or whatever is happening, I think that if we required brick of other people, we should require brick of whatever perspective tenant or owner would be on that site. Secondly, I agree with the hard surface coverage. Said we were going to make it up. We make it up. I don't care if the city owns it. I don't care who owns it but we should, we took it, we took 1% from one place and 5 from another and then to me that says, if we promised we were going to make it up here, let's make it up here. We should live up to that promise. And then finally I agree that the three stories seems a bit much. I do understand that it meets the setbacks, the 25 foot setback from the south lot line, but boy. It's going to be right there in your face. It's going to this huge building right there and it is going to block effectively things behind it. The cinema. The dance studio back there. The fitness center back there. I mean there a lot of things that are you know far enough behind it that you still won't be able to see, I think even with the two story. I'm not sure about that either but a three story would be I think really over bearing. Just look at it, it would just stop you. It wouldn't encourage you to look back or any farther back than that so I think a three story seems a bit much. And I would concur, you know compelling reasons why should we grant variances. Why should we go and go against everything we've said and I just don't see them here. I don't think we have a hardship. Water table. You know a three story in a two story district, that's not a hardship. I can't see that. And I think we should sort of stick to our guns and live up to the conditions we applied when other buildings came in and also the conditions we applied on ourselves when we said we'd make up that hard surface coverage elsewhere so with that, I'll hand it over to Matt. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I essentially agree with the comments already made. I think it's a logical use and a pleasant use and even probably a desired use, but if we apply the standards which I think we have to apply, I come up with a two story, pitched roof building with 80% brick on the outside. With respect to the pitched roof, they would require a variance and earlier tonight for instance we talked to homeowners that wanted an extra foot and a half and we couldn't come up with a good reason to give them a foot and a half and we denied it and I don't think there's a good reason here to sway away from the pitched roof either. I think the same standards should apply. With respect to the height, the fact is that two story, of a hotel is a reasonable use of the property and that alone probably kills a variance for a third floor. Also, I think that the purpose of the variance is definitely to increase the income potential for this property. I'm not at all convinced that the water table is a rationale to grant the variance. Another one that really bothers me on this one is the fact that there's a purchase agreement which is a contract and this is a corporation and the applicant just mentioned that they've had a corporate architect looking at things and they have their owner who's a large franchiser. They certainly have attorneys and their attorneys certainly looked over this contract and they signed it and I haven't seen the whole contract but the part that I 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 have seen requires 80% of face brick, stone or glass. And I just can't help but have the feeling that this, that the applicant is trying to essentially, well I don't know all the facts but I get the feeling that we're being bullied and being kind of treated like yokels that we'll just sign the contract and they'll come in and hand us something totally different. And maybe there's some facts I'm not aware of that would change my opinion but that's how I feel about it. I do think another standard for variances is not met and that is that the project cannot diminish or impair properly values to the neighboring properties. I think it would for all the other hotels that are nearby and also for the businesses that are nearby such as Cheers and the strip mall there so for all of those reasons I would not support this project. Kind: I agree with what's been said. Ditto. I am in agreement with the brick too. That was in the purchase agreement. I think we should stick with that. Especially since we required it... I don't think we should back down on that at all. I have a question of my fellow commissioners. Would we propose to approve it, the site plan but deny the variance and then go with the conditions that are in here because the condition 21 is approval of this site plan is contingent upon the City EDA approving the materials on the building. And then 19, we could change the hard surface coverage of the site may not exceed... Joyce: Whoever wants to make the motion, I think we'll let them make that motion and then we'll kind of bring it back and decide where we're going to go with it. Kind: Okay. Is that a fair way to go about that? Joyce: You can make any kind of motion you want. Kind: Okay. We'll allow someone to make that motion, and you certainly can make that motion. Joyce: What percentage would that be? For the site. Al-Jarl) The average hard surface coverage for the entire site, for the entire subdivision, meaning Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall maintain 65%. Kind: Since the others went over, this one.., okay. I'm done. Joyce: I guess I, hearing the rest of the commission is adamantly against this project and I'm not as terribly against it. I am against, I'll have to say that I am against the variance portion of it because I think this project will bring some benefit to the city. I think there are businesses out there that aren't maybe not represented here that are going to do, that are going to benefit from having this hotel... However, I certainly understand the plight of the Burdick's and I think, I do agree, the one thing that was said here and Ladd said it, there is a wall effect there with that three stories so you're asking for a variance to make our beautiful 79th Street. Conrad: My 79th. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Joyce: Ladd's 79th Street and you're kind of, you are kind of fragmenting it up. I'm actually in favor of the project. It'd have to be on a smaller scale and I think the applicant would probably have a problem with that but they're requesting a variance that... I do want to add though that I don't have a problem with the EFIS. I think it's nicely done project. I think what's happening there, I think it will be a nice addition to our city but it has to be scaled down a little bit. So with that said, can we, somebody make a motion. Burton: Mr. Chairman. With due respect to Deb, I'd like to move that the Planning Commission deny Site Plan Review #99-18 as shown on the site plan dated August 13, 1999. I think I can just leave it at that. Conrad: Second. Joyce: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Any discussion? Conrad: I think the discussion, it should be real clear what the reason for the turn down is. I'll leave that. I think our comments have said it so, usually it's really nice to make it clear for the council why we're turning it down but I think we've echoed each other. No more discussion. Joyce: Okay, so we have a motion. We have a second. Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Site Plan Review #99-18 as shown on the site plan dated August 13, 1999. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: A1-Jafl5 The only thing I have is a tentative agenda for next Planning Commission meeting. And Kate put together an agenda, tentative agenda. We'll basically be touring sites. There will be a discussion when we come back on transit, park and ride lots. Alterations in the bluff zone. Review of landscaping and buffer ordinance. Yard regulations that deal with porches finally. And then under the 2000 goals, we will be talking about home occupation uses in the district and comp plan rezoning. We need to make sure that the comp plan and the zoning map match. And Kate wanted to know if you had any suggestions that you wanted us to add to this agenda. Joyce: Did we go over the variance business? Did we ever do that? Kirchofl5 I was just going to mention that. That is on that agenda also. The review of variances. Kind: How will we be transported? A1-Jafl2 We will be contacting Southwest Metro and asking them to provide us with a bus. Kind: That's a great idea. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Kirchofl2 Sharmin's driving. Is this still on? Blackowiak: As long as you feed me I'm coming. I don't have a problem with it. I need to be fed though. Kind: What time? That's not on there. Kirchofl2 I think probably 6:00. Conrad: I'm in New York that day so I'm not around. Not even going to consider being around. Blackowiak: 5:30 and split the difference. Why don't we have Kate e-mail us with that. Kirchofl2 Yeah, I think it's 6:00. That's what it's been in the past. A1-Jafl2 We start losing daylight fast. Kirchofl2 And I just have one comment. The comp plans have been approved so if you could bring in your binders we'll put in the approved comp plan. The comp plan, you should have. Burton: I don't have one. Kirchofl2 You didn't get a copy of it? Okay. Kind: I don't have a copy either. Kirchofl2 You don't, okay. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 1, 1999 as presented. Kind: A question about the Minutes a couple meetings ago that were never approved or noted. Conrad: You've got to do something to them. Blackowiak: Were you misquoted? Kind: No, we never noted them. Joyce: I don't think we received them. Burton: I saw them. I'll note them. I did see them. Oh, the ones we never saw? Oh you're right. You're right... The one that was like a two minute long meeting. It was that week. Kirchofl~ The meeting I was at. 3O Planning Commission Meeting - September 15, 1999 Burton: Yeah. That's the one we never saw Minutes for. Kirchofl5 I know I saw them. Kind: We didn't get the correct copy. We got the wrong ones. Kirchofl5 Oh you did? Kind: The meeting before. Kirchofl5 Okay. Conrad: Put them on the next agenda so we can note them. Kirchofl5 Okay. Apologize. Kind: I kind of expected to see them in this packet and they weren't there. Conrad: Mr. Chair, the 2000 goals are cool. You know you should really think about what they are before you get here. Kind: And you're going to send us e-mails with what yours are? Conrad: I should think about it but it's really important. You know they can drive the deal. Or they will drive the deal but. Kind: And you're going to contact them before you leave. Conrad: It's important that everybody think about what they should be. All the stuff you've seen over the last year. Things you'd like them to work on. And if not, then work on what they think is important. Which is okay. Joyce: That's why we have a Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Joyce adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 31