Loading...
PC 1997 09 03CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING SEPTEMBEIl 3, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Allyson Brooks, LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce, and Ladd Conrad MEMBEIlS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: IlEQUEST FOIl IIEZONING 4.27 ACIlES OF PIIOPEIITY ZONED BN, NEIGHBOIIHOOD BUSINESS, TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW AN AUTO DEALERSHIP AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 18,494 SQ. FT. BUILDING LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY. 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF THE LEGION SITE, VALLEY SALES OF CHANHASSEN, ARGONAUT HOLDINGS, INC. Public Present: Name Address Carlos Cordavid Eric & Deb Waleiski Steven Peterson Matt Burton David Jossi Shari Lindsey Stephanie Roy Hatteberg Tracey Anderson Mark Honnold Bev, Sharday & Reza Aghelnyad Laurie Sacchet Cory Ploen Nina Cottrell Tony Pavlovich Todd Michels Patricia Kelly-Michels Lisa & Barry Thompson Dick Cottrell Doug McCarthy Derek & Siboney Hines 8029 Dakota Lane 260 Hidden 8021 Dakota Avenue 8190 Marsh Drive 250 Hidden Lane 250 Hidden Lane 8031 Erie Avenue 8043 Hidden Circle 8051 Hidden Circle 88061 Hidden Circle 8071 Hidden Circle 310 Hidden Lane 8044 Cheyenne Avenue 8010 Hidden Circle 320 Hidden Lane 320 Hidden Lane 8000 Hidden Circle 8044 Cheyenne Avenue 8001 Hidden Court 8091 Hidden Court Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Michael & Margie Buchner Sherrie & Shannon McClard Christopher Leser Jim Paul Bernie Wagnild Steve Kaufman Quinn Hutson Gene F. Ernst Dwight Jelle Stephen Dang Rick Van Doeren Linda Fisher Susan Sullivan Greg Gmiterko Richard Donnay Ton Lander Bob Scholer Dan Lorinser Carol & Jim Udstuen Lois Savard Brian Steckling Steve, Lowell & Audrey Swenson Karen & Steve Klinsing Laurie & David Lee Gary Disch Rhonda Collins Jim & Pam Murphy Linda Giordanni Cindy Marengo Dale & Zola Klabande Susie & Kerry Blake Dave Cameron Mark Eastvold Dean W. Brown Delores Blalz... 8081 Hidden Circle 8030 Hidden Circle 8110 Marsh Drive Excelsior Minneapolis New Jersey Eagan Chaska Eden Prairie Kansas Edina 1500 Norwest Financial Center 8141 Hidden Court 8121 Hidden Court 8109 Dakota Lane 9779 Creekwood Drive, Eden Prairie 7212 Frontier Trail 8020 Erie Avenue 360 Hidden Lane 8080 Marsh Drive 8040 Hidden Court 8101 Hidden Court 8090 Hidden Court 8100 Hidden Court 8170 Marsh Drive 8060 Hidden Court 8021 Hidden Court 8120 Hidden Court 8150 Marsh Drive 8160 Hidden Court 8040 Hidden Circle 8161 Hidden Court 8180 Hidden Court Family of Christ Lutheran Church 271 Hidden Lane Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of stafl~ Joyce: Sharmin, what would be the, we're in a business neighborhood zone there now. What would be the appropriate zoning for a piece of properly that would accommodate the auto dealership. Would it be the BG zoning? Al-Jarl) Correct. And BF are the zoning districts where a auto dealership is permitted. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Joyce: Okay. Did the applicant request the PUD? A1-Jafl) Correct. Joyce: Okay. It wasn't suggested or anything like that. Thank you. Peterson: We have both of those allowable zones available in the city yet? Both business fringe and BG? Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Conrad: Ah yes. If we wanted to change the zoning, what would our rationale be? Al-Jarl) We went through the findings of planned unit development. Staffdoesnotbelievethat the PUD zoning is consistent with findings... Aanenson: Or your rationale may be that it's no longer.., change the comprehensive plan. Conrad: That would be what you'd be looking at. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Sidney: I guess I have a broad question addressing the neighborhood meetings. As a result of those meetings, have any changes been proposed to the application? A1-Jafl~ Not to our knowledge, no. Peterson: Okay. Other questions? With that, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward. State your name and address please. Linda Fisher: Take me a second to get set here. Linda Fisher, 1500 Norwest Financial Center, representing the applicant, Argonaut Holdings, an affiliate of General Motors Corporation. Let me first introduce a number of individuals who are here with me this evening. Some of them are here merely to answer questions, if you believe there are any to answer, and others are here as part of our presentation. Then what I'm going to do is indicate to you how we would like to organize our presentation and if the Planning Commission agrees, we'll proceed through that. But first for the introductions. From General Motors Corporation I have with me this evening Steve Kaufman and Steven Dang. From Valley Sales, which is the operator of the proposed retail automobile sales store we have Jim Paul and I don't know if Bernie Wagnild has arrived yet. He was intending to come. Project architect, C & H Architects is represented by Mr. Quinn Hutson. And the landscape architect is represented by Ernst Associates, Gene Ernst. Westwood Professional Services, the civil engineers is represented by Dwight Jelle. Dwight's returning. I think he had Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 forgotten to pick up a board that we used. The traffic engineer and finn is Benshoof and Associates and unfortunately they had an unavoidable conflict, a long standing unavoidable conflict with this meeting so no one from that finn is present this evening. Midwest Acoustics did some acoustical analysis for us, submitted with the application and Mr. Rick VanDoren is here from that finn. And let me, as I said, do an overview. We have been working with staff for a number of months on the proposal and of course have reviewed the staff report and in terms of, if I may say to the Planning Commission, we understand that there are two items raised by the application generally in terms ofa rezoning and then also site plan approval. We believe that some of the issues are I think connected, and since this is our opportunity to introduce the proposal to you, and since a good part of our thoughts on the appropriateness of the use for this site are linked in our minds to the characteristics of the site plan that we've worked on, we would ask your indulgence to present the entire proposal. And we of course are going to be addressing in our presentation both the land use issue and the site plan issue but in our minds there's some connection and this is really our only opportunity in a public setting to do that. So you will see some overlap in our presentation. First, as an introduction we want to compliment stafl~ They've done of course a thorough and professional job and a comprehensive job. We also note for the record that we held two neighborhood meetings in July and August. They were very well attended in this Council chamber and we appreciate the attendance and the interest of neighbors. We've also had some discussion with another near-by neighbor if you will, the church property and have been trying to coordinate a meeting with them that would take place in the future. By way of background, we've been working on the project with staff for over 9 months. There's no question that staff was very up front with us and expressed concerns about the land use in the community as a whole and on this site. We've done considerable research regarding that issue but obviously like any others that reasonably differ with a particular position that might be taken by your professional stafl} we wanted to go through the process and see ultimately what the City Council would determine. However, we wanted to work with staff in a collaborative basis on the site plan issues should the project ultimately be approved, and again because we feel that was the only way we could address some of the concerns regarding the land use. And so we have had many meetings with staff working on complying we think with your exacting Highway 5 design standards and some of the policy issues that are interwoven with those and we'll touch on those. I also just want to say by introduction, this is a very complex issue and I think it's the type of issue on which reasonable people can and frequently do differ, and this is no exception to that rule. So we understand there's some very strong feelings in the room on the issue and we respect those but just want to go forward with the work we've done and present that to you. So again we want to familiarize each and every one of you with all aspects of the proposal and here's how we've had it organized. I'm going to, by way of introduction, address the, tell you a little bit about the applicant and the applicant's experience in the retail automobile sales use. Something regarding the site location process that General Motors went through, and an overview of some key components of the PUD development plan and a summary of some of the consultant studies that are in the record, including some modifications to the submitted plan but not to the elements of the application that we presented at the second neighborhood meeting on August 27th, and I'm going to do that by way of overview. We're not going to go through or ask our consultants to present any of the studies in detail. But I am then going to ask our project architect to walk through the color site landscape plan and show you how the proposal lays out on the site and discuss the architecture and again through several work sessions with stafl~ we did a lot more than just 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 provide high quality building materials. I think we tailor made the design to fit within a number of your standards that and I've, in the record you will see a very detailed narrative we prepared for the submittal. It goes through our analysis of how we meet the PUD findings. How we are consistent with the comprehensive plan findings. I don't want to repeat that but we certainly could if you want. That's a very detailed statement we presented that's in your packet. So in our opinion we think there's an attractive building that's equal to or better than similarly sized projects anywhere in the community and we want Mr. Quinn, Mr. Hutson to show you that. We'll then ask Mr. Ernst, our landscape architect to go through some of the screening and buffering we've proposed and the site sections and some of the modifications related to the fence on Lake Drive that we talked about at the neighborhood meeting. And then at that point, if you would let us, I'd like to come back to me and I have just a few ideas on the land use issue, generally, and another issue raised in the staff report that I think relates to both and that is kind of the question of control of the this type of use and so I want to address both of those at the end but I first want you to see what the proposal is. So with your indulgence I'm going to go through a couple of introductory items and then turn it over to Mr. Hutson, and we'll try to go fairly rapidly through this. Peterson: Ms. Fisher, I think I would like to respectfully disagree. I think the commissioners, fellow commissioners would like to see the zoning issue independent of the site plan so if you could re-orient your presentation to that we'd appreciate it. Linda Fisher: Well I can do that in terms of re-ordering but I guess I would very much ask, and request, and would be concerned if this request were denied and would make this part of the record. We've got two applications pending and have spent a lot of our client's time and money on both and we'd like to present the whole proposal. Now we certainly can address one issue first and then come back to the other and I understand that it's very possible you would take a negative action on one and not vote on the other but we still have, you're a recommending body and we still have a right to go to the City Council for a decision and I feel very strongly, having worked on this project for a long time, that we'd like to present, and this is our only opportunity to present, the overall proposal. And we still believe that the appropriateness of the PUD zone we've requested is in part, in our minds, related to the nature of the project and whether it can meet some of your other comprehensive plan criteria. So it's difficult for us to separate the two totally. Now we can separate in the order of our presentation but I can't see that you're prejudiced by our presenting all the material. I would assume you'd like to act with full knowledge of all the facts and that's all we're asking. We're merely asking to be able to present the proposal we submitted to the City in total. That's all we're asking. You will decide what to do with it. Peterson: I would like you to separate the two issues and then we can go to the second one at a later point in the meeting if we should... Linda Fisher: Well I, you know if I'm going to present characteristics of the applicant, the location, which I think you need to hear, it's hard for, you'll have to judge what that issue relates to. But, and I don't know what other Planning Commission members feel but if you forbid us to present characteristics of the site plan that we believe relates to land use, we think we're prejudiced and are not getting a fair hearing. I can't, I can't be stronger about that. I believe we Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 want to present the overall proposal that we've reviewed with staff and the neighbors and will address both the land use issue and the site plan issue. I can't see how that, with a short agenda, there's any, and I guess, maybe I am going to put staff on the spot. I discussed with staff the fact that we wanted to present this overall proposal and we were never led to believe that we could not present the overall proposal this evening so I, I guess I'm concerned about that. We understand that there' s a recommendation of denial but I just can't see why we're not being allowed to present our proposal as submitted because we see an overlap of the issues. Peterson: Well let's go through the first rezoning issue first and then if the commissioners feel as though they need more information to make that decision, then we'll move to the second part of the... Linda Fisher: Well I understand that but we feel that some off that the way we have addressed, if you're going to cut me offI have no choice but I'm, I'll take this to the Council about a concern of not being able to present our entire proposal because we don't think that we're getting a fair hearing if we're not allowed to present the overall proposal. We think the two are linked to some extent in our argument and I, again, I don't have the gavel here. We'll have to respect whatever you do but if you're not going to, I don't know what you mean. If you mean that I can't allow our architect to show you the renderings and discuss how we've screened consistent with one standard in your comp plan. If we can't allow our landscape architect to talk about screening, then I, I have a concern because I think that's one of the reasons we requested a PUD zone as opposed to a straight BG zone and we were going to address that. So I think there's some overlap. We discussed with neighbors our request for the PUD zone and I think part of that is related to the control we feel the City would gain with a PUD zoning, whether you agree or not to rezone. So I feel that we would like to present our overall proposal and that's all we're asking for. One hearing before you tonight. Peterson: Again, I'd like to orient it, split it in half and if during your discussion we need more information to make that decision, then we'll begin the second half of the presentation. Linda Fisher: Well I'm, again. Not to belabor it and I'll keep going but I'm still unclear as to at what point you're going to cut us off in our presentation. I don't, I can't even interpret what you say but let me start. I really can't. Peterson: I think the issue that we're looking for is defining, is there a compelling reason to rezone. Very typical for us to review and not see site plans before we see rezoning issues. Linda Fisher: Again, we feel that the site plan proposal is linked to the merits of our rezoning proposal, and you may disagree with that but it seems to me that, and I've been doing this for over 20 years and I'm usually accorded, we're usually accorded the courtesy of letting our proposal be put before you. That's all we're asking but I can see that we're not getting anywhere so let me go forward. Peterson: Please. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Linda Fisher: And again I'm, just for the record, indicate that we, I think are dismayed that we're not, just not being allowed to present our overall proposal because we think the two are linked to some extent. Let me give you some information, and you'll have to cut me off if you think it's inappropriate, regarding the applicant and our site location process. The applicant is an affiliate of General Motors Corporation. They contracted to purchase the site from a landowner, Mortenson Development Company, who is here and may wish to speak to you, for development of a Pontiac- GMC retail automobile store. We believe it's important in your looking at the land use, generally and whether you wish to allow it in the City at all or else on this site in general, to note for the record that Valley Sales is a good corporate citizen and has been a strong supporter of local activities in the communities in which it's located. The principles of Valley Sales have over 80 years of experience in automobile retailing, and they currently operate in Apple Valley, Hastings and Waconia. The Waconia facility is basically proposed to be relocated to Chanhassen. One of the benefits we see of the facility from a land use standpoint is that it would have a number of employees at skilled, secured and high paying wages, and the majority of employees would live in the local community, or at least in, either within the city or very close to the city. And so that's some background on the applicant. In terms of the location, General Motors has been cutting the number of franchises substantially throughout the country and to emphasize a number of things in your comprehensive plan talks about generally such as service and convenience. Although this is a destination retail establishment, which I will address later. And we did an extensive search, or that is General Motors, principles working for General Motors, did an extensive demographic research and basically narrowed it's consideration to the city of Chanhassen, and working with real estate professionals, spent I think close to a year attempting to find a site zoned in the city of Chanhassen. And I think if you get out and I could do this. If you get out your zoning map you will see that you have a handful, literally a handful of BG zoned sites in this city and virtually none of them are available and we checked each and every one of them. The use requires approximately 5 acres. It needs reasonable visibility but it does not require visibility from the highway for cars as is one of the items we wanted to address in our drawings, and requires accessibility and available utilities. So we looked at multiple locations along Highway 5. Your BF zone is virtually not existent anymore in the sewered area of the city and is in the process, I understand of being considered to be phased out. There was no available zoned site in the community. We then turned our attention to sites designated commercial in the comprehensive plan. Your comprehensive plan, in terms of the map, designates your commercial sites one category C, Commercial. There is text in the comprehensive plan that your staff has read from and that we have reviewed, that talks about different types of commercial uses, and I'm going to address that in the moment. But does not map sites for different types of commercial use as obviously you zone for different types of commercial uses. And we recognized initially that this site was zoned BN. But in looking at a commercial zone site, when we couldn't find a site zoned BG, we thought at least that we could look at trade-ofl~ in the impacts between the allowed uses under an existing zone commercial site and the use that we were proposing, and that then got us into looking at characteristics of the site plan and of the land use in general, and again I don't know how much of this you're going to let me present but it's in the record in terms of our application. So we then came to the site, after having reviewed every BG zoned site in the city, and there were some advantages regarding this site in addition to the fact that obviously it was sized accordingly and was available. There's an existing landform on the north which aids in screening the parking, which you may think is a site plan issue but we also believe relates to the 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 appropriateness of the land use in this location. There were no trees or significant wetlands and the site, there's suitable access and the use at this location, the use at this location, regardless of the site plan layout, doesn't require road improvements as perhaps might be the case at some other location. So all of that told us that there might be, could we meet some of the other comprehensive plan criteria, and you have a book, an appropriate use for this site. Other uses that are allowed on this site, as you know, are a convenience store with or without gas, shopping center, neighborhood oriented retail, if that can be defined, drive-in bank, restaurant, health services, office, and we thought many of these uses would in all probability, in some cases draw customers from a much greater area than the neighborhood. So that was some of what we looked at when we tried to come up with a site that we could propose to develop on in the city of Chanhassen. Now here's where you need to tell me what I can or cannot do. We wanted to go, describe for you what the proposed use is, other than just saying car dealership. I'll just tell you what I want to do and you tell me if I can do it. Peterson: I think Linda, the only thing we're looking, we don't need to see is building materials and structure used so if you have a narrative that goes. Linda Fisher: Okay, so I can describe for you the use. Okay. Because I think again it, in our mind relates. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I don't know exactly what you mean in terms of what we can or cannot present. Okay. Let me describe for you, because I think there might, may be some confusion what the specific characteristics of the use is that we're proposing. I'm going to get to your comp plan. Okay. We are proposing a retail automobile store, but there are a lot of characteristics of those. What we're proposing here is again a one story, low profile building. I won't address the design. New and used cars and personal utility vehicles and General Motors service and parts, which we might add there is no current General Motors service in the city of Chanhassen, to my knowledge. I think Mr. Wagnild by the way has arrived, and we, this is a subjective opinion but some would think that having the availability of service in reasonable proximity to those who might use it as a benefit. Others might disagree. That's a subjective consideration. But it was one of the things that we looked at in providing the service. There would be no heavy or medium duty truck sales. There would be no body work at this facility. No quick lube so some services would not be provided. The hours of operation that are proposed would be more limited than a typical retail shopping, or potentially more limited than typical retail shopping which could be open 24 hours or at least on Sundays. The hours of operation proposed are Monday through Thursday, 7:00 to 9:00 or 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Fridays 7:00 to 6:00. Saturday 9:00 to 6:00. New car delivery would be restricted to normal business hours and off loading would be internal to the site and we've established a general area for that. We've talked about no overhead paging of employees and communication by cell phone, and no balloons, flags or pennants in terms of other characteristics of the use. Now, let me ask you another question. Are we allowed to characterize in words the architecture, landscaping and screening or not? I don't know what you, may I do an overview or not? Peterson: Give an overview. Again, details aren't appropriate right now. Linda Fisher: Okay. Again, a picture tells a thousand words and so that's normally not what we'd like to present to a Planning Commission. But, and I think the staff report indicates and 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 agrees that it's a very attractive building. We have come up with a building that we believe is compatible with your Highway 5 corridor design. A huge part of your comprehensive plan is design oriented. We spent an inordinate amount of time on your Highway 5 plan and the materials are outlined in the record and it was not just materials review we did. We went through a very exacting work session with staff on the design and we're very proud of it but it's easier to show so I'll go on. On landscaping and screening we thought the appropriateness of the use for this site was in part dependent on whether it could be screened from Highway 5 because there are many elements in your comprehensive plan that discuss that in terms of the parking. And whether we could do some reasonable screening from the neighborhood. That's why we think again there's some relationship. I will summarize Mr. Ernst's drawings we spent a lot of time on. I'm disappointed you won't let us present them but I'll summarize it. There is an existing landform on the north, and our drawing shows, and the staff has seen, that the landform alone, together with supplemental plantings, screens the parking totally from Highway 5. So there will be no views of any of the cars from Highway 5. There will be filtered views of the building and there's no questions an attractive building that meets your standards, so earth berm and plantings on top of the berm screen the cars from view and we have illustrations of that. The perimeter has been substantially landscaped and buffered and we did extensive sections of these so that through a combination of measures, the parking would be screened from residential view and would be really no different in impact from any other neighborhood business zoned use. Again, a picture tells a thousand words. I want to indicate for the record that again you, but just for the record, that at the second neighborhood meeting we did propose, since we relied in part on the existing fence. We did propose and I called staff about this. That if the project is ultimately approved, that General Motors would replace the existing damaged fence, even though it's on residential property, with a new solid board on board fence, and we have a, and I can pass it out. We have calculations from our noise expert that that would reduce the noise levels from Highway 5 and from Lake Drive by 5 to 6 decibels in the neighborhood so it would be a benefit. And we're still proposing that. We also proposed, and Mr. Ernst has illustrations, to add additional plantings along Lake Drive and increase the size to substantially improve the buff'er. I won't go into detail on the traffic study and noise study that were submitted in detail other than to indicate that the traffic study shows that the project would generate the land use. The land use. Not the site plan. The land use. Would generate substantially less traffic than other land uses allowed under the existing zoning. Again, a trade ofl~ There's always with land uses a trade off but it was we thought pertinent that that was the fact and there are, there's a substantiation for that in the record. We did a very detailed noise study because that's a concern. It was a concern in the past. I'm barely going to summarize that because I think there's a lack of interest in hearing about it but it's in the record. Suffice it to say that this land use on this site as proposed would generate substantially less traffic noise than other allowed uses and in terms of service shop noise and one thing that's site plan but I think is important, is we have oriented the site plan, but I think it relates to the land use, such that all the activity is on the north. There is only one overhead door and it's on the north side away from the neighbors, which we think is important in terms of the land use. And our studies show that we will meet State noise standards, and in fact post development noise levels will be very comparable to existing noise levels and that is all we need to say on that. Again assuming, I'm going to keep going because it sounds like you don't want to see drawings so that's what I'll do. I'll keep going. In terms of a couple of other items I was going to, well. Again, we have information on lighting and signage which you may not want addressed at this 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 meeting. In terms of land use, as I indicated before, we've spent a lot of time with your comprehensive plan and it can be read in a lot of difl'erent ways. And I think there's a number of issues here, just to lay it all out. Does the City, from a practical standpoint, given what little BG zoned land you have left, want to allow this use anywhere in the City? Under any circumstances, no matter how sensitively designed. No matter whether it's in proximity to a residential area or not. We don't know the answer to that question. That's one question that maybe the City needs to look at. We don't see a prohibition on the use, in the comprehensive plan. I mean generally now. We don't see a prohibition on the use in your Highway 5 corridor plan. A direct, express prohibition. We looked at the comprehensive plan language staff has cited and a number of questions are raised. Just questions and I throw these out as questions for you to consider. Getting to more specifically. It talks about downtown commercial. This site is not downtown, but you have a mixed use planned development for Villages on the Pond and I've reviewed the PUD agreement in detail, that has a substantial retail component that's not located downtown and I'm going to come back to that in a moment. Is that downtown commercial? Is it neighborhood commercial? Maybe yes. Maybe no. You have some language about large scale users. Mid size shopping centers and larger free standing specialty stores. Where does this use fit? Why shouldn't it fit somewhere in the community? And those are questions you need to ask as well as again, could it be compatible with this neighborhood. There's discussion in your comprehensive plan, which as I look at it was done in 1991. I know the Highway 5 plan came later. About after 1995, if development continues, maybe you need to re-evaluate commercial land use in general and I assume, I don't know where you are in your Metropolitan Council comp plan revisions but it might be something you might want to consider. Also there's a sentence in the staff report that an automobile dealership has a regional draw and does not cater, nor service neighborhoods only. We ask this question. What is a regional draw and what in today's commercial environment services neighborhoods only? And I underscore only. What is a neighborhood? Is it one block? Is it 5 blocks? Is it 10 blocks? Is it one mile? Is it in some communities such as Chanhassen perhaps the whole city? Can one land use, even under allowed under BN, serve both the neighborhood and the community in general and also region? You're talking about a site on which we propose PUD zone that is on a highway and if we are denied, you may hear from the landowner on going forward with BN zoning, but I think a number of those uses, and they may very well be preferable to the neighbors and the City and that's fine, but I think some of those uses would serve more than the neighborhood. And convenience store with gas, restaurant, some shopping uses. So all we say is, should a distinction be made on whether something does serve a neighborhood only and what really serves the neighborhood. We know you're not, we know we're not a drug store where your maybe needs for that sort of thing are served. But there are benefits to the community from this use, we believe, and so there's questions that need to be raised. There's a blurring of distinction between neighborhood retail and others. There was an article in the Sunday New York Times this last week that talked about, something that I found very interesting. The changes in grocery stores. You look at the uses that you allow under neighborhood business, and I've read them. You know you may hear a bank. You may hear a print shop. You may hear convenience food, going in and getting a hot meal. What's happening is those are available in some small strip centers but more and more the grocery stores are doing them. Kroger's is the largest national grocery store, and I took this right out of the article. What are they doing and Byerly's and others are following. They have their bank. They have their fast print. They have their Boston Market foods all allowed under your neighborhood business if 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 alone. They have fitness centers. They have cookies. And obviously the scale's different but what I'm saying is, what really is neighborhood retail only and should that or should it not be a distinction. We're just asking. When you talk about the region now for metropolitan planning, there's talk about expanding the region. Maybe the region should be more than the seven county metro area. Maybe it should include 14 counties. So there's a whole lot of different ways to look at the language in your comprehensive plan. I'm not going to tell you we're an absolute, perfect fit but we do think that sensitivity in the design relates to the appropriateness of the use on this particular site. Again, I looked at Village of the Pond and I think their PUD agreement is instructive. Again, it's a PUD. It's a mixed use PUD. But there are a number of uses allowed. Entertainment, hotel, restaurant, apparel, that are going to serve more than a neighborhood, and the uses in that PUD agreement say, serving the neighborhood and the community. So we're saying there might be a lot of different ways to take a look at this. We also, and again this point I'm going to make would be a lot better illustrated by a drawing Mr. Jelle has but I don't know that you want me to show it so I'll take a shot again, letting you know I think I'm hampered without being able to show you a drawing. I think most of you have been on the Planning Commission for a few months. You know you had before you, you know the site adjacent to us is zoned BN. The Legion site, and you know there was a proposal by a developer, I think the project was called Chanhassen Commons, for a use on that site, and it did include, and staff supported it, what you think and we're not debating, perhaps is more close to BN. But remember, we're not trying to say we're BN zoning. We're requesting a rezoning. I'm going to come to the PUD in a second, why we requested it. We spent a lot of time when that proposal was still viable, we spent a fair amount of time trying to coordinate with that developer and we have a drawing we wanted to show you, and we know that plan's not out there now. We know that. But envision for a moment one mixed use PUD. Envision those two sites combined and envision a project that might include some of what you, I'll call it the Chanhassen Commons project, which by the way had a free standing restaurant which is now being proposed in the Village on the Ponds. Had a neighborhood component. We were proposing a connection with that site, which we didn't need but it would have worked. And then our project. Again, ifI can't show you the site plan. Think of it as one PUD. And one of the things we were talking about, you're talking about pedestrian circulation. We're not saying someone's going to walk to buy a car. We'd never say that. I'm not sure someone would walk to do some other things that were in Chanhassen Commons, but what we were trying to work on is pedestrian circulation through the two projects, and then ultimately to the pedestrian bridge so that if for example you were in GM and you brought your car in and they said it would take you an hour in the morning to have it serviced, you might go to the bagel or the coffee shop on the adjacent site. Have a cup of coffee and come back. You had an hour. Maybe you'd walk across the pedestrian bridge to Byerly's. We're saying there's a bigger picture here, and that's still a possibility. We don't have that proposal this evening but envision that, and in my mind there starts to be a little bit different view of the entire, of how this thing might work together with the adjacent zoned site. Shopping center linked by internal circulation. Some of those sort of things. Again, separating you know the strong opinions of people in the room, and they're valid but I'm just saying talking in terms of land use. We wanted to show you that drawing. In terms of why we requested the PUD zone, because I was asked at the neighborhood meeting and also I think it relates to, and a question was raised earlier. On this particular site we had two choices. Again I kind of addressed, we looked at other sites. With this land use. We could have requested a rezoning to BG. And that obviously would not have been 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 supported but we could have requested that and seen what the vote would have been at the Council. Or we could have requested a rezoning to PUD, and here's why we requested the PUD zone and that gets back into the site plan. We looked at the uses that were allowed in BG and there are a number of them that are fairly intense, and we were concerned that there would be justifiable concerns from the community that if this use went away after 25 years, or whatever, that other uses would then be permitted and you would have little control. We didn't think this would fly that way. We didn't think the community was entitled to that, and I talked to my client about it and said, that's not going to work. But certainly we wanted flexibility out of the PUD. We're not going to lie about that. There's no question about it. We've got a setback of slightly, of not under the ordinance. By the way so did Village on the Ponds. So did Chanhassen Commons. I can address that if you want. Yes, the PUD gives you flexibility, but it also gives you control. So what we wanted to do was propose a zone that is a rezoning but is not an overlay zone, and I've looked at that in your zoning ordinance. Becomes a zone on your map with a PUD agreement that we would agree even could be recorded against the land that would specify uses and that would have a number of very detailed restrictions that we have proposed and that obviously if this were ever approved, would be conditioned. And could provide more control than a permitted use. So we thought that that was important in looking at whether this use could fit on this site. That's how we see the lwo together. So that's the reason we went with the PUD zone, because there are potential off site effects from virtually any land use. And again on the land use, a question was raised and I think it's a good one. It's alluded to in the staff report, and addressed by the neighbors, that perhaps this use is somehow harder to control than other uses, and I'll just give you our opinion. It's an opinion. I don't think that's the case. If, and let me see ifI can address this. Any land use has potential off site impacts. You're Planning Commission members and I've worked for virtually any land use. In Plymouth right now you can call the stafl2 They have an office tech project. They've had terrible complaints about and they thought it was an excellent use, and probably still is but there have been problems. You've had multi-family with problems. You can have a single family neighborhood with problems. Any number of uses can have off site impacts. You can have a shopping center approved, neighborhood shopping center. You can have a change in tendency and a change in management, which is some people said these are good fellows. What if it changes? You would have no more or less control over that. We think less because we'd have a PUD agreement, than you would with this use, so I guess we don't see anything about this use that given the structure we've proposed, could not be controlled to any greater or less extent that really, particularly any other commercial use allowed under the BN zone. That's our general view. And the other thing, again it gets back to the site plan. We wanted the design for the land use on the site to minimize off site impacts and to minimize the human complying. So rather than saying we'd have overhead doors facing the neighborhood but we'd keep them closed, and humans don't want to do that, we didn't want to bother with a human having to follow an order so we put the, one overhead door on the north screen, and opposite the residents and there are other issues so on the control issue, that's our view on it. Again, I'm overstaying my welcome, I can sense it. And so I'm going to stop at this point and we can address any questions you have. But again, we believe that we have a proposal that can be compatible with your overall comprehensive plan, with your PUD zone and with a number of your other criteria and that minimizes off site impacts and has some benefits and you'll have to judge from that and we thank you for your patience and are available to answer any questions. And I'll try to do the best I can but if you shoot a question to me, but I may have to refer it to one 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 of our other people, and I don't know whether you want questions now or after the public hearing. Thank you. Peterson: Questions of the applicant from fellow commissioners please. Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. You obviously know that we're fairly comfortable with the zoning. We've done a lot of planning. Not that we haven't. Therefore your job is to come in tonight and give us a compelling reason to change, because as I said, we're pretty comfortable with what we've done. We've been doing our comprehensive plan. We understand how we protect neighborhoods. We understand how we forecast where we're going to our residents. So when we change a zone, we have to persuade them, not only the residents that are neighbors, but the rest of the city, that it's for their good. And you've talked for a while, and I haven't heard a reason yet. So before we open it up to the citizens, I did hear one thing about noise and traffic. That there would be less traffic. If you have quantifiable things like that, I would sure like to hear it. If there's somebody in attendance that would quantify those things. Linda Fisher: That's in our studies. I can read these. Conrad: Do you have a chart of those reasons? Linda Fisher: I can go through that. There was, and you know we hoped you reviewed that packet. There is a very detailed traffic study with a generation table that I can pull out and review right now. Conrad: But just summarize for me. Yeah, I don't need the details. Summarize for me the reasons that we should tell our citizens... Linda Fisher: Well and I thought I did that but I will do it again. Conrad: No, you did not. Linda Fisher: We don't think this can be reduced other than traffic to a quantifiable numerical calculation. On traffic it can. Now let me just, without giving you, because I will, you've asked for that so I've got it here in my notes. We generate, and this was based on a detailed study, 43 p.m. peak hour trips and 590 weekday daily trips. An alternative allowed under the existing zone one, and I'm not going to go through the details because it's all in the report and your staff I think concurred in the analysis, generates 189 p.m. peak hour trips, so significantly more, and 2,493. 4 to 6 times I think more traffic on the weekday basis. It's one of those trade-ofl~ in impacts that I was talking about. Another alternative, because you know that you have many uses under your zone so there are many alternatives as to what could go on the site. I think you know you understand that. So we did another alternative, taking a slightly different mix that included a restaurant, because that was proposed next door, and taking that mix we had an even greater disparity between this use, which is probably the, I think it's virtually the lowest traffic generator for commercial use you could find. I think virtually the lowest for commercial use. 315, that alternative. 315 p.m. peak. 4,062 weekday daily. So it's significant disparity. Traffic noise 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 does the same thing. You have, and we didn't run those numbers because it, and Mr. VanDoren can address but your traffic noises is directly related to the amount of traffic generated by a land use, and so it's substantially less traffic noise. And then in terms of a benefit, again it's tied to the site plan for the neighborhood, and for the community, we're on record as saying if approved we would replace that fence and, well I'm just going to repeat it and it has a substantial benefit in terms of screening and not just screening our site. Screening traffic on Lake Drive and a5 to 6, and I will pass this out and introduce it into the record, a 5 to 6 decibel reduction in noise from, in the neighborhood, from Highway 5 and from Lake Drive. From traffic that is already on those roads or is projected to be on those roads, whether or not we're there. So again, we are proposed that, and I will, I'm going to pass it out just so it gets into the record because that analysis was just done because we just proposed that at the August 27th neighborhood meeting. I also have this evening a property value study that was just completed this morning that I will also pass out and introduce into the record, that is based on a study of a real estate appraiser, with his qualifications attached, who went to the neighborhood and also interviewed assessors in a number of communities listed that have car dealerships, and also interviewed real estate agents in communities that have, some communities that had car dealerships. Also did a study with actual sale prices of two homes near the applicant's facility in Apple Valley. Compared them to a control group of comparably valued homes, not adjacent to the facility to see whether there was an impact and found no negative impacts. And again that was just completed this morning and our client hasn't even seen it so I'm bringing it to you hot off the presses and I will pass that out. Again, a benefit. I can't say that you would say that these other uses would have a negative impact. We haven't studied that. I can't, but I can tell you that we don't find on a factual basis any negative impact. And so we think that the, where I think the land use starts to get related to the plan, that's why we proposed PUD, and a lot of cities have looked at this differently. With all due respect. And I understand everything you've been saying about your comp plan, but when you look at the overall benefits of the proposal, if you wanted to talk to your community in general about it, I think the quality of the building has a lot to do with it. We really do and that's why we worked on that. It's part of the land use we have to off'er. You had leverage over us. You wouldn't necessarily have leverage over the next person under a BN site. Take a look at the architecture on the project that was proposed and take a look at this architecture. We've done more with this building. We had to just to meet your standards. We felt we needed to, to do exactly what Commissioner Conrad said. Have any basis for coming before you, in addition to kind of the arguments I outlaid before. What really is neighborhood retail that you're going to have to wrestle with. So we think what we've done in screening, what we've done in landscaping, what we've done in the land, in the plan and since we proposed a PUD zone and not a straight zone, relates to whether or not you ought to amend your zone. That's why I tried to put it together, in addition to some of these others. That's what we can tell you. It's a package in our mind. We came to you with a package and we said, what you see if you choose to approve, is what you would get. Not that we zoned to BG, come back with a site plan and play games with you. We could have come in with a BG zone. You probably would have denied it. Or let's say you approved it. The plan could have come later. I don't think you'd get the plan. We know we've got to go much higher here. The City deserves it and we know we have to. So we think it's a package. That's why we've tried to combine... We understand you're going to vote on one maybe and not get to the other but in terms of our looking at it, you know as a package, that's why we went with the PUD. I'm not the only person with a stake in this. If any of our team have 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 something to add that I haven't answered, please come up. I don't want to monopolize, but that's kind of how we looked at it. And the landowner may want to talk. I asked the landowner at some point when you open the public hearing to discuss a little bit about what his plans are for the site and I think that's pertinent also in terms oftrade-ofl~ of land use. Because I don't think the site's going to remain, I think you know... So I'm thirsty, I need some water. Yes. Brooks: I want to go back to one of your arguments. On the one hand you're trying to argue to us that your business is a neighborhood service because you're providing GM car service. In the next breath you're asking what is a neighborhood. I think it's here. And then the second question you're asking is what is a neighborhood service anyway. So I guess you're confusing me. Linda Fisher: Yeah let me. Brooks: No. Linda Fisher: Okay, go ahead. Brooks: Are you proposing that you are a neighborhood service or is your argument that nothing is really a neighborhood service anymore? You are part of regional service just like everything else. Linda Fisher: Well you know, you may at one point want to get the comments from the actual operator but the way, I think there's a lot of difl'erent ways to look at it. No, no, no, and I'm going to try to answer your question from my standpoint. I don't think we can stand here and tell you that a retail automobile sales use we're proposing provides the same type of daily shopping need as some of the uses that are allowed in this zone. I can't say that. I don't think any of us can say that. So if neighborhood retail means that, well certainly we're not saying we're that fit. Again we're asking for a rezoning. We can't say that and I wasn't saying that. What I'm saying is that those functions are being served in a lot of different contexts nowadays. We're just asking based on reading that narrowly in terms of neighborhood retail only as being what's allowed and what exactly that means. That's a different, a little bit broader issue. Now having said that, a car purchase isn't something you do on a daily basis. However as I said, if you talk about a service to a neighborhood or to if someone had a GM car in the neighborhood and if this were approved and wanted to bring some vehicle over to be serviced, and I tried to put the PUD, I think you might call that aspect of the use a neighborhood service, but no. We're not saying it's the same type of daily shopping need as something else and we can't say that. It's destination retail. It's not pull offa highway retail, and that's why we didn't need the visibility of the cars. A lot of people thought we needed that. This dealer, and again because we can't show you the pictures, we need to be a major roadway but they wouldn't have even applied if they needed the car. The old style car operation is not what they're proposing and I know you don't want to hear that tonight but if you wanted to get interested in that, that's a separate discussion. That's not what we're looking at. So there's no perfect answer, you know to your question, and again, if there's interest in the, well. I'll leave it at that. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Linda Fisher: Thank you. Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Before we do that. Yes, just hold on one second. Let me make a couple comments. I think that clearly over the last few weeks, myself and fellow commissioners have gotten phone calls and received letters that we appreciate. We are in receipt of the 120 plus names on the petition so I would ask for your somewhat indulgence. If you have, we want to hear every point and every issue but if it's repetitive to the person in front of you, I ask that you take that into consideration before you make your presentation. So we want to hear all the points but we also want to take into consideration the time of everybody else here too so, thank you. Please. Richard Donnay: My name is Richard Donnay. I've been a citizen, resident of the Estates for about 18 years and I was impressed with her presentation. Got to give her credit for doing a lot of work on this. You know we've seen things come in to intrude upon our area. We've lost some of the beauty, a lot of the beauty's been lost to McDonald's and Total and other kinds of public services. I guess you forget about the beauty that you lost and you start getting used to the conveniences and I think that's a major point with this situation where the conveniences to us are not going to be probably appreciated. It's just going to be a major business. The point I have is that these kinds of dealerships grow, it's going to be a growing business and I don't know if that area is going to be large enough. A good example of that is Waconia Ford where they moved out on the highway. They didn't have enough room and they've got new cars and trucks parked on the ditch right up to the road. These things grow and I don't know if you can get that to look good or not. But I do encourage the Planning Commission to hear the rest of the presentation for the benefit of citizens such as myself. The entire picture I think needs to be listened to here because I'm wondering about what the options are if they're not granted this development. What are we going to wind up with instead of that? I'm really impressed with the idea that if we have a neat, well groomed, well developed, professional, clean business, you know with good landscaping and so forth, maybe that's going to look a lot better and be a lot quieter than some of the things that we might get later. So we've got to look at that and I'm willing to, I would like to hear the whole story. I would not like to see us separate and control too much. I'd like to hear the whole thing. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Why don't we open it up for questions. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission? Eric Waleiski: I'm Eric Waleiski and I live at 260 Hidden Lane. That's right across East Lake Drive from where they're proposing to put it up. And I guess I have a couple of concerns with regard to the traffic study that they did. I think that with the amount of service bays that they're proposing, along with the number of new cars that they intend to sell at the site, that it could really 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 increase the traffic flow through our neighborhood. You know if you just do the math and figure they want to do 600 cars a year. Figure 3 have test, or 3 test drives per sale. That's about 1,800 test drives. They have 15 service bays. Figure 3 cars through each service bay every day. That's another 45 cars a day. 300 day business year. You have about 15,000 cars driving through our neighborhood. The other alternative would be to go up and down Highway 5. I don't think that they're going to be, they can guarantee us anyway that that will be the case. And it's a concern to have those people coming through our neighborhood, mainly strangers so I just wanted to make that point. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Cory Ploen: My name is Cory Ploen. I sent each of you a letter. I believe it should be in the packet. Hopefully you read that. A couple points I wanted to bring up is that I was really impressed what the staff put together. They're the ones I heard that 9 months heard this story. Heard the convincing arguments and all that. Yet after all that they still recommended to deny it. They probably know more about this project than anybody here and they still are against it so I'd like to make sure that's heard. The other thing is, we heard about the resale. I've done my own, not real scientific checking with real estate agents. People I know. I know a car dealership out in Glencoe. He stated that you can have valuations, devaluation up to 20% so I guess, you know there's many, many variables but to hear their side it helps a lot. It can hurt too and that's my concern from where I live. Convenience is just the last point I want to bring up. I think the convenience side of things, a dry cleaner, a coffee shop, those types of things, ice cream store, we can walk to with our kids and all that. Go to the Villages on the Ponds. Cross the pedestrian bridge into Chanhassen. Help that. The car dealership, there's nothing to walk by there so for the beauty of the neighborhood and all that, it looks good and I heard they have great pictures and all that but for what we would use on a daily basis, would bring us out of our homes into the community, I don't think this serves that purpose. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Steve Peterson: Hi. I'm Steve Peterson. I've been a resident of Chanhassen Estates for 13 years and a business owner in town here. What you would be doing by granting this application would be to sacrifice the safety, welfare and the lifestyle of the neighbors through this proposed development. I would submit that your duty is to the residents of this community and that denying the application would be supporting the residents. There's no doubt that it would be an increase in traffic. One thing that was not discussed was the type of traffic. The people who would be coming in and out of here on a daily basis to buy, test drive cars. Come in and look at cars. Would primarily be non neighbors. They don't know the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dakota Avenue, which is already very dangerous. It's the one where you go turning into McDonald's. If you've ever looked at that and watched the traffic there, it's horrible. It's amazing we haven't had a lot of accidents, and we'd be increasing the traffic at that intersection. It's only a question of time before somebody gets hurt there as it is. We don't need more strangers coming in on a regular basis. Some of the other uses that would be permitted on this property would probably draw people from the community who knew about the traffic flow, the traffic patterns. One lane ending without any signs, right by Ivan's Sinclair. And I think it would 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 be a lot safer for the people, both in the community and those traveling in that intersection. In my opinion, the applicant has not shown a necessity for a zoning change and in my opinion they didn't even show good reason for one. I would urge you to stick with the planning that you've already, and the City has already put into this and not grant the change. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Tony Pavlovich: Good evening. My name is Tony Pavlovich. I live on Hidden Circle, adjacent or across the street from the proposed property. And you know we came out here about 9 years ago and built our home in that area. We were moving from Chicago, coming here with a job transfer and as a result of coming to this area, previously I was in Plymouth. And when we came back we said originally well let's go back and look in the Plymouth area again, and we liked it up there and so on and so forth. We had an opportunity to take a look at other areas and spent a significant amount of time deciding where it was we wanted to settle long term and raise our families. And when we came out to Chanhassen here, and liked what we saw. We had an opportunity to take a look at exactly, we actually reviewed the comprehensive plan ourselves at that point in time. And very specifically we understood what was happening with the city. What the plans were. We liked the idea of coming to an area that has a, what I'll call a small town atmosphere. I grew up in a small town and it's something that we've always appreciated. When we came here and we understood what the development of this property was proposed to be, we were excited about that and chose to build here. Now, in my opinion, what we have proposed before us is a change to that and I'm not exactly sure if this was granted, that is fair to us as citizens. We came here with an understanding. We appreciate what the city Planning Commission, the City Council members, the Mayor, where we've gone so far with our city. I've had relatives come from out of town. I've had relatives come from the Chicago area, come to visit. They take a look at what we've got here and are very impressed with what the City has done. And based on that, I think we should hold true to that and keep it as neighborhood business. And not grant what the proposed applicant is suggesting at this point. We like, each of you I think have received a letter from me that discusses everything from the safety issues and noise issues and lighting issues and so on and so forth, and these are all important. But bottom line I guess for me, I came to Chanhassen. I could have built in many areas in the Twin Cities. I came to Chanhassen understanding what Chanhassen was going to off'er me, and I hope that now the rules haven't changed and I hope that we stick with the original plan. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission? Bernie, do you want to address that one issue of cars? Bernie Wagnild: The point about the number of vehicles is a valid one because it concerns us as well as it should concern everyone else. Cadillac at this time has a pilot program going on in different parts of the United States. They're rolling it out as they're able to, which allows the dealers to stock many fewer cars. They keep the cars in regional holding pins. GMC Truck has I believe three test areas that this is going on. That's working out well. They're starting to fold that out. It's getting to the point, like someone said, over $30,000.00, the air gets a little thin up there. And not only for the customer but for us trying to floor plan those. The other thing I'd like to comment on. There were a lot of concerns voiced in the first neighborhood meeting, and the 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 second neighborhood meeting, regarding test drives, safety, noise, those types of things. And I understand that those are really concerns. I've been an automobile dealer since 1975. Prior to that I ran a metropolitan dealership from 1969, and all those dealerships that I've been affiliated with or owned, have been as close, except for one, Hastings, have been as close or closer in proximity to many of the people that were at the first meeting. And we have not had, in all those years, calls regarding safety, road testing, noise, and those type of things, and I don't think we'd have them here. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Any further comments? Laurie Sacchet: My name is Laurie Sacchet and I live at 8071 Hidden Circle, which is also adjacent to the proposed property. And I just wanted to bring to you attention that 7 or 8 years ago we had to really get together and work against the TH 101 proposed routing. They were thinking of bringing that through Lake Drive and that we didn't feel was really appropriate. And we, you know really worked together. We were very collaborative. We all put our heads together. There was a tremendous amount of neighborhood interaction at that time. Maybe some of you remember that. And we came up with a solution or helped propose a solution that stands today. And now we know that TH 101 is routed in a totally different way and has in effect by- passed our entire neighborhood and I think everybody's happy about that. So we just want you to know that we're very, very adamant against the proposed development. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Before we close the public hearing, I'd just like to go on record by asking that sometimes in a group that has strong feelings like this, people who are for the project quite often don't feel comfortable coming up so I ask that anybody that is for the project that would like to speak, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. I guess the first question that I would ask of each of us is do we have enough information to make a decision tonight or would you like more information on the structure and the site plan, or anything etc., etc.? Joyce: I think it comes down to the zoning. I have enough information. Sidney: Yeah I do too. Brooks: I have enough to make... Blackowiak: I too went to the open house and went through this very thorough packet so I feel I'm ready to make a decision. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm okay. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Peterson: With that okay would you like to share your comments on the presentation this evening? Conrad: And I wouldn't mind. I haven't attended the meetings and I wouldn't, I think a gentleman stood up and asked to review the rest of the story. I'm not opposed to that but I will, I've been around here for a while and probably more than everybody else here combined so that's probably why he led off with me tonight. I'm probably part of the reason that the zone is the way it is. It made sense when we put it in. We knew we'd have residents living close by so the zone we put in literally did make some sense. But when I try to decide whether we should change the zone, you look for a couple things. Usually is it a bad zone to begin with, or did something change that we couldn't anticipate because boy, when you zone. When you plan, you make a guess based on the wisdom of the stafl~ but you still don't know what's really going to happen but you look for, you know when you make a change you look for a bad zone to begin with. You look for a better zone. Better. Not the same but better. You look for benefits to improve the community. Tonight we heard one or two, but you really want dramatic benefits because for 5 years, for 10 years you've been forecasting where you're going and you're telling the neighbors where you're going. That's probably the one thing government can do that they owe the residents forecasting. Even forecasting to those that are coming into town. The businesses. What are our requirements and you hold to them and I think that's what any citizen that comes in here wants to see is, tell us what you're looking for so we know what the rules are. The other thing I look for is not just the neighborhood. They're important but it's also the rest of Chanhassen. Is there something that they're not getting? Is this an opportunity that they're missing? And then you look at the neighbors and you say, have we persuaded the neighbors yet? Are they demanding a change? And sometimes we don't care. But most of the time when they show up we do care. Tonight, and so I wanted, that's some standards that you should follow when you rezone. Not just that everybody wrote us letters, but that there's some things that you feel comfortable with and how you planned the city and I have a feeling that the applicant has done a, based on what I've seen in the staff report, they've done a good job. They'd be a benefit to the community but in this particular case, there was not a persuasive argument made for a zoning change. There really wasn't. Not close. And I think it's real important that I say that. Not close. I heard the one benefit, which is real. The noise and the traffic. I think that's real. That is, the residents you know, there are things going to move in here and from a noise and traffic standpoint, they're going to be worse than this. But overall, you know I didn't hear a compelling reason that would make me feel that we should entertain this from a city standpoint. So my bottom line is, I'm real comfortable with the current zoning. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Alison. Blackowiak: I have to be with just about everything Ladd said. I will try not to repeat but again I did not hear any compelling reasons to change the zoning, and I think that that's one thing that really needs to be present before we go in and change any zoning. Ms. Fisher listed several characteristics about the land use that she thought were favorable to a car dealership but I would argue that they are favorable to any business or anything that would be going in there as well. They're not exclusive to a car dealership. The issue is zoning right now. Do we need to change 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 the zoning on this parcel? And I feel that what we need, instead of changing the zoning is to really look at what a neighborhood is. What a neighborhood business is and to work on improving neighborhood businesses in Chanhassen. Especially so that we, or the City had leverage over them and saying that, implying that we would be able to exact some more high quality materials from them. But I would argue that we apply the same high standards to anyone that comes before the Planning Commission or before the City. We look for high standards and we would hold everyone up to those standards. We need good neighborhood services. We need to foster a sense of community. We've got a pedestrian bridge. We've got Villages. There will be something going on this parcel, but I feel that the transition from Villages, to the neighborhood, to the pedestrian bridge would be broken up by an auto dealership. I think we need a neighborhood business there. Something where, a place where people can meet. A place where people would use services and be able to go and see their neighbors on a regular basis as opposed to an infrequent purchase and hopefully less frequent return to the repair center. In short, I did not hear a compelling reason to change and I'm comfortable, like Ladd said, with the current zoning. Peterson: Thank you. Allyson. Brooks: Well I agree with everything that Ladd and Alison said and I don't see any reason to change the zoning. I don't think the, I agree with Ladd and Alison that there is not a compelling argument at all. I just, a car dealership is just not a neighborhood business and I don't really feel that there needed to be a philosophical argument about what a neighborhood business is. I think we really do understand it. And I think that we have to take into consideration the concerns of the community which are that they are not comfortable with changing the zoning of that parcel. They have safety concerns, which I think are valid. And concerns about quality of life such as Chanhassen is trying to be, like we discussed, more pedestrian friendly and have more community oriented... And that area, having a car dealership in that particular spot just doesn't fit with what we're trying to do with that area. So I guess I am going with not changing the zoning. Peterson: Thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I think my comments are very similar and I'll try not to be redundant. I think in general I see in this case just too many things have to be changed to, or compromised to make this work. And specifically as a commissioner we're looking at zoning, land use and also the elements of the PUD ordinance. And what we're finding is that the applicant has proposed a use that doesn't meet the intent of the neighborhood business and one thing as a commissioner that we do is to look at the comprehensive plan and also the Chanhassen City Code and it's spelled out for us what a neighborhood business is. And this does not fit the classification in the Chanhassen City Code. I think another important thing is that I want to acknowledge that the neighbors, the neighboring property owners have purchased their property with the expectation that this parcel would be zoned neighborhood business and because of that, one of the reasons I can't support the request for a rezoning. I understand the applicant's strong desire to do business in Chanhassen. Certainly as a property owner in Chanhassen we were very drawn to this community. However, as a commissioner again, I think the major point is that there's no compelling reason to change the current zoning and I'm comfortable with how it's zoned right now. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Peterson: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: Well I think it was a unique proposal to begin with. My concept of a PUD is a partnership and that partnership is between the City and the developer. And I think you have an immediate problem right here because you didn't have the City, or at least the planning staff on your side. Then you have the neighborhood against you and now, since I'm the last guy here, it sure doesn't look like you've got the Planning Commission on your side either. And I guess that's the reason for my question initially is who decided on the PUD and since you went that avenue, I think initially you have to have some sort of backing from the community, from the city, some direction from the planning staff and it's just not there. So everything else that was said I agree with. I do want to give a little direction though to the City Council from at least my opinion. Ms. Fisher asked the question, do you even want this use? And I was here when you folks brought forth the McGlynn property and initially I was, I was against it just because I think car dealerships have a bad reputation. I mean it's something that, it's an uphill battle for you folks, obviously. And I went to one of the neighborhood meetings and I agree with you. I think it's a retail auto store. I think what I saw as far as some of the site plans, and that's all we're discussing here, okay. Maybe I'm out of line but I just want to say that what I saw in that scale I liked. I think it's a good use for Chanhassen. So in response to Mrs. Fishers, I think it's a use that we need in Chanhassen. I don't think we need any more coffee shops or bagel shops. The problem is you picked a site that just wasn't adequate for this use. Now you used a lot of resources and energies to put this thing together. I feel sorry that we had to give you all this bad news, but I still think you can find a suitable place in Chanhassen. I really do. I know it won't be easy, but as a direction to the City Council I think we could possibly find something on Highway 5. A thought. This is just a thought. Maybe something in the Gateway project. I don't know. okay. Highway 41 and Highway 5. The southwest, east comer. Okay. You know that's a big project out there. It's all industrial office and that kind of thing, but I did see your renderings and once again I'm saying in this scale, I think it's a good project. And also this would be an opportune for you to work with the City because we are reviewing our comprehensive plan. Right now. And I don't, Kate's looking at me. Aanenson: But you have to understand we went through this whole process. We explicitly told them that under no circumstances would we support Highway 5... commercial. So in defense of the applicant, this is the only site they could find, and in defense of the applicant, the PUD is what the staff advised them would be their best chance even though we wouldn't support them because we suggested if they changed the BN district, allow you, that opens up the BN district. So again, the staff led them in that direction.., to go with the PUD... but we told them the staff would not support commercial along Highway 5. It's guided industrial and once we changed our comprehensive plan to say we're allowing commercial on Highway 5... open it up for other commercial. We went through that process over a year ago, so that's why we're at this point today and there's a whole history of that process which we slightly.., in the staff report. That's why they're here today spending this amount of energy because we eliminated that option. Joyce: I appreciate that but I hate, I think it would be a good business in town here and I just hate cavalierly saying well, just because it didn't fit here we can't figure something out. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Aanenson: Well they got that earlier from the Planning Commission that we wouldn't support that and that's why they decided to take.., take the commercial, existing commercial and try to work it in, in defense of them. That's what they were given as direction. That's what they... Joyce: I just think they'd be a good tenant in Chanhassen and I just, and I would hope that they would come back with something that we could, this isn't going to work. Okay? Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. My comments are also not dissimilar to my peers. We are clearly tasked to listen to developers and the citizens and try to really interpret how the plans or put into the City Code and how they're interpreted. And obviously the applicant is of the perspective that this does fit within the Code and the PUD. You've heard my fellow commissioners say that they don't feel that way, and obviously we will pass it on now to City Council with that opinion, and mine is not dissimilar to that as I just don't see a compelling reason to rezone. And the only new item that I bring forth would be, I think the City has made a major commitment to pedestrian traffic and specifically as the pedestrian bridge is right there, that I think is also another pretty significant area that the City has made an investment in and doesn't necessarily in my eyes fit at all with the use of the car dealership, again more, less pedestrian oriented than we're looking for. So with that, may I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of Rezoning 4.2 acres of BN, Neighborhood Business, to PUD, the preliminary development plans, parking lot, hard surface and sign deviations as shown dated received April 4, 1997. Peterson: Second? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: Is there any discussion? Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends denial of rezoning 4.2 acres of BN, Neighborhood Business to PUD, the preliminary development plans, parking lot, hard surface coverage, and sign deviations as shown in the plans dated Received April 4, 1997, based on the rezoning to PUD and site plan findings. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LOTUS REALTY SERVICES - PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BLVD WITHIN THE VILLAGE ON THE PONDSDEVELOPMENT: A. FINALPLAT/REPLAT OUTLOT C, VILLAGESON THEPONDINTO TWO LOTS. B. SITEPLAN REVIEW FOR AS,300SQ. FT. BUILDING FORAFAMOUSDAVE'S RESTAURANT. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 14~848 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER. PubHcPrese~: Name Address Gary Disch Rhonda Collins Cindy Marengo Dale & Zola Klabande Susie & Kerry Blake Vemelle Clayton Scott D. Schlachter Lois Savard 8170 Marsh Drive 8060 Hidden Court 8150 Marsh Drive 8160 Hidden Court 8040 Hidden Circle 422 Santa Fe Circle 5633 Morgan Avenue So. 8080 Marsh Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Help me understand the roof issue a little bit better. Walk me through it again, or walk me through it if you would. Generous: Okay. If you look at the roof elevation on the Building 4 you see that it has a flat roof cross area in the middle that is actually a flat roof elevation. The slope roof elevation on that building, observable from someone standing on the street is approximately 70% of the building. However, if you look at it from a birds eye view, it's probably maybe half of the building. The roof area. So we need clarification whether or not we should interpret it to mean that it's, was visible from the ground or what's visible from above. Peterson: And your rationale for that position, the rationale for their position was? Generous: Well that with the higher peak that would be in it, we were looking, primarily when we were doing the design we were looking at larger units and making it look consistent with our downtown area. The office, the Medical Arts building down on West 78th Street. Peterson: And that's the standard we've followed with the other buildings? Generous: So far. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Joyce: On this handout, remember this part of the handout. What exactly is this? Generous: That just shows you the sectors. If you look at the design standards, there are different, with any.., slightly different standards 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Joyce: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. All right. I was just wondering, the dotted line looked like a thoroughfare or something through. Can you actually take your car and go through that whole dotted area? Through parking lots and everything like that. Generous: You can't get out to Highway 101 that way. Joyce: Okay. All right. Generous: It's just to delineate the different sectors within the plan and the signage standards are slightly different than some of the requirements. Joyce: Okay. Sidney: I have another question about the flat roof portion of that building. Would that be visible from other buildings in the Villages? ... see higher elevations. Generous: We may in the Village corridor develop up to four story or 50 feet. Sidney: Okay, so that might be visible then. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Joyce: Just one. Now that I understand what I'm looking at here. You said that we're adding 14,000 square feet of retail to Section 2 and taking it out of Section 1 then. Generous: Right. Based on the additional, there's a Building 2 that will come in the future that's approximately 7, 500 square feet. Joyce: And you're, there isn't anything confirmed but we're looking at a restaurant on that site tOO. Generous: Correct. Joyce: Thank you. Peterson: The only other thing Bob, I think I don't normally preach this but within the packet I know it's some within your control but we didn't have a proportionate rendering. It's pretty difficult to get.., tonight so... points his finger at staff or the development team. It's pretty important that we have that for our packet so. With that, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Commission please? Vemelle Clayton: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Vemelle Clayton and I'm with Lotus Realty. I would like to have the rest of the group in here before we start but let me talk first just a little bit about the, are you going to do this one by one? Do the plat and vote on that and... I didn't say vote yes. I just said vote. Do you want me to talk 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 about the plat first and then you talk? Okay. I would like to just, just a couple of comments. We don't have any problem with the change in number 5. Backing up to number 2. I just want for the record to say that I believe that we already have adequate cross access easements as a part of the covenants that are filed, but this is a good test. We should take a look at them before the plat's recorded and see that they fit. I do also want to state for the record that I would like, I will not actually formally object to item number 1, but given that we picked up the copy on Tuesday. I read it... that night. Caught it last night and we were still busy with Famous Dave's today, I didn't really get a chance to talk about it. But we'll have a chance to talk about it between now and the Council meeting and it's probably fine. I just want to understand what the ramifications might be. And that's all the comments I have on that. Peterson: Any questions? Kevin, any comments on replatting? Joyce: No, I don't have any. Sidney: No comment. Peterson: Ladd? Nor do I. With that, may I have a motion and a second please. Blackowiak: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, PUD #95-2, subject to conditions 1 through 8. Condition 5 shall read, the applicant shall pay the City GIS fees in accordance with City fees at time of recording final plat. Joyce: I'll make a second on that. Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Villages on the Ponds Second Addition, PUD 95-2, subject to the following conditions: The developer shall grant to the City of Chanhassen a conservation easement over Outlot L, Villages on the Ponds as described in the conditions of approval for the Villages on the Ponds. Provide cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be dedicated over Lots 1 nd and 2, Villages on the Ponds 2 Addition for access and utility purposes. The appropriate drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the plat over the stormwater basins and wetlands on the property. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for the stormwater basin and wetland up to the 100 year flood elevation. The applicant shall enter into an addendum to the development contract/PUD agreement for Villages on the Ponds. The applicant shall pay the City GIS fees in accordance with city fees at time of recording of final plat. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 The proposed commercial development of 2.13 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity fee of $9,287. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the applicant or their successors shall supply the City with a mylar set of as-built construction plans. All utilities installed within the plat shall be owned and maintained by the property owners and not the City. 8. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to City Code. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. Peterson: Next item. Vernelle, do you want to? Vemelle Clayton: I guess one of the things that I will talk about after we talk about the building itself, is landscaping. Bob and I have talked about that a little bit and we can deal with that after we talk about the building. I would like to say that we have Mika Milo with us. Most of you, I think all of you know Mika Milo from our prior presentations. We have Ken Merriman who is our expert leasing person and a delightful person to know. And we have Scott Schlachter from Famous Dave's. I would just like to say that I did invite all the folks that were here for the last session to come and sit in on this presentation, number one because they were so successful. And number two, because they all said oh, Famous Dave's. When are you going to open? But that is, aside from, the only other comment I want to make about Famous Dave's is, number one. Everybody seems to like them and want them here. Number two. I want to publicly express my appreciation for their patience with us as we have wrestled with their design. They've been not only patient. They've been understanding. They've been flexible and so far they haven't even gotten angry as far as I know. We have been working with them, not because their design was bad. But because it didn't quite fit what everyone's ideas and assumptions were as to what would be built in the Villages. To that end they've been very flexible. They are also under a little bit of a time line. They want to get going as soon as possible so staff has been actually bending the rules on when we can get the last copies of things into them and we appreciate that. We got Mika involved in some redesign. He got that copy to us in time to get it to staff and to Famous Dave's at the same time. We wanted both to review it. Famous Dave's had a few changes that they wanted to make and thanks to Mika who learned of a couple of them at 4:00 this afternoon and has been out in the hall making the color copy as you discussed car dealerships, I think we have a fairly complete presentation. You will see that there are some things that are completely different from the way it was described or set forth in the packet. We'll try to point those out to you as we go and I would like to introduce Mika Milo to discuss the elevations. Mika Milo: Mika Milo, principle of Milo Architecture Group in Eden Prairie. And your Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners, it is my pleasure to present now the two projects here that are really like one project. All on one site basically, sharing the same parking 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 lot. One is the Famous Dave and then the retail building #4. I guess we'll first address the Famous Dave building, and you will see that there is some relationship, some visual relationship and correlationship between these buildings and color schemes. When we, like Vemelle said, initial design that was a typical, proto typical design for Famous Dave and they approached us here, in essence was a good design that would fit to the Village character in general terms. In terms of massing and the slope roofs and the size of the building and bulk and shape of the building. And the restaurant is obviously very welcome use for the Villages... in and outdoors. The problem we had is more, it was the character of the finishes and the materials that they are proposing in a typical design, and we have been working quite a while with them and they worked until we received, until we arrived to that point to present to you these change design that I believe now much closer matches the intent with the Villages and what we are trying to achieve there. I will show you what the material that was presented... This is the last roof, sheet metal roof and wood siding that was proposed. It was rather.., raw wood appearance like northern.., farmhouse combination with very... But in any case, we felt it is not really matching what we are trying to achieve here at the Village and we would like that building to blend more with the overall.., design that we have, that are not so strongly, how would you say, woodsy. They're a little bit more sophisticated.., and so we suggested to change the color of the roof as well as to change the finishes, the color of the roof would be darker than this red one and we suggested that also we finish for the wood siding becomes a solid stain rather than a transparent stain.., and we also created a base that we propose of being.., so this is basically what happened and I will show you the design that we are now proposing. I think you have the smaller, reduced copies. You have received that. Peterson: Bob, does the copy that you just gave us differ from... ? Does the copy you just gave us differ from the one that's in our packet? It seemed to. Generous: Just the trash enclosure. Peterson: Oh okay, sorry. A1-Jafl5 There were some changes that were made to the plans that you have attached so they are different. So what you have is the latest revision. Mika Milo: ... substantial change from these initial materials. The red roof that you see is more of the brownish color, darker.., we are suggesting that darker color.., stained color. The stain is a light brownish.., and the wood frame around the windows to take a darker tone of this.., darker one would be for the frames and around the... Then to have as a base of that.., of approximately 6 inches above the ground and we use that teal green, teal color for.., and we are considering or re- using that teal color because it might not be... Any questions that you might have? Vemelle Clayton: I think they might have some questions as to how it's different from what you had in your packet. Is that a reasonable assumption? The differences are four. The roof. Over the kitchen.., here was too small for their HVAC... Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Brooks: I have a question. In your design.., you state, in no case shall the architecture lead to the... This really does not, it's inconsistent with where you're going. I realize that Famous Dave's has an image that.., when I look at that building that you presented.., boy these are really far apart in architectural styles. We're talking about compatibility in Villages on the Ponds, and we're going from sort of very modem and glass and it was very nice to sort of rustic, western theme and I don't feel that, I just want your opinion on this. This doesn't seem to follow the design character reference book of what you... Mika Milo: ... that text reads like that and the intent is not to copy. Can you please read one more time that particular important sentence? That couple sentences. Brooks: However, in no case shall the architectural.., ofa Disneyland street or... The main goal is to create a pleasant.., highway pedestrian oriented streetscape that has the base qualities of a traditional village. The building architecture... Mika Milo: Obviously I wanted to say, we don't any.., temporary architecture dealing in the Village. However, we are basing the architecture on the traditional value, and traditional symbol and expressions of the architecture of the past times and especially the beginning of this century. Small town America and the intent would be very simply.., we like to have some cohesiveness in the Village and a certain direction and.., materials and design but I don't think that our intent is to really have very uniform, very similar everything. I think we do welcome some varieties. We do welcome some different architectural.., and expressions that suggest building a village over the period of time that is composed of various.., and not just the one single developer who is doing everything very uniformly. In that respect I think that yes, this is a very different than the office building, though the function is also very different. It is more rustic and woodsy and so on but it's also on the other end of the village and not directly next door to the office building. I think it's more now in an environment where that will fit rather well. Where we have the restaurant next, in opposite side of the pond is another restaurant and then we have also the Americlnn which are using all the siding and wood shingles and they are a little more rustic and woodsy type of design. I think that will blend with this area in general terms so I think. Brooks: But this is not small town Wyoming land.., but it's just very, very different flavor from what I see being presented so far... I guess my question would be, when we're doing Famous Dave's, is this rustic wooded look the only look that they have for their restaurant because I believe Alison... Maple Grove. Also this is right next to Highway 5 and all of a sudden we have this rustic, Wyoming look right on Highway 5. Mika Milo: Let me explain one thing only. We are talking about rustic. I would like to point out that... We talking about the creamy, beigey color... So I do think that I feel comfortable that we are close enough to... different. It still has some of that Wyoming flavor... I think there has been a tremendous transformation... Brooks: ... on your last building, you did such a great job of going beyond form.., and even here you're saying, you know you don't want to guided.., self expression but which does not... I mean 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 it was going so great and now it's seems like we've gone back to traditional restaurant... This probably is a, I'll stop because it's probably a moot point anyway because.., but I just wanted to make the point that I think that we're going in one direction and.., this doesn't quite fit with what you were doing architecturally to start out with. Mika Milo: I have just one more thing to say. That this.., they really have to more fit with the product.., are of the Villages is more isolated and... Aanenson: I'm sorry I have to stop there because I think we have to be really careful about that type of thinking because we really tried hard to tie those pieces together architecturally. I understand what you're saying. We had the same discussion on the motel. Different... sitting out there and we worked really hard. We spent a lot of time reworking the hotel to get it to fit in so I'd be really careful about going down that path. It is part of the project. It is... Highway 5. To say well, it's not part of it. That's not true.., staff and Sharmin spent an inordinate amount of time. We did give them a benefit. We were working up until, delivering plans until the last minute. We have changes tonight that we're not.., we want to work with them. We've tried really hard. We got something that was completely different than what our PUD standards are. Sharmin spent a lot of time trying to get it to where we thought it worked. They can do different things. They can. They have. What is acceptable under the standards and that's where we're struggling. We're hoping to get a read from you tonight and that's part of the reason we put it on here tonight is get some direction. We're kind of at a standstill as far as some of these issues, but it is hard. It does, it is important what it looks like. Joyce: This was the same issue as American Inn. This is the same thing. Aanenson: Exactly. That's why what Mika says concerns me because we did spend a lot of time putting together.., standards and the mission statement just as you read, that is important what it looks like.., as a staff we were concerned... Brooks: And I do... architectural standards provided by... by other reasons. Aanenson: Franchises do have a certain style. We understand that but then we have to say well this PUD also has a certain style. Peterson: Well, we can sort out those issues as we continue the evening. Vemelle Clayton: I just want to say one thing. That I agree with Kate that this is an important part of the Village. Just because it's on the edge and it's not a part of the core doesn't mean it's not important. It is also the first thing, and sometimes the only thing, not just this one but everything along Highway 5 for some people will be the only thing that they see. We hope that because of what they see there they'll come into the Village. However, I would like to point out one thing that we haven't brought out and that is, perspective. That we keep this in perspective too because just for example, the 30,000 square foot building that we saw on the south end was six times as big as this and Americlnn is eight times as big as this. So we need to keep the relationship of the mass and the overall impression in line too. This looks as big as the 30,000 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 square foot building, because they put it on the same size paper, and we all get carried away by that. Just looking at it in relationship to the building that we're coming, that we'll be talking about in a few minutes. It's less than half the size. It's in square footage it's one-third. One elevation is a little longer than the other. So the issue is, can the Village absorb this without being disadvantaged? Maybe we're too close to the issue because we've gone through many versions and this one, we feel it can absorb. Does it look a little western, or if you're from the south, does it look like a road house? Which is what they want. They want people to say oh there's a Famous Dave's road house. Can it be adapted to another use? Yeah. One of the things if you're looking for flexibility, then it's better not to have it brick. Brick is a very hard medium to change. Once you have a brick wall, you've got a brick wall unless you simply take the walls down. That's one of our concerns. The other concern is that in considering brick it really doesn't get at what everyone's issue is. The issue really is the design. But we've added a lot of elements to tie it in so I guess what we'd like to have you do tonight is think about, can the Village, because of it's mass, and it's relationship to this relatively small building, can we absorb it? I guess as a developer we're comfortable that we can. It's not perfect but we've come a long way and I don't know that we can make it much different and still have Famous Dave's in town. I'm not 100% sure we can do this and have Famous Dave's in town so. Peterson: Any questions? Blackowiak: Yes Mr. Chairman. Could we pass around the color rendering, the changes so that we can see. I'd like to see up close what has been changed. Peterson: As we're passing that around, this item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open and a second please. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: The public hearing is open. Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Gary Disch: My name is Gary Disch, 8170 Marsh Drive. I'm fairly close to this building that's going to be going in. One of the concerns that I have with the restaurant. I have no problem with Famous Dave's and stuff but I'm very close to it. I'm wondering if my back yard's going to be smelling like barbecue and I'm not the one doing it. You know. We're talking about huge fans, ventilators, whatever. What types of things are they going to do for our neighborhood. You know if we get all the smells all the time, the same thing on the other retail, somebody said there was going to be another restaurant there. I guess do we know what's going in there or are we just building it and see what comes? As far as the brick and stufl~ you know she says we're over budget. Famous Dave's may not build here. I don't believe that. It seems like everybody wants to come to Chanhassen. It's getting to be a very viable space. You're right. There's brick. I like the brick, or the rock face. Why are we cheapening it up I guess. There's brick in Maple Grove. We shouldn't be pressured into making a western house, as what you said. I don't like the design either. Thank you. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Lois Savard: Hi. My name is Lois Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive and the look of this building is very important to me because I'm going to see it right out my back door. I live right on the comer. The looks of the building is fine with me. I like the wood. I like the western look. That doesn't bother me. The restaurant bothers me a little bit. I'm concerned about hours of operation. We like to have our windows open in the summertime. The smell, the barbecue smell is probably nice and that doesn't bother me as much. I'm concerned with the traffic and the noise and the everything that goes with a restaurant. I'm concerned about the view. Which side of the building we're going to see. Are we going to see the back of the building. Where is the trash going to be taken out, etc., etc. We have had the commitment made that we will have some landscaping done in our backyard. What it is we don't know so I don't know how concerned as homeowners we should be with the view. We don't know yet what the landscaping in our back yard will be. So those are my primary concerns. Peterson: Thank you. Aanenson: Let me just clarify exactly where this is... Joyce: So the retail would block any kind of views from their window Kate? Aanenson: There still may be an... Lois Savard: You'd be looking from the east elevation. Audience: The office building would not block her. Peterson: Anyone else? Scott Schlachter: My name's Scott Schlachter. I'm with Famous Dave's. I just wanted to answer a couple of the concerns the residents had as far as the smell. If we are a restaurant, there is going to be some smell from our charbroiler. As far as the smoking of the meat we have specially made ovens and we use about 3 ounces of wood to smoke. It's smoked for a very long time and because they're enclosed in smaller ovens, we don't use.., wood and so there isn't going to be puflk of smoke going up and permeating the neighborhood. Well maybe a little bit but nothing that's going to be huge. Hours of operation. We open at 11:00, Monday through, seven days a week and we close, typically we close at 10:00. We're very family oriented, both for our customers and for our staff2 Any other questions I can answer for anyone? Joyce: Yeah, I have a question. What about, one of the conditions on this is the applicant shall provide detailed sign plans to staff and obviously you don't have today. Could you tell us what, is the sign going to use that logo on the side of your shirt right there? Scott Schlachter: Famous Dave's, the letters, the script is what we'll use on the front of the building. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Joyce: What about the pig? Scott Schlachter: No. Just the script. Joyce: Okay. So that's the sign then, right? Aanenson: Similar to what's shown on the... Joyce: But it will be a separate sign somewhere, correct? Aanenson: Scripted wall sign. Joyce: Okay, so there's no other pylons or anything else around there? Okay. Right, exactly. I'm trying to think of, okay. Generous: The only place it could be is on the directional signs. The little finger. Joyce: Oh, okay. All right. Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Vemelle Clayton: Do you want to talk about the landscaping? Peterson: Pardon? Vemelle Clayton: Did we want to talk about the landscaping a little bit? Or do you not want me to talk anymore? Peterson: Can you do it briefly? Vemelle Clayton: Yes, I can do it briefly. The conditions are listed for Famous Dave's start on page 11 and basically what I have to say affects item number 2. A little bit of item number 3. Item number 4. And item number 5. And that will, essentially I'll say the same thing about the next plan because what it means is that we want to substitute the plan that you've already approved. When the staff reviewed this they didn't realize that the landscaping plan that was in, and it was our fault. We should have given them another copy along with that. The landscaping plan for the peripheral area covers that area and that's why the landscaper for this project didn't include it. Superimpose the landscape plan from the peripheral area onto this plan that we have actually more trees and shrubs shown on this plan.., staff report recommended. Our landscaper 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 misunderstood my instructions and didn't... The only other thing I'll say is... I would like to talk about the trash enclosure but I'd like to save that for the next project. Aanenson: I'm not aware of any discussions. Generous: Yes, this is part of the hardscape, landscape plan. And I just, we didn't have the detail on that area. It does meet the.., provided they put that landscaping in. Aanenson: Sorry. Miscommunication. I wasn't aware of that change... Peterson: Right. Kevin. Joyce: Let me ask one question before I say anything. Now the trash enclosure, we're going to talk about on Building #4 correct, so we don't even have to deal with that right now? Aanenson: It includes both buildings... Joyce: I have mixed feelings about this thing, to tell you the truth. I'm not as adamant as Allyson is about the looks of the building. My concern is the view shed, where this is going to anchor our view shed. Building #3, #2 and #3 that will be on either side of that pond, come in to our Villages on the Pond so it's really two anchors to this whole concept. So as we were talking about the importance of this building, I think it's rather important. Rather than a side note. With that said, I feel like I'm in the position that I was back with the American Inn. I think it can be improved. I don't feel like I have a grasp on the design itself. I know you were talking about, the original thing that we received in our pamphlet, we had some rock facades on there. I certainly liked more. I know there's economics involved here Vemelle but this is what's going to stand out when people look at the thing. I think it's worth the investment. I'm interested in what the other commissioners have to say because I think there can be improvements here and I don't feel like I can really give any direction as far as that. I'm not real comfortable right now. So I would listen to what the other commissioners would have to say. Peterson: With that, LuAnn. Sidney: I think I'm sitting in the confused section too. I have mixed feelings about what has been proposed. I agree that the design of the building could be improved and what I mean by improved is that it might be closer to what's currently in the PUD design character reference book. And I think what we saw today, or this evening is going the other direction. I'd like to see the use of river rock, if possible .... but not in detail the building in Maple Grove and I said, oh that's nice. At least I recognize that it was a nice built building and I guess I would echo the fact that this is going to be an important view on Highway 5, representing the Villages. And I'm wondering if there are other alternatives to what's been proposed as currently shown to us this evening. I'd like to hear what the other commissioners have to say. Brooks: ... I'm pretty adamant about my feelings. I do not feel as though the design fits their reference book, at all. I mean I have mixed feelings too because I appreciate that Famous Dave's 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 as a franchise wants to conform to a certain image. Unfortunately in the spot that it's in, I think that we set a certain tone for the development. I'm not sure that what I'm looking at, I'm not comfortable that this corresponds to it. The other thing is, we reviewed a rustic sign... It was a boarding sign and that was rustic and my understanding was the City Council turned that down because they didn't like it and they thought it... Well this is a lot bigger than a sign. This is a rustic looking building and I don't know if I'm as comfortable with that image and location that it's in considering what the whole purpose of the project... Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I guess I'm not really comfortable with this either. I went up to look at the Maple Grove property. I liked that a lot better than I like this. I heard the comments or the questions, can the Villages absorb Famous Dave's and I think that's the wrong question to be asking so early in the process. I think that when we get around to building 18 or 19 or something, then you can talk about possibly absorbing a smaller building somewhere on the interior and making it fit. But this is right at the comer of Highway 5 and Great Plains. Lots of people are going to be seeing it and it's an early building and it would set the tone so I don't think you want to talk about absorbing a building at this point in the process. So I would not be comfortable with moving forward this evening. I would like to see another revision utilizing more, I guess I liked Maple Grove so more in that direction. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm not going to be voting. I guess I just have a comment. Just a perspective. Famous Dave's is fun. The Villages can't be stodgy. Just stand back and say, tell the developer what design to follow. Buca's? Is that what you're looking for? Give them a restaurant. This is a 5,000 square foot restaurant, and I'm going to stop talking but 5,000 square feet. The design options, they can change these but you should, I think we need to give them some guidance if we don't like this. It's not a 30,000 square foot shopping center. Think about a visual that you have of a restaurant that you'd like here. You should let them know what that is. My only other perspective is, I think when it fits with the lake and other buildings, there is variety. Sameness doesn't, sameness, there's a limit to sameness so I'll stop there. Peterson: My comments I think are pretty simple in the fact that I'm not comfortable with what I've seen and I don't think I've seen enough. Talked about changes. I don't think stafl's up to speed so I do think we need to see it back again. But back again with the comments of my fellow commissioners along with I think architecturally I'm not comfortable with the lines and that are within the guidelines set forth. I mean these, there's a lot of language here, a lot of verbiage that clearly can, a building can be built and hopefully it is Famous Dave's that can meet those architectural standards. You know I think that building materials, even though the colors have changed, I think the same rustic feel is still going to eminent from that. You know the chimney doesn't seem to fit. The metallic roof like it is doesn't seem to fit. The railing doesn't seem to fit. I do see a lot like I did with the Americlnn in that I want to ride my horse up and tie it up to the railing, and I don't think that's the neo traditionallook we're trying to achieve. So I would offer 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 that I'd like to send it back to the drawing board to try to be more creative within the budget constraints that are there. So those are my comments. With that, may I hear a motion? Blackowiak: Okay. I'll recommend the Planning Commission table Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Pond 2nd Addition. Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce: Yeah, I just want to make a quick comment. Being the first to speak I got a little bit of a feel from other commissioners and I have to agree with Ladd. I think this can work. I really do. I think this isn't bad and Ladd picked on something and I agree with. It can't be stodgy. It can't be, once you start becoming too restrictive on this thing, it's going to look phony. Brooks: ...happy medium. Joyce: There is a happy medium. Absolutely. And so my direction here is, I think we tweaked the American Inn. I did not like the American Inn. Okay. I like Famous Dave's a lot better than American Inn when we started. When we started with American Inn, that came a long ways. So I think tweaking here can get this through and I think this needs to be cleaned up before we can send this to the City Council. I think that was the problem here. That there was some cleaning up to do and I think that's all it is. I really do. But I think there's going to have to be a little more investment. I just think with a little bit of rock face there that we had, that river rock, whatever. I think that's the kind of tweaking that's going to go a long way. So that's my comment, but I agree with, I don't want to look at this Villages on the Pond and say oh that was a planned unit. I mean we planned it. I mean you couldn't make a move. Let's have a little bit of fun with it too. Peterson: Other than the rock, give them any more direction? Joyce: Well for instance, there was a suggestion about the screening. Now I didn't see that. I don't know what it's going to look like. I think it's a good idea. If it looks right. I think you're going to want some alfresco type of dining. I did not get that. I mean you know, you can't see that well seeing it. There's another issue that you know I think this whole concept was to bring people out. I mean I love to, except for the neighbors. I don't know, you know we have to put some parameters on that obviously but it'd be fun to have screened in, a place to dine screened in like that. I think that's a good idea. But it wasn't on there. Brooks: Alison... in Maple Grove and it's a little more modem. It's still fun. If we want to be fun, fine. It's still fun. It's still Famous Dave's. But I would say that style fits in a lot better than... St. Paul every day and it's cute. I mean I'll admit it, it really is a cute design but not for where we're putting it. And I think, I mean I understand.., what they've done in Maple Grove... Joyce: You know I've seen Maple Grove and it is nice, but I don't mind this. I don't mind the concept. The look. Even the little bit of western in it. It's just, there has to be more, looking at 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 detail. I mean that's the whole, that's what we've all looked at this thing is we've got to look at detail and what's going to have to go back, I don't' want to sound like a broken record but you go back to American Inn. It was very plain looking. Very ordinary looking. Once they started fiddling around with some of the stufl} I mean it came out to be pretty nice. And I don't think this needs as much tweaking if you will as the American Inn. Peterson: We have a motion and a second. Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table approval on Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Vffiages on the Ponds 2 Addition. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. Peterson: The next one is the office building. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, can I clarify one point? I think we overlooked. Do we need to address the issue of the 70% roof slope before we move on? Vemelle Clayton: That's on the next building. Generous: That's on Building #4. Blackowiak: Okay. So do we need to say anything about that before or do we just want to deal with that? Generous: That's part of your discussion for Building #4. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Vemelle Clayton: Thank you. Before I start, would anybody think that we have summarized your thoughts tonight wrong if we bring back this plan tweaked? Peterson: Define tweaked. I mean. Vemelle Clayton: Well, that's the hard part. But you're not saying start over. Joyce: Oh no. I'm not. Peterson: You've got a dispersion of opinions here. I mean I am concerned as far as architecture and all that. That doesn't necessarily mean start over but I just don't see it fitting in to the... Brooks: It would be nice if the options of other styles... Vemelle Clayton: Well Famous Dave's is evolving and their prototype is the one that you passed every day on West 7th in St. Paul and if you go to Stillwater you'll see the same one. That's the 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 one they'll be building all over the country. This is not the one they'll be building all over the country. Maple Grove is not the one they'll be building all over the country. Aanenson: But every city has different standards. Vemelle Clayton: Right. The one in Minnetonka will look a little bit different, but very similar to the one on West 7th. So there is some, they want some continuity. Brooks: Which is fair but we can still.., see the options... Vemelle Clayton: You wouldn't like them. This is it. I mean this basically what, we changed, that's basically it. Maybe we went too far. Maybe we should go back and simplify it. Well, we didn't, you didn't agree to become architects when you signed on for the Planning Commission so I just wanted to see. I don't think I know, but we'll work on it. With respect to Building #4, again I would like to have Mika Milo talk about the elevations. I'll talk a little bit about the landscaping. We went a little fast over the site plans when we talked about it. I think in the interest of time, because it's now almost 10:00, I won't just talk about the site plan but I certainly will answer questions if you have any. Would like to talk a little bit about the trash enclosure first because we deferred it to this portion. Do we have the colored copy of it somewhere? We have a black and white copy I think. Did I give you a colored one with that? It probably looks a little better. I'm looking for the... The staff report says we had trouble... There didn't seem to be any obvious place that worked that wasn't right in the way of something. It was either in the way of neighbors. In the way of the people looking from Highway 5. Or in the way of the people walking across the ponds. Or walking up from the north. And so we got out some pictures that we had taken from Celebration and they had the trash enclosures right in the middle of the parking lots, and therefore they could have far fewer and it seemed to work for them. It seems to work here we think. We decided that we'd put a roof on it to match, to coincide with, there's a language in our covenants that say that any other, I forget what the wording is but it's in your staff report. Auxiliary structures have to be, have to coordinate with the architectural style of the surroundings. And we put a standing seam roof as we have, will have on many structures in the Village and have on one of the adjacent buildings. I just want you to take a good look at the landscaping now so we don't have to talk about it again. Our thought was that we would hide it quite well with large hedges. Again, the staff didn't have this when they wrote up the report and so stafl] you know using good judgment suggested we put a couple trees there. We've got on our landscaping plan we've drawn in the trees. We'll go either way. Although there is something to be said for a large hedge. With two trees we'll have to have lower plantings, or we can have a large hedge and it's just an option I'll just point out to you. I guess I'd like to have Mika talk about the, oh no. I would like to talk just a little bit, ah however I changed my mind. I'll come back and talk about the roof thing after you've seen the elevations. Then you can have it in perspective. Mika Milo: ... we are going to propose that building to be a building.., more of a traditional, old town. The main street buildings are composed of these taller buildings and.., other than just one single building and one shopping... The building really looks like being composed of three.., three buildings. The north building, middle building and the south building. The north building is the 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 one that is closest to the Highway 5 and the face of that, narrower face of that building is that elevation.., elevation in the north end of that building. The building you have the smaller... And so that is the north building we are talking about and the south building. The forms are different, because they look like the buildings are composed of three buildings. The only thing that is... unifying is the standing seam sheet metal roof that.., north and the south. The middle building looks like a flat roof building from outside. The middle building is also what we're projecting... presenting you almost to seeing north and south. But in general terms... We don't see that directly relationship. We could possibly.., than the sheet metal and that would be really even more difficult. So the way we have it now, there is some homogeneous approach.., here but yet there is a different amount... But there is quite a bit of variety. The north building here is the stucco building. The middle building is the brick building and the south building is the siding... The stucco building or... temporary looking element here that.., but it is very stylistic and more in the modem sense of why it just actually all glass... That will have also the sheet metal roof like the other buildings. At night it will be lit. It's going to... roof of that building will be a signature building. That way, and we have said and that's actually the... The awnings are rather very lively and playful. Stronger colors that will bring... The materials for the buildings are more, not attention crying type of colors and materials but the awnings are really colorful and therefore... On the north end of the building.., glass element, we are suggesting to use that light green glass... It can be a little bit clear glass but I think a light green would be nicer. The other buildings may be also light in the gray or the clear glass.., so they don't like too much to have colors you know and this is... so I think the light green or the light gray would be acceptable for the retail. The north building, the middle building is brick building with some.., stone type of brick which is... Very good quality and... On the one side, on the facing parking we are proposing that those be... On the other side facing the street, that could be a darker green or teal color.., connecting the building with the roof. You see the buildings are in general of terms looking.., on the side facing the Great Plains Boulevard and the parking because this is one building. The north building here. North building here... The south building is the.., wood sided building with very light.., and also darker colored stain for the framing around the windows and we are using a... On the south side, we're using the same, probably the same color of the awning. And the wood siding, and you see at the base of that building we are proposing the.., that one but I think it will be very good idea... The colors are blending and working together even though they're very different. We think they are good combination and give enough spark and interest... We believe that that building will be a good projection of the main street architecture.., and connect the office building that we have planned for the... Vemelle Clayton: I would then like to address just briefly the issue of one person hearing one thing, another person hearing another thing when you're reading the same language, and that's with respect to the overall roof. I, and a whole lot of the rest of us, assumed when we were talking about that condition, the 30/70% condition, we were talking about what you saw when you walked up to a building. Is this looking like it's a flat roof... That was my assumption. And ifI would, I would have said you're crazy if it was anything else. I mean that's just what I understood and the rest of us understood. Stafl} and possibly.., so you'd have their rating before we went through this process. We still can do that. We can take it to them as part of their review when we take the building to them. Nancy's question was, you know I understand what you're saying. Tell me what the down, tell us what the down side would be. And so I said to Kate, 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 that's going to be your role to tell them what the down side is because I guess I don't, just frankly I don't understand why we care what we see from looking down from the air. I'm kind of baffled. I have to say that and I don't mean to be, I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't understand it so. The reality of this particular building is that it wouldn't look like this if we made the roof steeper from... Aanenson: We're not asking.., the other office building was improved... We're not saying you have to... I guess we're saying that was our interpretation... A couple ways we can handle it... Peterson: How much of the HVAC will you see as it's designed right now? Vemelle Clayton: Well this is all, it will all be shielded because this is actually the top of the roof. The HVAC will just be down in here like this. Aanenson: So it acts as a parapet. Vemelle Clayton: A parapet. And someone asked earlier, would you be able to see it from the rest of the Village and the two story buildings. Actually Bob I don't think so because of the grade. Generous: ... four story. Aanenson: Or from the neighbors. Generous: What's residential. Vemelle Clayton: Except that the elevation goes down so dramatically from here. Mika Milo: ... so there is practically, there is no way that anybody will ever see the equipment... Vemelle Clayton: Any questions on that? Joyce: Kate, just to clarify then. If we were to approve this, we would strike condition 6? Aanenson: Maybe it'd be better if you'd add some modification, and again the intent is to screen the equipment so if you want to put, a pitched roof with the intent, as shown on the site plan... mechanical equipment. That would exclude the neighboring residential property. I guess I'm not sure that you're making that interpretation for all the future uses but based on this... Joyce: I mean a PUD, it's kind of like a variance but not a variance type of situation. Aanenson: A variance within the PUD, or interpretation of those standards. So if you agree and acquiesce to say well.., but we want to modify 6 to say. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Joyce: But we're not, my only concern is we don't have a problem with other sites saying well there's precedent set here or something like that. Vemelle Clayton: Now that you've said that, it's in the Minutes and we agree. We'll take each case by case. Maybe it will never come up again, we don't know. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: I have a question. What is the downtown standard? You were alluding to that earlier. Can you clarify that please Bob? Do all buildings have to have 70% roof slope in downtown? Generous: Not downtown. Within the Villages on the Ponds. Blackowiak: Okay. What's the downtown standard, or is there any such thing? I mean you talked about Crossroads Medical Building. Aanenson: Pitched roof element. Blackowiak: Okay, so you don't have a percentage. Generous: We were trying to quantify it within the Villages on the Ponds design standards condition. That's why we put the exception in that created the occupiable space if you will... Blackowiak: But basically you intended to say 70%, not from where you stand on the street but overall? Okay. Joyce: Thanks. Vemelle Clayton: The only other thing I have on landscaping then is number 4 relates to whatever you want to decide with respect to the trash enclosure landscaping. Number three, add an overstory tree and shrubs or hedges at the north end of the parking lot. And I just want to show you what, where did it go? Can you hand me that one. What we have, which is... landscaping which is essentially taken.., there's a slight modification in the.., landscaping which is essentially taken from the.., but there's a slight modification in the boundary here but this was, this plan.., taken from the landscape plan that you approved for the overall project. Aanenson: And we haven't seen those. We'd like to get a chance to review those before they go to Council to make sure... Vemelle Clayton: That would be fine. You do have the plans that we submitted. Aanenson: Sure. We just haven't had a chance. Vemelle Clayton: Yeah, that's right. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Aanenson: If you just want to modify that condition to... we thought the tree element with the trash enclosure would help as far as reducing.., and also kind of create kind of an island out there. That's what we were looking for. And again we're open to discussion on that. That's kind of what we were thinking on that... Peterson: This item is also open for a public hearing. May I have a motion for the same and a second please. Sidney moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. LuAnn. Comments. Sidney: I have a few comments. I had been looking at the design as it's presented and the... drawing and I was a little concerned but after I saw your color sketches and the materials, I really wanned up to the building. I guess I don't have a great concern about the roof at this point. I understand the intent and it does serve the function of the retail building. I do have some concerns however with the element of the silo, and I can understand it might lend some interest but still I don't know if that's the kind of thing I want. That's right at the comer of that entrance to the Villages. So I would suggest maybe something else, I was thinking.., maybe different landscaping or some other elements other than a silo because to me that's again, back to the Famous Dave's argument of it looks kind of western. This looks kind of farmstead. I'd like to have it more European looking if possible. And I guess about the trash enclosure. I guess I'm a little concerned about having that as an island. I really don't like to drive into a parking lot and see that type of thing in the middle of a parking lot. I'd rather see a tree, or some type of other piece of plantings. And also that type of enclosure might work in Florida, but I'm not sure at 30 below in Minnesota somebody's going to be willing to tote trash out that far into the parking lot. I can see people just kind of putting it outside the door for you know, a convenient time so I'd question that as one of the things in the plan. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, can I comment on that? We had a lot of internal discussions on that, and maybe I can tell you where we ended up on that. If you look at the retail building, it's almost a triple sided building. You've got the presence on Great Plains, which you want to have... You've got the presence on Highway 5 and you've got the other entrance road coming in... It really limits the design of the building, what they're trying to do... but the other one that really gets difficult.., so in putting it in the middle, we really... It's nice to have it inside the building... but for the retail building, that's really tough to have the look we're trying to get there and still accomplish that. If anybody's got any suggestions, we spent a lot of time on this. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Joyce: Have you had any problems with... ? Aanenson: No. Haven't. And they have to walk it across. Peterson: There's one by Subway too. Aanenson: Wendy's is actually between the buildings. Like some of them we have been requiring to actually put in the building. That's a first choice. To try and put it in the building. But because of the presence we're trying to create with the awnings and that, it just seemed to detract from the building. We struggled with it. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Brooks: Well I like this building. Now this is a building that I think of as fun. This is more fun, and I actually like the glass silo. I think this is where we're taking an element of American architecture and doing something funky with it. So instead of taking a ranch building and making it look like a ranch building, we're taking a feature from our past and playing with it, without I think... Disneyesk. I mean there's no neon involved here. We're making a glass silo and I think that's cool. I think you want to do something fun. I think it's fun without doing the main street replica thing. But I have to say that I really liked this building and this is the type of design that when we talk about Villages on the Ponds, that I think we're looking for. Not Disney World. It's funky and it's still a small town feel. It's pedestrian friendly, and it has some interesting elements that you don't see in other places. So those are my comments. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I agree. I like the building. I'm not an architect but I'm just the type of person that I know what I like. Famous Dave's, I didn't have a lot of afl'ection for but this I like. I like the silo. The issue of the trash enclosure. I don't think there's a good place to put it on the building. So in the middle of a parking lot, although it might not be my first choice, I think is a good compromise. The landscaping I will let staff and the people work out because that's just something that's going to have to be decided later but I think that that's a good spot for the trash. I don't think you want to put it on the building because just like Kate said, there's not a good place to put it and the building is nice the way it is. I like it. The 70% roof area, I would tend to side with what staff said. In other words that overall it should be 70% sloped but I don't even know ifI want to tackle that issue. I think City Council can have a work session and can work it out so I will kind of I guess defer to what they think but my interpretation would be 70% overall and not 70% from the street because if it would have been 70% from the street, they would have said 70% from the street and not made exclusions for roof patios or that type of thing so I can see where the issue is but I don't even think I want to get into that. I like it overall. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, it's a neat building. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Peterson: Beat that. Joyce: I was going to say. This is exactly what I envisioned the Villages on the Ponds. It's great. I think three facades. I really do, and that leads up to my, the business about the 70%. The interpretation I had is what the staff said. However, I can definitely see putting in a condition allowing this to avoid that because I think it would deter, if we forced the 70%. I like this very, very much. I wouldn't want to fool with it. I like the silo I'm sorry to say LuAnn. I think it's cool. I really do. I think it's a real nice, it could be kind of a trademark or something of the, of our Villages on the Pond. I think the trash enclosure's kind of neat too. I would suggest we really do a nice job on it. I don't know how you do a nice job on trash enclosures but if it works we can use it in other places. But I think it's a good idea. I mean it's what this is all about. It's trying to find different ways of handling things and the form to functionality situation so I liked the idea of the trash enclosure. I suggest that you really do a good job on it, however you do a good job on trash enclosures, I think will work. Great job. Peterson: I also think it's a great building. My first impression was I didn't like the silo. And the second impression was I liked it so I think it's going to be one of those controversial things where half of your audience is going to think it's great and half of your audience is going to think it's just totally off the wall. As it relates to the roof line, I think it works in this case if properly screened. If it's not properly screened.., work. With regards to the trash enclosure, it's proven that it will work not connected to the building. You know I'm leaning more towards shrubs for what it's worth. I think that if your primary reason Kate was heat, 105 degrees outside, whether it's sunny or cloudy isn't going to make a great deal of difference if there's shade.., hide it more pleasantly with the shrubs. With that, can I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: Well I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97-12 for a 14,849 square foot building on Lot 2, Block 1, Villages on the Pond 2nd Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 7/23/97, subject to the conditions 1 through 11. Adding onto condition 3 that the staff review the landscape plan. Is that right Kate? Aanenson: Yes. Actually it's 3 and 4. Joyce: Adding onto 3 and 4, the staff review all the landscape plans. Kate could you help me on item number 6, or condition number 6. To provide a pitched roof element to screen equipment and then. As shown on site plan. Aanenson: Dated September 3rd. Joyce: I just want to make sure this is, going site by site on this. That it's just this project only. Aanenson: ... remaining silent on it, I mean the general interpretation on the 70%... Joyce: Exactly. Thank you. Okay? That's mine. Is there a second? 44 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Sidney: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #97-12 for a 14,849 square foot building on Lot 2, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2''4 Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 7/23/97, subject to the following conditions: Increase width of landscape islands. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed with the trees. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security required by the agreement. Add an overstory tree and shrubs or hedges at the north end of the parking lot area and have staff review the landscape plan. Add lwo trees to parking lot landscaping in landscape islands adjacent to trash enclosure and have staff review the landscape plan. 5. Add planter boxes to west and south sides of building. Provide a pitched roof element to screen the rooftop equipment as shown on the plans dated September 3, 1997. Provide the City with a detail on the trash enclosure for approval. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within lwo weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 10. The sidewalks and trails on the site shall be constructed in conjunction with the overall site improvements and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless inclement weather conditions prohibit. 11. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 obtaining the appropriate sewer, water and plumbing permits from the City's Building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE~ CHAPTER 20~ ARTICLE XXX~ TOWERS AND ANTENNAS~ TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY MOBILE TOWERS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff'? Conrad: So tell me where it can be located. It said non-residential. Aanenson: So it's consistent with the underlying district. So we don't allow those in a residential district except for city parks, so they're not allowed in any residential single family district. But they are allowed in city parks .... the City Council can do a lease. That would still be the... Conrad: But it's on a truck. So it's located in a parking lot. Aanenson: Well whatever the site's going to be. It's in close proximity while they're under construction. Conrad: And normally there's a fence around all our sites. So there's a fence around the truck. Generous: Mr. Chairman. The site that was on Quattro Drive, they had a... Eden Prairie water tower and really it's a trailer. Aanenson: Yeah. They're not fenced. We did have one in the City, right. Council... putting it in the ordinance someplace. We've had other people request to test the site before they put in an application and want to put in a temporary one... Conrad: It just seems strange to me that we get a 90 foot tower and a trailer that we can just drop oflk Peterson: Modem technology. I saw it. It was there. Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: They have to do the telemetrics to see if the site works first. Conrad: And I can understand that, yeah. But do we allow them 120 days? 46 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Aanenson: Well that's up to 120 days. If it's more than that, they have to come back through the process for an interim use. Conrad: And you feel that's right? Aanenson: In surveying... Joyce: They did it with that problem we had over. Aanenson: Correct, on Quattro. Generally just like to test on one of the City's water tower site. A couple days to set that up temporarily. But this one being a situation where testing would be a few days. This would be, if there's.., when they're under construction, the other one is to test it. Blackowiak: I like Ladd's comment about the fence though. In terms of liability, don't we need to be concemed with. Aanenson: They still have to meet the setback requirements. Conrad: So the truck has to be parked the appropriate number of feet away from the side yard or whatever. Aanenson: Those underlying standards but because it's not permanent, you don't really make an investment in a fence if it's not permanent. And there's still some liability issues. Whoever the underlying property owner is. We had the same discussion when we went through it before. The underlying property owner, if they're going to put it on there, there's some insurance liability that they would take on... It's not on our property so there's liability to the underlying property owner. And that's.., on a business property, it's their responsibility because they're allowing it on their property. So that would be negotiated with whoever has the.., some security. So it's really not an issue of the City, as far as that point. If it was a lease on our property, then it'd be an interest of the City and we would have them, if it was a park or something like that, we would have them... Peterson: Other questions? This item is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open it for the same and a second please. Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners? 47 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Joyce: I don't know. The 120 days I can see that being a little bit long. But otherwise it's fine. That's fine. I'm fine with it. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: Yeah, it seems reasonable. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: Well I would agree that 120 days is kind of long but... Aanenson: ... standards were for somebody to construct one. If they were given a site... That was given to us by the industry. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I'm fine with it. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I have a problem with it. Peterson: Do you know what the problem is? Conrad: It just seems real strange. One, I'm not wild about towers in general. And lwo, we're putting that on wheels now and. I just, well yeah. You put the word cow in there and then. I don't know. It's like, why. I can see the testing. I can see a limited testing time period. That makes sense. 120 days to me does, why do we need the tower up? They survive so far. I have a cell phone and I just, you know. I don't really have a problem with it ever. To put a tower on wheels and just park it without the same requirements we had before. Joyce: Well it would have the same requirements, wouldn't you? Aanenson: It has to meet the setback requirements. They have to get a building permit. It still have to meet the wind loads. The reasons these are coming about, for instance.., or in a situation where the Council approves one, or Eden Prairie approved one but we worked to get it off site. We didn't want it... and in assisting in that we allowed them to put the cow on the site in order to get it in a better location. So that was advantageous for us. To have this leverage... Conrad: Okay. I can hear the... Aanenson: Yeah, that was one address. I don't think we'd want temporaries all over the place. Conrad: And we're not going to, right? 48 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Aanenson: I hope not. Actually the one. Conrad: We're not opening, seriously .... we're going to have 5 or 10 mobile. Aanenson: The good news is NSP is not allowing them on their high tension power lines. We've got one that's coming.., not adding another tower. So they've had enough pressure... Peterson: I don't have any additional comments. Brooks moved, Sidney seconded to approve an amendment to the City Code, Chapter 20, Article XXX, Towers and Antennas, to allow for temporary mobile towers. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: Talk about the meeting on the 17th. We'll be talking about the Bluff Creek plan. ... element of the comprehensive plan. We do have a car dealership application down in the BF district. The one that the Council approved.., resolved on Famous Dave's that will be back on. With a complete application. That's what will be on the 17th. And again we do have Mr ..... coming for the workshop so we may start a little earlier. Actually the 1st is the work session. We'll probably meet somewhere. Blackowiak: 6:00 then or something? Okay. I will not be here on the 17th. I will be gone. Just so you know. On the record. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 20, 1997 as presented. Chairman Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 49