Loading...
PC 1996 08 21CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, JeffFarmakes, Bob Skubic and Kevin Joyce MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson and Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer, Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner; John Rask, Planner I; and Phillip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMNARY PLAT REQUEST OF LOTS 805-811 AND LOTS 853-859, CARVER BEACH INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND LOT AREA AND DEPTH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT 900 HIAWATHA DRIVE, STEVE SCHMIEG. Public Present: Name Address Charles W. Steve Schmieg Wallace Christensen Matt Jacobs Cosmo Kappenman Gayle Odette Carol & Donald Zalusky 2653 Eitel Road 487 Ridge Lane, Chaska 1001 Western Drive 921 Western Drive 900 Western Drive 900 Western Drive 960 Western Drive John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? I have a question. John, can you put that back up? Where will the driveway go off of, is it Westin? Rask: Yeah, it's actually in this location here. There will be some trees. I think it's the applicant's intent to move those trees. They aren't very large so they will need to be relocated. There may also be some tree loss due to utilities being extended to the house. Mancino: Will utilities go underneath the driveway or besides the driveway? Rask: Yeah, that I'm not sure of. Hempel: Typically the utilities are extended along the sides of the driveway. They periodically will settle... Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: And do it all in one place. Rip out, etc. Okay, thank you. Another question that I had. In your recommendations, one of the recommendations is that the deck on the existing home, number 4 shall be removed to comply with the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement. Is that the entire deck or does that mean that they could construct or take out part of the deck and still meet the rear setback? Rask: No, that would pretly much be the entire deck. The house, the actual home itself sits I think it's 33-34 feet from the rear properly line so they would lose the deck as a result of the subdivision. Mancino: Okay. And obviously the fence is moved also. Rask: Yes. That would also have to be moved. Mancino: Thank you. Joyce: I have one minor point. There was, I saw on the proposed properly a little shed there. Do we need to mention that at all there in the conditions? It didn't look like a very permanent fixture or anything like that. Rask: Yeah. If there is one on Parcel B, it would have to be removed prior to recording of the subdivision. Joyce: Is it necessary to put that in with the conditions? Skubic: John, the properties to the east and west, are they, is there a potential that there will be lwo homes on those also? Or is that already subdivided? Rask: Yeah, that's a good question. There are, if you look, the properties across the street on Western Drive on the north side, there's about five of these 20 foot wide lots wide so there's about a 100 feet of frontage. They have about 20,000 square feet in lot sizes. That would be all of these so it would be difficult to further subdivide those. In addition, they only had the frontage on the one street. This street was vacated or right-of-way was vacated so if they were to subdivide, they would be looking at a private street situation. The parcels to the west here, again Western Drive, where Hiawatha Drive currently stops about right here. This portion has been vacated. Because of topography. Audience: What portion has been vacated? Mancino: Where the asphalt ends? Rask: Where you see these striped lines here. It has all been vacated. The street is actually, it ends at about this portion... 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: Excuse me. Can you wait for just one second for the public hearing and then you can come up and ask any questions that you have. Rask: So it is, there may be some subdivision potential in here but it appears that because the way the houses are situated on those lots, that it would be difficult to further subdivide. Some of these parcels are only six wide, or five wide so you're looking at 100-120 as opposed to 140. So you'd be dealing with probably 12,000 square foot lots. And this one does the frontage on both streets. On improved streets so you do get that access point right there without doing a private street. Skubic: Would not the property immediately to the east also have frontage on both the streets? Rask: Yeah. That one, actually there's a house. This is a lot here and this is a lot right here. So you're dealing with three lots and no they wouldn't be able to further subdivide. Skubic: Okay, thank you. Mancino: Would you keep that, you can certainly turn off the light but obviously we're going to have some questions on this. Thank you. Is the applicant here, and do you wish to address the Planning Commission? Steve Schmieg: My name is Steve Schmieg and I am... proposing the subdivision. I've had the property listed for sale.., and honestly we got more calls for the vacant lot than the house... We do intend to remove as few trees as possible. There are a few trees in the driveway that would have to be removed, although they're smaller and there are a couple of other smaller trees that are small enough... As far as where the house pad goes, there is one tree that will definitely have to be removed. Possibly two but as such the property itself, a house will fit in there really very nicely without changing the.., much at all. As far as... if it conforms to the neighborhood, I know there was a concern that... The existing house was vacant so it is currently rented and... And the new house that's proposed... Mancino: So you're not selling the lot, you're going to build on it and then sell the house and lot? Steve Schmieg: Yeah, that's correct. Mancino: Those are your intentions? Steve Schmieg: And I believe that's...just under 1,200 square feet. A split entry. Wanting to keep it around the 130, between 130 and 135 range. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions at this point? Thank you very much. Can we have a motion to open and second for a public hearing please? Joyce moved, Fannakes seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come up now. Ask any questions. Make any comments that you may have on this proposal. Matt Jacobs: I'm Matt Jacobs and I live 921 Western. I would be the property just to the west of the proposed subdivision. First of all I want to try and clear up the issue of the road behind you. ... understand that... Mancino: John, could you go into that more specifically about where the road, Westin. No, Hiawatha actually ends. Rask: Actually the road, the right-of-way is still in place behind this gentleman's properly, here's 921 right here. Mancino: That's Mr. Jacob's properly? Rask: Correct. It's been vacated up to this point where you see the stripe. This part of the road's been vacated. This... public right-of-way. The road itself, the pavement itself goes just past the park land here so beyond this, it is... This home right here receives access from Hiawatha. There was a variance granted for this person to construct a home here. Probably within the last couple years. We did give access over that public right-of-way. Matt Jacobs: You did give access but when we went to the meeting... Mancino: It's still existing gravel. Yes. That's what I saw too. Dave, can you comment on that? Do you know the situation? Hempel: Madam Chair, yes... Matt Jacobs: The other thing... I've been out here for 26 years. The reason I moved out here was for the larger lots and I don't feel.., selling their homes and everything... For somebody to come in there and subdivide... I don't see why we should be subdividing.., properly that's been in the family for years and years and the amount of... Mancino: It does look to me John as if there are some properties to the west that even could be subdivided. That are lots. I want to say lwo doors down or something that are big enough so they could have 15,000 square foot lots. And that is correct isn't it? Rask: Well, it depends on the house placements. Also again, with the other, the current street located behind them, they would have to bring in a private street or with flag lots so again you're going to lose a lot of properly for the driveway access. Also some of them are just smaller. They're not as wide. They're 5 or 6 lots wide whereas this one is 7. This one was at 14,000 so you take away another 20 feet, you're down to 12. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: So between size and infrastructure, it will limit the amount of subdivision that's going to happen in the neighborhood? Rask: Yeah. Mr. Jacobs may have some subdivision potential. It's kind of tough to tell. And his house is located further back on the lot so it would be hard to split it right down the middle as this one is occurring. Matt Jacobs: ... where do we stop it? 60 x 100 or 100 by... Mancino: That's a good question. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. It's before us tonight. Anyone else wishing to ask any questions. Please come up. State your name and give us your address please. Wallace Christensen: My name is Wallace Christensen. I live at 1001 Western Drive... We moved out there in 1960. At that time the whole Carver Beach was subdivided or was all platted by 20 x 100 lots. That was the size of the lots. All through the whole area. Everybody that had 5 or 10 lots or something like that to make a buildable area.., east of us, east ofNez Perce there are quite a few smaller properties. Now west ofNez Perce... and every lot had to be a minimum of 150,000 feet. 1,500 feet. Now I hear you're debating this.., and I have no use for that at all. I sat here when they had the Council meeting on moving that house in and a woman on the deal.., and she'd just come from Florida, well this is just... Is this the same way? I'd like an answer. Mancino: No it isn't. Thank you for your comments. Cosmo Kappenman: My name is Cosmo Kappenman. I'm at 900 Western Drive. Directly across the street from this properly. We moved in about 3 months ago. We just bought the house and we really like looking at all those trees. I'd hate to see if one of them would go. I've looked at the lot, looked at the space. I'm an engineer myself..., the way I see it, and the weather that we've got, those trees have to be 20 feet from the structure. You're going to lose more mature pine trees that have been there for years. The other question is, is $130,000.00 in that area, I know we wouldn't sell that house for $130,000.00. Our house. I know that the neighbors to the west... I think it's depreciating the value because of the cost of the house. I think the houses from that point on, it's kind of the dividing point right there on Nez Perce to the west. As you go west, you've got some beautiful homes in that area and $130,000.00 on that small lot, I don't think, I think depreciates the neighborhood. I don't care if it's me or not. The other thing is, I think I've probably had as many people turn around in my driveway looking at this lot when it was for sale as he's probably had call him and their comments were too small. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Don Zalusky: I'm Don Zalusky. I live at 960 Western Drive... I lived in a neighborhood in Plymouth that was an older neighborhood that was kind of disorientated when they were planning it. And there's a lot of lake cottages and really what it turned out to be after a certain amount of time was it turned out to be a hodgepodge of new homes, old homes. People squeezing a house in anyplace they could because there was some land there... So and it didn't really improve the Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 neighborhood. It actually.., affordable housing. I wouldn't even include my house... I looked for a large lot. Something I could, ifI wanted to add on to, where I could buy it reasonably and then I could add onto it you know as the family grew. And I have a lot big enough to do that now. I won't have to bother with any City Council meetings or anything like that to get a variance. Recently I did some... I see this here as, it's obviously to everybody... I mean there isn't anybody here that can deny that. Now what you have here is you have two homes, both under the minimum requirement for land square footage. And now supposing a family moves into either one of those homes, and I understand that the existing home is a small two bedroom. I can be corrected, if I'm wrong. If these people wanted to add onto that home.., we're going to have all assemble again. I need an extra bedroom or I need a family room and you know chances are you'd have compassion on the guy... Well either one them, it could happen to either one. I guess for those reasons, I guess I'm not in favor of it because I've seen that sort of thing from the.., in Plymouth. You're going to find people that maybe don't want to include their own... Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Gayle Odette: Hi. My name's Gayle Odette. I live at 900 Western Drive. I'm the person... The people that live here, they care about their surroundings. They care about the upkeep of their homes and these are all homes that... If you put a small home on this lot directly across from where I live... Also if you look at the research about people that live in small areas.., so I'm concemed... Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come up in front of the Planning Commission at this point? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close, and a second, the public hearing please. Fannakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments and discussions from commissioners. Jefl2 Farmakes: I don't see anything new here. You see this with large developments and you see this with subdividing lots. Some older developments.., opportunity to subdivide based on... in the last few decades with the minimum requirements allowing them to subdivide their lots. I do have I guess a concern.., staff has looked at this. It is one of the criteria in the variances is that they... profit from the variance and that's a condition that.., reasonable use of developing their land. Again that's legalese and that's the reason... I don't see that issue addressed here in my report. I would be inclined to say that this meets the code and the rules with the exception of that. The fact is in Chanhassen, if you have 15,000 square feet, or in close proximity to that, you're best to ask a variance if it fits in with that criteria. It seems like a reasonable use of the property. That area's an older area so it isn't, it's quite... Different sized homes. I'm going to let the City Council wrestle with this because there is no solution. The issue of a small house next to a large house, all you have to do is read the paper and see how that.., and the City is going to have to find a way to resolve that. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: So you would be in favor of granting the variance at this point? Farmakes: Reluctantly. Mancino: Reluctantly. Farmakes: Yeah. Mancino: Thank you. Kevin. Audience: Could you explain that a little bit louder here so we can hear. Did he say he was in favor of this? Mancino: Yes. Yes he did. Audience: What's his name? Jeff Farmakes: My name is Jeff Farmakes. I live at 7100 Utica and I don't have a dog. Audience: I'll make sure you don't get on the Council. Joyce: Generally I'm pretty leery of variance requests. I'd like to try to keep things as... to our comprehensive plan and what kind of rules were set aside. I was going out to this properly. I think it is a unique situation that you have here with the placement of the properly. I think that vacant lot really doesn't do much to the character of your neighborhood either, is my opinion. Mancino: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed, and there are no comments please from the audience at this point. While we make our comments. Thank you. Joyce: And I feel that the staff has looked at this. They're going to make sure the setbacks are adhered to. The density of the area fits into the comprehensive plan. The only properly I can see it actually impacting would be the properly just east of there at 881 Western Drive, which can actually see the house. There's some excellent buffers there...north of there is looking at their garage. So what you're talking about is whether you want another home in your neighborhood or not. I guess I just don't have a problem with putting another home in that neighborhood. It is a variance that I sort of have a variance using the variance but like Jeff said, the properly owner has a right to ask for it and I think I would give him the go ahead to allow the variance. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I agree with the previous commissioner's comments. I'm reluctant to see a variance because I think the point was made, where do you draw the line. Next time it might be a little smaller and how do we decide what's too small and what's acceptable and what's not. I don't know how to do that. However, I think staff has made the point here that this is not a precedence. That it does fit the character of the neighborhood so anyway, there isn't a great deal of potential 7 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 for further subdivision. I don't hear that there won't be any but it sounds like it's of a limited subdivision. So I am in favor of this. Mancino: Okay. Any other comments? My comments are much the same. I did go out and spend some time walking around. It is a small variance. It's 14,000 and I thought that it felt to me as I walked around the neighborhood, compatible in the area. I think that if the builder, developer keeps as many trees as possible, and we do have a conservation easement, that it will not detract from the lot. But I also very seriously and sincerely hear the concerns of the other neighbors in the area. And I know that when you buy a home in an area and there is a lot size, you expect the others to be at that lot size, except if someone does come in and ask a variance. And this is one very subjectively I do think works. With that I have a couple more questions and that is for John. In the conditions. Number 2. It says full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of the building permit. What are full park and trail fees at this time? Just so we have an idea. Rask: Park I believe is $1,200.00 and trail is four, four something. Hempel: Madam Chair, the total combination of park and trail fees are $1,467.00. Mancino: Okay. So they will be paying that, or whatever is current at the time of the building permit. My other question John is for utilities we're asking for a $3,500.00 guarantee payment on condition number 10. I'm assuming that that is the sewer hook-up and the water hook-up, which totals right about 2575. And the additional thousand is for the road work? Is that correct? Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that. We placed this condition in there to guarantee the extension of the sewer and water.., which is located approximately in the center of the street. We will extend it at that point to the properly line so at that point the properly line... That's to guarantee that work and also the street restoration. As part of the building permit application, the applicant will also have to pay a hook-up charge for the sewer and water... $1,075.00 for sewer and $1,475.00 for water. Those will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. Mancino: Okay. And also street repair is part of that? Hempel: The $3,500.00 escrow that we're requiring... Mancino: Thank you. I needed that amount clarified for me. Those are all the questions that I have, and comments. May I have a motion please? Farmakes: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subdivision and lot area and depth variances based on the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions in the staff report dated August 21, 1996. 1 through 10. Mancino: Is there a second? Joyce: I'll make a second. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: The motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the subdivision and lot area and depth variances based on the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: A tree conservation easement shall be granted over Lot 805. Tree removal limits shall be set at 20 feet from the proposed building pad. A tree removal, erosion control, and drainage plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for Parcel B. 2. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the time of building permit application for Parcel B. 3. The existing fence shall be relocated onto Parcel A or removed from the properly. 4. The deck on the existing home shall be removed to comply with the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. The applicant will be required to clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been fully restored, re-vegetated, and removal is authorized by the City. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with disc-mulched seed, wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of grading in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 8. The applicant is responsible for water quality fees of $256 and water quantity connection charges of $634 as per the City's SWMP plan. Construction hours shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity shall take place on Sundays or holidays. 10. An escrow shall be submitted to the city in the amount of $3,500.00 to guarantee payment for extending utility services and repairing the street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: The motion does pass. This goes onto the City Council, and when is that meeting? Aanenson: September 6th. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: September 6th. For those of you that were here tonight, September 6th will be the date that it goes in front of the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING: LOTUS REALTY/ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH IS REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 96~288 SQ. FT. CHURCH AND SCHOOL FACILITY ON 8.03 ACRES AND A SOCCER FIELD ON 2.48 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED VILLAGES ON THE PONDS PROJECT WHICH IS REQUESTING A REZONING TO PUD AND IS LOCATED EAST OF GREAT PLAINS BLVD. AND SOUTH OF HWY 5~ PROPOSED LOTS 10 AND 11~ VILLAGES ON THE POND~ ST. HUBERTS CATHOLIC COMMUNITY. Public Present: Name Address Dave Bangasser A1 Klingelhulz Dave Nickolay Greg Larsen A1 Herzog Fr. Steve Ulrick Richard Anderson St. Hubert's 8600 Great Plains Blvd. 8500 Tigua Circle 8151 Grandview Road 1191 Homestead Lane St. Hubert's, 7707 Great Plains Blvd. 8210 Grandview Road Bob Generous presented the staff report on this issue. Mancino: Thank you. I just want to clarify that recommendation 14 is on page 21 that says, site grade shall not exceed 2 i/2 to 1 slopes unless a retaining wall is being used. Is that correct? Generous: That's correct. Mancino: Okay. So that is one. At this time, are there any questions with staff'? To stafl~ Joyce: Bob, did you say you were going to seek some alternatives to the soccer field? Are you going to show that tonight? Generous: They don't have alternatives. What they're showing, they could slide it over and it might fit on Lot 11. That one where it's located now. But the trade-off is to save the wetland area. Joyce: You're talking about not using Lot 11. You're saying there are other locations for it that you're considering? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Generous: We had seen the sketch plan. I don't know if the applicant has it now and if he's done the engineering the detail work. Joyce: So I guess I'm confused on, the condition seems kind of open ended. Are we going to make a decision on whether the soccer field's going to on Lot 11 tonight? Is that correct? On condition number 4. Mancino: Or make the recommendation that we send up an alternative to the City Council to see it on the north side of the trail, which is up in the parking lot area. Because we haven't seen that. Bob, what is the hard surface? Oh excuse me. Did you want to reply to what I just said? Generous: No. Mancino: What is the hard surface coverage of the site plan? Generous: Oh I didn't calculate that. It was consistent with what we had for the entire development. Mancino: I know that 70 is an average we have to keep in that. I just want to make sure that what we don't do as we're reviewing these site plans to put the onus on the last property, etc. so if we could please have that available for City Council. I think after we hear the applicant and their presentation, Dave I'd like you to respond a little bit to the road and closing down the old TH 101 and Great Plains Blvd. How that will work, etc. That would be helpful. Thank you. Is the applicant here and do you wish to present? Dave Bangasser: Good evening. I'm Dave Bangasser. I'm a member of the St. Huberts Building Committee. We've also got.., other members of St. Hubert's. My intention would be to be somewhat brief. I would like to walk you through to get a feeling for.., particularly our site plan and elevations. And after that.., questions. I think this is a plan that you're all very familiar with... As Bob's already pointed out, the location of the church and school and gymnasium area. I just want to talk a little bit about where we see parking happening and therefore... We only see three major parking areas, which is a combination of parking that's owned and pretty much exclusively St. Hubert's parking and then shared parking. That parking is this southerly flat area here. The northern lot area and then a west lot area across church plaza here. The parking which St. Hubert's would own and would not be intended for shared parking is approximately this area here. This area here and that's it. The balance would be shared parking. So with that we really have three major approaches to the facility. So we've tried to design each of those entrances so it doesn't feel like the back door. We've really tried to make it feel like you're approaching a prominent entrance from all three facades, and you'll see that in the elevations here in a minute. On our particular site plan we've got, and it's shown in a little bit more detail, the entrances we talked about. The west entrance that is off of church plaza here. We intend to highlight the entrance with a trellis feature that our actual entrance is back off of the west wall of the church, and the primary purpose of that is we want all three of the major church entries to basically allow traffic to flow into the narthax gathering area and then the entire congregation would go into the church together in one location. So we've got that end is tucked back in where the narthax is and 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 we're expressing that entrance with a trellis. It's a wood trellis. It's intended that we're going to plant Boston ivy and clematis.., summer time, spring, summer time, fall create kind of a natural entry into the last entry. The very outer portion of that trellis is going to be constructed with... stone pillars on either side. The balance of the trellis would be, we envision a cedar type of an open structure. We are again we're following that same trellis entrance feel on the north entrance. However this area is intended to be expansion area. It's planned to be a future fellowship hall which we had hoped we're able to construct in perhaps 3 to 5 years. And because of that future expansion area, our intention would be not to go ahead and carry that trellis all the way to the entry but again to express that with essentially two sections of that trellis. The west entry is really at the base of our bell tower, which I'll explain in a minute when we talk about the elevations. We talked about three major entrances. That deals primarily with church. We do in fact have a fourth entrance which is related to the education center in this area. Our final review as far as circulation goes, we envision buses coming in from this southerly access point and lining up along this sidewalk to drop the kids ofl~ We also in addition to that got a car drop off so parents that are dropping off their kids can be separated from the bus parking. Our intention, our thought would be that we try to control traffic in a manner similar to what we currently do with directional signage, such that this area where the buses are going to be located would be strictly for buses that during our school day we'd try to keep car parking out of that area. We do have drop ofl~ at each of our other entries here as well so that it's convenient to drop individuals off without blocking up traffic. Mancino: What's your expected enrollment? Dave Bangasser: We are currently at about 320 children. We have 18 classrooms and we've got about 25 students per classroom would be our intention. At some point if things continue to grow in Chanhassen as they have been, it's possible that we may need to have this education center. If that does happen we've tried to design that into the site plan so we're not in a similar situation now where we can't expand to meet our needs. Mancino: So this building will be fulfilling your current needs? Dave Bangasser: It will fulfill, currently we're at 320. We think that once we build this facility it would take us up to about 500. Really we're talking about the day school and that's just a portion of our education needs. We've got a much larger religious education program with kids that don't go to St. Hubert's day school are encouraged to attend the religious education programs so in the evenings, primarily Wednesday evening, we've got a very large need for religious education classrooms so each of the typical classrooms will be divisible with an operable type partition into two religious education classrooms. Other points that are probably worth noting, we talked some as part of the PUD discussion about the playground area. We really envision this entire area right here as playground area. If we were to expand this area, we'd use that as playground area so we'd basically see this as green space that playing for the time being we'd locate any equipment off that area. I think the area down here that we had talked about, I think in Dave's report about 2 1/2 to 1 versus 2 to 1. I think in our site plan, it was hard to tell exactly what our intentions were but our intentions would be to maintain a 2:1 slope and let grow natural and once we establish our vegetation we feel that that would work very well. We were able to... you can see in the grading 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 plan, save some additional trees belween the school and the Anderson home right here. This landscaping plan does not depict that but the grading plan that we submitted does depict that so we were able to maintain some additional trees along with that buffering in this area. Are there any questions on the site plan? Mancino: Any questions? I think I will wait until you're done, thank you. Dave Bangasser: These are preliminary elevations which I think you've seen in your submittal packet. Mancino: Not in color. Dave Bangasser: Color makes a little bit of difl'erence in trying to describe what we're trying to do here. We are trying to create some identifying features, some landmarks if you will with the facility and clearly one of the foremost landmarks is our cross and lantern area here. We are in the middle of a development that is surrounded by 2 and 3 story buildings and that we have identified what the purpose of this facility was, it's a church and so we've got a cross basically centered in the middle of the church facility. That cross also lines up with the main access of the park and drive across church plaza. So the access of that plaza in which the developer intends to make a feature, a strong access, we lined up with our cross. This lantern area is an area that is really used initially to support our cross and then we intended to infill within that support some translucent glass. Callow, if you're familiar with that product. It's a product that you can't visually see and distinguish what's behind it but it does allow light through. Our plan would be to provide back lighting so that at night you can light that up and it will just provide somewhat of a beacon for the community, kind of identify the church again. The bell tower's another significant design theme that we've incorporated. It's really the central focal point for all three of the entries that come into the church. If you line up the access with all three entries, it leads you to the bell tower. These are three of the original bells from 1903-1904. They are currently sitting on that church property and it's been a goal for quite some time to mount those in a bell tower and we're counting that in this design. Mancino: And when are you going to play the bells? Dave Bangasser: I don't know that we've figured that out. Mancino: Okay. Dave Bangasser: Beyond that we are looking at, although this diagram might lead you to believe otherwise, the roof of the church area is intended to be a cedar shake roof. We do have sky lights over the baptismal font at the entry of the church, as well as over the sanctuary area. The bell tower is a feature that we intend to create as a dominant solid foundation for those bells. We hope that if... allows to construct that bell tower out of the same.., field stone that we're looking at using as an accent to the entry points at the trellis entries, as well as an accent inside of the church. Beyond that another prominent feature in our design and a focal point for our school, which is a 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 circular type feature with the kindergarten on the lower level and the library and the computer room, media center on the upper level. With that... Mancino: Do you have samples of the materials? Dave Bangasser: ... they're rather large. I'll start with the brick which we intend to use on the church. We intend to have the same brick on the inside of the building and the outside of the church and therefore we are looking for a fairly light brick so we can maintain a bright and airier interior of the church. So we are tentatively looking at brick in this range. The secondary brick, number two, which we intend to be primarily for the education center, would be a brick in these hues here, and I think if you put them together you'd see some of the lighter bricks start to tie into our other school brick. Our hope is that to be able to accent both of these with that.., stone similar to this. In addition to that, as I mentioned, we're looking at a cedar shake type roof. Accented by a copper eyebrow feature which we have located and actually is not depicted in these earlier elevations but is shown on your submittal package. It would be over the media center. It would be located over the narthax. The south entry as well as the north entry. And the glass, the same color that we're considering is a champagne anodized. Mancino: And your cross is going to be out of what? Dave Bangasser: To be determined. If it was an ideal world, copper. We don't know if we'll be able to afford that. Mancino: Actually how tall with it be? How tall will it sit up? Dave Bangasser: Approximately 80 feet. And that's with, we're looking at the surrounding three story buildings that probably have roof heights of 55 feet. That type of range. We want to be up high enough so that you can see over the top of the three story buildings. Clearly you won't be able.., but we wanted to get up above the roof lines. Mancino: You want to demonstrate that you're the soul of the village. Dave Bangasser: Right. Mancino: Okay. Any questions on the materials? Thank you. Dave Bangasser: IfI could comment briefly on a couple items. I think, I appreciate your comments on the architectural review committee that would allow us time to discuss their comments. Or really understand what their intent is so I'd appreciate some kind of language that allows us, until the City Council, we've got some time to maybe discuss that. Now on the issue of the ballfield. I thought that we had addressed that issue as part of the PUD. The portion that's new is that we are impacting some wetlands that we hadn't anticipated. I'd like to say rather than the ballfield, you know if the ballfield is moved, that's great. But we can't, we'd like to know that we can work it out there as long as we meet all the regulations of the wetlands, so on and so forth. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: I can respond and just say I would just like City Council to know all the options that there area and that is, if we go in and fill the wetland, where it will be mitigated and how it will be mitigated versus shifting it to the east or on the Lot 11. How many trees it will take down and thirdly, if it is moved north of the trail, what will happen there? So that they can do, and we can give them some sort of an executive summary, the pros and cons of each and have them decide. Dave Bangasser: Sure. I think that we have, up to this point we haven't developed a plan north of the trail that would seem to work and we talked about that before. There may be some other avenues that we're going to attempt to pursue but at this point, there's a lot of issues to address and we don't know that that's an option. Mancino: Okay. Dave Bangasser: That's all the comments that I have. Mancino: Okay I have, then I have a few to ask you. And that had to do mostly with, the one area Dave I didn't feel real comfortable with was knowing about the retaining walls and how they are going to look. What they're going to be made off etc. You know this is the first structure there. It will set a precedent for the whole village and the landscaping is so important in this and there may be some other retaining walls in the area. What kind of material are we going to use? Are we going to be able to replicate that in other places? So I would like to see you also give a little more information to the City Council. Whether it is a rendering of the retaining walls. What they would look like, and it can be just a cross section. You know how tall they actually will be, because they're going to have a very big visual impact on that east side and also on the south side. So I would like to see some more detail on that. And as I said, the material being used for that also. Dave Bangasser: I think at this point the, what I consider the primary retaining wall being on the east property line and the south property lines are retaining walls which are currently being provided by the overall development. And coordinated with the overall development and at this point I don't know exactly where we're at on those retaining walls. Whether it's a keystone block, which I guess is what I've envisioned but I don't know if the folks at Lotus have had other things in mind, but clearly that is something we can work out between now and Council. Mancino: And City Council, good. So we can see kind of a comprehensive plan on that. And I also want to make sure that the parking lot lighting is again a comprehensive plan. Not only in here but in the rest of the developable area. Any other questions at this point? Okay, thank you. Is anyone else coming up to address the Planning Commission from your? A1 Klingelhulz: I don't think it's necessary. Dave knows it all. Mancino: From your point of view, okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. May I have a motion to please open this for a public hearing and a second. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so now. Comments. Questions. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Joyce moved, Fannakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments. Questions from commissioners. Bob. Skubic: Well some of the gaps that I saw in the report have been basically filled in so I don't have much to add to this. I agree that the architectural detail. We talked about, this is the comer stone of the development here and we did want the Midwestem, European type architecture and in looking over the plans, I didn't see a lot of that. Certainly it took on a whole different appearance looking at the color rendering but I agree with staff that we should try to enhance that. I also felt that north and east elevations of the gym provide some detail that might need to be filled in or might need to be some trees or shrubs in those areas. I don't know ifI have anything else to add here. I think it's all been nicely covered. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: I really don't have much else to add either. My concern was the soccer field. I hope that it works out that everything can be done properly with that. That you'll be satisfied with what the City Council comes up as far as a decision on that because obviously it's important to your development. You feel it's part of the importance of getting this thing done. But we'll have to wait and find out that I suppose so... Mancino: Jefl~ Farmakes: I don't have much further to add to that. I think the staff recommendations covered it. Mancino: Okay. No questions? Okay. My only comments are ones that I think I've already made and that is that I just want to make sure that there is a comprehensive lighting plan for the entire Villages on the Pond PUD. And that has to do also with color of lights. You know sometimes you see the yellow ones. Sometimes you see the white ones. Just so that it is consistent. I don't know what they're called, phosphorous, potassium, something lights. I don't know what they are but anyway, just so that's consistent. Parking lot and landscaping. Bob, is there anything in the conditions that need to be changed? I had for condition 1 that the applicant must provide four more islands or peninsulas in the south parking lot and add perimeter landscaping in the north parking lot. In order to meet city ordinance requirements. Generous: It's actually it will be three in the southern end because we're taking one area of island out and making that a pedestrian access area. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: Okay. So number one would be provide three more islands, and do you understand what I mean, add perimeter landscaping in the north parking lot? Generous: Sure. Mancino: Okay. Also I would like to add a condition that the applicant should prepare some sort of a color rendering of the landscape retaining walls with details of materials to be used for the City Council review. I mean the details as in fencing, chain link fence, etc. I'd like to see some of those details worked out. And lastly the soccer field. Obviously when we approved the PUD conceptually, etc., at our, two meetings ago, I don't think we were aware that we would have the, as you know, very openly and honestly, the wetland problem and filling in on the wetland. So I would like to see you give the City Council the options that are available. Moving it on Lot 11 and showing them exactly what will happen. Leaving it where it is and how you fill the wetlands on site to mitigate. And three, an honest look at moving the soccer field north of the trail and what that does. And lastly, it's going to be a beautiful church. Congratulations. I mean it is just exciting to see it and I'm sure exciting for you. Wow. Very, very nice. What a wonderful site plan to review for the first one on this. Exciting. Is there a motion? Skubic: Madam Chair, did you want Dave to comment on the TH 101 and the turn back? Mancino: Thank you very much. So what's going to happen with the road? How long will it be closed? Vemelle Clayton: Excuse us. We have some later news. Brad Johnson: Dave doesn't know about it. Aanenson: Yes he does. Vemelle Clayton: Oh, you do? Okay. Hempel: Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners. Mancino: And if he doesn't get it all, we'll let you fill in. Hempel: I've been updated today by the City Engineer, Charles Folch, as far as the status of Great Plains with MnDot. Apparently there's some conversation of turning back, or I should say redesignating Great Plains Boulevard that right now is built as temporary Trunk Highway 101 according to MnDot. First of all they will establish, or Market Boulevard as the new Trunk Highway 101. Turn back Great Plains right-of-way to the city.., will vacate and close off the road between Lake Drive East and what's the Market Boulevard/Trunk Highway 101. So that will permit the applicant to streamline the process and hopefully start grading their parameters. Mancino: So this is happening immediately? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Hempel: That's my understanding. Aanenson: Next couple of weeks. Mancino: I don't know with government how long immediately means. So did they sign a contract and what's the process? Hempel: Not as yet but it is in the works.., being processed. Mancino: Okay. Do we put up temporary signs so that people know, you know that it's going to be closed? I mean what happens at the time of giving it up and etc.? Hempel: There will be, the street signs will be removed and the new Trunk Highway 101 signs will be installed along Market... There's some already on Highway 5 as you're coming north, or as you're south bound over by Dakota. By McDonald's there. Re-routes you to Trunk Highway 101, I don't mean south. If you're north bound on TH 101 going onto Great Plains, that's signed there as well. All that's going to be relocated. Mancino: And discuss a temporary signs. And does it also help temporary signs with the businesses that are on Lake Drive East at this point? You know that used to get a lot of traffic from the old TH 101. Hempel: There's a little bit of traffic yet from Great Plains but the major traffic movement is up the new TH 101 to Market Boulevard and you can see the businesses from Highway 5 fairly easily. Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion please. Skubic: I'll make a motion. That the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #96-11 for a 96,288 square foot school/church facility for St. Hubert Catholic Community, plans prepared by Opus Architects & Engineers, Inc. dated 7/19/96 subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 through 36 with some changes and additions. Number 1. Condition number 1 should read, three more islands or peninsulas in the north and south parking lots in order to meet city ordinance requirements. Is that correct? Mancino: May I add a friendly amendment? Skubic: Yes. Mancino: The applicant must provide three more islands or peninsulas in the south parking lot and add perimeter landscaping in the north parking in order to meet city ordinance requirements. Skubic: Okay, thank you. Condition number 14 is crossed out. Conditions are replaced in condition number 5 to add vegetation to that slope. You may be adding a condition number 37. That the applicant shall provide plans for City Council review for ultimate soccer field location 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 and for effects on wetland mitigation and tree removal if the soccer field remains south of Riley Creek. And it also provides City Council with the effects of locating the soccer field north of Riley Creek. Condition number 38. The applicant shall meet with the architectural landscape review committee to review the additional architectural details of the building before the City Council meeting. And number 39. The applicant shall provide details of materials and color renderings of the retaining walls for City Council review. Mancino: Friendly amendment. I would say on the east side and both retaining wall areas. The east side and the south side. Skubic: Okay. And condition number 40. And correct me if, we may not want to include this in this proposal here but comprehensive lighting plan for Villages on the Pond shall be compiled. Any friendly amendments beyond that? Mancino: Should we include in the recommendations the impervious surface percentage? Generous: I can give you those numbers. I found them. It's 58% if you just look at the church site. Or 45% if you include the soccer field site and the church site. Mancino: Okay. And we would just include that in the report to City Council, thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Joyce: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Site Plan #96-11 for a 96,288 square foot school church facility for St. Hubert Catholic Conununity, plans prepared by OPUS Architects & Engineers, Inc., dated 7/19/96, subject to the following conditions: The applicant must provide three more islands or peninsulas in the south parking lot and add perimeter landscaping in the north parking lots in order to meet city ordinance requirements. 2. The applicant must provide four more overstory trees within the parking lot areas in order to meet city requirements. 3. The seven Black Hills Spruce south of the school are to be relocated outside of the future expansion area. If it is feasible to relocate the soccer field north of the trail, the wooded area south of Highway 101 shall be placed under a conservation easement. If the soccer field is to be constructed in the proposed location, grading shall be modified to avoid filling of any wetlands on the site. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan south of the school site on the steep slope. This area shall be revegetated with sumac, live willow and dogwood stakes, and other fast growing materials to improve soil stability and reduce potential erosion. 6. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width will require the installation of aeration piping. 7. All new planting areas, including parking lot islands, peninsulas, and boulevards, shall have an irrigation system installed. 8. The applicant is required to incorporate street furniture in the plaza area west of the church. 9. A bicycle parking area and bicycle racks shall be provided on site. 10. A minimum of 50 percent of the parking for the St. Hubert Catholic Community must be provided fltrough shared parking agreements. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 11. A separate sign permit must be submitted for all site signage, except for traffic control signage. 12. Site plan approval shall be conditioned upon the developer of The Villages on the Ponds receiving final plat approval by the City of Chanhassen. Once the developer has supplied the City with an executed PUD/development contract and financial escrow to guarantee site improvements, the site grading may commence upon receipt of the appropriate permits from other governmental agencies. 13. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height shall be engineered and will require a building permit from the City's Building Department. All retaining walls in excess of six feet in height shall have safety fences installed above them. 14. The grading plan shall be revised to take into account an additional 17 feet of right-of-way to be dedicated to the City for Grandview Road in the northeast comer of the site. The parking lot configuration shall be revised accordingly. Parking lot grades in the easterly side of the building shall be modified to eliminate the isolated storm sewer line south of the secondary access point. Landscaped islands shall be provided at the ends of the parking aisles. The parking stall in front of the trail shall be striped and a pedestrian ramp installed. 15. Final grading and drainage plans shall be modified to be compatible with the overall comprehensive grading and drainage plans from The Villages on the Ponds development. 16. A sanitary sewer line shall be extended around the southerly end of the building to the easterly property line for future extension along Grandview Road. 17. 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 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval 18. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be restored with erosion control blankets. 19. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 20. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 21. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the agreement. 22. The applicant will meet wetland roles and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 24. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters (pursuant to City Ordinance 9-1). An additional fire hydrant will be required -- the location to be on the southwest comer of the property. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 25. Yellow painted curbing and No Parking Fire Lane Signs will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location of signage and determination of curbing to be painted. Pursuant to 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10-206 and Section 20-207a. and Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy 06-1991. 26. A post indicator valve (PIV) will be required on the 8" water line coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. 27. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #01-1990, Fire Alarm Systems (copy enclosed). 28. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #04-1991 (notes to be included on site plans) (copy enclosed). 29. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #07-1991, Pre- Fire Plan Policy (copy enclosed). 30. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992, Premise Identification (copy enclosed). 31. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994, Water Line Sizing (copy enclosed). 32. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #40-1995, Fire Sprinkler Systems. 33. Comply with Inspection Division, Policy #34-1993, Water Service Installation. 34. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building. After constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet, fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. With regards to the school wing, either provide fire apparatus access to within 150 feet of all portions of the building or install Class I stand pipes within the stairways of the school portion of the complex. This is taking into account the future expansion of the school. 35. Submit turning radiuses of Fire Department access routes to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval." 36. That the applicant shall provide plans for City Council review for ultimate soccer field location and for effects on wetland mitigation and tree removal if the soccer field remains south of Riley Creek. And it also provides City Council with the effects of locating the soccer field north of Riley Creek. 37. The applicant shall meet with the architectural landscape review committee to review the additional architectural details of the building before the City Council meeting. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 38 The applicant shall provide details of materials and color renderings of the retaining walls on the east and south side for City Council review. 39. A comprehensive lighting plan for Villages on the Pond shall be compiled. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: The motion carries, and it goes in front of the City Council. Generous: September 9th. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST OF APPROXIMATELY 10.95 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 2 LOTS AND 10UTLOT; SITE PLAN REVIEW OF TWO OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS WITH AN AREA OF 64~000 SQ. FT. AND 40~600 SQ. FT. ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DELL ROAD AND HWY. 5~ CSM CORPORATION. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions? A question I have on page 13, under the conditions. It says Fire Marshal conditions, and then it's blank. Did I miss? Number 5 Kate. Aanenson: Yeah, I was just seeing if it's attached. It should say as per memo dated August 14th. They should have been pulled in. There's actually 8 conditions. Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Is the applicant here, and do you wish to address the Planning Commission? Tom Rocheford: Yes. Thank you Chairman and members of the Commission. My name's Tom Rocheford and I represent CSM Corporation. We're the owners of the property off of Highway 5 and Dell Road and we've been interested in this property for a number of years. Probably going back to 3 years we were pretty dogged in our pursuit of the property with the former and subsequent owners of it. One of the major reasons that we were so interested in it, we felt it would be perfect opportunity to present a master plan project that would encompass and emphasize a campus like setting. I think at the gateway of Chanhassen, if you consider it's kind ofa hodgepodge of architecture and uses to the north of Dell Road. As well as further along west on Highway 5, I think this will, this project in our mind will provide a very unified, strong architectural statement for the city. We did finally close on the property back in June and started construction on phase one shortly thereafter. As you know we're building 128,000 square feet there. Two 64,000 square foot buildings and it's coming along quite nicely. Acceptance from the marketplace has been good. We expect to have about half the project leased within the next couple weeks or so. So that led us to wanting to get kicked off on phase lwo so that we're ready when the demand shows that it's there. I think I'm going to let my team get further into the architectural and design elements, and with me tonight are Mark Kuesenerick, who is a staff 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 architect with CSM and John Dietrich connected with RLK and Associates, who is our civil engineer. And at this time I guess I'd like to turn it over to Mark and he can go through the architectural part of the project. Mancino: Thank you. Mark Kuesenerick: Good evening commissioners. My name is Mark Kuesenerick. I'm the project architect for CSM Corporation. What we have developed through this site plan before phase one was even brought in, we had in mind a campus. How that would complete the site. We brought across the same look and feel for the buildings creating this main corridor down the center of the site... Therefore we'd like to keep the structures and the colors remain close to the same, or those same colors creating a harmonious and unified look to the entire site and to the gateway to the city of Chanhassen. We had done various.., is different from the other three... same type of architectural detailing as phase two. Or previously, excuse me. The landscaping done by RLK and Associates and John Dietrich will speak more to that.., as in phase one. We've tried to keep this very...type site. The signage for the building itself would be the same as previous for phase one, which is one color. The logos would be no more than 30 inches high and letters would be no more than 24 inches high. And they would be placed in the same areas as phase one.., around the building. There are certain... We do not expect a large number of tenants in these buildings. So far the demand has been a large square footage so that has cut some the number of signs... Other than that I think I'll let John Dietrich... Joyce: Could I ask one question please? Mark Kuesenerick: Sure. Joyce: You're using the term campus. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? Mark Kuesenerick: It's more of, the campus look is similar to that like you see at St. Thomas. Joyce: That was exactly what I was thinking. I'm from St. Thomas and I can visualize what you're saying as far as the similar buildings, but these buildings are all going to look alike. Is that my understanding now? Mark Kuesenerick: Right. They will have a similar feel to them. Throughout and the same type of structure. Same color. Joyce: Same size? Mark Kuesenerick: The three main buildings are the same size, same height but each one will have a different elevation as the site goes higher. So it provides a stepping effect... Joyce: Then I'd have to beg to differ on the campus effect because at St. Thomas you have varying sizes of buildings and shapes and things like that. They all have the same facade, same type of brick and that sort of thing but it's a different feel. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: And a different architectural design on the outside? Joyce: Well it's the same. They keep the same rhythm or whatever you'd like to call it. Mark Kuesenerick: They produce similar detail throughout. And that's what we're trying to accomplish with this project is putting the same feel throughout the entire project. There are throughout the metro area there are a number of office campuses that produce this effect... Mancino: Thank you. John Dietrich: Good evening commissioners. John Dietrich from RLK Associates. I'm privileged to be able to present the.., landscape and sign elements of phase two, as it would relate to the arrangement of the master plan for CSM Corporation along Highway 5. With us tonight we have made two modifications to the landscape and building architectural plans and.., addressed some of these.., the staff report for the landscape plantings as conifers and also for locating of these building's roof elements that were inadvertently... As part of the overall design and the campus feel we are looking to have a calming effect along Highway 5. We've looked very closely at the elements at that Highway 5 overlay district and have looked at putting the building structures on varying planes. Stepping up from a 923 elevation at the comer of Dell Road as phase one. 934 and 936 elevations so we do have elevations of height difference. And secondly we have indentation of the building with comer elements that will provide that relief and that very visual effect as the viewers come along Highway 5, both east bound and west bound. The planting plan looks at heavily planting along the Highway 5 corridor, with a combination of deciduous and ornamental trees and shrub masses. Together with a berming of the setback area that will provide approximately a 4 to 5 foot high berm above the parking lot so that the areas that are adjacent to the Highway 5 parking, the two bay parking, will be screened from view. I think you can look at phase one right now and see where that rough berm is. Granted it doesn't have any plant material on it but it starts to cover about one-third of the building as you're driving and that's the effect that we were looking for in phase one. That's a similar effect that we will be looking for in phase two. In terms of having that berm screen the parking. Pick up the facade of the building as they begin to step back from the Highway 5 property right-of-way. In terms of, we mentioned we're approximately 31 feet south of the property line. 381/2 feet south of the property line in building three, and that also compares to building two which is approximately 40 feet and building one which is approximately 42 feet so there is a varying of topography. There's a varying of where the buildings are. They're not in a straight plane. They're not on a flat site. When you look at the landscape architecture, we are feeling that consistency of the architecture along with the varying topography and the variety of plant materials to provide a very strong presence for this entry element of Chanhassen. We were very careful in preserving the visual corridors through the site in terms of between buildings 2 and 3 and phase one and two. And providing that corridor again between buildings 3 and 4. In terms of the. Mancino: Excuse me John, the visual corridor is a parking lot, right? John Dietrich: The visual corridor between. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: 2 and 3 is the parking area, correct? John Dietrich: Between 2 and 3, it is a parking bay for each building. You also have a 23, or excuse me, 25 foot wide green band running down between the two and there is an elevation difference of approximately 7 feet between the two. So we are providing plant material with peninsula islands between the areas.., but that was also another element. Part of the Highway 5 overlay. Provide that visual corridor. There are other properties that are south of East Lake Drive and we want to make sure that it was not a straight... And with the screening of the truck and service corridor away from Highway 5, we wanted to try and look at having a variety of parking for the office users so that we could provide a good mix that would be well received. And as Mr. Rocheford has indicated, it is being well received. With the site we've also done a couple of cross sections that look at how the site would look. I have three cross sections. One, cross section A through building 4. Cross section B between buildings 3 and 4. And cross section C between, from the loading docks out to Lake Drive East. And we are looking at essentially the building 4, the top of the berm is 939. State Highway 5 is at a 934 elevation so elevation wise it's 5 foot high. In terms of your visual height in the car, you're at approximately a 3 foot height so you still have 2 foot of berm that you would be looking at so consequently your line of sight would be approximately 1/3 up on the building. The same would be for building number 3 where we have a floor elevation of 934. State Highway 5 between the buildings is at 933.5. Top of berm is 939. As we then move down towards the phase one, the highway starts to drop down and our berm also steps down from the 939 to 937 so the berm does step down with the highway. Along East Lake Drive and building 3 you have an elevation of 931. Top of berm approximately 935... at 929 and building floor elevation at 934. So again, we're going to use some screening. We've drawn the trees at a mature size but the intent is that with the berm the plant material, that we will provide that type of screening. As the staff report indicated, there is the additional conifers as a part of the landscape plan. We have redesigned the plan and have added conifers both behind buildings 4 in two clusters and building 3 in a cluster of 7. We now have 134, excuse me, 136 overstory plant materials, including conifers on the site with a mix of 104 deciduous and ornamental and 32 conifers, which would bring up the percentage to 30%. We also have met the criteria of 30 foot on center spacing along East Lake Drive where we would need at... code, 34. We have met 34. Along Highway 5, the code would say 32 and 35 to 66 plant material along Highway 5 so keeping that consistency with phase one. With those comments I would like to say we are pleased with the stafl~s report. We are excited about maintaining the CSM presence along Highway 5 with the consistency of a master plan, this is following where we started designing this site over a year ago. Phase one is in and building phase two we feel will be well received also. nd We concur with the elements of the staff report and the subdivision... 2 Addition versus Lot 3 and we request your approval.., and we're available to answer any questions, either myself, Mr. Rocheford or Mark Kuesnerick. Mancino: Any questions? Joyce: Was there any mention about the pitched roof? Did I miss that? We were talking about putting a pitched roof on. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: This is... I want to ask John. What we're seeing here is exactly the same as on phase one, the first two buildings. The pitched roof... John Dietrich: ... architectural design, yes it is. Joyce: So there's no difference between the two then really. John Dietrich: In terms of architectural design. Mancino: All four buildings will be similar. John Dietrich: Will be similar in materials. Similar in color. Similar it pitched roof element. We are aware of your concern about looking at variation. However, we feel looking at that Highway 5 corridor there needs to be some sense of consistency for this area where right now there is not a consistent sense of architecture and each of the sites have been somewhat piecemeal and broken up. Especially as we move west towards more of the last two and the automotive center. Farmakes: Why do you, why? Why do you feel that? John Dietrich: We feel that we're looking to present a prominent presence to the tenants who are looking to rent in these buildings. That they would be part of an overall campus. We feel the consistency of the architecture and the variation of the site will present a strong presence and a better image along Highway 5 than a variation of the buildings because the materials are high quality. The landscape architectural design is of high quality and we would prefer to see a consistency among the CSM development. Farmakes: So you feel that, it's easier to lease to that if all the architecture is similar? John Dietrich: We find that it will be a better presence to have a consistent product along the Highway 5 corridor. Mancino: Obviously, you haven't convinced me yet only because where I see the warehouse industrial areas on the freeways, on the limited access freeways. On 494, north of 394, etc., they all look exactly alike. It's monotonous. It is not distinctive. It is not what I would like or I see for the Highway 5 task force as a gateway distinctive look on Highway 5. So I'm not, I'm still listening and trying to hear you and be very open but I'm not quite there yet. John Dietrich: I appreciate your candor on that. Part of this development was long term. Looking at what would be a quality product, what would be a cost effective product. We're looking to meet the standards of the Highway 5 district, which are quite stringent and I think that's why this property has sat in it's current state for so long. And so Tom Rocheford has worked tirelessly to close this deal with the DataServ and.., people. One of the comments from the Highway 5 overlay district is that the design standards recreate a unified, harmonious and high 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 quality visual environment and as part of our site development we have always looked at the CSM site as a harmonious development. That it would be distinctive from it's neighbors to the west. From the neighbors to the north. We anticipate some buildings would go south to East Lake Drive. That they would have a different flavor than what is being presented. There is a standard that CSM likes to...that says a quality project and with this type of element, we do feel strongly that a common element of the building architecture will create that harmonious theme. A high quality visual environment.., with visual corridors between this building and the quality of the landscape architecture and berming. Farmakes: As I recall, and I'm not sure if everybody was on here when... My concern on how I would vote on this would be the issue of, you may have a good building, which you replicated from the.., and what that brings us back to is the issue of having a campus. If you're using that word, how I see that is the same building is being duplicated over and over again. You can have an campus of architecture. It doesn't mean all the buildings are the same shape and size, which basically we've got here so the crux of my question to you is that, if you base this as an economic issue and you're doing this because it's easier for you to sell to your tenants, then that's why I asked you to elaborate on it. Because I'm looking for a reason to vote for it... or it was the way you were requesting it. If there's a way to do that and so far I'm not satisfied with, I've gotten some public relations speech. Words like harmonious and these are vague words. They're not hard reasoning for voting for that based on there's an economic need or something's being accomplished, because aesthetically I think it's an easy out. I think if you look across the street on the other end, across the highway, you see a townhouse development where they're all the same. They've got 900 units in the same building. That's somewhat a concern. Tom Rocheford: I guess I'd like to respond to that ifI may. If you look at the site and a lot of it does have to do with economics because when we looked at entering into a purchase agreement with the seller, obviously we had to make the numbers work for the project to work. And especially when you look at the deeper part of the site, which is in here, the L shape building is going to allow you to maximize the usable square feet on that site, which is how you generate the revenue. When the site gets narrowed down, then we have to be a little more creative and the building configurations allow the loading dock at the rear. So economics do come into play. Certainly any investor, any bank or lending institution that we'll deal with, will want to see some consistency in the building components and also the size because that will help them feel better about our ability to lease the project and to pay our mortgage. Like I did mention, I think the first two buildings have been very well received by the market place and I think you all agree that they're quality buildings. They're quality products. Quality landscaping and you know a lot of it gets back to, you know if it's not broken, don't try to fix it. So that has a lot to do with how we proceed on these deals. Mancino: So Tom what is, what's happening with Outlot B then? I mean will that also come in with. Tom Rocheford: Outlot B? Mancino: Yes. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Tom Rocheford: We're not sure what that will be, other than it's probably going to be a single user kind of a builder. Because of the size, I think we've got about 31/2 acres remaining and quite frankly we haven't really thought a lot about how that building's going to look. It's probably going to be a build to suit kind of a building. Where someone will come to us and say they need a 30,000 foot building and they'll be a lot more involved with the architecture and design than these other buildings that we're doing now which are pretty much spec.., buildings. So that remains to be seen what that will look like. Joyce: What is the make-up of the leasing space as far as warehouse and office in these buildings? Tom Rocheford: We're fairly flexible on that. Again it all depends on the needs of the individuals. Joyce: You must have an idea. I mean is the majority of it going to be warehouse? It can't be office because obviously you don't have the... Tom Rocheford: No, it's probably about a third office and 2/3 warehouse. Joyce: On all four buildings basically, ballpark? Tom Rocheford: That's probably how it's going to shake out. That's been our experience over the years is that these kinds of uses have that kind of requirement. Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please? Fannakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please do so now. Seeing none, may I have a motion to, and a second to close the public hearing. Joyce moved, Fannakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Thank you. Comments. Jefl2 Farmakes: I don't think that it would be a good idea to repeat this five times down the highway. Not so much the first two buildings. They're fine for what they are. They're nice warehouse space. But this isn't a military base. I think if we keep on getting the same building up and down the highway, I think it flies in the face of what we're reviewing on the Highway 5 recommendation .... of architecture on that end of town is pretty consistent. Like I said, those townhouses are all the same. We've got some of these big blocks going on the north side and 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 these.., five repeated buildings. That's the thing that disturbs me about this thing. The rest of it, I don't have a problem with it. The architecture... Mancino: Kevin. Any other comments? Joyce: ...the real true gateway to Chanhassen. I mean if we have a gateway, this is it. I personally would have no problem with replicating this buildings if it was up in the business district up on Commerce Boulevard on the next issue. I feel that there's a definite heaviness with the buildings that are there right now and to replicate, I just think of coming into Chanhassen and seeing a bunch of warehouses and I'm kind of in a quandary here because I don't know what the alternatives are. They've made a nice gesture here to try to develop this land, and I think that's important to consider. But I just.., back to heaviness. I can't see a campus look there. I don't know what that term means but from what I see, it's exactly what Jeff says. It's warehouses. Come into Chanhassen from the east going west and see warehouses. The first thing you see coming into Chanhassen. I've got a problem with that. I don't know how to resolve it. I don't know what else you can put in that area, and I can certainly commiserate with you fellows that it's kind of a difficult plot of land. So maybe this is really the only type of thing that you can put there but I sure would like to take a look at something else. That's the way I... Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I pretty much agree with everything said. This seems inconsistent but with a lot of things we're doing in town here.., for instance, we're trying to building a unique character in the area, and we have a townhouse developments where we have seen this and we've had some moderate success in rearranging them. The geometries and elevations. There's still a lot of sameness here. I don't know how much this would differ. I sure would like to see a different but complimentary architecture here. I'm not sure that the high quality of the landscape sameness isn't better. I've always felt that the mall that Byerly's anchors is quite the same, and that's an award winning architecture so I'm not sure I'm an authority on that. But I agree with the previous commissioners that I'd like to see something different. Mancino: Okay. My comments are much the same, however I do think that your phase one, the quality of the building, the landscaping, etc., that came into us, is excellent and I would just like to see you come back with the same quality that you've done on phase one but with some distinctive, different architecture. Warehouse, the office warehouse seems to be selling well. It's very, it's fine in that location. But I too would like to see something visually different and distinctive in that area and to the same degree quality that you've done in phase one. And I think that we did allow, even on the Highway 5, where would I say that. The Highway 5 corridor study as for no parking on the Highway 5 side looking back with a very good resolution to that and how it could be dealt with the berming and the added landscaping, etc. So we certainly don't have a problem with that. It has more to do with the architecture. The only other component that I would change or that I would add to, which you already have done, is on the south side where we have the frontage road. The Lake East Drive. That will be, as we know it's going to happen with that Lundgren, the single family development south of it, there's going to be much traffic going on that Lake East Drive west to Villages on the Pond, and our new downtown south of 30 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Highway 5 area, and because there are going to be, or what we've seen tonight, the dock area facing that drive, we're probably as concerned about what that looks like as far as berming and adding maybe arborvitae bushes you know where the deciduous trees are that really won't do any sort of deciduous trees, will not do any sort of screening for, in Minnesota I say 10 months of the year. But if that could be added to the berming on that Building 4 in the area where there isn't coniferous vegetation, that would be very helpful. Other than that, those are my comments. May I have a motion. In fact, Kate we are looking at both the site plan review and the subdivision so we can take them separately and vote on them separately? Aanenson: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: That's how the motions are established. Yeah, as two separate motions. Mancino: So the architecture, or concern with the architecture would be under site plan review? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: Okay. So may I have a motion on the site plan review? And we may want to add some wording for the City Council as they review it. Farmakes: I'll make a motion. That the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #95-18 for CSM Phase II, as shown on the site plan received July 23, 1996, subject to the following conditions 1 through 9, with the addition of 10. That staff work with the applicant to change the facia details of the architecture so as not to duplicate the existing structures' look. Mancino: Question. And that is, will 3 and 4 be different from each other? As long as we're getting some. Farmakes: 3 and 4, you mean the conditions 3 and 4? Mancino: No. Buildings 3 and 4. Because we're looking at two buildings here. Farmakes: Because of the size of the buildings. Mancino: We have two that are the same and now we have 3 and 4. Farmakes: I would leave that up to staff to work out. We already have two buildings that are almost identical. Two buildings that actually are identical. Then we have two more buildings coming in. The shape of the building, the actual piece and how it's utilized with the property will be dictated by the plot. But the facia, structurally how it appears on the outside basically on... the materials and detailing is something you can change. You add to the structure and I feel that... Aanenson: Let staff work on it. With 3 and 4. Whether they should look alike. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Farmakes: Yeah... professional.., so I'll leave it at that. Unless you would like to add. Mancino: I would just like to add a friendly amendment to 1 and that is that buildings 3 and 4 in front of the dock area, where there is not year round screening, vegetated screening, that that be added. A 5 foot height, a green wall exists. Do you accept the friendly amendment? Farmakes: Yes. On number 10, because I may not have verbalized my intent. Maybe the words distinctively different should be, the buildings from 1 and 2. Mancino: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Mancino: The motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? Joyce: Yeah, I have a question. Are they going to have to show elevations and things to the City Council, or is this just, with this motion, are they going to have to come back to us or are they going to the City Council as far as, you're happy with the buildings themselves. You just want something different on the facia is what you're saying, correct? Farmakes: I think they should be distinctively different... Mancino: And he is not asking to table it and have it come back. You're asking it to be different and to be shown to City Council. Or do you want. Farmakes: Unless you want to see it. Do you want to see it again? Joyce: Is somebody going to see it? Skubic: City Council. Joyce: City Council will see the changes? Mancino: And do you feel comfortable with that? Or do you want them to come back to us with those changes? Joyce: I'm not real comfortable with the project. Mancino: So you would like to see it come back? Joyce: I don't know. I'm not going to vote in favor of it I guess. Mancino: Kate, is there a way with this that it could come back for just the architectural and... landscape before it gets to City Council. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Aanenson: You'd have to change your motion. Mancino: And just deny it. Aanenson: No, you could table it. Mancino: Table it and have it come back with those changes. Aanenson: Otherwise I mean when it goes to City Council, they certainly have to submit a new set of plans. I mean the footprint isn't going to change. They're going to maximize the footprint. That's a given. The landscaping and parking, that's a given. I think you're all comfortable with that so what you're asking for is a facia difference. I think we understand the direction that you're asking and I think the applicant understands the direction. That you want to see the different, materials different and.., distinctively different. I think that's been well articulated and we understand that and we'll get a complete set of plans to go to Council. So if you feel like you want to see that again, then I think you need to table it but I think we understand the direction. Joyce: ... they're trying to sell us on the idea of this campus... I have a whole different attitude towards it. Aanenson: But if it's a different material then, if it's distinctively different. Joyce: But it's going to be the same building isn't it? I mean if all buildings are the same, you've got different materials. Mancino: You get the same footprint. Joyce: The footprint I'm not as concerned about but. Mancino: But architecturally, Jeff is asking to use different materials and have a different design. Joyce: A different design? Mancino: Yes. Aanenson: Right, ultimately the outside of the building would look different. Joyce: Do you feel comfortable with this going to City Council like that? Aanenson: Staff is capable of doing that. It's up to your comfort level. Certainly I think we understand what the issues. Joyce: That's my... 33 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Farmakes: I'm not adverse to seeing this again... Mancino: Bob. Skubic: Well I don't mind sending it on to Council. They might have an entirely different feeling on this. They might prefer to have the whole campus effect. Mancino: Okay. Personally yeah, I feel comfortable sending it on. I think the recommendation is to them to make it different and I think that that can be done with staff so. Is there, let's see. We've had a motion and a second. We've had discussion. Fannakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Site Plan Review #95-18 for CSM Phase II, as shown on the site plan received July 23, 1996, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall increase the number of evergreens in plant schedule to 20% of the total number of trees. Also, increase the number of trees used along street frontage by 22. These additional trees shall be evergreens and used along Lake Drive East to maximize screening of the loading docks and along the western edge to create a windbreak for the neighboring parking lot. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building. Signage criteria: Each building shall share one monument sign. One monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The letters shall be located within a designated sign band. c. All signs require a separate permit. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south and west of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet and logos may not exceed 30 inches in height. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. k. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of both sites. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Fire Marshal conditions: A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters, pursuant to City Ordinance 9-1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 29-1992 (premise identification), copy enclosed. Fire lanes will be marked with appropriate No Parking Fire Lane signs and yellow painted curbing. Fire Marshal will determine fire lanes during the building plan review process. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted. Post indicator valves (PIV) valves are required. Indicate on plans location of post indicator valves for review and approval. Fire Department sprinkler locations shall be located in the following areas; building #4 in the southeast comer of the building, building #3 in the southwest comer of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 04-1991 (fire department notes to be included on site plan), copy enclosed. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 07-1991 (pre-fire plans), copy enclosed. Comply with inspection division installation policy 34-1993 (water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 · Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy 36-1994 (combination domestic fire sprinkler supply line), copy enclosed. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Revise plans to provide one additional accessible parking space, for a total of five, at building three as requested in the Building Official's attached memo. 8. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. Submit revised building elevation drawings showing two pitched roof top elements per building. 10. Staff shah work with the applicant to add distinctively different architectural details to the facia and exterior of the buildings in Phase II from the buildings in Phase I to present to the City Council. AH voted in favor, except Joyce who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Mancino: And would you give your reason for saying nay so that we have that in the. Joyce: I just would like to see it again. Mancino: Okay. The second motion about the subdivision. May I have a motion on the subdivision please. Farmakes: I'll make that. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plat received July 23, 1996 with the following conditions, 1 through 13. Mancino: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition as shown on the plat received July 23, 1996, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 The name of the subdivision shall be changed to Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition, and Block 3 shall be changed to Block 1. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations for a 10-year and 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities. The applicant shall dedicate a cross-access easement over Lots 2, Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center, and Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen East Business Center Second Addition. The applicant shall enter into a site plan permit with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the permit. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and Surface Water Management requirements for new development. Erosion control fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the site. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant will be responsible for all boulevard restoration or damage to existing City utilities or street improvements as a result of construction. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event, 24-hour duration for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Waste Water Services, Minnesota Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within street right-of-way. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 11. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tile found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 12. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume on Dell Road. The developer and/or property owner shall waive any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessment, including, but not limited to, hearing requirements or any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 13. The applicant shall consider realigning the middle driveway access to avoid relocating the existing fire hydrant on Lake Drive East." All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: Motion carries and this goes to City Council on? Aanenson: On the 9th. That's assuming that we can get some architectural.., before that. Mancino: And I would also suggest that commissioners that would like to go to that City Council meeting and obviously the City Council has our Minutes and sees our recommendations, but you may want to follow this to the City Council meeting too. Great, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH AN AREA OF 16~704 SQ. FT. ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-lOP AND LOCATED WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD~ SOUTH OF CHICAGO~ MILWAUKEE~ ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD~ AND NORTHEAST OF COMMERCE DRIVE~ CHUCKS GRINDING. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item and asked for any questions. Farmakes: On the south elevation. We would be seeing the pitched roof.., on the other side, you visually have... Aanenson: Yes. Farmakes: It'd be the north elevation. Aanenson: Right. This is the north elevation. Farmakes: That... visual element on the south elevation and it's much smaller. Aanenson: Yes. Narrower. Yeah, narrower. Right. The other thing I did mention is the sign. They are allowed the one free standing sign, which they have submitted. Again the sign is, 38 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 architecturally all the signs in this development are allowed the wall sign and the free standing monument sign. The sign is consistent with the architecture of the building and we would recommend approval of that as part of the site plan. Mancino: Any other questions at this point? Is the applicant here, and do you wish to address the Planning Commission please. Tom Hill: Good evening. My name is Tom Hill and I'm with a firm by the name of Dunbar Development. I am, we are the project developer for a group called Pegasus L.L.C. which is the owner of this project. I'd like to just quickly introduce the three team members I have with me. Jim Winkels from Amcon Corporation who has done a lot of work here in the city, and Frank Wilson from Miller-Hanson-Westerbeck... architectural firm who also did Centennial Hill. I could just walk you through the site quickly and give you an idea of what we have here. As Kate mentioned, we're located in the Chan Business Park. In the 2nd Addition. We're at the end of the east cul-de-sac on Commerce Drive. We have a site that we have under control with the Audubon Partnership. Just about 2 1/2 acres.., right to the west of the church at the end of that cul-de-sac and currently we have a lease with one user for the building, that's Chucks Grinding... We are finalizing with Amcon the construction schedule and the costs. Architectural plans are about 90% complete, not including some of the suggestions that staff has made. That we really have no problems with them and we're anxious to work with staff to go through those final details. We are in the process of doing our final review of the development... Our construction schedule is approved. We would go ahead and probably start in September and hopefully.., sometime in February. The building itself... Mancino: Do you have materials? Tom Hill: Yes I do. There's one block piece I'm missing which is the lower block. The...block. I don't have that... As you come in the cul-de-sac, this is the face of the building you'll see. The entry that we've been working with Sharmin on. We spent a lot of time with her on the landscaping issues as well as the entrance and design of the exterior of the building. So we do have an entry into the building and this, of course is all the office space. About 2,600 square feet of finished office space. The building, the back portion of the building is about, I think ithas about 18 foot clear. 22 foot clear exterior height in back. The building is designed with a corduroy concrete block. The lower section of the building entrance.., extends around the entire building. That's a smooth faced score. It gives this small detail throughout it. And that's also highlighted by these sections up on top. The top of the building, the metal flashing along the roof here, also ties in with the roof scheme here in front. So it pulls it all together. You can see here with, our user, Chucks Grinding had asked us to look at with some windows in the shop production area so we did include windows and I think if you look through the plan, you'll see the windows do surround the entire building so it does break up, although this is not a seemingly large building, it does break up the look of the building. Also it provides a nice environment for the employees inside. In the building itself, Chucks Grinding is a company that's based in Minnetonka right now. It's been in business for 25 some years and they were looking, they came to us and they were looking for.., so they will bring about 20 production people to the city and then there's, I think I'd call it 3 1/2 office. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Joyce: Is it grinding tools I take it? Tom Hill: No, it's precision machine. And like I said, Chuck Reuter is the family. Chuck just passed away just a few months ago unfortunately but his family still owns the business. His wife is involved and his son and a daughter so it's a family held business. It has been... They're very excited about being out here. They've very excited. They're in Minnetonka now and they want to get away from a multi-tenant situation and control their own destiny... This is the color that will be the metal roof and the facia. The metal facia goes around the top end of the building. This is the metal window frames and door frames. This is the color of the block that goes, there's a smooth face for it. It's that band that goes around the entire building. And then the bottom base block is a tan color block, and it's pretty close to what you see here.., better idea since I don't have a sample of that... But we feel it's a fairly attractive building. Our user is very happy with it. As I said before, we worked I think fairly closely with staff to get to where we need to be in this. We have 31 parking stalls on the site. Those include employee parking and also staff parking, for the office staff in front. There are three dock doors in the back. The dock doors all face the north over the railroad. We have worked with staff to provide the appropriate amounts of screening. To screen those from future houses that.., and also from the traffic that's on Audubon. As I mentioned before, we're very comfortable with what staff has worked with us on. We're, as I mentioned before, excited about moving forward and finalizing those details. Finalizing our plans and I guess I would just be ready to answer any questions. Mancino: Okay. Any questions from commissioners at this point? Joyce: What is sludge? Tom Hill: I'm sorry? Joyce: What is sludge? Tom Hill: Sludge is a by product of the grinding process. They use a coolant in grinding metal. So when they're grinding the metal, they use a coolant that runs over the metal and it picks up metal particles that are ground off the material. It's not a hazardous material in any way but they do collect it and then store it in a dumpster and then a company like BFI comes up and picks it up every couple, I think it's twice a month. Joyce: Just like a regular sized dumpster like a garbage. Tom Hill: Yes. Just like a box. Mancino: The next question is, what happens next? Tom Hill: It is a quite an issue just for Chucks just purely by it's weight. Because we have a dumpster that holds metals instead of trash so it's quite a process.., come in the building. There 40 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 was one other issue in the staff report they mentioned a condition about trash storage and you mentioned screening. All trash storage will be inside. Mancino: Tom, could you explain to me a little bit, when I went out there to the site, one of the things that I noticed on that north property line is that.., explain a little bit of the grading to me. Is that you can see the view shed from your north property line, you can see all the way to Highway 5. I mean you can see the Bluff Creek. You can see the whole valley when you're standing up there. Tom Hill: From this site? Mancino: Yes. From the north, from your north property line or from... Tom Hill: On the railroad tracks. Mancino: Out of the building. Where the railroad is. So my question is, how will there be year round screening of, number one parking to some degree. And most assuredly for the dock area. Tom Hill: Well I think the, I'd have to. Mancino: Is there a berm that is going to do it? Tom Hill: No, I don't think your plans have a berm as such and we worked with staff pretty closely about what to put in the area and I think we had, in the original plan we submitted we increased the number of evergreens up in that area. Mancino: There are three. Tom Hill: And there was also some discussion about using sumac in that area, which is very fast growing. That does.., screening for the winter though but there are still some evergreens in that area and our understanding was that staff was fairly.., around the docks. Towards that area to the north... Mancino: Okay. So there is going to be no berming at all? I know that's what Pillsbury did. I would then, will suggest adding some more year round screening in that area just to add to the three trees that are there. Thank you. Is there anyone else from your team that wishes to approach, to present to the Planning Commission? Tom Hill: I think we're all done. Thank you very much. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing. Fannakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close, and a second, the public hearing. Skubic moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Bob. Skubic: I don't really have anything to say here that's already been said except.., welcome another business into the city. I'm just glad to have a professional business. Mancino: Kevin. Joyce: Nothing more. Mancino: Jeflk Okay. I don't really either. The only condition that I would like to add, oh wait one question. I would like to add more screening on that north side. I would not like to see the sumac used, because it won't be year round screening and you do have just a wide open view shed of that whole area. The Bluff Creek area. So I would like to, it could certainly be a combination of the trees that are already there and then some arborvitae hedge on the perimeter of the parking lot. Right there. So those are my only additional comments. Kate, I do have a question on a recommendation, just because I haven't seen this before in staffs writing. On number 4, all roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. And then it says all exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative the applicant can use factory applied panels to the exterior of the equipment. What is that? Aanenson: We have some industrial users in the city that need cooling tanks outside the buildings, such as Rosemount... and what we found in the past is they can't apply certain screening materials to them because they come from the manufacturer in a certain way and they are large. Sometimes they're 20-30 feet high. So we've kind of just put that as a standard condition now. That if they can't be manufactured with, you know painted to match the building, that they come with some other type of applied panel that would work to screen it, because sometimes as the use may change in a building, and they need to add, that sort of thing, we want to make sure that that's covered. For example Pillsbury which has large coolant systems for the freezers. What we decided there is actually just to let them disappear in the sky. Actually just let them come from the factory unpainted because then it becomes a maintenance problem, and to try to put fencing up there, the wind load is. Mancino: It will blow oflk Aanenson: Yes, right. So I guess we wanted just, it's kind of a catch all. We're starting to put that in now. Mancino: Is there any planning for outdoor storage at all? 42 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Tom Hill: No. There is no outside storage. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. Joyce: I do have a question... Condition 15 Kate. The applicant should re-evaluate the need for berms along the east property line. Do we need to do something with that? Aanenson: I think that ties back in to Nancy's comment. The year round screening. Hempel: That detail was actually mine. My condition. Aanenson: Oh sorry. Hempel: They were placing a berm on a very steep side slope on the east side which really had no effect. May I suggest relocating that berm to the northerly side to help improve the screening. Aanenson: Right. So it ties back in to Nancy's comment, right. Mancino: Great. Aanenson: And that goes back to the prairie thing where we were saying, you know you're really basing the topography, not accomplishing anything trying to do that there so. Mancino: Okay, good. Boy, I drove around that complex, that business complex today and it's really, really looking good. Aanenson: It's coming along. Mancino: Yeah. Everybody takes such good care of the buildings and I don't know, it's a good looking complex. So we're happy to have you. May I have a motion? Joyce: I'll make a motion. That the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #96-6 for Chucks Grinding Inc. as shown on the plans dated received July 29, 1996 and subject to the following conditions 1 through 16. I think we should strike 15 though and I'll put in 16 which will state, relocating the berm from the eastern property line to the northern property line and also on that berm, maybe working with staff to help with the screening of the parking lot and dock area. Consider coniferous type of trees, as an example arborvitae hedge, that sort of thing. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #96-9 for Chucks Grinding Inc. as shown on the plans dated Received July 29, 1996, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall meet with the Fire Marshal. 2. The applicant shall meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. All freestanding signs shall be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off-site and no more than 1/2 foot candle of light is at the property line. 7. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements. The applicant shall provide documentation that the variety of elm specified on landscaping plans is Dutch Elm Disease resistant. Also, the applicant shall work with staff to explore options for alternative lawn plantings. All construction vehicles shall access the site at approved rock construction entrances only. Haul routes shall be pre-approved by the City. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Any damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. 10. The maximum allowable slope on berms shall be 3:1. 11. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along the west property line. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until the site has been fully restored, revegetated, and removal is authorized by the City. Failure to maintain the erosion control measures will result in the issuance of stop work orders. 12. Revised storm drainage calculations which include the stormwater runoff from Lot 1 Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Addition shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Conveyance of storm drainage in the sludge pick-up area needs to be addressed. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the drainage plan to address the additional runoff from the lot to the east (Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center). 13. The perimeter of the paved parking lot shall be bordered by B612 concrete curb and gutter with the exception of a portion of the west side which is slated for future parking. Along the future parking area a bituminous curb is acceptable at this time. However, when the future parking is added B612 concrete curb and gutter will be required. The parking stall comers shall have radii of five feet. The west and south sides of the warehouse building shall provide a buff'er area between the drive aisle and the building. 14. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 15. The applicant shall move the berm from the east property line to the north property line to help screen the parking lot and dock area. The berm shall be planted with coniferous trees, i.e. arborvitae hedge to provide year round screening. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: The motion carries and goes to City Council. Aanenson: The 9th. Mancino: On? Aanenson: September 9th. Mancino: September 9th. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: 45 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO REPLAT THREE LOTS AND THREE eUTLeTS INTO THREE LOTS AND ONE eUTLeT AND PHASING CONSTRUCTION/REMODELING OF THE ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX INTO TWO PHASES, IN AN AREA ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, LOCATED NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF WEST 78T}~ STREET, CHANHASSEN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, LOTUS REALTY. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Is the applicant here? Vemelle Clayton: I'm Vemelle Clayton, 422 Santa Fe Circle... should probably say is, just to review this a little bit more. As you know several months ago we approved this from a complex.., facade, boardwalk, and parking.., are coming back in for subdivision. When we started, so we're back in for a subdivision. Everything's taken a little bit longer than we thought it would but it's not that things haven't been happening for the project. At the time we started this project, back when we were thinking it would be all developed as one entity and we brought it in as one entity. As it evolved and before we went through the planning process, planning approval process, it became apparent that it would be three entities but the groups always worked together in retaining the same architect and.., and so forth to work together to present one project. It probably should have occurred to us that three entities would probably not get their financing, their planning, everything done at exactly the same time and as it happened, it hasn't. So we are here now tonight and the request was initiated primarily by folks that are working with the cinema group. That might be somewhat confusing.., who those folks.., as well. Currently the Bloomberg Company owns the Frontier portion of the building, which was approved as a separate phase. Initially that was approved.., to be done as a separate phase. Bloomberg Companies also owns the building which sometimes is called a warehouse. Sometimes it's called the city building and recently it's been called the cinema building. That's all separate buildings. It's under separate ownership now. The other, the third entity is the Dahlin group who, because he is sort of functioning as the mortgagee and possession of the bowling alley, that used to be owned by another group that didn't make the payments on things, including payments to him, he has taken over control of the bowling alley and is the third portion of this project. Third entity in this project. That currently is a separate building too. So we're already dealing with three separate buildings. The platting tonight cleans up, as she says, allows them an entrance. Allows an entrance into the cinema building by adding a little bit to that, to each side to allow them... It cleans up the separation to the north. Separation from that building with the, what's called the Animal Fair building which is part of the hotel complex or... It also cleans up some problems at the south side, as she said. There's some, what's been called... Outlot that is actually right in front of the door. That's got to become a part of the bowling complex. So what we're doing is cleaning up areas. Providing areas of land that will provide access and creating lwo separate lots. Two separate plats. So we're asking for approval oflwo separate plats tonight. That is, before I go into the architecture, there's been a lot of confusion as we've talked here about who owns what and what kind... Did I clarify it? 46 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: Yes, I think you did. But there still is one outlot so we're going to end up with three lots and one outlot. Vemelle Clayton: The reason we're ending up with an outlot is that it's Bloomberg Companies' request that the parking lot be considered an outlot. Which exists as an outlot. Mancino: And that is Outlot A. Vemelle Clayton: And that will be the parking lot that is required to serve both.., projects as was approved by the Planning Commission and Council. Mancino: And I'm sorry I'm so, I want to say dense but Block 1 is a parking, or the open area at this point. Vemelle Clayton: No. Mancino: It goes between the buildings? Vemelle Clayton: I can't see where... Block 1 on the new plat? Mancino: Which says entertainment complex. Vemelle, this is what we have. Aanenson: You're right Nancy, that's between the Frontier building and the, right. Mancino: Okay. So Animal Fair was right here? Animal Fair building. Vemelle Clayton: Bowling alley is here. This is the theater. Animal Fair is up here. Aanenson: That'd be this area right here. Mancino: And then this is all.., and this is that open area. Then this is, okay. Thank you. Vemelle Clayton: Any other questions? I just brought along the two renderings so you can see what we're talking about... The bottom one is the one that you're familiar with. It was the color rendering that was done during site plan approval, and subsequently we had Truman Howell, the same gentleman that did this, put together another plan that was kind, put it all in a package. The boardwalk, the facade and the.., perspective rather than a front elevation. And so what is occurring then is this is the dividing line. This is the theater up front from here over to here and this is the... Well this is all entertainment but... This is the bowling building here. This would be Pauly's from here to here. This is the primary entrance. This is the small retail section here. And from here over it's the theater. So if you put your hand across there, if these folks went first, that's what you'd see. That part would be improved over there. Cover this up and these folks go first, then that's what you'd see is approved here, and the way it is now for the other area. So... we like to think, and I guess as we've been talking with staff and so forth, and I think the staff.., is that worse case you'll get part of a building first and... Best case, they'll all get their act 47 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 together and we'll be able to start the process at the same time. And both parties are making great strides and moving in that direction... But there is a very important time issue involved here in that.., for some of these buildings that are currently leased... They're currently vacant and they just can't afford to let them stay vacant much longer and so they need to know if they're going to be able to have, these folks that are here tonight.., cinema. Bob Copeland I think you've met, is involved in the cinema. And Herb Bloomberg and Clayton Johnson from the Bloomberg Companies are involved in the transition with the building for the cinema and if that transaction can't be assured of going forward.., so we have a time problem and... Mancino: Any questions? Vemelle, does the replatting affect any TIF funding at all? Vemelle Clayton: Any what? Mancino: TIF funding. Vemelle Clayton: The replatting is a condition of approval of the project so it has to occur for the project to go forward.., your approval and Council approval and that approval... Mancino: And you will be coming back to us soon, if we go ahead with this, and show us, we'll be doing a site plan review of the cinema? Vemelle Clayton: The site plan of the cinema has occurred. Mancino: So it's completely done? Vemelle Clayton: The project has been completed approved, right. Mancino: So how much of this is going to be done if we approve this? Is it just the building? Is it the landscaping? Vemelle Clayton: ... but one of the things I want to make clear is what you're doing. The staff report is written from the perspective that the cinema folks came in and said they want to get going. The bowling people weren't quite ready to go. And it's written from that perspective. But approving this means either one can go. You're approving two separate plats can be recorded separately. So either one can go. Just to make that clear. If, from the perspective of the staff report and.., that the cinema folks want to get going, their facade ends here. Mancino: So they do a third of the landscaping now? I mean how does this all work? Vemelle Clayton: The other thing that would occur that is of benefit to the total appearance is that Bloomberg's have this going, Bloomberg would then proceed with, number one the parking lot which is over here. So we would have, instead of a rough road back there, we'd have a... parking lot and they would.., which they would not be able to do if they couldn't do the parking lot in conjunction with the cinema. S° it's very likely that we w°uld get this building'" 48 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: And will there be a temporary entrance be put on that building? On the cinema building? Vemelle Clayton: They have their permanent. They do all of their, all of the work... Mancino: Okay. Because I wondered if you were entering the cinema because to be quite frank I can't remember if you're entering it from. Vemelle Clayton: From the comer. Aanenson: The comer, yeah. There's a little marquee facade. Mancino: Okay. Vemelle Clayton: It's probably easier to relate to that.., with this one. Mancino: Okay. Any other questions at this point? Joyce: How about if they never get the financing? Vemelle Clayton: You mean the bowling alley? Joyce: Well it sounds like you're going forward with the cinema. Vemelle Clayton: Well they're both moving. I mean they're both working. Joyce: Either one. Let's say either one doesn't get the financing. Mancino: Worse case. Joyce: Worse case scenario. Vemelle Clayton: Ever? Joyce: Yeah. I mean it just falls apart. Mancino: Yeah. What would happen worse case scenario. Aanenson: Then it stays the way it is. Vemelle Clayton: That's right. You'd have part of it improved. Joyce: You'd have part of it approved and but part of it would stay the same. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Vemelle Clayton: Which is bottom line what we've been saying, worse case is the building would look partly better. Mancino: So then if you had someone else come in and wanting to divide and do something differently, does this, does our site plan review, what we have approved carries with the land or it would be? Aanenson: It carries with the land. They'd have to come back to you to amend that. Joyce: I guess that was one of my questions... Mancino: Okay, any other questions? Jeff'? Any questions? Bob. No. Thank you. Anyone else from your team presenting? Vemelle Clayton: No. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing. Fannakes moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do so. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Fannakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Okay, comments. Jefl~ Farmakes: I have no comments on this. Mancino: Okay, Kevin. Joyce: I think I made my concerns. I don't have any problem with this. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: It looks fine to me. Mancino: Okay. I don't have any either at this point. May I have a motion please. Farmakes: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of subdivision #96-17 for the Entertainment Complex and Frontier Cinema Addition as shown in the plans submitted July 15, 1996 and subject to the following conditions, 1 through 2. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 Mancino: Is there a second? Skubic: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Fannakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Subdivision #96-17 for the Entertainment Complex and Frontier Cinema Addition as shown in the plans submitted July 15, 1996, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Existing buildings shall comply with the requirements of Uniform Building Code Chapter 34, "Existing Structures". 2. Engineering Department Conditions: FRONTIER CINEMA ADDITION PLAT a. The final plat should dedicate a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement along the south side of Lot 2 and Outlot A. b. The final plat should also show existing easements of record across the parcel. The City has a sanitary sewer easement which intersects the parcel. c. The applicant should supply the City with a $400 escrow for review and recording the documents for the City Attorney's office. ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX PLAT. a. The final plat should show the existing easements of record across the parcel. The City has an existing sewer and water line that intersects the parcel that should be denoted on the final plat. The easement width should be a minimum of 20 feet wide. b. The applicant should supply the City with a financial escrow in the amount of $250 for review and recording of the final plat by the City Attorney's office. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: The motion carries and will go in front of the City Council on September 9th. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: I hope everybody received a copy of the Bluff Creek Watershed plan. We have that set for kind of a workshop on the next meeting. September 4th and we will have one other item after that meeting. It will go from 6:00 to 8:00-8:15. We need to give 15 minutes to get the meeting set up. We do have one other interim use we need to address so hopefully in your next 51 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 meeting we'll have an opportunity to do a field trip. Maybe go out and look at a few projects and start the hearings at 8:00. That gives us some time to go out and look at a few things. Mancino: That second meeting in September? Aanenson: Right now it looks like we've got a light agenda so we might be able to go out and look at a few things. Mancino: Great. Wonderful. Now we also may be, talking about old business, we have applicants. Has that hit the newspaper for the new applicants? Aanenson: Correct. I talked to the City Manager. I think he felt like what we should do is that we should just recommend the one that you wanted and tell them that you didn't feel comfortable with the others and let them at that time make the decision to re-advertise. You felt we should just strongly go with, that you wanted to go more and send that one forward. Mancino: So then they will get back to us and say whether they want us to advertise any more or not? Aanenson: Right. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson; So I'm forwarding that onto the next packet. Mancino: Okay. And when will that come up to them? At a meeting? Aanenson: I'm hoping the next Monday night Council meeting.., make a decision what they want to do next Monday night. Mancino: And will that be during the open agenda or will that be a consent agenda or? Aanenson: Staff presentation. Mancino: Atthe end of the meeting? Aanenson: Yeah. Mancino: Because somebody should actually be there and explain that. Okay. Any other new business? Aanenson: No. I didn't have any more. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Farmakes noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 7, 1996 as presented. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1996 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: Actually there was quite a few items on August 12th. Melody Hill subdivision was approved. The Villages was also approved. They do have to come back. That was a preliminary approval so they have to come back one more time. Obviously there's some things that you wanted addressed that we'll have to carry forward such as the lighting theme and the retaining wall that we'll make sure we pick up because the church... And Paws and Claws. At first it was recommended for denial and then they reconsidered that vote and made a recommendation that the buildings at the ends be architecturally compatible with what's in the ordinance but they would allow the barn to be. Mancino: The stables. Aanenson: Yeah, the stables. They could have metal siding. So that's how that will be forwarded back to the Council for their consideration. And in case anybody hadn't heard, the Council did recommend denial of Town & Country, which was the, actually it was the industrial park plus part of that PUD. Multi-family. Mancino: And they also, did they go ahead... They gave the go ahead? Aanenson: Yeah, they didn't say that they were opposed to that, yeah. Mancino: Okay. What else is on the agenda tonight. Ongoing items. Oh, I'm sorry, you said on Bluff Creek we were going to do two things. We were going to do the Bluff Creek. Review that and then you had one other item on. Aanenson: Yeah, it was an interim use permit for grading that we wanted to get back before you and I think that's something we probably should do right away. Mancino: Open discussion. Discussion of cellular towers ordinance amendment. Aanenson: Yeah, if you want to move to that part of the meeting, you can adjourn the formal part and then... Fannakes moved, Joyce seconded to adjourn the public portion of the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 53