Loading...
PC 1996 12 04CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 4, 1996 (This meeting was held in the Senior Center without the use of the regular recording equipment. Therefore some of the recording was not of the best quality.) Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Bob Skubic, Kevin Joyce, Jeff Farmakes and Alison Blackowiak MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRSENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Sharmin A1-Jafl~ Planner II; Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 45,505 SQUARE FOOT AMERICINN MOTEL & SUITES LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS, JOHN SEIBERT. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff'? Sharmin, can you point, you made a recommendation, staff made a recommendation to add some more landscaping in the north, northwest comer. Can you show us where that is and what your concerns are. A1-Jaflk In this area. Mancino: And we will, just so I understand. We will be seeing a comprehensive perimeter landscaping plan from BRW for this site. A1-Jaflk Correct. It will be for the entire. Mancino: So what we see is going to change? A1-Jaflk Probably. Mancino: ... Secondly, when the addition, and I think it's a 800, 600 to 800 square foot addition being added in the future. Will that come back in front of the Planning Commission at that time? And how do we make sure that it does? Do we need to do something tonight? Aanenson: Well there's lwo ways to handle it. Generally, if it's less intensive.., the way the code is written is that staff can administratively approve that. We generally look at architectural compatibility. If we felt that it met that intent, then we would administratively approve it. If you felt strongly about there's certain things you want to see, make sure.., or a third option would be if Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 you wanted to see it. I guess we would say, if you're comfortable with the theme that we're doing, unless there's something specific you want to make sure is addressed, we would handle that administratively. Unless there's something specific that you're concerned about. I'm not sure if... Okay, then it would have to come back. Mancino: ... administrative question that I have. On page 8 where you have site coverage and.., site coverage, etc. Under Sector II, one of the first columns. It's commercial/retail square footage and you've got down, and I'm assuming this is Sector II, correct? Al-Jarl) Correct. Mancino: You have 60,000 square feet under commercial/retail. That includes 47,000 square foot motel space. When the expansion is done to this, it notes earlier in this report, the square footage will be 52,000... and I'm assuming the balance of that 60,000 is restaurant. Al-Jarl) Correct. Mancino: So is that going to give the restaurant enough square footage do you feel? And do we have to be concerned with that now? A1-Jafl5 We brought this issue up with the applicant and right now as they would.., between the two buildings... Mancino: I just wanted to make sure that everybody is aware of that and we're not doing something that I feel would cause problems for the next time... And we can, as it says in the paragraph below, the building square footages can be reallocated. Aanenson: But the bottom line is that we have to maintain.., the EA document there was a certain threshold that we have to maintain. So you can.., you can approve but they can't exceed the... that was described in the EA document. Mancino: Is everybody clear right now... Any other questions for staff at this point? Peterson: Just going back on your comment. I really couldn't.., that remaining square footage is enough for... Aanenson: ... one of the issues that we probably may have to ask to have it reallocated, which... So if you're going to take it somewhere else, you're going to lose it somewhere so... Mancino: But we could get it from the office service area which is 14,000. Aanenson: No. Mancino: No. Does that answer it for you Craig? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 Aanenson: It has to stay apples and apples. You have to stay within the commercial. If you're taking from another sector of commercial. That's how the EA document. Mancino: And I just brought it up just because.., talked about. So we don't have a problem. Peterson: It's got to come from 114,500, right? Mancino: No, it's got to be from 174 total? Peterson: But what we're saying is, if we're using 50 some thousand of the 60, we've got no place to take it from so there is an issue. Potentially. Aanenson: No, because... Peterson: But you're saying you can't take from Sector I and move it to Sector II so you are definitely limiting the size of the restaurant going on Sector II. If you're using it for the motel. Aanenson: No. You were right the first time. There's a total of 174,500 square feet. That's your total commercial. We allocated it to two different sectors. If you go over in Sector II, then the only other place you can take it from is Sector I. Mancino: Because that first line says, building square footages may be reallocated between sectors subject to approval by the Planning Director. Aanenson: Right. You're moving up and down within that sector commercial/retail. You can take it, you can't exceed the 174,500. That's the bottom line. Peterson: Right. Alright. Mancino: Any other questions? Does the applicant wish to make a presentation now? Vemelle Clayton: Hi, I'm Vemelle Clayton. Gee, this is louder than most. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle in Chanhassen and I'm with Lotus Realty. I introduced these folks before and in the interest of time I will just introduce John Seibert, who will speak in just a second and introduce the rest of the folks who you've already met. I want to say just a couple of things. I think you'll appreciate, as Sharmin has alluded to, all of the work that they have done. We're excited about the changes that they've made and we're fully supportive of their project. I also want to reiterate something I said two weeks ago which you've also discussed and that is that... BRW is working on some pretty exciting things for the hardscape and landscape and we want to consider the items that you're looking at conditions of approval tonight. I want to ask you to consider a little rephrasing of the, relative definite impact of the changes that the applicant shall, as a condition. We need to I think either be directing rather the developer to consider each of those suggestions because I guess I can't see how we can have it both ways. It is important that the peripheral area be one cohesive, well developed plan. It's important for a couple of reasons, one of which will come up again tonight, but one is just the aesthetics. We need to have you all look at this as all Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 one plan. All the village and secondly, all along Highway 5 there is the northwest in a PUD, which prohibits certain types of plantings. Some of which have been placed here and we need to have a good plan that deals with that. If you have any questions, I'll be around. Mancino: Thank you. John Seibert: Good evening Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, staff2 I'm John Seibert, Vice President of Construction and Real Estate for Americinn and I live in Dayton, Minnesota. The situation we have here this evening is to basically go back through some of the recommendations that were made to us from the last particular Planning Commission that we were at and once again I've brought a number of staff with me in order to attempt to try to give you the opportunity to ask them questions and they'll also make some presentations. Vemelle Clayton is here obviously, as she's spoken already and Mika Milo, who's not ill tonight. I'm really pleased to hear that but he'll be here this evening, and Mika Milo who is the Architectural Review Committee and he'll end up giving you his opinions in reference to how we have incorporated the changes that we've made and how they fit into the overall plan. Mr. Crentin is here this evening and he is with HKS and he has done the civil engineering for us as well as the landscape review. In addition to that we have Truman Howell from Truman Howell Architects and Mr. Howell has been the architect on this particular development and he is the one that obviously has spent a considerable amount of time revising and putting in a number of changes that we've brought with us. We have also tonight brought along with us a revised study model, and as I mentioned to you the last time, the study model is definitely one whereas to be looked at as a study model. Not as a... model. And study models are basically again to try and give you a 3D perception as to what the actual project will look like. That has been revised from what we originally had. Mr. Howell will end up showing that a little more in detail. We've also brought along with us the exterior finishes as well as some additional renderings. There's only one thing I'd like to point out in reference to the renderings and that is that the coloring that is on this..., roof coloring on this one, the roof coloring is not green. Unfortunately when you reproduce once in a while the original color that was on there won't reproduce the same and so I don't want you to end up envisioning that as a green roof. It will end up looking just like we do out here. The weather shield type of a look. We also have a number of court yards and specific details in reference to how these court yards are going to end up being landscaped and we'll also end up having information as to what type of lighting is going to be utilized on those as well. I do want to tell you that a considerable amount of time and effort has been gone through in an attempt to try and bring this project to where we felt it needed to be. I will very candidly tell you that I have had a very difficult time struggling with what neo-traditional is so I went to Celebration. Now you might say well that wasn't too difficult of a time to do it, this time of year with the snow on the ground. However, I specifically went down to take a look at Celebration to see how Disney, quote unquote, fit into the neo-traditional concept. And the thing that I walked away from that particular project with the most was the fact that they have variety and community and within the variety, what they did is they have just about any kind of design that you can think of and as I was going through it I noticed that there is colonial, reveal, there's mediterranean, there's Victorian, there's classical, there's coastal, there's French design so it is a myriad of different designs that they're utilizing. And in reference to the community, which is I think one of the things that we had struggled the most with in this particular project, is to allow people to feel the freedom to be 4 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 able to stroll along through the whole concept. And I think you'll see tonight that by the very different landscape areas that we've done, along with some of the pavers that we've incorporated and so forth, that we've pretty well aligned ourselves with what we've actually seen down in Celebration and what you're really looking for up here. First of all, as Sharmin mentioned, we have soften the colors on the building and we've moved to the warmer colors versus the colder colors. We've also enhanced the festive areas and we've provided some very specifics on those. We have brought with us some signage information for you tonight so that you can review how we anticipate the signage will look on it and we've also got the cut through section on the signage that you can end up taking a look at. How that signage will look on the face of it as well. And Mr. Howell will end up getting into those very different aspects for you when he makes his presentation. In reference to the landscaping, Allan Crentin will end up giving you his overview on that and one of the things that we discovered in the process of going through the landscaping and trying to incorporate additional over story trees along the north perimeter was the fact that there is indeed a power easement that runs right along through there and Mr. Crentin will show you where that easement falls and how it affects the very different plantings that we can end up putting in there. We also have taken a look at the emergency vehicles circulation and Mr. Crentin has met with the Fire Marshal. They've reviewed that and they've taken care of that. They've also taken a look at adding the additional three fire hydrants that we needed to do as well. A sidewalk was added along the south side, which was an oversight on our part originally. And then we've revised the parking lot as Sharmin mentioned. We've deleted those 11 parking spaces. In reference to the property lines, I don't think that's going to be an issue but I assure you that the developer's going to work agresssively with us and also with the City and so forth in making sure that we are going to make the property lines where they actually are supposed to be so I guess on that point I can't tell you more than that because we haven't seen where they potentially might vary but we are assuring you that we are going to work with them on that. At this time I'd like to introduce Mika Milo and have him give his input as to what he envisions our project looking like in reference to this entire complex and the Villages on the Ponds. Mika Milo: Your Honor, Planning Commissioners and Chairman. I'm pleased to speak tonight a little bit about that project that you are also very familiar at this point with. And we'll let you know that over the past 2 or 3 months we have been working rather extensively with the owner of Americinn and their architects and their design team and fine tuning and defining their design so that it fits into the overall image of the Villages that we have been trying to achieve and then describing the design character booklet that you have all seen before. I can say.., was several reasons or several.., where we addressed additional problems that we saw in the initial design that was submitted and that was.., planning department and the staff pointed out so really worked as a team on that and we met also together here with the Planning Department a couple times at least with the design... And the result of all that is that the number of changes to add in terms of materials, colors and especially the mass and bulk of the building and the design detailing. We are real pleased now with where that design stands at this point. We think it's going to fit within the overall image and character of the Villages. One of the concerns was the face of the building towards TH 101, the west face, that was kind of relatively long and it was not articulated enough and that was one of the main concerns with those expressed and... And I'm pleased to see that that also has been.., all the way with the roof highlighted areas there along the top. There is more...to the building overall, as the mass of the building has been achieved... And so with all Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 these improvements and even the quality being of somewhat modified. I'm simply saying that we feel that that design will fit into the Villages character. It is going to fit within that neo-traditional theme that John Seibert was struggling and.., to verify what this was all about, even though I think the character... But anyway, if you have any questions of me. Mancino: Any questions? Thank you. John Seibert: Thank you Mika. At this time I'd like Truman Howell from Truman Howell Architects to make his presentation in reference to all the very different changes that we've made from the last time to the present time. Truman Howell: Truman Howell, Truman Howell Architects. I live in St. Paul... This has changed a great deal, and thank you for bringing this into the light Mika. But as you can see from these two renderings alone, many things have changed and been modified on the project. I would bring this up again. As you see this is the model... (Truman Howell stepped away from the microphone as he was explaining the model to the Planning Commission.) Truman Howell: ... I'll basically go through the items that, and I don't know how far back you want me to start. We can talk about where we've changed since the last presentation or would it be easier just to proceed on to what we did from the last point? Well first of all we've broken up the massing of the building with the additional elements and details. All donner and balcony areas were fully bricked to give you the impression of actually a separate building type. The building here.., we've actually introduced the brick all the way up around the back portion of the building so, in fact we've got.., to put that as a main element to change basically the looks of what we had prior to that. On the west elevation, as we indicated, we've added a separate donner and a new configuration of balconies and railings. We've introduced simulated stone to try and give you a feel for it there. At the window heads and the sills in these stone material that will appear as stone material. Not only there but also in capping all of the brick that surrounds the building... modification of the free standing columns to... But we've added a cupola to this portion of the building at the change and direction of the buidling as it tums 90 degrees on the site to again break up the massing of the entire building. We broke the entry canopy into two levels. Again, to help give an impression.., looking at another kind of building. An outside building. An outdoor space as opposed to a long extended canopy. We divided the chimney stacks so we get somewhat more of an European flavor, if we can use that tenn. We added on all of the windows, instead of the projected units, the through wall units being exposed as we had in the previous project. We now have an entire louvred screen over the through wall units so that they will appear as a portion of the framing of the windows. Mancino: Excuse me, can you say that again? Truman Howell: Okay. The through wall units that actually do the heating and cooling in the individual units, that projects through the wall, okay. And so in the previous one there was a concem. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 Mancino: Does it actually come out? Truman Howell: Yes it does. It actually sticks outside the building. So what we've done, and actually you can see them below the windows. And it was indicated to us that they stood out as a separate element and were not terribly attractive. What we've done is taken the framework around the windows on the exterior so that we maintain that, and then we brought it down so there's no covers that projected... I'm sorry. Nancy Mancino made a comment that was not heard on the tape. Truman Howell: Right, exactly. We're enclosing the dumpster area. Someone didn't care for lattice work I guess and.., and we now have a brick enclosure with a simulated stone cap on it. ... it is pretty much hidden from any kind of anyone understanding that it might be a dumpster location. Sorry I'm reading from notes but there's quite a few of these so I want to make sure that I get them. We're extending and roofing the first floor exits at the end of the building for an additional texture on that face. The facade is really limited to... elements again trying to break up the large spaces and add interest to that facade. We use that as an entry then at the end of the building for the guests there and made a statement as... We made an additional three patio feature areas at strategic locations on the site. Now if we could have a site. This is the patio area that you talked about.., providing walkways around it. Put lighting in there... Those basically are the elements that we have made modifications of on the last presentation. If you would like me to discuss the signage at this point we can do that. If you'd like to wait and if you have any questions about the building at this point, I'd be happy to answer them. Mancino: Any questions of the building? Blackowiak: Do you have a rendering of... ? Mancino: Truman, on the west elevation. Can you pull up the one... I noticed the balconies and there aren't... Peterson: They are functional balconies. On those balconies.., where are the HVAC systems? Truman Howell: Those units... Peterson: What's the thought of below the areas that have balconies? Was it intentional or... Talk about the columns going in front of the.., the circular... Truman Howell: We'll use either a drivit system or use a... clad fiber reinforce product that snaps over a structure. Peterson: And the color will be? Truman Howell: White. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 Joyce: ... service door, right there. Is that new? Truman Howell: No. Joyce: I don't see it on this. Truman Howell: Well it is now. Joyce: No, I understand it... Truman Howell: No, basically that handles our lawn equipment that we'll be using to take care of our... Peterson: Did you change the width of the driveway? Last time... Truman Howell: These are all half scales. We should have mentioned that. These items are actually half scales. The full size one would really have been a problem so we are, it's proportionately accurate, but we are wider here. Peterson: Were there any discussions, I think it was brought up last time about the width of the siding. That the narrower siding would be more of a richer feel than the wider, 12 to 16 inch. Truman Howell: Well it wouldn't be that wide. 12-16 but it probably would be 8 to 10. I guess I didn't get the impression that that was an issue. Peterson: I didn't know if it was brought up or not. Maybe I was thinking about it. Skubic: I believe the... Truman Howell: Really what happens when you begin to put shutters on a building like this, you do have windows fairly close together and all of a sudden they begin to take over an entire building. So we felt it was more appropriate to bring the grid down and make a larger statement in that area as opposed to widening it. Mancino: Any other questions? You wanted to talk about signage. Truman Howell: Alright, why don't we talk also about lighting as well. We have chosen an antique type fixture, which I'm sure you've seen. Can you see that? I mean that's a fairly common one that we've seen before. And we're planning to use those around here and we're suggesting that they be used in the parking lot actually. However, we're confused somewhat by a suggestion in the report. We don't care which way you want to go but it talked about viewing boxes or cut-oil's for lights. Now obviously on these types of fixtures to have a cut-off is very difficult. If not impossible, and so the typical box fixture, which is a tall lamp, say 20 feet, can be used. However, the feel would be somewhat different than what we were looking at here. So 8 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 we're happy to go either way. It's just that I think we need to maybe get the feeling of where everyone is. We can in fact provide at a lower level, and I mean lower level, not an illumination but in height, a lamp similar to this only it'd be a double fixture. That would give the.., of the luminating engineers suggested level of lighting for a parking lot. Mancino: I think.., isn't that covered in the comprehensive lighting plan that we... ? Vemelle Clayton made a comment that was not picked up by the tape. Truman Howell: I would think the appearance would be, yes. Okay... Obviously the materials in the roof would be the same as we have on the rest of the building. It will have the details... Joyce: I'm talking about the cupola itself. It has a white stripe on the... And that goes throughout the whole. Is there a red stripe through the whole building? Truman Howell: Yes. Joyce: Oh, I can't see. I'm sorry. That's fine. Peterson: It will be thicker than the one you have there. Truman Howell: It will be probably a 10 inch... Mancino: Are there any other questions? John Seibert: In reference to bringing back lighting details and that sort of thing, I guess the real crux of this is to make sure you understand that we are aware of the half candle per square foot of area and the design criteria is based around that. Fixtures that Mr. Howell is talking about here were indeed such that they were to provide us with that. You can see that there's a little bit of coordination that's going to be required yet in order to make sure that we're again compatible with the overall lighting concept but again you can I think feel fairly comfortable with where we're heading with that. And then again in reference to signage, we're fully aware that we need to come back and get additional permitting on that so that again will end up being resubmitted at the time for permitting. At this time I'd like to have Allan Crentin come up and give his short presentation in reference to the landscaping issues and also the traffic circulation within the complex. Allan Crentin: Good evening Madam Chair, commissioners. As Truman had mentioned, in the site plan we did incorporate some thick pavings as strategic points under the canopy and around the patio. In addition to those modifications on the site plan, we also looked at access to this site and how the large hook and ladder truck of a fire department can get into the site and access the structure. We met with him. Had a total discussion about how their truck could get in and they could get access to the upper portion of the building. The access that they have would not only be from.., and the south road, but it's also from Market Boulevard. So we have to look comprehensively at all the buildings. What we did do was we relaxed the radius of the access 9 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 point into the site.., so if a truck did come up into here, and there may be a need for them to come in and back over to the structure to get their ladder up but it is accessible for fire trucks to get to the upper portion of the structure. In addition to that, we modified the site plan we lost parking along Highway 5. We incorporated some additional berming so at our highest point is probably about 959 with our parking lot is... undulating berming, screening with earth that will get up to 5 feet high. In addition to that we brought a trail through here and... It's a very interesting, very neat space to walk through. Another thing that we responded to from the Fire Chief was the additional fire hydrants. We now have six hydrants located around the building, working with the Fire Chief to make sure that we have the proper placement and accessibility for the Fire Department to deal with any situation that would... Again, water and the.., is tied into the overall system that would be... The next item that we dealt with was landscaping, and I would like to hand out some additional sheets that show the NSP easement on the north side of the property because I think that affects some of the selection criteria on the landscape. We've also had conversations with NSP and specifically their individual who deals with easements and encroachments into the easements. NSP is very particular in terms of what they will allow and what they won't allow under a power line and we have secured an approved list from NSP in terms of plant materials that they will allow to occur under a power line and we'll gladly share this with staflk But the maximum height that we can deal with for plant material on the north side here is 15 feet. And that's unfortunate because what we would like to do... we're going to have work closely with Lotus and the overall theme of the development because I think it's very important that we maintain some view corridors into this site. Into the promenade area of the development. And in order to achieve that there's going to have to be some openings that occur with the undulation of the berming and modulation of the landscape. But obviously that issue's being handled by Lotus and their people but we are cognizant of what they're trying to do and trying to work with them on that issue. Aside from that we have increased the quantity of plant material of the shrubbery along this edge. Trying to again promote the screening of the vehicles.., as I've been coming through Chanhassen quite a bit lately, because we're working on that other shopping center..., I would expect that one of the issues in looking at parking lots, the screening and the views from Highway 5, there's a relationship of the berm height to Highway 5 and not the parking lot. And I think that's a real critical issue. We've addressed that knowing that.., give you an effective screen of the parking area. So I just want to make sure that you're aware of that. We know how that works and I think this will work to your advantage. Mancino: I have a couple of questions. Allan Crentin: Certainly. Mancino: Are you done? Allan Crentin: Yes. Mancino: I'm sorry. I'm seeing that.., where do I exit, how do I get over to the restaurant? How do I know what paths to go to or I want to go to the pond... Or let's say it's 9:00 at night. Will the trail system on the north side there, will there be some lower level lighting along that trail system? And how will I know... ? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 Allan Crentin: I think I may have to defer that to Vemelle in terms of overall issues. Vemelle Clayton's answer was not picked up on the tape. Mancino: But that will be kind of addressed so that when people... Allan Crentin: We have incorporated lighting in the islands here which will, excuse me area lights. But I certainly understand the need to have something more specific occur. Mancino: Some low ambience lighting. Can you show me the trail or the sidewalk.., brought up the last meeting. Allan Crentin: We have added a sidewalk on the south side of the properly, adjacent to the parking, which comes through the properly and will be picked up and tie into the sidewalk system that will be incorporated into the overall development. Our sidewalk also ties up into the sidewalk that gives access to the front entrance, as well as access up to the trail systems so we're well interconnected with the network that is proposed for the development. Mancino: And Dave, on the east side of TH 101, will there be a trail also?... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Mancino: So that we can all make sure that that south sidewalk connects to TH 101. So people can walk... Allan Crentin: So you want this connection right here then, okay. We can certainly do that. Mancino: Is there any sort of traffic control landscaping, median, whatever done.., on TH 101 in this area? Hempel: This section of TH 101 is fairly built to... south to Rosemount. Mancino: How, if I'm sitting out sunning myself after going swimming indoors, am I going to be protected by, am I going to be... landscaping and buffering? Allan Crentin: We've got vertical landscape elements that will give a sense of privacy for the patio, and at the same time I know that there are elements in the patio itself that will provide some sense of privacy. It's more of an introspective space, ifI was to describe it versus being something that we are going to looking out into Highway 5 or even TH 101. Mancino: Any questions? Any discussion? Thank you. John Seibert: Thank you. At this time what I'd like to do is just go back and re-address the varying different recommendations that staff has made in reference to this particular project, and if 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 you'd like I can certainly be, I'll be happy to go through them on an individual basis. Obviously items number 1 and 2 have been omitted at this point. Item number 3, I think you can understand that we have some difficulty with the evergreens because of the power line easement. That's all going to be worked out in an overall plan. I don't feel that we want to spend a lot of time dwelling on that because it is an issue that is in the process of being worked on, and the same is true of item number 4 where it talks about the overstory or evergreen trees along that same corridor. In reference to item number 5, we will be doing this and installing aeration as needed for the vary and different islands. And item number 6 talks about again our overall comprehensive landscape plan. We again are going to be working with BRW and are fine with that particular issue. Mancino: John, can I interrupt you for a minute? Are there any of these conditions that you have concerns with? Otherwise are you pretty much in agreement with any of them? With all of them. If you could just pick out those that you have... John Seibert: Sure. Let me just address a few of them please. In reference to item number 9, you're talking about requiring financial security and one of the things that we're going to want to understand in the process of having this particular recommendation accepted is to what exactly is that financial security going to be? If it's in reference to posting a bond or something of that nature for the landscaping or what, but at this point it's fairly ambiguous. And so we would really like to have a little more definition in reference to that issue. Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that. That condition relates to all public utility improvements. In other words, if they're privately owned and maintained... Mancino: So if we just added in the financial guarantees will be submitted to the City to guarantee all public utility improvements? Hempel: And landscaping. Mancino: And landscaping. John Seibert: In reference to item number 10. We again appreciate the fact that the right-in, right- out is still up in the air, and at this point we would again want to make sure that that continues to be maintained in it's entirety as it states there, unless it's approved otherwise. Mancino: Certainly I would think that staff is in agreement with that. John Seibert: And in reference to item number 16. We don't have any problem with making sure the construction vehicles and so forth don't enter in off of TH 101 or TH 5, except for the fact that we're trying to say to ourselves, where exactly are these construction vehicles supposed to be entering in and off of? And again the way that reads, it leaves us like... Hempel: Madam Chair. The intent was that we don't want them jumping the curbs..., which is a main street... 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 Mancino: Okay. Then maybe we should add that language. John Seibert: If we could, I'd appreciate it. Mancino: Curb cuts on, okay. John Seibert: Okay. Those were the only real concerns I had. I guess in conclusion I'd like to again reiterate that I'm sure you can see that we've spent a fair amount of time and effort in attempting to try and accomplish the concerns that the Planning Commission had. And I don't want to be remiss, and again reinstating the fact that we at Americinn are extremely proud of our facility and this indeed will be a flagship of our particular properties. And this particular property is again a quality constructed building. It's a masonry concrete and it does end up providing a real sound structure and so it's one that your community can be very proud of, and I would be remiss ifI didn't once again reinstate how strongly we feel about that particular aspect of it. And tonight what we're obviously asking for is approval of this site plan review process and we would like to indeed have it incorporated such that the recommendations by staff are as we've gone over to this point in time, included within that particular motion. And we're happy to answer any other questions you may have at this time. Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for John at this time? I just have one general one. About parking spaces. We're requiring 78 and you're providing 98. 20 extra. John Seibert: If you'll recall, we do want to add an addition onto the building so we're going to be looking at the expansion side of the building so when we do expand, I believe the number was to 98 that we could expand the building to. And so that in turn is where we came up with that number and why we'd still like to keep that number of parking spaces. And there within that, I might also add that the restuarant will end up having a cross easement agreement with us and so therefore they'll end up using some parking. Mancino: And we certainly do... speak for all the commissioners, appreciate all the time that you've put in since our last meeting... That's it. I don't see any reason to open this for a public hearing tonight, although.., commissioners. Craig. Peterson: I really don't have a lot of comments. I think staff has definitely worked with the applicant to address the issues we brought up last time and I'm comfortable that we've met all, if not most of those issues, at least that I had... You can't get away from the fact that this is a big building that is going to have some areas that are going to be long and rather cold. I think that adding the cupola in one area and adding brick certainly has given it a nicer feel. I really like the way that the entrance has changed into that double tier. I think it's much more inviting than before. I guess the only.., may be on my own personal opinion but.., is the siding width. The cedar lap siding that was presented last meeting being the much wider than what we're seeing here tonight. You know I compare it a little bit against, I think it's the same width of the Chanhassen Inn has off of TH 5 now. That longer width but I just somehow think, in many ways now I think it fits in less with the structure than it did before with all the additional brick. I think it just gives it 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 a richer feel if you go with the lower width siding on the building. I don't know if there's costs reasons for the wider or not but... Other than that, I think they have gone truly a long ways in meeting with some of the expectations that we set forth last time. Mancino: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: Well I thought initially it was a good development, but not really for this project. Particularly as it being the first tenant of this properly, I thought it was so important to set the tone for what we're doing here for the rest of the project. I think obviously what we're trying to achieve is kind of a unique development. One of quality. Certainly a theme but I don't think it was contrived. This could... I hate the thought of being compared with a Disneyland type of development. I think to me neo-traditional is really attention to details and variety. And something that isn't utilitarian or... look, which I thought the original presentation was. We really need to concentrate on the details and I've seen that and I think the improvements really.., our vision here for this whole project. So, and I think as a Planning Commission we're going to mn into this again and again. How do you explain this vision we have, and I guess ifI was to use the idea of neo-traditional, what made those old buildings so special was the detail that was involved with it and I think... I think this will be a nice showcase for Americinn so I'm in favor of it. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Nothing new to add. I like it very much. I think they did a good job bringing back what we asked for. Just two issues. Six fire hydrants. That's a huge number of fire hydrants. I can't remember circling anything with six fire hydrants but that's for you folks to figure out but wow. And I sure like the character of the street lights that the applicant is bringing in. If that meets standards in this district out in the parking lot, I'd sure like to carry that through. Yeah, that's what we're looking for here so I'd really recommend staff to try to make that happen if we can. Again, safely... Mancino: Is there a condition in here about the comprehensive lighting plan... ? As we give comments, can you look at that so we make sure that we include that. Bob. Skubic: Well it's certainly come a long ways. I congratulate staff and the applicants for doing all the architecture here.., good looking piece of architecture here. And I was one of the people who felt it should have European character to the building. I was convinced that we're doing the right thing here... There's been a lot of good detail added and we still have some inclinations... I do like what you've done with the window openings. The architectural... I also would be interested in narrow lap siding. I think it adds more character to it. That's all. Mancino: Jefl~ Jeff Farmakes' comments were not picked up on the tape. Blackowiak: Overall I like the detail. I like the benches. I really like the entryway, the pavers and the changes to the columns. I'm still concerned about the trees in the northwest comer. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 That's not been addressed and I don't think that area falls within the NSP easement area and I would like them to look at doing something with that northwest comer... I like the antique lights a lot. If we could meet the foot candle requirement in the parking lot, I'd really prefer that we do something like that to continue that feel out into the parking lot as well. And Sharmin, I was looking at page 15 about the lighting and I don't know if that applies to the entire PUD. Okay. A1-Jafl2 ... specifically for this development... Blackowiak: So that they could change and do some type of an antique style and still be within that... ? Okay, great. And then I've got a couple little nit-picky things I guess. Splitting hairs. Conditions 10 and 16 are talking about access, construction access. I would suggest we add direct access to and from. And as well on number 16. Construction access to and from because I shutter to think when we get some heavy loaded truck pulling right out onto Highway 5 and causing an accident or something so I'm again splitting hairs but that one jumped out at me. Other than that I think it's great. I think a lot of work has been put into it and a much improved plan is the result. Thanks. Mancino: Well I'm truly excited about all the changes... My only comments are the same as far as the narrow width siding.., and on that western side of the indoor swimming pool. That area and just south of it. Those walls, I think that they could be enhanced with more landscaping. That that is an area when you come west on Highway 5, that's going to be your entrance to the motel so you are going to see it right there and I think that there could be some added interest there. Whether that is worth going all the way up the wall or whether that is landscaping that is very well done, and I would just look at that comer because it is so visible and so prominent and is part of the welcoming side. Other than that, those are my comments. May I have a motion please. Skubic: I'll make the motion. The Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #96- 13 for a 45,505 square foot Americinn Motel and Suites facility as shown in the plans dated October 7, 1996, subject to the conditions 1 through 20 with the following conditions being striken. Number 1 is striken. Number 2. Should I go through this or? With some alteration to the conditions. Condition number 9. The second sentence should read something to the effect that financial guarantees must be submitted to the City to guarantee all public utility improvements and landscaping. And condition number 16 which should read, construction access directly from Market Boulevard (Trunk Highway 101) or Trunk Highway 5 shall be restricted to the existing curb cuts. Is that alright Dave? Hempel: IfI could modify that a little bit to read the construction access to and from the site shall be limited to approved access points from Market Boulevard (Trunk Highway 101). Approved for the Villages on the Ponds. Skubic: That's all I have... Mancino: Any friendly amendments? One of the friendly amendments I would like to add is that th th it's, the plans dated November 26 instead of October 7 . That would be those plans. And I would like to add another friendly amendment. That the siding be cedar siding with the smaller 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 width, 6 to 8 inch siding the entire motel. And the only other friendly amendment I would like to add is to one of the Fire Marshal conditions, which is (k). And that is only, can we do a triple check on adding three additional fire hydrants because I think that's been checked already. Do you accept those friendly amendments? Skubic: Yes. Mancino: And are there any others? Is there a second to the motion? Farmarkes: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Skubic moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #96-13 for a 45,505 square foot Americinn Motel and Suites facility as shown on the plans dated November 26, 1996, and subject to the following conditions: 1. More evergreens shall be planted along the northern boundary. More deciduous overstory or evergreen trees should be added to the northwest comer of the property to increase the landscape effect. Aeration tubes must be installed in islands and peninsulas less than 10 feet wide. Applicant must provide plans and insurance of success if alternatives are requested. The applicants shall incorporate the comprehensive landscape plan currently being prepared by the firm of BRW into the Americinn site plan, after City approval. A separate sign permit must be submitted for all site signage, except for traffic control signage. The applicant shall submit detailed sign plans reflecting a recessed panel with individual backlit letters. Site plan approval shall be conditioned upon the developer of the Villages on the Ponds recording the final plat and all pertinent documents for the PUD with Carver County. Financial guarantees must be submitted to the City to guarantee all public utility improvements and landscaping. Also, the applicant for the Americinn shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the City and provide financial security pertaining to specific improvements on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds. Direct access from Market Boulevard (Trunk Highway 101) shall be prohibited unless approved otherwise by MnDot and Carver County. The parking lot configuration shall be revised to accommodate emergency fire apparatus. The applicant shall work with the City's Fire Marshal in revising the parking lot configuration accordingly. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Three additional fire hydrants shall be placed on the site in accordance with the City Fire Marshal's recommendations. Plans shall be revised accordingly. Site utility improvements will require separate building permits from the City's Building Department, i.e. sewer, storm and watermains. Storm drainage plan shall be revised to include an additional catch basin across from catch basin manhole No. 62 and provide a 15 inch storm sewer lead east out of catch basin No. 64. No building permits will be issued until the final plat of Villages on the Ponds has been recorded and the site has been graded in accordance with the approved grading plan. Construction access to and from the site shall be limited to approved access points from Market Boulevard (Trunk Highway 101) and Trunk Highway 5, as approved for the Vffiages on the Ponds. Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds is subject to full park and trail fees per city ordinance. One third of these fees will be paid by the developer of the Villages plat. The remaining two thirds shall be paid at the time the building permit is granted. 15. Fire Marshal conditions: A 10 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. Yellow painted curbing and no parking fire land signs will be required. Contact Fire Marshal for exact location of signage and curbing to be painted. Pursuant to 1991 UFC Section 10.206 and Section 20.207(a) and Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy 06-1991. c. A post indicator valve will be required on the fire service line coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. d. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy No. 01-1990 regarding fire alarm systems. (copy enclosed) e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy No. 04-1991. Notes to be included on site plans. (Copy enclosed) f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy No. 07-1991 Pre-fire plan policy. (copy enclosed) 17 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 16. g. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy No. 29-1992 premise identification. (copy enclosed) h. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy No. 36-1994 water line sizing. (copy enclosed) i. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy No.40-1995 fire sprinkler systems. (copy enclosed) j. Comply with Chanhassen Inspection Division Policy No. 34-1993 water service installation. Three additional fire hydrants will be required, one existing fire hydrant is to be relocated. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for new locations. Staffis to verify that this conditions is correct. Submit turning radiuses on Fire Department access routes to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to 1991 UFC Section 10.204. Prior to construction fire apparatus access roads or access shall be provided for every factility, building or portion of a building hereafter 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 from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route or on the exterior of the building or facility. Pursuant to 1991 UFC Section 10.203. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1991 UFC Section 10.204(b). When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 UFC Section 10.502. p. The Fire Department sprinkler connection shall be located adjacent to the main vestibule to the building. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city and PUD standards shall be submitted. 17. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with the PUD ordinance. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 18. The siding for the entire motel shall be cedar siding with the smaller width, 6 to 8 inches. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A GREENHOUSE AND OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION ON TO LOTUS LAWN AND GARDEN LOCATED ON 2.3 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5, 78 WEST 78TM STREET, JAY ICRONICIC Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff'? Is the applicant here? Jay Kronick: I'm Jay Kronick. I reside in Chaska. I'm the properly owner. I guess I don't really have any problems with the recommendations made by staflk I was a little surprised to find out about the requirement for sprinklering, particularly the greenhouse. A steel structure with rigid plastic siding and not much else to it other than some plants and presumably metal benches and a concrete floor eventually. I've been exploring some ways around that. Haven't come up with anything. If you folks can help me out, I'd appreciate it. IfI have to sprinkler the greenhouses, I will. There's plenty of water in there anyhow. Otherwise the recommendations, I don't have any problem with any of them. I did want to indicate to the commission this evening that I submitted a site plan which would hopefully foresee the major types of changes and improvements I would envision making over an undetermined period of time. A number of years. I don't anticipate having a means without incurring additional debt to do all this at once. It would be my intention during the next construction season to complete the building but some of the other improvements would have to wait and be done in successive years as time and circumstances permit. Mancino: So you would phase that? Jay Kronick: Yes. Yes. Other than that I have nothing else I think I need to enlighten you with. Well one thing. It's noted in here that we will match the existing building and I think our siding is about 6 inches wide right now. Mancino: Any questions for Jay at this time? Okay, thanks. 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: Anyone wishing to address the commission at this time on this issue, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 Peterson moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments. Or questions from commissioners. Alison. Blackowiak: Well actually everything looks fairly straight forward to me. The only question I would have, Jay made me think of it. Is there any type of a restriction as to how long it will, it could take to do this work? You can't do it all in one year, which I totally understand. Is there any time limit on what we say or is it kind of an indefinite period to work on this? Aanenson: Typically the building inspector... Certainly I think we would want to see a continuous action. That might be one of the conditions that you could put on. That there would be continuous action to work towards completion... Jay Kronick: I may just enlighten you. The building itself will be done... I would envision the greenhouse as a separate item... Blackowiak: Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that. I just didn't want you to have to come before the Planning Commission in a year because you want to do the next phase. I just want to make this as easy as possible so that, although it may take more than one construction season, there's not going to be a requirement for you to come back every time you want to add a component. Aanenson: I guess what we're saying too is that we want to make sure that... That the drainage is going the right direction and those sort of issues so I think if there is going to be... Not just the building as a continuous action. Keep the rest of the site moving and generally... It's progressive towards completion so it's not 10 years out. Mancino: It'd be fairly general. Blackowiak: Okay, that's fine. That's my only comment. Mancino: Jefl~ Farmakes: No additional comments... The issue of the sprinkling... Mancino: Bob. Skubic: No comments. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: Nothing. Peterson: Nothing. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 Mancino: My only one has to do, and I don't have a clue legally but it does say Minnesota... greenhouse and sales area. Well if there are any findings that we can check with the greenhouse, I think that would be comfortable to Jay. Those are my only comments. Good going and is there a motion? Joyce: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #88-13 for a site plan review for 2,480 square feet expansion to the sales area and a 400 square foot expansion to the greenhouse area subject to the conditions 1 through 6. Mancino: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #88-13 for a site plan review for a 2,480 square foot expansion to the sales area and a 400 square foot expansion to the greenhouse area subject to the following conditions: The building must be fire sprinklered or separated into individual buildings with adjusted locations to avoid sprinklering. 2. The water service must be located so as not to pass under any buildings. 3. The additions and accessible route must meet building code requirements. The applicant shall provide the City with a $2,000 cash escrow or letter of credit to guarantee boulevard restoration prior to commencing construction of the drive aisle and/or apron curb cut on West 78th Street. The proposed drive shall be paved with bituminous and concrete curb and gutter pursuant to City Code. The applicant shall incorporate foundation plantings south of the proposed sales and office buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried. AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF THE ALGAE IN WETLANDS. Jill Sinclair presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing and a second please? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 Peterson moved, Fannakes seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so at this time? Peterson moved, Fannakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Thank you very much. Craig. Peterson: No comments. Mancino: No comments? Ladd. Conrad: Looks good... Mancino: Looks fine with that too. May I have a motion? Conrad: I would make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the addition to amending Chapter 20 of Chanhassen City Code per the document. Mancino: Which is Section 20-407, Wetland Alteration. Conrad: Yeah. Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Joyce: Second. Mancino: Thank you. Any discussion? Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of an amendment to the City Code to Section 20-407, Wetland Alterations to prohibit chemical treatment of the algae in wetlands. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ELECT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 1997. Mancino: The next item is the election of Chair and Vice Chair for next year, 1997. Nominations for Chair. Aanenson: Can I just make one clarification? Normally we do this in April but since our Chair is moving onto a higher office, we'll be short a person so I think it's appropriate that we do it now, 22 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 but the rest of the By-laws, will be re-adopt in April. That's normally when we do it. But in order to get our first meeting off and running, it would be appropriate to have a Chairman so that's why we put it on at this time... Mancino: Is it possible the first week in January to do the interviewing of possible candidates for... Aanenson: If we get some. To date we don't. Mancino: And we're taking applicants until the 15th. So commissioners if you know of anyone, talk to but it'd be great to have that... Okay, nominations for Chair. Conrad: I would nominate Craig. Mancino: Any more nominations? All those in favor of Craig Peterson for Chair of the Planning Commission please say aye. Conrad moved, Fannakes seconded to appoint Craig Peterson as Chainnan of the Planning Commission for 1997. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mancino: Nominations for Vice Chair. I nominate Kevin Joyce. Peterson: Second. Mancino: Any other nominations for Vice Chair? Kevin, is that something you would accept? Joyce: Sure. Mancino moved, Peterson seconded to appoint Kevin Joyce as Vice Chainnan of the Planning Commission for 1997. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Skubic moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 20, 1996 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: As far as planning items, it was a light agenda. They did approve the revised site plan for the McDonald's and the Lotus Lake Woods which was just a reconfiguration of those lots. Really the planning items were light. Mancino: On the McDonald's, how was it approved as far as the lighting and the neighbors? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 Aanenson: Yeah, it worked out really good to have a screen that's automatically timed... Mancino: Wonderful. Is that on the outside of it? Aanenson: It's on the inside. Inside, yep. Joyce: Was the fellow happy? Tom. Aanenson: I think there's still some issues there but I think as far as the lighting issue, I think that's, there will be another, there's another lot there so you have to get additional landscaping, which they wanted. There's a lot there so there's something else between McDonald's and that... ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Yeah, I just wanted to let you know. We haven't quite finalized the upcoming agenda, meeting dates but I will put that in there but I'll just let you know our next meeting date, we meet the first and third. Our first one is January 1st so obviously we won't be meeting. So what we did is, because we probably won't get many applications over the end of December, first of January, we just scheduled the one meeting for January so that would be the 15th. So that would be our meeting in January. And then the first one in February we'll be having a workshop... Just so you know the plans... Mancino: Ongoing items. What about an update on the loading dock ordinance? Aanenson: Right. That was one of the things I scheduled for the workshop. Update. Talk a little bit about housing goals, PUD ordinance and industrial abutting residential housing... Mancino: Anyone else have any open discussion? Aanenson: I guess I could bring up one item. We had, originally we felt the Council was meeting on the 9th. That was moved to the 16th and that will be the final meeting on the Bluff Creek Watershed... But then we'll be progressing with that just a little.., spending a good 6 to 9 months... Mancino: Have you gotten any feedback from the public hearing you had? Aanenson: No. Actually the issue that we need to make sure that there's better clarification on is the levying. The Watershed District's ability to levy and assess so we do have the Truth in Taxation numbers now so we'll make sure that that's clear at the City Council level. And again I think what we want to make sure we have... Watershed District's in the business of doing projects. So whether we choose to use the levy in this town, someone else is going to, Minnetonka or Eden Prairie's going to ask for the levy and we're going to pay to do the project there so what we want to do is give a comparison. We won't be levied this year, because that has been committed to other cities but we'll be in line for 1998 so we'd be prepared to give those numbers for the 24 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1996 Council. And then Bob spent a lot of time putting together the numbers as far as square footages, industrial, commercial, based on... ratios and we did a high and low population projection and we'll show you that with the workshop too. I think you'll be, we had confidence but we really run the numbers and we're even more confident now as far as the land use being projected.., and we'll be showing that to the Council on December 16th. Mancino: ... ongoing items... Sunday paper. Aanenson: There's been a couple good ones. And also the one, I'll put in your next packet about traffic in neighborhoods. What other communities are doing. Mancino: And if you're going to show us something that... The other interesting, the last article in here is on Dellwood. It is I think median income is like maybe, it's a place that has only single family homes and are very expensive, etc but I was looking at what the property taxes were not having any business. How they were able to keep their property taxes where they do. Kind of comparing that to Chanhassen. Aanenson: They only have 322 units so I don't think they have a lot of services. Mancino: I know. I think they have their own well and sewer systems and they're on 2 1/2 acres, etc but it was an interesting article to read. And of course, I mean the whole.., article was about you know in 10 to 15 years when the big houses are ready to be sold, who are they going to sell them, who are we going to sell them to. Aanenson: Well that was the interesting thing. I gave a talk to the Chamber of Commerce last week and I put together some housing projections. What we did in '96 and what we've, no. What we did in '95 and what we've done to date and we're down 40% in single family homes, but if you look at what we did in '95, we actually did more multi-family or non-traditional single family and that's why we did all over 300 units. This year, like I said, we're down 40% and everything, we've got less than 20% in the non-traditional and I think that's what hurts us because the housing stock that we've got on the market right now is in the upper end and that's pulling our permits down. We know what's coming on line next year. We believe the permits are going to jump back up again because there's such a pent up demand for some of the under the $300,000.00, under the $200,000.00 price range. Mancino: Good. Any other comments or discussion? May I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? Peterson moved, Joyce seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 25