The URL can be used to link to this page

5. Site Plan Review for a 5,300 sq. ft. Building for a Famous Dave's Restaurant. Located in the NE Corner of the Villages on the Ponds Development. SW Quadrant of Hwy 5 and Great Plains Blvd. Lotus Realty CITY 0 F CH!NHASS!)1 PCDATE: SepteII1ber3, 1997 No"em6er 5,1997 . CC DATE: ~bet27, 1997 November 24, 1997 CASE #: Site Plan 97-11 By: Generous/Al-Jaff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan # 97-11 approval for a 5,300 squar~foot restaurallt on1.ot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds2Dd Addition, Famous Dave's (Bul1ding 3) . Southwest Comer ofHwy. 5 and Great Plains. Blvd., Villages on the Ponds APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services, Inc. P. O. Box 235 Chanhass~n, MN 55317 (6120934-4538 AUSMAR Development Co., LLC c/o Lotus Realty Ser\i'ices,Inc, PRESENT ZONING: pun ACREAGE: 6.095 Acres: Outlot A::: 3.96 ac., Lot I = 0.941ac., Lot 2 = 1.192~c. , ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - BH, Highway 5 S - POO, Villages on the Ponds E - BN, Great Plains Boulevard W - POO, Villages on the Ponds WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has been prepared for development as partofthe Villages on the Ponds development. Abutting the site to the west is the Village pond which wraps around the site to the north. ' 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use: Commercial, Institutional, Office, and Residential .s-,' r.~I..,.".,.~~lf~r ; M!!h o' f-- - ''ii-, =" =-< ~ ." '.; , r)~' ., '. >c ~h. -~ ..'-' ,. Et' 0 ! ~, " 0 0 'Ft'}... en A\.~-::~. ... ~~~.. HJ. -"'. I ........ ........ " <I t "... I~ ',' -II .. !. ~L- ;... - ... ,..~ 1 , ;. ....... "., .... -,.. l.aI(j' ~ ~..~.."'" '.... .... .a.c.ae- '.' l '1II&IIi .Pad I. ~Jr I ...:. ... /~~ L1 J tJ .~~ _ .'00 ?;~I ~~I~- c~ . ..' r~4j- . .. 4 }~ . r \\Jh. .: "'__.~, . . (l.~~..._ -_. ... .~.-\l.... .1 -'. V'''''''''~r ~....~.::...7"':,.... ' . ''';.' /;'-<>0-;.. ""'-;0'''. , ,; ""', _ ",_ ", _.. --"- .. . -.. . . ..'. ~~:: :,.-~$;. . ....... ./?~;-~~l "1'. :,,:;7' "" " ........., ft . . r. ....,. h ~..:. ::;;~~~:}~~~!:~~:,. ..:::.... ltice -. ~:: I ~ ( ! . " n I'~c' .",...-; _,H.. h Lake Uc Susan. t I Jars .-! l'lI' ~n La/.... ....,.' ",)\_~rt 1= I ", /1" ::)}. .<< :> .. J!. ; 'I~''''---/\I .'.. ;...._"'" 'II .. . . ':~ ,...,. ,. - .- ... '1' '" J .,1It I" . ,. _ _... ~ . ......:::.;:;;,;.;;:.....,:;. .cu;: r.~:.:."'~ 1111' _ 1.-, .._ .",,"-~ ~;;' .. ;;f1~r-..- ~ ;:>:.""'\\'>',,,~ ..~ ". .. . ... """"'< ~;i..;}Z ~ ! ..~:?; ..~.I~.-...;....J ,~tgl:i' .' .. ""'l,;;/ .. .......-. .. ":,,~ . ".. ," . ;q$?:;;,S~~. .. ..... ~I .. i....,- ....~ II .. j . '." ......::: /::1-, ."~ , . J , 1-1- :~''':~ii'l,: ~&J~ - /' Ii I I '. ;" cr ..1. .:. . .. ~.c..., 'J -;H~C- / _.~ ...._ ' . '. ~'/;" _. , , J ., .. l' - . 18 - 8200 ..;.. 8300 8400 - 8500 8600 - 8700 .- 8800 r- - 8900 ~ - 9000 ,..... '... I~ ~ ~ ",. I~ ,~ - 9200 - 1"_. ;. - ., S"..', ...... ".. . -..:. I'" Pu.t ... '" f" . I "n' .1 :.:....:.r::......::':l:)::::~::: iii.: " ,,+ ' :.;. . ,~':/7!:' . ',~ \':",,:':;: ! " 'd .:,' ,,\. ;...... ......~::~:. , - 9100 Lake '. '^-'< r - ,. ~ 1 Ji lr - - 9300 Rlley - 0\ ..' ':. - 9400 \ l ~ JOO- ,,~~ , .' , ,..): f' .' {\ ,..-,. ';");1t?\'1 I Jl/ fin .-, 0' dJh.~:}~L~~L~~ ~ _ y ,...... -:,.--... .~t"'J I j r l:\:.- 1 I II 'I~' _ -;- -:;, _ ,>-< , ' I' I .. i j ~ :r">\ \~; . .-' I:. I, . - 9500 9600 ^..,,.'" Famous Dave's Site Plan Review November 24, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Building 3 is a one story, 5,300 square foot, single tenant, commercial building. It is proposed to be occupied by a restaurant (Famous Dave's). The building is located immediately east of the Village pond which is at the heart of the Villages on the Ponds concept and overlooks the wetland environment. This area is highly visible from Highway 5 as well as from the northern tier of the development. The applicant is proposing a 5,300 square foot restaurant for Famous Dave's BBQ Shack. The restaurant has a specific image they wish to maintain. On September 3, 1997, the Planning Commission tabled action on this item mainly because the design of the building was incompatible with the vision and standards set for Villages on the Ponds. The applicant, at the direction ofthe Planning Commission, has redesigned the structure. Due to the multiple frontages on this building, it was essential that none of the elevations give the impression of a rear of a building or service area. The applicant was highly successful in achieving this objective. All elevations are designed to contain a pitched element, windows, awnings, arched windows, decorative doors, planter boxes and a cupola. The exterior materials consist of wood and stucco. The roof is asphalt shingles. Staff has not seen a colored rendering nor the actual materials, however, they will be available at the meeting. The design is compatible and meets the intent and criteria for Villages on the Ponds. The eyebrow window along the east elevation does not contain the same decorative elements the other windows have. Staff is assuming that it was an oversight and recommend the applicant add it to match the other elevations. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan for building 3 subject to the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND On August 12, 1996, the City Council granted preliminary approval ofPUD #92-1 including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from lOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right-of-way; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right-of-way and easements; Environmental Assessment Worksheet Famous Dave's Restaurant Site Plan Review November 24, 1997 Page 3 (EA W) findings of Negative Declaration of the need for additional environmental investigation; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds project. On September 23, 1996, the City Council approved PUD 95-2, Villages on the Ponds, including a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from lOP and RSF to PUD, Planned Unit Development (final reading); and final plat dated "Received September 19, 1996" for two lots and ten outlots and public right-of-way. The city has also approved site plans for St. Hubert Catholic Community, Americlnn, an office building (building 17), and a commercial building (building 4) within the Village on the Ponds project. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The proposed development must comply with the Villages on the Ponds Design Standards, Sector II (see attached Exhibit C) for the PUD. The purpose of this zone is to create a mixed use PUD consisting of commercial, institutional, office, and residential uses. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined in the design standards. The design criteria cover all aspects of the development including lighting consistency, signage requirements, uses, building materials, design and architectural detailing, site coverage, and building square footages. ACCESS Access to the site will be provided via cross access easements with abutting properties. The primary access will be at Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water is available to the site. Sanitary sewer and water is proposed to be extended from Great Plains Boulevard into the site by the developer. All of the utilities proposed will be constructed and privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City, therefore, detailed construction plans will not be required with the final plat. However, a utility plan sheet will be required with the building permit application. All utilities shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The Famous Dave's Restaurant Site Plan Review November 24, 1997 Page 4 applicant and/or contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's Building Department. Since the parcels will be sharing the utility improvements, cross access easements will be required and dedicated over both lots. Upon completion of the utility improvements, mylar as-built construction plans of the utilities will be required by the City. At this point, the City has not formally accepted the utility improvements in this phase of Villages on the Ponds. However, the utilities have been installed and tested but not formally accepted, therefore, prior to connection to any of the existing utility system, the developer of Villages on the Ponds must receive formal acceptance from the City. LANDSCAPING A mix of shrubs, evergreens, overstory and ornamental trees surround the building on all sides with the exception of the north elevation. This side faces Highway 5 and offers maximum exposure for the building. However, landscaping should be added to this side and can be done so as not to detract from the building's presence along the highway. Shrubbery, herbaceous perennials, and ornamental trees would work to increase the aesthetics of the site without hiding the building. Additionally, the 5 proposed Black Hills Spruce should be changed to deciduous overstory trees. These will blend in better with any other landscaping proposed for the neighboring wetland area. Approximately 16,750 sq. ft. of the site is covered by parking area. According to city ordinance, at least 6 overstory trees and 1,340 sq. ft. oflandscaped area are required. The applicant does not meet the requirements and should increase landscape area for the parking lot. One opportunity to do so occurs at the trash enclosure location. Enlarging the islands on either side by at least 5 feet each would allow enough room for trees and other landscaping. This would soften the trash site which sits in the middle of the parking lot as well as create an oasis of shade in the future. Additionally, trees and shrubs could be added along the perimeter of the northern side of the parking lot to help meet ordinance requirements and screen the lot from Highway 5. The northerly landscape island should also be widened to accommodate trees GRADING/DRAINAGE The proposed grading plan matches fairly well with the approved grading plan for Villages on the Ponds. The site has already been rough graded in coordination with Phase I of Villages on the Ponds. Only minor grading is anticipated to prepare the parking lot and building pad. Overall, the site drainage conforms with the comprehensive drainage plan for Villages on the Ponds. Stormwater runoff from the parking lot will be conveyed via storm sewers to an on-site Famous Dave's Restaurant Site Plan Review November 24, 1997 Page 5 pretreatment basin prior to discharging into the wetlands off site. Roof drainage from the building still needs to be addressed. Typically, roof drainage is connected into the storm sewer. This will have to be investigated further prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations including a drainage area map for a IO-year, 24- hour storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of the building permit. EROSION CONTROL In conjunction with Phase I, some erosion control fence still is in place as part of the overall site grading. Additional, erosion control fence may need to be installed in those areas that have become obliterated or removed. Staff will work with the contractor in developing an erosion control plan that fits the site. A rock construction entrance will need to be employed at the access off of Great Plains Boulevard. The rock construction entrance shall be maintained until the site is paved with bituminous. The proposed catch basins will need to be protected with hay bales during construction. Once the parking lot and/or drive aisles are paved, there should be provisions for protecting the catch basins until all disturbed areas have been revegetated. Temporary protection for the catch basins could include rock filter dikes or other measures approved by staff. PARKING LOT CIRCULATION Overall, the parking lot and drive aisles appear to function well with the exception of the drive aisle and parking lot configuration from Outlot A just south of Lot 1. The plan proposes a curvilinear drive aisle in excess of 90 degrees with a very large, undelineated pavement area. In addition, two pedestrian crossings are proposed in the same location which raises pedestrian safety concerns. Staff has reconfigured the parking lot and drive aisle in this area (see attached). Staff believes that this layout provides a much safer vehicular and pedestrian traffic plan. In addition, I believe the Fire Marshal may have concerns with turning radiuses with such a tight curve. Staff recommends this area be redesigned in accordance with staffs' layout. Depending on timing, it will be necessary to have a paved surface extended to Famous Dave's to meet requirements from the development contract. At this point, Lot 2 is not built upon and depending on timing, may not be built on prior to issuance of a building permit for Famous Dave's. Therefore, the applicant will need to provide Lot 1 with a drive aisle that meets fire code requirements, i.e. 20- foot wide paved bituminous, 7 -ton design prior to issuance of a building permit Famous Dave's Restaurant Site Plan Review November 24, 1997 Page 6 LIGHTING/SIGN AGE Proposed parking lot lighting shall be provided by the developer and be consistent with that provided elsewhere in the project and comply with the lighting standards specified in the PUD standards. The applicant is proposing a sign on the building's north (Highway 5) elevation. The sign meets the PUD standards established for Villages on the Ponds. A separate sign permit application must be submitted by the applicant to approve any signage. TRASH ENCLOSURE One of the remaining issues deal with the location of the trash enclosure. Currently, the proposed structure is located in the parking lot serving Famous Dave's and Building #4. Famous Dave's requires 3 dumpsters, while Building #4 will only require one. The City Council had indicated that the applicant investigate other options regarding trash enclosure location. Staff and the applicant met on several occasions to investigate options. The trash has to be in a location where garbage trucks could have access to. Building #4 has areas that can be accessed by a garbage truck along the west and south elevation. There is a sidewalk that surrounds the building and a trash enclosure is not suitable along any of these elevations. The least objectionable location would be along the northwest comer. Famous Dave's building has four front elevations. This eliminates the west elevation since this is the area facing the pond and will contain pedestrian movement. A trash enclosure with a driveway that can accommodate a garbage truck will detract from it. The area along the east is the front elevation of the building and the main entrance. This leaves the north and south elevations. The north elevation contains the porch and faces Highway 5, and is at the opposite end of the kitchen. If the trash enclosure was to be relocated, the most suitable location would be along the southwest comer of the building. If we were to choose between the location proposed by the applicant and the southwest comer of the Famous Dave's building, we strongly believe that the proposed location is much more suitable. The design of the trash enclosure is attractive and tends to accentuate the parking lot and break it up. Another option would be to split the trash enclosure into 2 buildings (with 2 different sizes) and keep them within the parking lot (this option would allow for additional parking lot accents). If the City Council feels strongly about moving the trash enclosure next to the buildings, we suggest the southwest comer on the Famous Dave's building and the northwest comer of building #4. Famous Dave's Restaurant Site Plan Review November 24, 1997 Page 7 SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Famous Dave's Restaurant Site Plan Review November 24, 1997 Page 8 (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed site plans are consistent with all plans and specifications and development design standards for the Village on the Ponds Planned Unit Development. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On November 5, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application unanimously. The commission inquired about the location of the rooftop equipment. The applicant explained that all equipment will be screened by a parapet wall and none of it will be visible. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: "The City Council approves Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, for Famous Dave's shown on plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, dated 10/20/97, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security required by the agreement. 2. Add three ornamental trees to north side of building. 3. Add 3 overs tory trees to parking lot landscaping plan: one on each side of the trash enclosure and one in the northwest comer of the parking lot. Enlarge islands on either side of trash enclosure to include planting space for trees. Enlarge landscape island at the north end of the parking lot to accommodate trees. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed with the trees. 4. Add landscaping (shrubs or hedges) to north side of property to screen parking lot from Highway 5. 5. The applicant shall provide detailed sign plans for staffs review and approval. A separate sign permit shall be applied for by the applicant. Famous Dave's Restaurant Site Plan Review November 24, 1997 Page 9 6. Lights that do not appear on the elevations plan shall not be permitted on the building. 7. The eyebrow window along the east elevation shall match the other windows and contain the same decorative element. 8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 9. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot. 10. Revise parking lot layout per staffs design (see attached). 11. A building permit shall not be issued until the final plat of Villages on the Ponds Second Addition is recorded and the access driveway meets fire code requirements" A TT ACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Design Description/conformance to PUD 3. Reduced Site Plan 4. Memo from Mark Littfin to Sharmin AI-Jaff dated August 13, 1997 5. Revised Parking Lot Layout - Famous Dave's 6. Exhibit C - Villages on the Ponds Development Design Standards 7. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 8. Planning Commission minutes dated September 3, and November 5,1997. \\cfs I \voI2\plan\bg\famous dave's.doc .\ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ICANT: /"'CJTtI~ Rf.:.4Lty Sf:I<VIC!(f. ,_ /N~ OWNER: ,,(/tS.A/jl! .lJf'vt#"-IlPN~/vr ~ Lt.c! ADDRESS: ~ ..((JTV~ 'f>t:;(/ L..7 (/ , 'J,o, 73 cJ-< 235 G,J.lI/P/.l//~~G /(/, /'1/U ,563/7 93//- ~.5 3 J> TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11._ Vacation of ROW/Easements Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit _ Non-conforming Use Permit 14._ Zoning Appeal _ Planned Unit Development 15. _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Notification Signs # ~ /'100() 11 14/0 I- ~ ,s.t1OC/ ~ (,0 ;"$~ -- "0 -1L Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNARlWAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 6 d() Of) A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full sIze folded copIes of the plans must be submItted. BW' X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. OTE _ When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. PROJECT NAME LOCATION tJ,U/l G Fs 2(1) '1"N~ lb.ups- B/cf? 's 3"- L/ 1../ 3 ~ dCl/170as 1)cypes - <7 ~ /(er-'l/I. ) 111'. 711 f. ,e Iv P /.I. ,e,.. tJ -; (30 .,. ~ () r (! LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~ClTL or fl.- - /() be ,tP,.-.p/ ,4L7~O 4S LI'J1'f; /0:.. 2 ~ tJu.rL.()'t' /I.. 1//L.LA7G'F5 e>,(/ r//c P()'u/J's" 2nd /./DDl"rio/IJ PRESENT ZONING PtI [) - JV/~€n Vse: , REQUESTED ZONING /[~ fA PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION S ee Ii A Ove. REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION IC/ /4 . S I r~ 5 j)ES /(;,vA rCf;) 4-S Re,...,..;4/J-, REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application. you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title. Abstract of Title or purchase agreement). or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees. feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. kras /JG-tv I Me. '7~~/97 Date Signature of Fee Owner Date The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report whIch wlll be available on Friday prior to th meeting.. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. IJ]~~ MILO ARCH lTECTU RE GROUP 250 PRAIRIE CTR. DRIVE. STE. 200 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 (612) 944-6242 . FAX (612) 942-7496 Retail Building #4 1. Design Description/conformance to PUD 1.1 Site Planning: In terms of the use, location, relationship to 1-5 and surrounding uses, the building fully conforms to all positive provisions of the PUD, Sector II. In every respect the proposed building and site utilization matches the PUD plans and texts. In addition, site grading and proposed landscaping conform to PUD plans as well. The main pedestrian entrance area is from the parking lots on the west and south side to which the retail storefronts are oriented. The PUD plans do not envision any direct entry to the building from the Great Plains Boulevard, due to lack of significant pedestrian circulation and sidewalk along the face of the building facing the Boulevard. There is an ample amount oflandscape area between the buildings and the Boulevard, plus the wetlands are north of the building, along Highway 1-5. Yet, even though the building is set back away from the roadways, it is the first and closest building to the major intersection ofI-5 and Great Plains Boulevard. As such it is very much exposed to the views and, in a way, of utter importance for the whole image of the Village. Hence, the building design and the architectural character are crucial for setting the proper direction and the tone for the Village in general. Parking is provided at a ratio of5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of building area, but it is part of the shared parking concept within the whole Village. 1.2 Building Design The design team made an effort to integrate this building into the overall Village "traditional" character and vernacular architecture. The intent was, from the onset, not to design another typical suburban retail "pod building." Instead, to design the building that would be a reflection of the typical "Main Street," turn-of-the-century small town architecture and character. Looking at the building from any angle, it is not easy to recognize it as one single building, erected at the same time by one single developer. The 200+ feet long building has been composed of three very different looking buildings that are commonly found on traditional "Main streets." Yet the store front design allows for flexibilities and all features required by modern retail industry. 072197-DES.7320B ARCHITECTURE' PLANNING' INTERIORS' CONSULTING L~~ ".;a -"~ : ~ ~ ~I I I I I I . ~ ~3i 6 a ,), \':.~ ~ ' I OW (!l ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ i t =I~ ~I I-~ ~ ii!; :g I g ~ ,. ~,!. r ~I .. ~ djl J 9 ~ ~ w '" .. u c z E ~ I ~~. I~ ~ a: i ::l ~ i i ~ Ii Cl. \~ <( ~~ ~g~~I~~w I i ~ .... UJ 5 I ~ ~ ~ .. .. ~ ai :~ ~ ~w.91 ~ffi~j: g il 3 l- i! ..:! ~. ~ ~ W>o -'Z ~ ~ U5 ii ~ u ~ ~ ~ 05 il ~~C:l iii ~a:>o 5 g . 0 0 000 ;I /;:1:1 3 ~ CQ Nw r .. ~n h " ::> r::i ~~ :;; .: B~ z " ~ z;~ 0 ~!il ~ .. ..~ !!!. 13., ;:> =.. g CQ ~':;l <: ",g; 1-- I z ..!:l 0 E= =.. .. c>o: <: .." .. :::;; ~'" '" ..: " 8~ . 0 S t.<. e!~ ~ '" -'" .. "'.. ~ ..i!! E- Cfi ~ t g ~~ g ~~ -i. ... '" ,.: U 0: .. .. a .. '" <J <( ..-l a.. W I- 00 ~ '" !~b5 ~la L" I , I , I I ~ > ~ lJITlLLITITL '" . '" + L CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O: BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: August 13, 1997 SUBJECT: Request for site plan review for a 5,200 square foot Famous Dave's Restaurant located at the northeast comer of Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard within the Villages on the Pond Development, Lotus Realty Services. Planning Case 97-11 SPR I have the reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. A 10 foot clearance space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 2. Install post indicator valve on the fire water service coming into the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal or Fire Inspector for exact location. 3. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.502. 4. The building must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 5. "No parking fire lane" signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal or Fire Inspector for exact location of signage and painted curbing. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. 6. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991. Copy enclosed. 7. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on combination domestic/fire sprinkler line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #36- 1994. Copy enclosed. G:\safety\ml\plrev97-11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIZE OF DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE ON A COMBINATION DOMESTIC/FffiE SPRINKLER SUPPLY LINE 1. Domestic water line shall not be greater than 1/4 pipe size of the combination service water supply line. 2. 1 1/2" domestic off 6" line. 3. 2" domestic off 8" line. 4. 2 1/2 domestic off 10" line. Option 1: Domestic sizes may be increased if it can be calculated hydraulically that the demand by all domestic fixtures will not drop the fire sprinkler water below its minimum gallonage required. Option 2: Combination domestic and five line service shall have an electric solenoid valve installed on the domestic side of the service. This valve shall be normally powered open and close on loss of electric power or signal from the system water flow indicator. Must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Mechanical Inspector. ~,n ?J~ Chanhassen Fire Department Water Line Sizing Policy #36-1994 Date: 06/10/94 Revised: Page 1 of 1 Approved - Public Safety Director CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS 1. Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per NFPA 13-8-2.1. 2. A final inspection by the Fire Marshal before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3. Fire Department access roads shall be provided on site during all phases of construction. The construction of these temporary roads will conform with the Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for temporary access roads at construction sites. Details are available. 4. Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases of construction. 5. The use of liquefied petroleum gas shall be in conformance with NFP A Standard 58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of these requirements is available. (See policy #33-1993) 6. All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored by an approved UL central station with a UL 71 Certificate issued on these systems before final occupancy is issued. 7. An 11" x 14" As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. (See policy #07-1991). 8. An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use. The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located by the Fire Marshal. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 12/23/94 Page 1 of 2 9. High-piled combustible storage shall comply with the requirements of Article #81 of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High-piled combustible storage is combustible materials on closely packed piles more than 15' in height or combustible materials on pallets or in racks more than 12' in height For certain special-hazard commodities such as rubber tires, plastics, some flammable liquids, idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as low as 6 feet. 10. Fire lane signage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (See policy #06-1991). 11. Smoke detectors installed in lieu of 1 hour rated corridors under UBC section 33050, Exception #5 shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for installation and system type. (See policy #05-1991). 12. Maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic/fire sprinkler supply line policy must be followed. (See policy #36-1994). &.J1~ - Approved - Public Safety Director Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04-1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 12/23/94 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18". NO PARKING FIRE LANE 2. Red on white is preferred. 3. 3M or equal engineer's grade reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. 4. Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5. signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 7'0" 75 foot intervals along the . fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. 7. Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. (NOT TO SCALE) 8. A fire lane shall be required in front of fire dept. connections extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief GRADE ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. ,~~ 7/ Approved - Public Safety Director Chanhassen F ire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 Date: 1/15/91 Revised: Page 1 of 1 .... ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted.0~ i,: . ~:_,;.;. C ITV OF CHANHASSEN ," 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - publi.c Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. .~':'; ,:,,-( ,. Other RequIrements - General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color frori{the ba~~ground. 2. Numbers shall not be In script t.~ '." 3. If a structure Is not visIble from the street, addltlonafnumbers are required at the driveway entrance. SIze and location must be approved. if! ,. <~~-' 4. Numbers on mall box at drlvewayentrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement #3 must stili be met. 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. ResJden1laJ Requlremen1s (2 or- less dwelling unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". 2. Building permits will not be f1naled'unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commerclal RequIrements ' 1. Minimum height shall be 12". 2. .Strlp Malls . .' a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". D. Address numbers shall be on the main. entrance and on all back doors. ~~.:~~f' 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public sa~ty Director Page 1 of1 t. J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1- 11 II I .( " ,1/1 1 I . ~t I I ~lV/ /'./" '-----./:__// 69' Lv' ~ I I ~ ~ ~ :JB OOO~ JJl)J.8 l a snortV::I etOtsr 3 IIr~ltloOO 'SNOISN3Vila ~O.:J sa.J:JD <;60'9 ')J'bs 'onC'C07 ~.V..L::lll:l .....,..--~..., .':;" .- J"'" . i.'''' ."r. '. .J'.'~ ". .'".,./ ..::" jj, ..".... th,~ ~- fl.".' ~ . ....~ 1-1...J ",0;:........ . :/ / . . ~ . .j'! ....,../,1 /. .~"7.7~~ ~~,. '0,;-0" ,., (j ~. .'- / /( \..' ,.0 ,0"'" -.... .,~ ~ .,.~.-...~.,__-, -r'~ ,.... ./ .,.,_r-." \. ~..: .......""'~ ,;# .......*"-4'~ \~.....~...., ~..' ~ .,' " "-. o aN'v'113M LI~~~ N~ 'U~SS04UO laaJlS 4l9L lS~M I~ UO:>UJ'v' /sa:>!^Jas ^lIOa~ snlo :~3d013^3a EXHIBIT C VILLAGES ON THE PONDS CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a mixed use PUD consisting of commercial, institutional, office, and residential uses. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to uses as defined below or similar uses to those as listed in the Standard Industrial Classification. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. No single retail user shall exceed 20,000 square feet on a single level of a building. A maximum of thirty- three (33) percent of the square footage of the retail users within the development may be of a "big box" category. The intent of this requirement is to provide a variety of users, including small retail shops, service providers, coffee shops, cabarets, etc., for residents of the Villages as well as the community as a whole, rather than typical suburban type large, individual users dominating the development and detracting from the "village" character. Retail users should be those that support and compliment the residential development located within the development, providing goods and services which enhance residents of the village and the community. Office. Professional and business office, non-retail activity except for showroom type display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided that no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales. bank/credit union finance, insurance and real estate health services - except nursing homes and hospitals engineering, accounting, research management and related services legal services Personal Services. Establishments primarily engaged in providing services involving the care of a person or his or her personal goods or apparel. 2 dry cleaning beauty or barbershop shoe repair photographic studio tax return preparation laundromat health club optical goods computer services day care center copymg mail stores Institutional. Establishments that are public/semi-public in nature. church library education services day care art gallery dance studio cultural facility Commercial/Retail. Establishments engaged in commercial operations including retail sales and services and hospitality industries. Apparel and Accessory Stores shoe stores electronic and music store and musical instmments restaurant - no drive through restaurant - fast food only if integrated into a building no freestanding fast food and no drive through dmg store/pharmacy book/stationary jewelry store hobby/toy game gift novelty and souvenir sewing, needlework and piece good florist camera and photographic supply art and art supplies, gallery sporting goods video rental food stores including bakery and confectionery hardware store computer store hotel/motel entertainment liquor store pets and pet supplies home furnishings Residential. Residential units shall be provided as upper level units above the commercial/office uses within the village core and as stand alone units. A minimum of 50 percent of the residential units shall be rental units. Of the rental units, the city has adopted a goal of35 percent of the units meeting the Metropolitan Council's affordable criteria. For the ownership housing, the city has adopted the goal of 50 percent of the units meeting the Metropolitan Council's affordable criteria. Prohibited Uses: auto related including auto sales, auto repair, gas stations c. Setbacks In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and parking setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply: Parkin Buildin C,O' 0' Great Plains Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback Market Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback Hwy.5: Buffer yard & Setback Interior Side Lot Line: Buffer yard & setback East Perimeter Side Lot Line (adjacent to residential): Buffer yard & setback West Perimeter Side Lot Line (adjacent to industrial): Buffer yard & setback C,50' 20' 20' B,50' 0' NA,O' D,50' 50' B,50 20 Buffer yards are as specified in the City of Chanhassen Landscaping and Tree Removal Ordinance, Article XXV. No fences shall be permitted between the required landscape buffer and arterial and collector roads. 3 d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height 1. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for the overall development. Individual lots may exceed this threshold, but in no case shall the average exceed 70 percent.. 2. More than one (1) principal structure may be placed on one (I) platted lot. 3. The maximum building height shall be Sector I - three stories (with residentialloft)/50 ft. (retail and office buildings without residences above shall be limited to two stories/30 feet), Sector II - three stories/40 ft., Sector III - three stories/40 ft., exclusive of steeples and bell towers, and Sector IV - four stories/50 feet 4. The maximum building footprint for anyone building shall be limited to 20,000 square feet without a street level break in the continuity of the building, e.g., pedestrian passageways, except for the church and residential only buildings. 5. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses: Sector I Sector II Sector III Sector IV TOTAL Commercial! Retail ( Sq. ft.) 114,500 60,000 * o o 174,500 Office/Service (Sq. ft.) 70,500 @ 14,000 o 32,000 @ 116,500 Institutional (Sq. ft.) o o 100,000 o 100,000 Dwelling Units 154 o o 112 @ 266 TOTAL Sq. ft. 185,000 74,000 100,000 32,000 391,000 @ As an alternative, the office/service could be increase by 13,000 square feet in Sector I if the 32,000 square foot office building is deleted in Sector IV and replaced with 56 additional dwelling units. * Includes 47,200 square foot, 106 unit motel. Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors subject to approval by the Planning Director. Building square footages may be reallocated between uses subject to approval of the Planning Director. However, the reallocation of building square footages between uses shall only be permitted to a less intensive use, i.e. from commercial to office or institutional, or from office to institutional. In no instance shall more than 27,000 square feet of addition institutional building square footage be reallocated without an amendment to the PUD. e. Building Materials and Design 4 1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a pedestrian friendly, "traditional" village character consistent with the European heritage of the upper midwest and the atmosphere within this development, yet with the amenities and technological tools of modem times. The village elevations shown on the PUD drawings are to be used only as a general guideline and the reflection of the overall village image including the north- midwestern architectural vocabulary, village like human scale and flavor, and variety in design and facade treatment. 2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, cedar siding, vinyl siding in residential with support materials, or approved equivalent as determined by the city. Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are prohibited. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting colors may be used only for accent purposes and shall not exceed 10 percent of a wall area. 3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement ("cinder") blocks shall be prohibited. 4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HV AC screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area. 5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 6. 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. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. 7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping. 8. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal or accessory structures. 9. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. 5 10. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme variations between buildings on the same street in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited. 11. Slope roof elements shall be incorporated in all structures: Sector I - minimum 70 percent of roof area shall be sloped, Sector II - minimum of 70 percent of the roof area shall be sloped, Sector III - minimum of 30 percent of the roof area shall be sloped, and Sector IV - minimum of 70 percent of the roof area shall be sloped. An exception to this requirement are roof areas designed for human use such as decks, garden areas, patios, etc., which will not be counted towards flat roof area. 12. The following design elements should be incorporated into individual structures: Building Accents Towers, silos, arches, columns, bosses, tiling, cloisters, colonnades, buttresses, loggias, marquees, minarets, portals, reveals, quoins, clerestories, pilasters. Roof Tvpes Barrow, dome, gable, hip, flat. Roof Accents Cupolas, cornices, belfries, turrets, pinnacles, look-outs, gargoyles, parapets, lanterns. Accent elements such as towers, turrets, spires, etc., shall be excluded from the sector building height limitation. Window Types Bay, single paned, multi-paned, angular, square, rectangular, half-round, round, italianate. Window Accents Plant boxes, shutters, balconies, decks, grates, canopies, awnings, recesses, embrasures, arches, lunettes. 13. Street level windows shall be provided for a minimum of 50 percent of the ground level wall area. 6 f. Site Landscaping and Screening 1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I shall be installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping being required ahead of individual site plan approvals, but we believe the buffer yard and boulevard plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 2. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited. 4. Undulating or angular berms 3' to 5' in height, south of Highway 5 and along Market Boulevard shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility constmction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. g. Signage 1. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at each end of Lake Drive and at the south end of Main Street. Project identification sign(s) may also be located at the entrances to the development(s) in Sector IV. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. One project identification sign, with a maximum height of20 feet, which may be increased in height subject to city approval based on the design and scale of the sign, designed as a gateway to the project shall be located at the north end of Main Street. Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. Within Sector III, one sign for the church and one sign for the school may be placed on streetscape walls. The top of the signs shall not extend more than eight feet above the ground and the total sign area for the signs shall not exceed 64 square feet. Pylon signs are prohibited. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. 2. All signs require a separate sign permit. 7 3. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the central business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the "street" front and primary parking lot front of each building. 4. Projecting signs are permitted along Main Street and Lake Drive and along pedestrian passageways subject to the conditions below. Signage Plan and Restrictions Wall Signs 1. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. In Sector II, sign height may be increase based on the criteria that the signage is compatible with and complementary to the building architecture and design. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. 2. If illuminated, individual dimensional letters and logos comprising each sign may be any of the following: a. Exposed neon/fiber optic, b. Open channel with exposed neon, c. Channel Letters with acrylic facing, d. Reverse channel letters (halo lighted), or e. Externally illuminated by separate lighting source. 3. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. 4. Within Sector II, architecturally, building-integrated panel tenant/logo sign may be permitted based on criteria that the signage is compatible with and complementary to the building design and architecture. 5. Back lit awnings are prohibited. Proiecting Signs 1. The letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign area. 2. All wooden signs shall be sandblasted and letters shall be an integral part of the building's architecture. 8 3. Signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper name and major product or service offered and such minimal messages such as date of establishment of business. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band or within the projecting sign and do not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area. 4. Projecting signs shall be stationary, may not be self-illuminated but may be lighted by surface mounted fixtures located on the sign or the adjacent facade. 5. Projecting signs shall be limited to one per tenant on street frontage and pedestrian passageway and my not exceed six square feet. Letters shall have a maximum height of 12 inches. 6. Projecting signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk and shall not project more than six feet from the building facade. 7. Plastic, plexi-glass, clear plex, or similar material projecting signs are prohibited unless used in conjunction with other decorative materials. 8. Projecting signs may be painted, pre finished, or utilize exposed metal. Any exposed metal shall be anodized aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, bronze, or other similar non- corrosive or ono-oxidizing materials. Window Signs 1. Window signs shall not cover more than 25 percent of the window area in which they are located. 2. Window signs shall not use bright, garish, or neon paint, tape, chalk, or paper. Menu Signs 1. Shall be located at eye level adjacent to tenant entries and shall not exceed 4 feet in height. 2. Shall be used only to convey daily specials, menus and offerings and shall be wood framed chalkboard and/or electronic board with temporary handwritten lettering. No paper construction or messages will be permitted. 3. Menu signs shall be limited to one per tenant and may not exceed 8 square feet. 9 10 Festive Flags/Banners 1. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. 2. Plastic flags and banners are prohibited. 3. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric. 4. Banners shall not contain adveliising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. 5. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. 6. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. 7. Flags and banners which are tom or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. Building Directory 1. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. Pole Directory Sign 1. Pole directory signs consisting of single poles with individual nameplate type directional arrows may be located within the development. 2. Pole directory sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height. 3. Directory signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk. 4. A maximum of eight directory signs may be provided per pole. 5. The maximum size of an individual sign shall be 18 inches long by four inches wide. 6. Poles shall be a minimum of 10 feet behind the curb. h. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. The plans do not provide for street lighting. As with previous developments, the City has required the developer to install street lights throughout the street system. 2. A shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. 4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 5. Light poles shall be limited to a height of 20 feet. 6. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use oflights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. i. Parking 1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of surface parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2. A minimum of75 percent ofa building's parking shall be located to the "rear" of the structure and in underground garages. 3. The development shall be treated as a integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. Residential uses shall provide 1.5 spaces per unit as underground parking with visitor spaces provided as part of the commercial/office uses. Within sector IV, visitor parking shall be provided at a rate of 0.5 stalls per unit. Hotel/motels shall comply with city ordinance. Churches/schools shall comply with city ordinance, however, a minimum of 50 percent of the parking shall be shared. 11 7,1); .... r \ /~--/ i : t - j--;i -/:YfJ;' ,......... 1'/ /1 /tI ~' J: '6: , 0 z ~- ;) _.~ o--~ ) "-. VILLAGES ON THE POND . CHAi'lHASSEN, MINNESOTA [] MOTEL [1g] RETAIL 106 ROOMS 3 STORY 3 STORY 8.50C SF' 52.375 SF' [gJ RESTAURANT ~ RETAIL i?; 1 STORY 3 STORY 7.500 SF' - 13.000 SF' [[] AET AIL [MJ RETAIL 1 STORY 3 STORY 5.300 SF 12.5000 SF ~ RETAIL /151 OFFICE/ SERVICES I STORY 1 STORY 14.000 SF 8.825 SF @] RETAIL ~ CHURCH/SCHOOL 2 STORY 1 -3 STORY 28.000 SF 100.COO SF ~ RETAIL [1Z] OFFICE/ SERVICES 3 STORY 2 STORY 22.000 SF 30.000 SF [ZJ RETAil ~ OF~ICE/ SERVlCES I. 3 STORY 2 S7GRY 10.500 S> 30,~OO SF @J RET AlL .~ RESIDENTlAL 3 STORy . . .. STORY 12,500 Sf" 84.000 SF @J OFFICE/ SERVICES ,gg RESIDENTIAL 1 STOR'~' .. STORy 5.000 SF 84.000 SF ~ OFFICE/ SERVICES ~ RESIDEl'IT!AL 1 STORY .. STORY 12,000 SF' 84.000 SF :]J RESIDENTIAL 2 STORy 26.000 SF I\JOTE' BASED ON OELTA-4 DRAWING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION =q=j [CjJ:ql'"~~f:-:~~~'~~l; L- \ Lv~r~;;'~;f2r'/~~,/'/~~~ \ c-.----- _._--c-- \ \ 1 , ~.....;........._' // / / /_-----:. -~::-----r---.-r._--_\ \ /\;~::::==:~ // ///'! / .-- ----~ \---'--'i M./(/'\ l I~'../ ./ ..'..' _---- \ \ 'Ifn ~/ I I ' ----- __---.\, \ \ \ '-j'-' // I :~\ \-~,-.J-::/ \ \ /' ..- /' ! <v~ _. ) '--..- \ --/ a i e / '" ______ \c.~, ,.~ . /:" . ----..--....- ''-,-..--.-.------ 'l. _ Slt<:\'~\'\j >-'r_.State H'^^' 5.--------. li~;;,~<<'\\ \>:,>-, L . '-...--... ..~..J-"'~ . p~</\ \ /\.>< i-' :::=--:~~:::::::::'~>" l \ I ~\ r~~~:~j(>\:-] "" '" i I T F.ml "-:---"1 \ \-) r r--! '- "'-, ....-/~ I r.......; F-- \ \ .iv.h~ (-1 '---lA\~ I"-r:\'qr; i-) \:--~ t~ -:=J ..___/ :1 6-r ":~:".k/'(:?J \ ~,,----:- 11' ,..-11 k ,"\ 1 )"" ~i /....... : /............... i 'I ~ L-l,.-..> 'i--.. A ,<,... V I I : l I '.. \..( r \ \"';:.-\ j/ X' j ;..-'~ , t"1 ,\.~)\ ~ "- ~/'" ~ \ ~ Imm rz~rtlr1~~~~r\\ I "0' I' em 1 I\...',_.-~..' i ,; \ \, ) j' I ~--.j..-\.-(,.r!..;:::::::;; I \\J: I /\\://\ \ ~\ 'rm_' l . ,).; <. i ' :.::;::::::::::::::::=....=:==::~....'\\ \1' \\1 \ ~/.,......l-L__/)/ -"""'\ . i;"-' ) I! f--, \. . i ...::~! I Wednesday, September 3,1997 at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive BJECT: Site Plan Review Lotus Realty Northeast Corner of Hwy. 5, and Great Plains Blvd. OTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The plicant, Lotus Realty, is requesting final plat of Outlot C, Villages on the Pond, into 2 lots d site plan review for 5,300 sq. ft. Famous Dave's BBQ Restaurant and a 14,848 sq. ft. tail building located in the northeast corner of the Village on the Ponds development, Lotus ealty. hat Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the veloper's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the eeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. The Developer will present plans on the project. Comments are received from the public. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. uestions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City all during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to omeone about this project, please contact Bob (ext.141) or Sharmin (ext.120) at 937-1900. If you hoose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the eeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. otice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 21, 1997. - . ,j r/:rI!q1 ~~y~( @) CHANHASSEN POST #580 PO BOX 264 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O CITY TREASURER 690 COUL TERDR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ,ii"- RANDY G & KIMBRA J GREEN 8103 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .. STEVEN J KOKESH & NANCY L ECOFF 8201 GRANDVIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O CITY TREASURER 690 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL M & PRUDENCE L BUSCH 8113 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALBERT & JEAN SINNEN 8150 GRANDVIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DONALD F MCCARVILLE 3349 WARNER LN MOUND, MN 55364 MARK C & ALEXANDRA M LEPAGE 8123 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD A & LINDA G ANDERSON 8210 GRANDVIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES P ADANK 350 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT J & LOIS A SAVARD 8080 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 MARY S BERNIER 8155 GRANDVIEW RD BOX 157 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES A & CAROL A UDSTUEN 360 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAY SANDERS 8090 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HARVEY & ROSEMARY WILL 8151 GRANDVIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PETER A KNOLL & MARY Z STAUDOHAR-KNOLL 370 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARTIN J & TIMAREE FAJDETICH 8100 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 ESTATE OF MARTIN J WARD C/O JEROME RAIDT PERS REP 6950 FRANCE AVE S-STE 113 EDINA, MN 55435 BISRAT & DENISE ALEMAYEHU 380 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 YAGUI WEI & YUYI L1N 8110 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROSEMOUNT INC ATIN: CONTROLLER 12001 TECHNOLOGY DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 WILLIAM R & DEBRA E PRIGGE 390 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DARRYL T & SANDY L WROLSON 8120 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROSEMOUNT INC r. ATIN: CONTROLLER 12001 TECHNOLOGY DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 ANDREW G & JEANNINE R CONE 321 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL F & RITA A KLAUDA 8130 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O CITY TREASURER 690 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRIAN E SEMKE & DEBORAH C DUETSCH 331 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WALTK lfpAMELAS CHAPMAN 8140 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRENDA K LUND OTA LN SEN, MN 55317 'Il~ 6~~~ 1J'rP,O;S ~~cV ~ ~~...n, /nrJoo391 & CYNTHIA J MARENGO SHDR SSEN, MN 55317 4. ~ t t!A~./ 7707 1iuaJ. (;11~Utod ~ eAcuJ?~ HANHASSEN TREASURER TER DR PO BOX 147 SEN, MN 55317 CLE INVESTMENT CO E CIRCLE DR NKA, MN 55343 SEN NH PARTNERSHIP VE S 11 00 INTERNATIONAL STATION STORES INC STW GTON, MN 55437 S E KORZENOWSKI ISSON RD R, MN 55331 HANHASSEOtil REASURER TER DR PO BOX 147 SEN, MN 55317 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 comprehensive plan to say we're allowing commercial on Highway 5.. .open it up for other commercial. We went through that process over a year ago, so that's why we're at this point today and there's a whole history of that process which we slightly... in the staff report. That's why they're here today spending this amount of energy because we eliminated that option. Joyce: I appreciate that but I hate, I think it would be a good business in town here and I just hate cavalierly saying well, just because it didn't fit here we can't figure something out. Aanenson: Well they got that earlier from the Planning Commission that we wouldn't support that and that's why they decided to take.. .take the commercial, existing commercial and try to work it in, in defense of them. That's what they were given as direction. That's what they. . . Joyce: Ijust think they'd be a good tenant in Chanhassen and Ijust, and I would hope that they would come back with something that we could, this isn't going to work. Okay? Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. My comments are also not dissimilar to my peers. We are clearly tasked to listen to developers and the citizens and try to really interpret how the plans or put into the City Code and how they're interpreted. And obviously the applicant is of the perspective that this does fit within the Code and the PUD. You've heard my fellow commissioners say that they don't feel that way, and obviously we will pass it on now to City Council with that opinion, and mine is not dissimilar to that as I just don't see a compelling reason to rezone. And the only new item that I bring forth would be, I think the City has made a major commitment to pedestrian traffic and specifically as the pedestrian bridge is right there, that I think is also another pretty significant area that the City has made an investment in and doesn't necessarily in my eyes fit at all with the use of the car dealership, again more, less pedestrian oriented than we're looking for. So with that, may I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of Rezoning 4.2 acres of BN, Neighborhood Business, to PUD, the preliminary development plans, parking lot, hard surface and sign deviations as shown dated received April 4, 1997. Peterson: Second? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: Is there any discussion? Joyce moved, ,Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of rezoning 4.2 acres of BN, Neighborhood Business to PUD, the preliminary development plans, parking lot, hard surface coverage, and sign deviations as shown in the plans dated Received April 4, 1997, based on the rezoning to PUD and site plan findings. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 LOTUS REALTY SERVICES - PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BLVD WITHIN THE VILLAGE ON THE PONDS DEVELOPMENT: A. FINAL PLAT/REPLAT OUTLOT C. VILLAGES ON THE POND INTO TWO LOTS. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5.300 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A FAMOUS DAVE'S REST AURANT. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 14.848 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER. Public Present: Name Address Gary Disch Rhonda Collins Cindy Marengo Dale & Zola Klabande Susie & Kerry Blake Vemelle Clayton Scott D. Schlachter Lois Savard 8170 Marsh Drive 8060 Hidden Court 8150 Marsh Drive 8160 Hidden Court 8040 Hidden Circle 422 Santa Fe Circle 5633 Morgan Avenue So. 8080 Marsh Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Help me understand the roof issue a little bit better. Walk me through it again, or walk me through it if you would. Generous: Okay. If you look at the roof elevation on the Building 4 you see that it has a flat roof cross area in the middle that is actually a flat roof elevation. The slope roof elevation on that building, observable from someone standing on the street is approximately 70% of the building. However, if you look at it from a birds eye view, it's probably maybe half of the building. The roof area. So we need clarification whether or not we should interpret it to mean that it's, was visible from the ground or what's visible from above. Peterson: And your rationale for that position, the rationale for their position was? Generous: Well that with the higher peak that would be in it, we were looking, primarily when we were doing the design we were looking at larger units and making it look consistent with our downtown area. The office, the Medical Arts building down on West 78th Street. Peterson: And that's the standard we've followed with the other buildings? Generous: So far. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Peterson: Other questions of staff? Joyce: On this handout, remember this part of the handout. What exactly is this? Generous: That just shows you the sectors. If you look at the design standards, there are different, with any. . . slightly different standards Joyce: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. All right. I was just wondering, the dotted line looked like a thoroughfare or something through. Can you actually take your car and go through that whole dotted area? Through parking lots and everything like that. Generous: You can't get out to Highway 101 that way. Joyce: Okay. All right. Generous: It's just to delineate the different sectors within the plan and the signage standards are slightly different than some of the requirements. Joyce: Okay. Sidney: I have another question about the flat roof portion of that building. Would that be visible from other buildings in the Villages? .. .see higher elevations. Generous: We may in the Village corridor develop up to four story or 50 feet. Sidney: Okay, so that might be visible then. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Joyce: Just one. Now that I understand what I'm looking at here. You said that we're adding 14,000 square feet of retail to Section 2 and taking it out of Section 1 then. Generous: Right. Based on the additional, there's a Building 2 that will come in the future that's approximately 7,500 square feet. Joyce: And you're, there isn't anything confirmed but we're looking at a restaurant on that site too. Generous: Correct. Joyce: Thank you. Peterson: The only other thing Bob, I think I don't normally preach this but within the packet I know it's some within your control but we didn't have a proportionate rendering. It's pretty 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 difficult to get.. . tonight so.. .points his finger at staff or the development team. It's pretty important that we have that for our packet so. With that, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Commission please? Vemelle Clayton: Good evening Mr. Chainnan and members of the Commission. My name is Vemelle Clayton and I'm with Lotus Realty. I would like to have the rest of the group in here before we start but let me talk first just a little bit about the, are you going to do this one by one? Do the plat and vote on that and... I didn't say vote yes. I just said vote. Do you want me to talk about the plat first and then you talk? Okay. I would like to just, just a couple of comments. We don't have any problem with the change in number 5. Backing up to number 2. I just want for the record to say that I believe that we already have adequate cross access easements as a part of the covenants that are filed, but this is a good test. We should take a look at them before the plat's recorded and see that they fit. I do also want to state for the record that I would like, I will not actually fonnally object to item number I, but given that we picked up the copy on Tuesday. I read it... that night. Caught it last night and we were still busy with Famous Dave's today, I didn't really get a chance to talk about it. But we'll have a chance to talk about it between now and the Council meeting and it's probably fine. I just want to understand what the ramifications might be. And that's all the comments I have on that. Peterson: Any questions? Kevin, any comments on replatting? Joyce: No, I don't have any. Sidney: No comment. Peterson: Ladd? Nor do I. With that, may I have a motion and a second please. Blackowiak: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, PUD #95-2, subject to conditions I through 8. Condition 5 shall read, the applicant shall pay the City GIS fees in accordance with City fees at time of recording final plat. Joyce: I'll make a second on that. Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Villages on the Ponds Second Addition, pun 95-2, subject to the following conditions: I. The developer shall grant to the City of Chanhassen a conservation easement over Outlot L, Villages on the Ponds as described in the conditions of approval for the Villages on the Ponds. 2. Provide cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be dedicated over Lots I and 2, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition for access and utility purposes. 3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the plat over the st0l111water basins and wetlands on the property. Drainage and utility easements shall 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 be dedicated on the final plat for the stormwater basin and wetland up to the 100 year flood elevation. 4. The applicant shall enter into an addendum to the development contract/PUD agreement for Villages on the Ponds. 5. The applicant shall pay the City GIS fees in accordance with city fees at time of recording of final plat. 6. The proposed commercial development of2.13 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity fee of$9,287. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the applicant or their successors shall supply the City with a mylar set of as-built construction plans. All utilities installed within the plat shall be owned and maintained by the property owners and not the City. 8. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to City Code. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. Peterson: Next item. Vernelle, do you want to? Vemelle Clayton: I guess one ofthe things that I will talk about after we talk about the building itself, is landscaping. Bob and I have talked about that a little bit and we can deal with that after we talk about the building. I would like to say that we have Mika Milo with us. Most of you, I think all of you know Mika Milo from our prior presentations. We have Ken Merriman who is our expert leasing person and a delightful person to know. And we have Scott Schlachter from Famous Dave's. I would just like to say that I did invite all the folks that were here for the last session to come and sit in on this presentation, number one because they were so successful. And number two, because they all said oh, Famous Dave's. When are you going to open? But that is, aside from, the only other comment I want to make about Famous Dave's is, number one. Everybody seems to like them and want them here. Number two. I want to publicly express my appreciation for their patience with us as we have wrestled with their design. They've been not only patient. They've been understanding. They've been flexible and so far they haven't even gotten angry as far as I know. We have been working with them, not because their design was bad. But because it didn't quite fit what everyone's ideas and assumptions were as to what would be built in the Villages. To that end they've been very flexible. They are also under a little bit of a time line. They want to get going as soon as possible so staff has been actually bending the rules on when we can get the last copies of things into them and we appreciate that. We got Mika involved in some redesign. He got that copy to us in time to get it to staff and to Famous Dave's at the same time. We wanted both to review it. Famous Dave's had a few changes that they wanted to make and thanks to Mika who learned ofa couple of them at 4:00 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 this afternoon and has been out in the hall making the color copy as you discussed car dealerships, I think we have a fairly complete presentation. You will see that there are some things that are completely different from the way it was described or set forth in the packet. We'll try to point those out to you as we go and I would like to introduce Mika Milo to discuss the elevations. Mika Milo: Mika Milo, principle of Milo Architecture Group in Eden Prairie. And your Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners, it is my pleasure to present now the two projects here that are really like one project. All on one site basically, sharing the same parking lot. One is the Famous Dave and then the retail building #4. I guess we'll first address the Famous Dave building, and you will see that there is some relationship, some visual relationship and correlationship between these buildings and color schemes. When we, like Vernelle said, initial design that was a typical, proto typical design for Famous Dave and they approached us here, in essence was a good design that would fit to the Village character in general terms. In terms of massing and the slope roofs and the size of the building and bulk and shape of the building. And the restaurant is obviously very welcome use for the Villages...in and outdoors. The problem we had is more, it was the character of the finishes and the materials that they are proposing in a typical design, and we have been working quite a while with them and they worked until we received, until we arrived to that point to present to you these change design that I believe now much closer matches the intent with the Villages and what we are trying to achieve there. I will show you what the material that was presented... This is the last roof, sheet metal roof and wood siding that was proposed. It was rather.. .raw wood appearance like northern... fannhouse combination with very... But in any case, we felt it is not really matching what we are trying to achieve here at the Village and we would like that building to blend more with the overall.. .design that we have, that are not so strongly, how would you say, woodsy. They're a little bit more sophisticated... and so we suggested to change the color of the roof as well as to change the finishes, the color of the roof would be darker than this red one and we suggested that also we finish for the wood siding becomes a solid stain rather than a transparent stain.. .and we also created a base that we propose of being. . .so this is basically what happened and I will show you the design that we are now proposing. I think you have the smaller, reduced copies. You have received that. Peterson: Bob, does the copy that you just gave us differ from...? Does the copy you just gave us differ from the one that's in our packet? It seemed to. Generous: Just the trash enclosure. Peterson: Oh okay, sorry. AI-Jaff: There were some changes that were made to the plans that you have attached so they are different. So what you have is the latest revision. Mika Milo: ...substantial change from these initial materials. The red roof that you see is more of the brownish color, darker. .. we are suggesting that darker color... stained color. The stain is a light brownish. . . and the wood frame around the windows to take a darker tone of this. . . darker 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 one would be for the frames and around the... Then to have as a base of that.. .of approximately 6 inches above the ground and we use that teal green, teal color for.. .and we are considering or re-using that teal color because it might not be... Any questions that you might have? Vemelle Clayton: I think they might have some questions as to how it's different from what you had in your packet. Is that a reasonable assumption? The differences are four. The roof. Over the kitchen.. .here was too small for their BV AC... Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Brooks: I have a question. In your design.. .you state, in no case shall the architecture lead to the... This really does not, it's inconsistent with where you're going. I realize that Famous Dave's has an image that... when I look at that building that you presented... boy these are really far apart in architectural styles. We're talking about compatibility in Villages on the Ponds, and we're going from sort of very modem and glass and it was very nice to sort of rustic, westem theme and I don't feel that, Ijust want your opinion on this. This doesn't seem to follow the design character reference book of what you... Mika Milo: ... that text reads like that and the intent is not to copy. Can you please read one more time that particular important sentence? That couple sentences. Brooks: However, in no case shall the architectural. ..of a Disneyland street or... The main goal is to create a pleasant.. . highway pedestrian oriented streetscape that has the base qualities of a traditional village. The building architecture... Mika Milo: Obviously I wanted to say, we don't any...temporary architecture dealing in the Village. However, we are basing the architecture on the traditional value, and traditional symbol and expressions of the architecture of the past times and especially the beginning of this century. Small town America and the intent would be very simply. ..we like to have some cohesiveness in the Village and a certain direction and.. .materials and design but I don't think that our intent is to really have very uniform, very similar everything. I think we do welcome some varieties. We do welcome some different architectural.. .and expressions that suggest building a village over the period of time that is composed of various. . . and not just the one single developer who is doing everything very uniformly. In that respect I think that yes, this is a very different than the office building, though the function is also very different. It is more rustic and woodsy and so on but it's also on the other end of the village and not directly next door to the office building. I think it's more now in an environment where that will fit rather well. Where we have the restaurant next, in opposi~e side of the pond is another restaurant and then we have also the AmericInn which are using all the siding and wood shingles and they are a little more rustic and woodsy type of design. I think that will blend with this area in general terms so I think. Brooks: But this is not small town Wyoming land.. .but it's just very, very different flavor from what I see being presented so far... I guess my question would be, when we're doing Famous Dave's, is this mstic wooded look the only look that they have for their restaurant because I 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 believe Alison.. .Maple Grove. Also this is right next to Highway 5 and all of a sudden we have this rustic, Wyoming look right on Highway 5. Mika Milo: Let me explain one thing only. Weare talking about rustic. I would like to point out that... We talking about the creamy, beigey color... So I do think that I feel comfortable that we are close enough to. ..different. It still has some of that Wyoming flavor... I think there has been a tremendous transformation... Brooks: .. .on your last building, you did such a great job of going beyond form.. .and even here you're saying, you know you don't want to guided.. .self expression but which does not... I mean it was going so great and now it's seems like we've gone back to traditional restaurant... This probably is a, I'll stop because it's probably a moot point anyway because.. .but Ijust wanted to make the point that I think that we're going in one direction and...this doesn't quite fit with what you were doing architecturally to start out with. Mika Milo: I have just one more thing to say. That this... they really have to more fit with the product.. .are of the Villages is more isolated and... Aanenson: I'm sorry I have to stop there because I think we have to be really careful about that type of thinking because we really tried hard to tie those pieces together architecturally. I understand what you're saying. We had the same discussion on the motel. Different.. . sitting out there and we worked really hard. We spent a lot of time reworking the hotel to get it to fit in so I'd be really careful about going down that path. It is part of the project. It is.. . Highway 5. To say well, it's not part of it. That's not true.. . staff and Sharmin spent an inordinate amount of time. We did give them a benefit. We were working up until, delivering plans until the last minute. We have changes tonight that we're not...we want to work with them. We've tried really hard. We got something that was completely different than what our PUD standards are. Sharmin spent a lot of time trying to get it to where we thought it worked. They can do different things. They can. They have. What is acceptable under the standards and that's where we're struggling. We're hoping to get a read from you tonight and that's part of the reason we put it on here tonight is get some direction. We're kind of at a standstill as far as some of these issues, but it is hard. It does, it is important what it looks like. Joyce: This was the same issue as American Inn. This is the same thing. Aanenson: Exactly. That's why what Mika says concerns me because we did spend a lot oftime putting together... standards and the mission statement just as you read, that is important what it looks like. ..as a staffwe were concerned... Brooks: And I do.. . architectural standards provided by.. .by other reasons. Aanenson: Franchises do have a certain style. We understand that but then we have to say well this PUD also has a certain style. Peterson: Well, we can sort out those issues as we continue the evening. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Vernelle Clayton: I just want to say one thing. That I agree with Kate that this is an important part of the Village. Just because it's on the edge and it's not a part of the core doesn't mean it's not important. It is also the first thing, and sometimes the only thing, not just this one but everything along Highway 5 for some people will be the only thing that they see. We hope that because of what they see there they'll come into the Village. However, I would like to point out one thing that we haven't brought out and that is, perspective. That we keep this in perspective too because just for example, the 30,000 square foot building that we saw on the south end was six times as big as this and AmericInn is eight times as big as this. So we need to keep the relationship of the mass and the overall impression in line too. This looks as big as the 30,000 square foot building, because they put it on the same size paper, and we all get carried away by that. Just looking at it in relationship to the building that we're coming, that we'll be talking about in a few minutes. It's less than half the size. It's in square footage it's one-third. One elevation is a little longer than the other. So the issue is, can the Village absorb this without being disadvantaged? Maybe we're too close to the issue because we've gone through many versions and this one, we feel it can absorb. Does it look a little western, or if you're from the south, does it look like a road house? Which is what they want. They want people to say oh there's a Famous Dave's road house. Can it be adapted to another use? Yeah. One of the things if you're looking for flexibility, then it's better not to have it brick. Brick is a very hard medium to change. Once you have a brick wall, you've got a brick wall unless you simply take the walls down. That's one of our concerns. The other concern is that in considering brick it really doesn't get at what everyone's issue is. The issue really is the design. But we've added a lot of elements to tie it in so I guess what we'd like to have you do tonight is think about, can the Village, because of it's mass, and it's relationship to this relatively small building, can we absorb it? I guess as a developer we're comfortable that we can. It's not perfect but we've come a long way and I don't know that we can make it much different and still have Famous Dave's in town. I'm not 100% sure we can do this and have Famous Dave's in town so. Peterson: Any questions? Blackowiak: Yes Mr. Chairman. Could we pass around the color rendering, the changes so that we can see. I'd like to see up close what has been changed. Peterson: As we're passing that around, this item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open and a second please. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: The public hearing is open. Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Gary Disch: My name is Gary Disch, 8170 Marsh Drive. I'm fairly close to this building that's going to be going in. One of the concerns that I have with the restaurant. I have no problem with Famous Dave's and stuff but I'm very close to it. I'm wondering ifmy back yard's going to be smelling like barbecue and I'm not the one doing it. You know. We're talking about huge fans, 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 ventilators, whatever. What types of things are they going to do for our neighborhood. You know if we get all the smells all the time, the same thing on the other retail, somebody said there was going to be another restaurant there. I guess do we know what's going in there or are we just building it and see what comes? As far as the brick and stuff, you know she says we're over budget. Famous Dave's may not build here. I don't believe that. It seems like everybody wants to come to Chanhassen. It's getting to be a very viable space. You're right. There's brick. I like the brick, or the rock face. Why are we cheapening it up I guess. There's brick in Maple Grove. We shouldn't be pressured into making a western house, as what you said. I don't like the design either. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Lois Savard: Hi. My name is Lois Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive and the look of this building is very important to me because I'm going to see it right out my back door. I live right on the comer. The looks of the building is fine with me. I like the wood. I like the western look. That doesn't bother me. The restaurant bothers me a little bit. I'm concerned about hours of operation. We like to have our windows open in the summertime. The smell, the barbecue smell is probably nice and that doesn't bother me as much. I'm concerned with the traffic and the noise and the everything that goes with a restaurant. I'm concerned about the view. Which side of the building we're going to see. Are we going to see the back of the building. Where is the trash going to be taken out, etc., etc. We have had the commitment made that we will have some landscaping done in our backyard. What it is we don't know so I don't know how concerned as homeowners we should be with the view. We don't know yet what the landscaping in our back yard will be. So those are my primary concerns. Peterson: Thank you. Aanenson: Let me just clarify exactly where this is... Joyce: So the retail would block any kind of views from their window Kate? Aanenson: There still may be an... Lois Savard: You'd be looking from the east elevation. Audience: The office building would not block her. Peterson: Anyone else? Scott Schlachter: My name's Scott Schlachter. I'm with Famous Dave's. Ijust wanted to answer a couple of the concerns the residents had as far as the smell. If we are a restaurant, there is going to be some smell from our charbroiler. As far as the smoking of the meat we have specially made ovens and we use about 3 ounces of wood to smoke. It's smoked for a very long time and because they're enclosed in smaller ovens, we don't use... wood and so there isn't going to be puffs of smoke going up and permeating the neighborhood. Well maybe a little bit but 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 nothing that's going to be huge. Hours of operation. We open at 11 :00, Monday through, seven days a week and we close, typically we close at 10:00. We're very family oriented, both for our customers and for our staff. Any other questions I can answer for anyone? Joyce: Yeah, I have a question. What about, one of the conditions on this is the applicant shall provide detailed sign plans to staff and obviously you don't have today. Could you tell us what, is the sign going to use that logo on the side of your shirt right there? Scott Schlachter: Famous Dave's, the letters, the script is what we'll use on the front of the building. Joyce: What about the pig? Scott Schlachter: No. Just the script. Joyce: Okay. So that's the sign then, right? Aanenson: Similar to what's shown on the... Joyce: But it will be a separate sign somewhere, correct? Aanenson: Scripted wall sign. Joyce: Okay, so there's no other pylons or anything else around there? Okay. Right, exactly. I'm trying to think of, okay. Generous: The only place it could be is on the directional signs. The little finger. Joyce: Oh, okay. All right. Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Vemelle Clayton: Do you want to talk about the landscaping? Peterson: Pardon? Vemelle Clayton: Did we want to talk about the landscaping a little bit? Or do you not want me to talk anymore? Peterson: Can you do it briefly? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Vernelle Clayton: Yes, I can do it briefly. The conditions are listed for Famous Dave's start on page 11 and basically what I have to say affects item number 2. A little bit of item number 3. Item number 4. And item number 5. And that will, essentially I'll say the same thing about the next plan because what it means is that we want to substitute the plan that you've already approved. When the staff reviewed this they didn't realize that the landscaping plan that was in, and it was our fault. We should have given them another copy along with that. The landscaping plan for the peripheral area covers that area and that's why the landscaper for this project didn't include it. Superimpose the landscape plan from the peripheral area onto this plan that we have actually more trees and shrubs shown on this plan.. . staff report recommended. Our landscaper misunderstood my instructions and didn't... The only other thing I'll say is... I would like to talk about the trash enclosure but I'd like to save that for the next project. Aanenson: I'm not aware of any discussions. Generous: Yes, this is part of the hardscape, landscape plan. And I just, we didn't have the detail on that area. It does meet the.. .provided they put that landscaping in. Aanenson: Sorry. Miscommunication. I wasn't aware of that change... Peterson: Right. Kevin. Joyce: Let me ask one question before I say anything. Now the trash enclosure, we're going to talk about on Building #4 correct, so we don't even have to deal with that right now? Aanenson: It includes both buildings... Joyce: I have mixed feelings about this thing, to tell you the truth. I'm not as adamant as Allyson is about the looks of the building. My concern is the view shed, where this is going to anchor our view shed. Building #3, #2 and #3 that will be on either side of that pond, come in to our Villages on the Pond so it's really two anchors to this whole concept. So as we were talking about the importance of this building, I think it's rather important. Rather than a side note. With that said, I feel like I'm in the position that I was back with the American Inn. I think it can be improved. I don't feel like I have a grasp on the design itself. I know you were talking about, the original thing that we received in our pamphlet, we had some rock facades on there. I certainly liked more. I know there's economics involved here Vernelle but this is what's going to stand out when people look at the thing. I think it's worth the investment. I'm interested in what the other commissioners have to say because I think there can be improvements here and I don't feel like I can really give any direction as far as that. I'm not real comfortable right now. So I would listen to what the other commissioners would have to say. Peterson: With that, LuAnn. Sidney: I think I'm sitting in the confused section too. I have mixed feelings about what has been proposed. I agree that the design of the building could be improved and what I mean by improved is that it might be closer to what's currently in the PUD design character reference 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 book. And I think what we saw today, or this evening is going the other direction. I'd like to see the use of river rock, if possible. ... but not in detail the building in Maple Grove and I said, oh that's nice. At least I recognize that it was a nice built building and I guess I would echo the fact that this is going to be an important view on Highway 5, representing the Villages. And I'm wondering if there are other alternatives to what's been proposed as currently shown to us this evening. I'd like to hear what the other commissioners have to say. Brooks: ., .I'm pretty adamant about my feelings. I do not feel as though the design fits their reference book, at all. I mean I have mixed feelings too because I appreciate that Famous Dave's as a franchise wants to conform to a certain image. Unfortunately in the spot that it's in, I think that we set a certain tone for the development. I'm not sure that what I'm looking at, I'm not comfortable that this corresponds to it. The other thing is, we reviewed a rustic sign... It was a boarding sign and that was rustic and my understanding was the City Council turned that down because they didn't like it and they thought it... Well this is a lot bigger than a sign. This is a rustic looking building and I don't know ifl'm as comfortable with that image and location that it's in considering what the whole purpose of the project... Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I guess I'm not really comfortable with this either. I went up to look at the Maple Grove property. I liked that a lot better than I like this. I heard the comments or the questions, can the Villages absorb Famous Dave's and I think that's the wrong question to be asking so early in the process. I think that when we get around to building 18 or 19 or something, then you can talk about possibly absorbing a smaller building somewhere on the interior and making it fit. But this is right at the corner of Highway 5 and Great Plains. Lots of people are going to be seeing it and it's an early building and it would set the tone so I don't think you want to talk about absorbing a building at this point in the process. So I would not be comfortable with moving forward this evening. I would like to see another revision utilizing more, I guess I liked Maple Grove so more in that direction. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm not going to be voting. I guess Ijust have a comment. Just a perspective. Famous Dave's is fun. The Villages can't be stodgy. Just stand back and say, tell the developer what design to follow. Buca's? Is that what you're looking for? Give them a restaurant. This is a 5,000 square foot restaurant, and I'm going to stop talking but 5,000 square feet. The design options, they can change these but you should, I think we need to give them some guidance if we don't like this. It's not a 30,000 square foot shopping center. Think about a visual that you have of a restaurant'that you'd like here. You should let them know what that is. My only other perspective is, I think when it fits with the lake and other buildings, there is variety. Sameness doesn't, sameness, there's a limit to sameness so I'll stop there. Peterson: My comments I think are pretty simple in the fact that I'm not comfortable with what I've seen and I don't think I've seen enough. Talked about changes. I don't think staffs up to speed so I do think we need to see it back again. But back again with the comments of my fellow 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 commissioners along with I think architecturally I'm not comfortable with the lines and that are within the guidelines set forth. I mean these, there's a lot of language here, a lot of verbiage that clearly can, a building can be built and hopefully it is Famous Dave's that can meet those architectural standards. You know I think that building materials, even though the colors have changed, I think the same rustic feel is still going to eminent from that. You know the chimney doesn't seem to fit. The metallic rooflike it is doesn't seem to fit. The railing doesn't seem to fit. I do see a lot like I did with the Americlnn in that I want to ride my horse up and tie it up to the railing, and I don't think that's the neo traditional look we're trying to achieve. So I would offer that I'd like to send it back to the drawing board to try to be more creative within the budget constraints that are there. So those are my comments. With that, may I hear a motion? Blackowiak: Okay. I'll recommend the Planning Commission table Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Pond 2nd Addition. Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce: Yeah, I just want to make a quick comment. Being the first to speak I got a little bit of a feel from other commissioners and I have to agree with Ladd. I think this can work. I really do. I think this isn't bad and Ladd picked on something and I agree with. It can't be stodgy. It can't be, once you start becoming too restrictive on this thing, it's going to look phony. Brooks: .. . happy medium. Joyce: There is a happy medium. Absolutely. And so my direction here is, I think we tweaked the American Inn. I did not like the American Inn. Okay. I like Famous Dave's a lot better than American Inn when we started. When we started with American Inn, that came a long ways. So I think tweaking here can get this through and I think this needs to be cleaned up before we can send this to the City Council. I think that was the problem here. That there was some cleaning up to do and I think that's all it is. I really do. But I think there's going to have to be a little more investment. I just think with a little bit of rock face there that we had, that river rock, whatever. I think that's the kind of tweaking that's going to go a long way. So that's my comment, but I agree with, I don't want to look at this Villages on the Pond and say oh that was a plmmed unit. I mean we planned it. I mean you couldn't make a move. Let's have a little bit of fun with it too. Peterson: Other than the rock, give them any more direction? Joyce: Well for instance, there was a suggestion about the screening. Now I didn't see that. I don't know what it's going to look like. I think it's a good idea. Ifit looks right. I think you're going to want some alfresco type of dining. I did not get that. I mean you know, you can't see that well seeing it. There's another issue that you know I think this whole concept was to bring people out. I mean I love to, except for the neighbors. I don't know, you know we have to put 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 some parameters on that obviously but it'd be fun to have screened in, a place to dine screened in like that. I think that's a good idea. But it wasn't on there. Brooks: Alison...in Maple Grove and it's a little more modem. It's still fun. Ifwe want to be fun, fine. It's still fun. It's still Famous Dave's. But I would say that style fits in a lot better than.. .St. Paul every day and it's cute. I mean I'll admit it, it really is a cute design but not for where we're putting it. And I think, I mean I understand... what they've done in Maple Grove... Joyce: You know I've seen Maple Grove and it is nice, but I don't mind this. I don't mind the concept. The look. Even the little bit of western in it. It's just, there has to be more, looking at detail. I mean that's the whole, that's what we've all looked at this thing is we've got to look at detail and what's going to have to go back, I don't' want to sound like a broken record but you go back to American Inn. It was very plain looking. Very ordinary looking. Once they started fiddling around with some of the stuff, I mean it came out to be pretty nice. And I don't think this needs as much tweaking if you will as the American Inn. Peterson: We have a motion and a second. Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table approval on Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. Peterson: The next one is the office building. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, can I clarify one point? I think we overlooked. Do we need to address the issue of the 70% roof slope before we move on? Vemelle Clayton: That's on the next building. Generous: That's on Building #4. Blackowiak: Okay. So do we need to say anything about that before or do we just want to deal with that? Generous: That's part of your discussion for Building #4. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Vemelle Clayton: Thank you. Before I start, would anybody think that we have summarized your thoughts tonight wrong if we bring back this plan tweaked? Peterson: Define tweaked. I mean. Vemelle Clayton: Well, that's the hard part. But you're not saying start over. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Joyce: Oh no. I'm not. Peterson: You've got a dispersion of opinions here. I mean I am concerned as far as architecture and all that. That doesn't necessarily mean start over but I just don't see it fitting in to the... Brooks: It would be nice if the options of other styles... Vernelle Clayton: Well Famous Dave's is evolving and their prototype is the one that you passed every day on West 7th in St. Paul and if you go to Stillwater you'll see the same one. That's the one they'll be building all over the country. This is not the one they'll be building all over the country. Maple Grove is not the one they'll be building all over the country. Aanenson: But every city has different standards. Vernelle Clayton: Right. The one in Minnetonka will look a little bit different, but very similar to the one on West 7th. So there is some, they want some continuity. Brooks: Which is fair but we can still.. .see the options... Vemelle Clayton: You wouldn't like them. This is it. I mean this basically what, we changed, that's basically it. Maybe we went too far. Maybe we should go back and simplify it. Well, we didn't, you didn't agree to become architects when you signed on for the Planning Commission so I just wanted to see. I don't think I know, but we'll work on it. With respect to Building #4, again I would like to have Mika Milo talk about the elevations. I'll talk a little bit about the landscaping. We went a little fast over the site plans when we talked about it. I think in the interest of time, because it's now almost 10:00, I won't just talk about the site plan but I certainly will answer questions if you have any. Would like to talk a little bit about the trash enclosure first because we deferred it to this portion. Do we have the colored copy of it somewhere? We have a black and white copy I think. Did I give you a colored one with that? It probably looks a little better. I'm looking for the... The staff report says we had trouble... There didn't seem to be any obvious place that worked that wasn't right in the way of something. It was either in the way of neighbors. In the way of the people looking from Highway 5. Or in the way of the people walking across the ponds. Or walking up from the north. And so we got out some pictures that we had taken from Celebration and they had the trash enclosures right in the middle of the parking lots, and therefore they could have far fewer and it seemed to work for them. It seems to work here we think. We decided that we'd put a roof on it to match, to coincide with, there's a language in our covenants that say that any other, I forget what the wording is but it's in your staff report. Auxiliary structures have to be, have to coordinate with the architectural style of the surroundings. And we put a standing seam roof as we have, will have on many structures in the Village and have on one of the adjacent buildings. I just want you to take a good look at the landscaping now so we don't have to talk about it again. Our thought was that we would hide it quite well with large hedges. Again, the staff didn't have this when they wrote up the report and so staff, you know using good judgment suggested we put a couple trees there. We've got on our landscaping plan we've drawn in the trees. We'll go either way. Although there is something to be said for a large hedge. With two trees we'll have to have lower plantings, or we can have a 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 large hedge and it's just an option I'll just point out to you. I guess I'd like to have Mika talk about the, oh no. I would like to talk just a little bit, ah however I changed my mind. I'll come back and talk about the roof thing after you've seen the elevations. Then you can have it in perspective. Mika Milo: ... we are going to propose that building to be a building.. .more of a traditional, old town. The main street buildings are composed of these taller buildings and.. . other than just one single building and one shopping... The building really looks like being composed of three. . . three buildings. The north building, middle building and the south building. The north building is the one that is closest to the Highway 5 and the face of that, narrower face of that building is that elevation.. . elevation in the north end of that building. The building you have the smaller... And so that is the north building we are talking about and the south building. The forms are different, because they look like the buildings are composed of three buildings. The only thing that is... unifying is the standing seam sheet metal roof that.. . north and the south. The middle building looks like a flat roof building from outside. The middle building is also what we're projecting... presenting you almost to seeing north and south. But in general terms... We don't see that directly relationship. We could possibly...than the sheet metal and that would be really even more difficult. So the way we have it now, there is some homogeneous approach.. .here but yet there is a different amount... But there is quite a bit of variety. The north building here is the stucco building. The middle building is the brick building and the south building is the siding... The stucco building or... temporary looking element here that... but it is very stylistic and more in the modem sense of why it just actually all glass... That will have also the sheet metal roof like the other buildings. At night it will be lit. It's going to.. .roof of that building will be a signature building. That way, and we have said and that's actually the... The awnings are rather very lively and playful. Stronger colors that will bring... The materials for the buildings are more, not attention crying type of colors and materials but the awnings are really colorful and therefore... On the north end of the building.. .glass element, we are suggesting to use that light green glass... It can be a little bit clear glass but I think a light green would be nicer. The other buildings may be also light in the gray or the clear glass.. .so they don't like too much to have colors you know and this is.. .so I think the light green or the light gray would be acceptable for the retail. The north building, the middle building is brick building with some.. .stone type of brick which is... Very good quality and... On the one side, on the facing parking we are proposing that those be... On the other side facing the street, that could be a darker green or teal color.. .connecting the building with the roof. You see the buildings are in general of terms looking.. .on the side facing the Great Plains Boulevard and the parking because this is one building. The north building here. North building here... The south building is the... wood sided building with very light.. .and also darker colored stain for the framing around the windows and we are using a... On the south side, we're using the same, probably the same color of the awning. And the wood siding, and you see at the base of that building we are proposing the. . . that one but I think it will be very good idea... The colors are blending and working together even though they're very different. We think they are good combination and give enough spark and interest... We believe that that building will be a good projection of the main street architecture.. .and connect the office building that we have planned for the... 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Vernelle Clayton: I would then like to address just briefly the issue of one person hearing one thing, another person hearing another thing when you're reading the same language, and that's with respect to the overall roof. I, and a whole lot of the rest of us, assumed when we were talking about that condition, the 30/70% condition, we were talking about what you saw when you walked up to a building. Is this looking like it's a flat roof... That was my assumption. And if! would, 1 would have said you're crazy if it was anything else. I mean that's just what I understood and the rest of us understood. Staff, and possibly...so you'd have their rating before we went through this process. We still can do that. We can take it to them as part of their review when we take the building to them. Nancy's question was, you know I understand what you're saying. Tell me what the down, tell us what the down side would be. And so I said to Kate, that's going to be your role to tell them what the down side is because I guess I don't, just frankly I don't understand why we care what we see from looking down from the air. I'm kind of baffled. I have to say that and I don't mean to be, I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't understand it so. The reality of this particular building is that it wouldn't look like this if we made the roof steeper from... Aanenson: We're not asking.. .the other office building was improved... We're not saying you have to... I guess we're saying that was our interpretation... A couple ways we can handle it... Peterson: How much of the HV AC will you see as it's designed right now? Vernelle Clayton: Well this is all, it will all be shielded because this is actually the top of the roof. The HV AC will just be down in here like this. Aanenson: So it acts as a parapet. Vemelle Clayton: A parapet. And someone asked earlier, would you be able to see it from the rest of the Village and the two story buildings. Actually Bob I don't think so because of the grade. Generous: ." four story. Aanenson: Or from the neighbors. Generous: What's residential. Vemelle Clayton: Except that the elevation goes down so dramatically from here. Mika Milo: .. .so there is practically, there is no way that anybody will ever see the equipment... Vemelle Clayton: Any questions on that? Joyce: Kate, just to clarify then. Ifwe were to approve this, we would strike condition 6? 40 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Aanenson: Maybe it'd be better if you'd add some modification, and again the intent is to screen the equipment so if you want to put, a pitched roof with the intent, as shown on the site plan... mechanical equipment. That would exclude the neighboring residential property. I guess I'm not sure that you're making that interpretation for all the future uses but based on this... Joyce: I mean a PUD, it's kind oflike a variance but not a variance type of situation. Aanenson: A variance within the PUD, or interpretation of those standards. So if you agree and acquiesce to say well... but we want to modify 6 to say. Joyce: But we're not, my only concern is we don't have a problem with other sites saying well there's precedent set here or something like that. Vernelle Clayton: Now that you've said that, it's in the Minutes and we agree. We'll take each case by case. Maybe it will never come up again, we don't know. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: I have a question. What is the downtown standard? You were alluding to that earlier. Can you clarify that please Bob? Do all buildings have to have 70% roof slope in downtown? Generous: Not downtown. Within the Villages on the Ponds. Blackowiak: Okay. What's the downtown standard, or is there any such thing? I mean you talked about Crossroads Medical Building. Aanenson: Pitched roof element. Blackowiak: Okay, so you don't have a percentage. Generous: We were trying to quantify it within the Villages on the Ponds design standards condition. That's why we put the exception in that created the occupiable space if you will... Blackowiak: But basically you intended to say 70%, not from where you stand on the street but overall? Okay. Joyce: Thanks: Vemelle Clayton: The only other thing I have on landscaping then is number 4 relates to whatever you want to decide with respect to the trash enclosure landscaping. Number three, add an overstory tree and shmbs or hedges at the north end of the parking lot. And I just want to show you what, where did it go? Can you hand me that one. What we have, which is... landscaping which is essentially taken... there's a slight modification in the.. .landscaping which 41 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 is essentially taken from the.. .but there's a slight modification in the boundary here but this was, this plan... taken from the landscape plan that you approved for the overall project. Aanenson: And we haven't seen those. We'd like to get a chance to review those before they go to Council to make sure... Vernelle Clayton: That would be fine. You do have the plans that we submitted. Aanenson: Sure. We just haven't had a chance. Vernelle Clayton: Yeah, that's right. Aanenson: If you just want to modify that condition to. . . we thought the tree element with the trash enclosure would help as far as reducing.. .and also kind of create kind of an island out there. That's what we were looking for. And again we're open to discussion on that. That's kind of what we were thinking on that... Peterson: This item is also open for a public hearing. May I have a motion for the same and a second please. Sidney moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. LuAnn. Comments. Sidney: I have a few comments. I had been looking at the design as it's presented and the... drawing and I was a little concerned but after I saw your color sketches and the materials, I really warmed up to the building. I guess I don't have a great concern about the roof at this point. I understand the intent and it does serve the function of the retail building. I do have some concerns however with the element of the silo, and I can understand it might lend some interest but still I don't know if that's the kind of thing I want. That's right at the corner of that entrance to the Villages. So I would suggest maybe something else, I was thinking.. .maybe different landscaping or some other elements other than a silo because to me that's again, back to the Famous Dave's argument of it looks kind of western. This looks kind of farmstead. I'd like to have it more European looking if possible. And I guess about the trash enclosure. I guess I'm a little concerned about having that as an island. I really don't like to drive into a parking lot and see that type of thing in the middle of a parking lot. I'd rather see a tree, or some type of other piece of plantings. And also that type of enclosure might work in Florida, but I'm not sure at 30 below in Minnesota somebody's going to be willing to tote trash out that far into the parking lot. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 I can see people just kind of putting it outside the door for you know, a convenient time so I'd question that as one of the things in the plan. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, can I comment on that? We had a lot of internal discussions on that, and maybe I can tell you where we ended up on that. If you look at the retail building, it's almost a triple sided building. You've got the presence on Great Plains, which you want to have. . . You've got the presence on Highway 5 and you've got the other entrance road coming in... It really limits the design of the building, what they're trying to do.. .but the other one that really gets difficult.. .so in putting it in the middle, we really... It's nice to have it inside the building... but for the retail building, that's really tough to have the look we're trying to get there and still accomplish that. Ifanybody's got any suggestions, we spent a lot of time on this. Joyce: Have you had any problems with...? Aanenson: No. Haven't. And they have to walk it across. Peterson: There's one by Subway too. Aanenson: Wendy's is actually between the buildings. Like some of them we have been requiring to actually put in the building. That's a first choice. To try and put it in the building. But because of the presence we're trying to create with the awnings and that, it just seemed to detract from the building. We struggled with it. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Brooks: Well I like this building. Now this is a building that I think of as fun. This is more fun, and I actually like the glass silo. I think this is where we're taking an element of American architecture and doing something funky with it. So instead of taking a ranch building and making it look like a ranch building, we're taking a feature from our past and playing with it, without I think.. .Disneyesk. I mean there's no neon involved here. We're making a glass silo and I think that's cool. I think you want to do something fun. I think it's fun without doing the main street replica thing. But I have to say that I really liked this building and this is the type of design that when we talk about Villages on the Ponds, that I think we're looking for. Not Disney World. It's funky and it's still a small town feel. It's pedestrian friendly, and it has some interesting elements that you don't see in other places. So those are my comments. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: ! agree. I like the building. I'm not an architect but I'mjust the type of person that I know what I like. Famous Dave's, I didn't have a lot of affection for but this I like. I like the silo. The issue of the trash enclosure. I don't think there's a good place to put it on the building. So in the middle of a parking lot, although it might not be my first choice, I think is a good compromise. The landscaping I will let staff and the people work out because that's just something that's going to have to be decided later but I think that that's a good spot for the trash. I don't think you want to put it on the building because just like Kate said, there's not a good 43 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 place to put it and the building is nice the way it is. I like it. The 70% roof area, I would tend to side with what staff said. In other words that overall it should be 70% sloped but I don't even know if! want to tackle that issue. I think City Council can have a work session and can work it out so I will kind of! guess defer to what they think but my interpretation would be 70% overall and not 70% from the street because ifit would have been 70% from the street, they would have said 70% from the street and not made exclusions for roof patios or that type of thing so I can see where the issue is but I don't even think I want to get into that. I like it overall. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, it's a neat building. Peterson: Beat that. Joyce: I was going to say. This is exactly what I envisioned the Villages on the Ponds. It's great. I think three facades. I really do, and that leads up to my, the business about the 70%. The interpretation I had is what the staff said. However, I can definitely see putting in a condition allowing this to avoid that because I think it would deter, if we forced the 70%. I like this very, very much. I wouldn't want to fool with it. I like the silo I'm sorry to say LuAnn. I think it's cool. I really do. I think it's a real nice, it could be kind of a trademark or something of the, of our Villages on the Pond. I think the trash enclosure's kind of neat too. I would suggest we really do a nice job on it. I don't know how you do a nice job on trash enclosures but if it works we can use it in other places. But I think it's a good idea. I mean it's what this is all about. It's trying to find different ways of handling things and the form to functionality situation so I liked the idea of the trash enclosure. I suggest that you really do a good job on it, however you do a good job on trash enclosures, I think will work. Great job. Peterson: I also think it's a great building. My first impression was I didn't like the silo. And the second impression was I liked it so I think it's going to be one of those controversial things where half of your audience is going to think it's great and half of your audience is going to think it's just totally off the wall. As it relates to the roofline, I think it works in this case if properly screened. If it's not properly screened... work. With regards to the trash enclosure, it's proven that it will work not connected to the building. You know I'm leaning more towards shrubs for what it's worth. I think that if your primary reason Kate washeat, 105 degrees outside, whether it's sunny or cloudy isn't going to make a great deal of difference if there's shade.. .hide it more pleasantly with the shrubs. With that, can I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: Well I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97-12 for a 14,849 square foot building on Lot 2, Block 1, Villages on the Pond 2nd Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 7/23/97, subject to the conditions 1 through 11. Adding onto condition 3 that the staff review the landscape plan. Is that right Kate? Aanenson: Yes. Actually it's 3 and 4. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Joyce: Adding onto 3 and 4, the staff review all the landscape plans. Kate could you help me on item number 6, or condition number 6. To provide a pitched roof element to screen equipment and then. As shown on site plan. Aanenson: Dated September 3rd. Joyce: I just want to make sure this is, going site by site on this. That it's just this project only. Aanenson: .. . remaining silent on it, I mean the general interpretation on the 70%... Joyce: Exactly. Thank you. Okay? That's mine. Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #97-12 for a 14,849 square foot building on Lot 2, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 7/23/97, subject to the following conditions: 1. Increase width of landscape islands. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed with the trees. 2. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security required by the agreement. 3. Add an overstory tree and shrubs or hedges at the north end of the parking lot area and have staff review the landscape plan. 4. Add two trees to parking lot landscaping in landscape islands adjacent to trash enclosure and have staff review the landscape plan. 5. Add planter boxes to west and south sides of building. 6. Provide a pitched roof element to screen the rooftop equipment as shown on the plans dated September 3,1997. 7. Provide the City with a detail on the trash enclosure for approval. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 9. 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. 10. The sidewalks and trails on the site shall be constructed in conjunction with the overall site improvements and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless inclement weather conditions prohibit. 11. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water and plumbing permits from the City's Building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE. CHAPTER 20. ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND ANTENNAS, TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY MOBILE TOWERS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff? Conrad: So tell me where it can be located. It said non-residential. Aanenson: So it's consistent with the underlying district. So we don't allow those in a residential district except for city parks, so they're not allowed in any residential single family district. But they are allowed in city parks. ... the City Council can do a lease. That would still be the. . . Conrad: But it's on a truck. So it's located in a parking lot. Aanenson: Well whatever the site's going to be. It's in close proximity while they're under construction. Conrad: And normally there's a fence around all our sites. So there's a fence around the truck. Generous: Mr. Chairman. The site that was on Quattro Drive, they had a.. .Eden Prairie water tower and really it's a trailer. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 LOTUS REALTY SERVICES - PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BLVD WITHIN THE VILLAGE ON THE PONDS DEVELOPMENT: A. FINAL PLATIREPLAT OUTLOT C. VILLAGES ON THE POND INTO TWO LOTS. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5.300 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A FAMOUS DAVE'S RESTAURANT. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 14.848 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER. Public Present: Name Address Gary Disch Rhonda Collins Cindy Marengo Dale & Zola Klabande Susie & Kerry Blake Vemelle Clayton Scott D. Schlachter Lois Savard 8170 Marsh Drive 8060 Hidden Court 8150 Marsh Drive 8160 Hidden Court 8040 Hidden Circle 422 Santa Fe Circle 5633 Morgan Avenue So. 8080 Marsh Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Help me understand the roof issue a little bit better. Walk me through it again, or walk me through it if you would. Generous: Okay. If you look at the roof elevation on the Building 4 you see that it has a flat roof cross area in the middle that is actually a flat roof elevation. The slope roof elevation on that building, observable from someone standing on the street is approximately 70% of the building. However, if you look at it from a birds eye view, it's probably maybe half of the building. The roof area. So we need clarification whether or not we should interpret it to mean that it's, was visible from the ground or what's visible from above. Peterson: And your rationale for that position, the rationale for their position was? Generous: Well that with the higher peak that would be in it, we were looking, primarily when we were doing the design we were looking at larger units and making it look consistent with our downtown area. The office, the Medical Arts building down on West 78th Street. Peterson: And that's the standard we've followed with the other buildings? Generous: So far. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Peterson: Other questions of staff? Joyce: On this handout, remember this part of the handout. What exactly is this? Generous: That just shows you the sectors. If you look at the design standards, there are different, with any.. . slightly different standards Joyce: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. All right. I was just wondering, the dotted line looked like a thoroughfare or something through. Can you actually take your car and go through that whole dotted area? Through parking lots and everything like that. Generous: You can't get out to Highway 101 that way. Joyce: Okay. All right. Generous: It's just to delineate the different sectors within the plan and the signage standards are slightly different than some of the requirements. Joyce: Okay. Sidney: I have another question about the flat roof portion of that building. Would that be visible from other buildings in the Villages? .. .see higher elevations. Generous: We may in the Village corridor develop up to four story or 50 feet. Sidney: Okay, so that might be visible then. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Joyce: Just one. Now that I understand what I'm looking at here. You said that we're adding 14,000 square feet of retail to Section 2 and taking it out of Section 1 then. Generous: Right. Based on the additional, there's a Building 2 that will come in the future that's approximately 7,500 square feet. Joyce: And you're, there isn't anything confirmed but we're looking at a restaurant on that site too. Generous: Correct. Joyce: Thank you. Peterson: The only other thing Bob, I think I don't normally preach this but within the packet I know it's some within your control but we didn't have a proportionate rendering. It's pretty 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 difficult to get. . . tonight so. . . points his finger at staff or the development team. It's pretty important that we have that for our packet so. With that, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Commission please? Vemelle Clayton: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Vemelle Clayton and I'm with Lotus Realty. I would like to have the rest of the group in here before we start but let me talk first just a little bit about the, are you going to do this one by one? Do the plat and vote on that and. .. I didn't say vote yes. I just said vote. Do you want me to talk about the plat first and then you talk? Okay. I would like to just, just a couple of comments. We don't have any problem with the change in number 5. Backing up to number 2. I just want for the record to say that I believe that we already have adequate cross access easements as a part of the covenants that are filed, but this is a good test. We should take a look at them before the plat's recorded and see that they fit. I do also want to state for the record that I would like, I will not actually formally object to item number 1, but given that we picked up the copy on Tuesday. I read it... that night. Caught it last night and we were still busy with Famous Dave's today, I didn't really get a chance to talk about it. But we'll have a chance to talk about it between now and the Council meeting and it's probably fine. I just want to understand what the ramifications might be. And that's all the comments I have on that. Peterson: Any questions? Kevin, any comments on replatting? Joyce: No, I don't have any. Sidney: No comment. Peterson: Ladd? Nor do I. With that, may I have a motion and a second please. Blackowiak: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, PUD #95-2, subject to conditions 1 through 8. Condition 5 shall read, the applicant shall pay the City GIS fees in accordance with City fees at time of recording final plat. Joyce: I'll make a second on that. Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Villages on the Ponds Second Addition, pun 95-2, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall grant to the City of Chanhassen a conservation easement over Outlot L, Villages on the Ponds as described in the conditions of approval for the Villages on the Ponds. 2. Provide cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be dedicated over Lots 1 and 2, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition for access and utility purposes. 3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the plat over the stormwater basins and wetlands on the property. Drainage and utility easements shall 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 be dedicated on the final plat for the stormwater basin and wetland up to the 100 year flood elevation. 4. The applicant shall enter into an addendum to the development contract/PUD agreement for Villages on the Ponds. 5. The applicant shall pay the City GIS fees in accordance with city fees at time of recording of final plat. 6. The proposed commercial development of 2.13 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity fee of$9,287. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the applicant or their successors shall supply the City with a mylar set of as-built construction plans. All utilities installed within the plat shall be owned and maintained by the property owners and not the City. 8. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to City Code. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. Peterson: Next item. Vemelle, do you want to? Verne lIe Clayton: I guess one of the things that I will talk about after we talk about the building itself, is landscaping. Bob and I have talked about that a little bit and we can deal with that after we talk about the building. I would like to say that we have Mika Milo with us. Most of you, I think all of you know Mika Milo from our prior presentations. We have Ken Merriman who is our expert leasing person and a delightful person to know. And we have Scott Schlachter from Famous Dave's. I would just like to say that I did invite all the folks that were here for the last session to come and sit in on this presentation, number one because they were so successful. And number two, because they all said oh, Famous Dave's. When are you going to open? But that is, aside from, the only other comment I want to make about Famous Dave's is, number one. Everybody seems to like them and want them here. Number two. I want to publicly express my appreciation for their patience with us as we have wrestled with their design. They've been not only patient. They've been understanding. They've been flexible and so far they haven't even gotten angry as far as I know. We have been working with them, not because their design was bad. But because it didn't quite fit what everyone's ideas and assumptions were as to what would be built in the Villages. To that end they've been very flexible. They are also under a little bit of a time line. They want to get going as soon as possible so staff has been actually bending the rules on when we can get the last copies of things into them and we appreciate that. We got Mika involved in some redesign. He got that copy to us in time to get it to staff and to Famous Dave's at the same time. We wanted both to review it. Famous Dave's had a few changes that they wanted to make and thanks to Mika who learned ofa couple of them at 4:00 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 this afternoon and has been out in the hall making the color copy as you discussed car dealerships, I think we have a fairly complete presentation. You will see that there are some things that are completely different from the way it was described or set forth in the packet. We'll try to point those out to you as we go and I would like to introduce Mika Milo to discuss the elevations. Mika Milo: Mika Milo, principle of Milo Architecture Group in Eden Prairie. And your Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners, it is my pleasure to present now the two projects here that are really like one project. All on one site basically, sharing the same parking lot. One is the Famous Dave and then the retail building #4. I guess we'll first address the Famous Dave building, and you will see that there is some relationship, some visual relationship and correlationship between these buildings and color schemes. When we, like Vernelle said, initial design that was a typical, proto typical design for Famous Dave and they approached us here, in essence was a good design that would fit to the Village character in general terms. In terms of massing and the slope roofs and the size of the building and bulk and shape of the building. And the restaurant is obviously very welcome use for the Villages...in and outdoors. The problem we had is more, it was the character of the finishes and the materials that they are proposing in a typical design, and we have been working quite a while with them and they worked until we received, until we arrived to that point to present to you these change design that I believe now much closer matches the intent with the Villages and what we are trying to achieve there. I will show you what the material that was presented. .. This is the last roof, sheet metal roof and wood siding that was proposed. It was rather. . . raw wood appearance like northern... farmhouse combination with very... But in any case, we felt it is not really matching what we are trying to achieve here at the Village and we would like that building to blend more with the overall.. . design that we have, that are not so strongly, how would you say, woodsy. They're a little bit more sophisticated... and so we suggested to change the color of the roof as well as to change the finishes, the color of the roof would be darker than this red one and we suggested that also we finish for the wood siding becomes a solid stain rather than a transparent stain.. . and we also created a base that we propose of being. . .so this is basically what happened and I will show you the design that we are now proposing. I think you have the smaller, reduced copies. You have received that. Peterson: Bob, does the copy that you just gave us differ from...? Does the copy you just gave us differ from the one that's in our packet? It seemed to. Generous: lust the trash enclosure. Peterson: Oh okay, sorry. Al-laff: There were some changes that were made to the plans that you have attached so they are different. So what you have is the latest revision. Mika Milo: .. . substantial change from these initial materials. The red roof that you see is more of the brownish color, darker... we are suggesting that darker color.. . stained color. The stain is a light brownish.. . and the wood frame around the windows to take a darker tone of this. . . darker 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 one would be for the frames and around the... Then to have as a base of that.. .of approximately 6 inches above the ground and we use that teal green, teal color for. . . and we are considering or re-using that teal color because it might not be... Any questions that you might have? Vernelle Clayton: I think they might have some questions as to how it's different from what you had in your packet. Is that a reasonable assumption? The differences are four. The roof. Over the kitchen.. . here was too small for their HV AC... Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Brooks: I have a question. In your design.. .you state, in no case shall the architecture lead to the... This really does not, it's inconsistent with where you're going. I realize that Famous Dave's has an image that. . . when I look at that building that you presented. .. boy these are really far apart in architectural styles. We're talking about compatibility in Villages on the Ponds, and we're going from sort of very modem and glass and it was very nice to sort of rustic, western theme and I don't feel that, Ijust want your opinion on this. This doesn't seem to follow the design character reference book of what you... Mika Milo: .. .that text reads like that and the intent is not to copy. Can you please read one more time that particular important sentence? That couple sentences. Brooks: However, in no case shall the architectural.. . of a Disneyland street or. .. The main goal is to create a pleasant.. . highway pedestrian oriented streetscape that has the base qualities of a traditional village. The building architecture... Mika Milo: Obviously I wanted to say, we don't any.. .temporary architecture dealing in the Village. However, we are basing the architecture on the traditional value, and traditional symbol and expressions of the ar~hitecture of the past times and especially the beginning of this century. Small town America and the intent would be very simply. . . we like to have some cohesiveness in the Village and a certain direction and.. .materials and design but I don't think that our intent is to really have very uniform, very similar everything. I think we do welcome some varieties. We do welcome some different architectural.. . and expressions that suggest building a village over the period of time that is composed of various. . . and not just the one single developer who is doing everything very uniformly. In that respect I think that yes, this is a very different than the office building, though the function is also very different. It is more rustic and woodsy and so on but it's also on the other end of the village and not directly next door to the office building. I think it's more now in an environment where that will fit rather well. Where we have the restaurant next, in opposite side of the pond is another restaurant and then we have also the AmericInn which are using all the siding and wood shingles and they are a little more rustic and woodsy type of design. I think that will blend with this area in general terms so I think. Brooks: But this is not small town Wyoming land.. .but it's just very, very different flavor from what I see being presented so far... I guess my question would be, when we're doing Famous Dave's, is this rustic wooded look the only look that they have for their restaurant because I 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 believe Alison.. . Maple Grove. Also this is right next to Highway 5 and all of a sudden we have this rustic, Wyoming look right on Highway 5. Mika Milo: Let me explain one thing only. We are talking about rustic. I would like to point out that... We talking about the creamy, beigey color... So I do think that I feel comfortable that we are close enough to.. . different. It still has some of that Wyoming flavor... I think there has been a tremendous transformation... Brooks: .. .on your last building, you did such a great job of going beyond form.. . and even here you're saying, you know you don't want to guided. .. self expression but which does not. .. I mean it was going so great and now it's seems like we've gone back to traditional restaurant... This probably is a, I'll stop because it's probably a moot point anyway because. ..but I just wanted to make the point that I think that we're going in one direction and. .. this doesn't quite fit with what you were doing architecturally to start out with. Mika Milo: I have just one more thing to say. That this... they really have to more fit with the product.. . are of the Villages is more isolated and.. . Aanenson: I'm sorry I have to stop there because I think we have to be really careful about that type of thinking because we really tried hard to tie those pieces together architecturally. I understand what you're saying. We had the same discussion on the motel. Different.. . sitting out there and we worked really hard. We spent a lot of time reworking the hotel to get it to fit in so I'd be really careful about going down that path. It is part of the project. It is.. . Highway 5. To say well, it's not part of it. That's not true.. . staff and Sharmin spent an inordinate amount of time. We did give them a benefit. We were working up until, delivering plans until the last minute. We have changes tonight that we're not...we want to work with them. We've tried really hard. We got something that was completely different than what our PUD standards are. Sharmin spent a lot of time trying to get it to where we thought it worked. They can do different things. They can. They have. What is acceptable under the standards and that's where we're struggling. We're hoping to get a read from you tonight and that's part of the reason we put it on here tonight is get some direction. We're kind of at a standstill as far as some of these issues, but it is hard. It does, it is important what it looks like. Joyce: This was the same issue as American Inn. This is the same thing. Aanenson: Exactly. That's why what Mika says concerns me because we did spend a lot oftime putting together. . . standards and the mission statement just as you read, that is important what it looks like.. .as a staff we were concerned... Brooks: And I do.. . architectural standards provided by.. .by other reasons. Aanenson: Franchises do have a certain style. We understand that but then we have to say well this PUD also has a certain style. Peterson: Well, we can sort out those issues as we continue the evening. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Vernelle Clayton: I just want to say one thing. That I agree with Kate that this is an important part of the Village. Just because it's on the edge and it's not a part of the core doesn't mean it's not important. It is also the first thing, and sometimes the only thing, not just this one but everything along Highway 5 for some people will be the only thing that they see. We hope that because of what they see there they'll come into the Village. However, I would like to point out one thing that we haven't brought out and that is, perspective. That we keep this in perspective too because just for example, the 30,000 square foot building that we saw on the south end was six times as big as this and AmericInn is eight times as big as this. So we need to keep the relationship of the mass and the overall impression in line too. This looks as big as the 30,000 square foot building, because they put it on the same size paper, and we all get carried away by that. Just looking at it in relationship to the building that we're coming, that we'll be talking about in a few minutes. It's less than halfthe size. It's in square footage it's one-third. One elevation is a little longer than the other. So the issue is, can the Village absorb this without being disadvantaged? Maybe we're too close to the issue because we've gone through many versions and this one, we feel it can absorb. Does it look a little western, or if you're from the south, does it look like a road house? Which is what they want. They want people to say oh there's a Famous Dave's road house. Can it be adapted to another use? Yeah. One of the things if you're looking for flexibility, then it's better not to have it brick. Brick is a very hard medium to change. Once you have a brick wall, you've got a brick wall unless you simply take the walls down. That's one of our concerns. The other concern is that in considering brick it really doesn't get at what everyone's issue is. The issue really is the design. But we've added a lot of elements to tie it in so I guess what we'd like to have you do tonight is think about, can the Village, because of it's mass, and it's relationship to this relatively small building, can we absorb it? I guess as a developer we're comfortable that we can. It's not perfect but we've come a long way and I don't know that we can make it much different and still have Famous Dave's in town. I'm not 100% sure we can do this and have Famous Dave's in town so. Peterson: Any questions? Blackowiak: Yes Mr. Chairman. Could we pass around the color rendering, the changes so that we can see. I'd like to see up close what has been changed. Peterson: As we're passing that around, this item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open and a second please. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: The public hearing is open. Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Gary Disch: My name is Gary Disch, 8170 Marsh Drive. I'm fairly close to this building that's going to be going in. One of the concerns that I have with the restaurant. I have no problem with Famous Dave's and stuffbut I'm very close to it. I'm wondering if my back yard's going to be smelling like barbecue and I'm not the one doing it. You know. We're talking about huge fans, 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 ventilators, whatever. What types of things are they going to do for our neighborhood. You know if we get all the smells all the time, the same thing on the other retail, somebody said there was going to be another restaurant there. I guess do we know what's going in there or are we just building it and see what comes? As far as the brick and stuff, you know she says we're over budget. Famous Dave's may not build here. I don't believe that. It seems like everybody wants to come to Chanhassen. It's getting to be a very viable space. You're right. There's brick. I like the brick, or the rock face. Why are we cheapening it up I guess. There's brick in Maple Grove. We shouldn't be pressured into making a western house, as what you said. I don't like the design either. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Lois Savard: Hi. My name is Lois Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive and the look of this building is very important to me because I'm going to see it right out my back door. I live right on the comer. The looks of the building is fine with me. I like the wood. I like the western look. That doesn't bother me. The restaurant bothers me a little bit. I'm concerned about hours of operation. We like to have our windows open in the summertime. The smell, the barbecue smell is probably nice and that doesn't bother me as much. I'm concerned with the traffic and the noise and the everything that goes with a restaurant. I'm concerned about the view. Which side of the building we're going to see. Are we going to see the back of the building. Where is the trash going to be taken out, etc., etc. We have had the commitment made that we will have some landscaping done in our backyard. What it is we don't know so I don't know how concerned as homeowners we should be with the view. We don't know yet what the landscaping in our back yard will be. So those are my primary concerns. Peterson: Thank you. Aanenson: Let me just clarify exactly where this is... Joyce: So the retail would block any kind of views from their window Kate? Aanenson: There still may be an. . . Lois Savard: You'd be looking from the east elevation. Audience: The office building would not block her. Peterson: Anyone else? Scott Schlachter: My name's Scott Schlachter. I'm with Famous Dave's. Ijust wanted to answer a couple of the concerns the residents had as far as the smell. Ifwe are a restaurant, there is going to be some smell from our charbroiler. As far as the smoking of the meat we have specially made ovens and we use about 3 ounces of wood to smoke. It's smoked for a very long time and because they're enclosed in smaller ovens, we don't use... wood and so there isn't going to be puffs of smoke going up and permeating the neighborhood. Well maybe a little bit but 32 Planning Commission Meeting.. September 3, 1997 nothing that's going to be huge. Hours of operation. We open at 11 :00, Monday through, seven days a week and we close, typically we close at 10:00. We're very family oriented, both for our customers and for our staff. Any other questions I can answer for anyone? Joyce: Yeah, I have a question. What about, one of the conditions on this is the applicant shall provide detailed sign plans to staff and obviously you don't have today. Could you tell us what, is the sign going to use that logo on the side of your shirt right there? Scott Schlachter: Famous Dave's, the letters, the script is what we'll use on the front of the building. Joyce: What about the pig? Scott Schlachter: No. Just the script. Joyce: Okay. So that's the sign then, right? Aanenson: Similar to what's shown on the... Joyce: But it will be a separate sign somewhere, correct? Aanenson: Scripted wall sign. Joyce: Okay, so there's no other pylons or anything else around there? Okay. Right, exactly. I'm trying to think of, okay. Generous: The only place it could be is on the directional signs. The little finger. Joyce: Oh, okay. All right. Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Vemelle Clayton: Do you want to talk about the landscaping? Peterson: Pardon? Vemelle Clayton: Did we want to talk about the landscaping a little bit? Or do you not want me to talk anymore? Peterson: Can you do it briefly? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Vernelle Clayton: Yes, I can do it briefly. The conditions are listed for Famous Dave's start on page 11 and basically what I have to say affects item number 2. A little bit of item number 3. Item number 4. And item number 5. And that will, essentially I'll say the same thing about the next plan because what it means is that we want to substitute the plan that you've already approved. When the staff reviewed this they didn't realize that the landscaping plan that was in, and it was our fault. We should have given them another copy along with that. The landscaping plan for the peripheral area covers that area and that's why the landscaper for this project didn't include it. Superimpose the landscape plan from the peripheral area onto this plan that we have actually more trees and shrubs shown on this plan.. . staff report recommended. Our landscaper misunderstood my instructions and didn't... The only other thing I'll say is... I would like to talk about the trash enclosure but I'd like to save that for the next project. Aanenson: I'm not aware of any discussions. Generous: Yes, this is part of the hardscape, landscape plan. And I just, we didn't have the detail on that area. It does meet the. . . provided they put that landscaping in. Aanenson: Sorry. Miscommunication. I wasn't aware of that change... Peterson: Right. Kevin. Joyce: Let me ask one question before I say anything. Now the trash enclosure, we're going to talk about on Building #4 correct, so we don't even have to deal with that right now? Aanenson: It includes both buildings... Joyce: I have mixed feelings about this thing, to tell you the truth. I'm not as adamant as Allyson is about the looks of the building. My concern is the view shed, where this is going to anchor our view shed. Building #3, #2 and #3 that will be on either side of that pond, come in to our Villages on the Pond so it's really two anchors to this whole concept. So as we were talking about the importance of this building, I think it's rather important. Rather than a side note. With that said, I feel like I'm in the position that I was back with the American Inn. I think it can be improved. I don't feel like I have a grasp on the design itself. I know you were talking about, the original thing that we received in our pamphlet, we had some rock facades on there. I certainly liked more. I know there's economics involved here Vernelle but this is what's going to stand out when people look at the thing. I think it's worth the investment. I'm interested in what the other commissioners have to say because I think there can be improvements here and I don't feel like I can really give any direction as far as that. I'm not real comfortable right now. So I would listen to what.the other commissioners would have to say. Peterson: With that, LuAnn. Sidney: I think I'm sitting in the confused section too. I have mixed feelings about what has been proposed. I agree that the design of the building could be improved and what I mean by improved is that it might be closer to what's currently in the PUD design character reference 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 book. And I think what we saw today, or this evening is going the other direction. I'd like to see the use of river rock, if possible. ...but not in detail the building in Maple Grove and I said, oh that's nice. At least I recognize that it was a nice built building and I guess I would echo the fact that this is going to be an important view on Highway 5, representing the Villages. And I'm wondering if there are other alternatives to what's been proposed as currently shown to us this evening. I'd like to hear what the other commissioners have to say. Brooks: .. .I'm pretty adamant about my feelings. I do not feel as though the design fits their reference book, at all. I mean I have mixed feelings too because I appreciate that Famous Dave's as a franchise wants to conform to a certain image. Unfortunately in the spot that it's in, I think that we set a certain tone for the development. I'm not sure that what I'm looking at, I'm not comfortable that this corresponds to it. The other thing is, we reviewed a rustic sign... It was a boarding sign and that was rustic and my understanding was the City Council turned that down because they didn't like it and they thought it... Well this is a lot bigger than a sign. This is a rustic looking building and I don't know ifl'm as comfortable with that image and location that it's in considering what the whole purpose of the project... Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I guess I'm not really comfortable with this either. I went up to look at the Maple Grove property. I liked that a lot better than I like this. I heard the comments or the questions, can the Villages absorb Famous Dave's and I think that's the wrong question to be asking so early in the process. I think that when we get around to building 18 or 19 or something, then you can talk about possibly absorbing a smaller building somewhere on the interior and making it fit. But this is right at the comer of Highway 5 and Great Plains. Lots of people are going to be seeing it and it's an early building and it would set the tone so I don't think you want to talk about absorbing a building at this point in the process. So I would not be comfortable with moving forward this evening. I would like to see another revision utilizing more, I guess I liked Maple Grove so more in that direction. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm not going to be voting. I guess I just have a comment. Just a perspective. Famous Dave's is fun. The Villages can't be stodgy. Just stand back and say, tell the developer what design to follow. Buca's? Is that what you're looking for? Give them a restaurant. This is a 5,000 square foot restaurant, and I'm going to stop talking but 5,000 square feet. The design options, they can change these but you should, I think we need to give them some guidance if we don't like this. It's not a 30,000 square foot shopping center. Think about a visual that you have of a restaurant that you'd like here. You should let them know what that is. My only other perspective is, I think when it fits with the lake and other buildings, there is variety. Sameness doesn't, sameness, there's a limit to sameness so I'll stop there. Peterson: My comments I think are pretty simple in the fact that I'm not comfortable with what I've seen and I don't think I've seen enough. Talked about changes. I don't think staffs up to speed so I do think we need to see it back again. But back again with the comments of my fellow 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 commissioners along with I think architecturally I'm not comfortable with the lines and that are within the guidelines set forth. I mean these, there's a lot oflanguage here, a lot of verbiage that clearly can, a building can be built and hopefully it is Famous Dave's that can meet those architectural standards. You know I think that building materials, even though the colors have changed, I think the same rustic feel is still going to eminent from that. You know the chimney doesn't seem to fit. The metallic rooflike it is doesn't seem to fit. The railing doesn't seem to fit. I do see a lot like I did with the AmericInn in that I want to ride my horse up and tie it up to the railing, and I don't think that's the neo traditional look we're trying to achieve. So I would offer that I'd like to send it back to the drawing board to try to be more creative within the budget constraints that are there. So those are my comments. With that, may I hear a motion? Blackowiak: Okay. I'll recommend the Planning Commission table Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Pond 2nd Addition. Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce: Yeah, I just want to make a quick comment. Being the first to speak I got a little bit of a feel from other commissioners and I have to agree with Ladd. I think this can work. I really do. I think this isn't bad and Ladd picked on something and I agree with. It can't be stodgy. It can't be, once you start becoming too restrictive on this thing, it's going to look phony. Brooks: .. . happy medium. Joyce: There is a happy medium. Absolutely. And so my direction here is, I think we tweaked the American Inn. I did not like the American Inn. Okay. I like Famous Dave's a lot better than American Inn when we started. When we started with American Inn, that came a long ways. So I think tweaking here can get this through and I think this needs to be cleaned up before we can send this to the City Council. I think that was the problem here. That there was some cleaning up to do and I think that's all it is. I really do. But I think there's going to have to be a little more investment. I just think with a little bit ofrock face there that we had, that river rock, whatever. I think that's the kind of tweaking that's going to go a long way. So that's my comment, but I agree with, I don't want to look at this Villages on the Pond and say oh that was a planned unit. I mean we planned it. I mean you couldn't make a move. Let's have a little bit of fun with it too. Peterson: Other than the rock, give them any more direction? Joyce: Well for instance, there was a suggestion about the screening. Now I didn't see that. I don't know what it's going to look like. I think it's a good idea. Ifit looks right. I think you're going to want some alfresco type of dining. I did not get that. I mean you know, you can't see that well seeing it. There's another issue that you know I think this whole concept was to bring people out. I mean I love to, except for the neighbors. I don't know, you know we have to put 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 some parameters on that obviously but it'd be fun to have screened in, a place to dine screened in like that. I think that's a good idea. But it wasn't on there. Brooks: Alison...in Maple Grove and it's a little more modem. It's still fun. Ifwe want to be fun, fine. It's still fun. It's still Famous Dave's. But I would say that style fits in a lot better than.. .St. Paul every day and it's cute. I mean I'll admit it, it really is a cute design but not for where we're putting it. And I think, I mean I understand... what they've done in Maple Grove... Joyce: You know I've seen Maple Grove and it is nice, but I don't mind this. I don't mind the concept. The look. Even the little bit of western in it. It's just, there has to be more, looking at detail. I mean that's the whole, that's what we've all looked at this thing is we've got to look at detail and what's going to have to go back, I don't' want to sound like a broken record but you go back to American Inn. It was very plain looking. Very ordinary looking. Once they started fiddling around with some of the stuff, I mean it came out to be pretty nice. And I don't think this needs as much tweaking if you will as the American Inn. Peterson: We have a motion and a second. Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table approval on Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. Peterson: The next one is the office building. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, can I clarify one point? I think we overlooked. Do we need to address the issue of the 70% roof slope before we move on? Vemelle Clayton: That's on the next building. Generous: That's on Building #4. Blackowiak: Okay. So do we need to say anything about that before or do we just want to deal with that? Generous: That's part of your discussion for Building #4. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Vemelle Clayton: Thank you. Before I start, would anybody think that we have summarized your thoughts tonight wrong if we bring back this plan tweaked? Peterson: Define tweaked. I mean. Vemelle Clayton: Well, that's the hard part. But you're not saying start over. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Joyce: Oh no. I'm not. Peterson: You've got a dispersion of opinions here. I mean I am concerned as far as architecture and all that. That doesn't necessarily mean start over but I just don't see it fitting in to the... Brooks: It would be nice if the options of other styles... Vernelle Clayton: Well Famous Dave's is evolving and their prototype is the one that you passed every day on West ih in St. Paul and if you go to Stillwater you'll see the same one. That's the one they'll be building all over the country. This is not the one they'll be building all over the country. Maple Grove is not the one they'll be building all over the country. Aanenson: But every city has different standards. Vernelle Clayton: Right. The one in Minnetonka will look a little bit different, but very similar to the one on West ih. So there is some, they want some continuity. Brooks: Which is fair but we can still.. .see the options... Vernelle Clayton: You wouldn't like them. This is it. I mean this basically what, we changed, that's basically it. Maybe we went too far. Maybe we should go back and simplify it. Well, we didn't, you didn't agree to become architects when you signed on for the Planning Commission so Ijust wanted to see. I don't think I know, but we'll work on it. With respect to Building #4, again I would like to have Mika Milo talk about the elevations. I'll talk a little bit about the landscaping. We went a little fast over the site plans when we talked about it. I think in the interest oftime, because it's now almost 10:00, I won't just talk about the site plan but I certainly will answer questions if you have any. Would like to talk a little bit about the trash enclosure first because we deferred it to this portion. Do we have the colored copy of it somewhere? We have a black and white copy I think. Did I give you a colored one with that? It probably looks a little better. I'm looking for the... The staff report says we had trouble. ..There didn't seem to be any obvious place that worked that wasn't right in the way of something. It was either in the way of neighbors. In the way of the people looking from Highway 5. Or in the way of the people walking across the ponds. Or walking up from the north. And so we got out some pictures that we had taken from Celebration and they had the trash enclosures right in the middle of the parking lots, and therefore they could have far fewer and it seemed to work for them. It seems to work here we think. We decided that we'd put a roof on it to match, to coincide with, there's a language in our covenants that say that any other, I forget what the wording is but it's in your staff report. Auxiliary structures have to be, have to coordinate with the architectural style of the surroundings. And we put a standing seam roof as we have, will have on many structures in the Village and have on one of the adjacent buildings. Ijust want you to take a good look at the landscaping now so we don't have to talk about it again. Our thought was that we would hide it quite well with large hedges. Again, the staff didn't have this when they wrote up the report and so staff, you know using good judgment suggested we put a couple trees there. We've got on our landscaping plan we've drawn in the trees. We'll go either way. Although there is something to be said for a large hedge. With two trees we'll have to have lower plantings, or we can have a 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 large hedge and it's just an option I'll just point out to you. I guess I'd like to have Mika talk about the, oh no. I would like to talk just a little bit, ah however I changed my mind. I'll come back and talk about the roof thing after you've seen the elevations. Then you can have it in perspective. Mika Milo: ... we are going to propose that building to be a building.. .more of a traditional, old town. The main street buildings are composed of these taller buildings and.. . other than just one single building and one shopping. . . The building really looks like being composed of three. . . three buildings. The north building, middle building and the south building. The north building is the one that is closest to the Highway 5 and the face of that, narrower face of that building is that elevation.. . elevation in the north end of that building. The building you have the smaller... And so that is the north building we are talking about and the south building. The forms are different, because they look like the buildings are composed of three buildings. The only thing that is. . . unifying is the standing seam sheet metal roof that. . . north and the south. The middle building looks like a flat roof building from outside. The middle building is also what we're projecting... presenting you almost to seeing north and south. But in general terms... We don't see that directly relationship. We could possibly. . . than the sheet metal and that would be really even more difficult. So the way we have it now, there is some homogeneous approach.. .here but yet there is a different amount... But there is quite a bit of variety. The north building here is the stucco building. The middle building is the brick building and the south building is the siding... The stucco building or. . . temporary looking element here that. . . but it is very stylistic and more in the modem sense of why it just actually all glass. .. That will have also the sheet metal roof like the other buildings. At night it will be lit. It's going to.. . roof ofthat building will be a signature building. That way, and we have said and that's actually the... The awnings are rather very lively and playful. Stronger colors that will bring... The materials for the buildings are more, not attention crying type of colors and materials but the awnings are really colorful and therefore... On the north end of the building. . . glass element, we are suggesting to use that light green glass. .. It can be a little bit clear glass but I think a light green would be nicer. The other buildings may be also light in the gray or the clear glass.. .so they don't like too much to have colors you know and this is.. .so I think the light green or the light gray would be acceptable for the retail. The north building, the middle building is brick building with some.. . stone type of brick which is. .. Very good quality and. .. On the one side, on the facing parking we are proposing that those be... On the other side facing the street, that could be a darker green or teal color. . . connecting the building with the roof. You see the buildings are in general of terms looking.. .on the side facing the Great Plains Boulevard and the parking because this is one building. The north building here. North building here. .. The south building is the. . . wood sided building with very light.. . and also darker colored stain for the framing around the windows and we are using a... On the south side, we're using the same, probably the same color of the awning. And the wood siding, and you see at the base of that building we are proposing the. . . that one but I think it will be very good idea. .. The colors are blending and working together even though they're very different. We think they are good combination and give enough spark and interest... We believe that that building will be a good projection of the main street architecture.. . and connect the office building that we have planned for the... 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Vemelle Clayton: I would then like to address just briefly the issue of one person hearing one thing, another person hearing another thing when you're reading the same language, and that's with respect to the overall roof. I, and a whole lot ofthe rest of us, assumed when we were talking about that condition, the 30/70% condition, we were talking about what you saw when you walked up to a building. Is this looking like it's a flat roof... That was my assumption. And if! would, I would have said you're crazy ifit was anything else. I mean that's just what I understood and the rest of us understood. Staff, and possibly. . . so you'd have their rating before we went through this process. We still can do that. We can take it to them as part of their review when we take the building to them. Nancy's question was, you know I understand what you're saying. Tell me what the down, tell us what the down side would be. And so I said to Kate, that's going to be your role to tell them what the down side is because I guess I don't, just frankly I don't understand why we care what we see from looking down from the air. I'm kind of baffled. I have to say that and I don't mean to be, I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't understand it so. The reality of this particular building is that it wouldn't look like this if we made the roof steeper from... Aanenson: We're not asking...the other office building was improved... We're not saying you have to... I guess we're saying that was our interpretation... A couple ways we can handle it... Peterson: How much of the HV AC will you see as it's designed right now? Vemelle Clayton: Well this is all, it will all be shielded because this is actually the top of the roof. The HV AC will just be down in here like this. Aanenson: So it acts as a parapet. Vemelle Clayton: A parapet. And someone asked earlier, would you be able to see it from the rest of the Village and the two story buildings. Actually Bob I don't think so because of the grade. Generous: .. . four story. Aanenson: Or from the neighbors. Generous: What's residential. Vemelle Clayton: Except that the elevation goes down so dramatically from here. Mika Milo: .. .so there is practically, there is no way that anybody will ever see the equipment... Vemelle Clayton: Any questions on that? Joyce: Kate, just to clarify then. Ifwe were to approve this, we would strike condition 6? 40 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Aanenson: Maybe it'd be better if you'd add some modification, and again the intent is to screen the equipment so if you want to put, a pitched roof with the intent, as shown on the site plan... mechanical equipment. That would exclude the neighboring residential property. I guess I'm not sure that you're making that interpretation for all the future uses but based on this... Joyce: I mean a PUD, it's kind oflike a variance but not a variance type of situation. Aanenson: A variance within the PUD, or interpretation of those standards. So if you agree and acquiesce to say well. ..but we want to modify 6 to say. Joyce: But we're not, my only concern is we don't have a problem with other sites saying well there's precedent set here or something like that. Vernelle Clayton: Now that you've said that, it's in the Minutes and we agree. We'll take each case by case. Maybe it will never come up again, we don't know. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: I have a question. What is the downtown standard? You were alluding to that earlier. Can you clarify that please Bob? Do all buildings have to have 70% roof slope in downtown? Generous: Not downtown. Within the Villages on the Ponds. Blackowiak: Okay. What's the downtown standard, or is there any such thing? I mean you talked about Crossroads Medical Building. Aanenson: Pitched roof element. Blackowiak: Okay, so you don't have a percentage. Generous: We were trying to quantify it within the Villages on the Ponds design standards condition. That's why we put the exception in that created the occupiable space if you will... Blackowiak: But basically you intended to say 70%, not from where you stand on the street but overall? Okay. Joyce: Thanks. Vernelle Clayton: The only other thing I have on landscaping then is number 4 relates to whatever you want to decide with respect to the trash enclosure landscaping. Number three, add an overstory tree and shrubs or hedges at the north end of the parking lot. And I just want to show you what, where did it go? Can you hand me that one. What we have, which is... landscaping which is essentially taken.. .there's a slight modification in the.. .landscaping which 41 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 is essentially taken from the. . . but there's a slight modification in the boundary here but this was, this plan... taken from the landscape plan that you approved for the overall project. Aanenson: And we haven't seen those. We'd like to get a chance to review those before they go to Council to make sure... Vernelle Clayton: That would be fine. You do have the plans that we submitted. Aanenson: Sure. We just haven't had a chance. Vernelle Clayton: Yeah, that's right. Aanenson: If you just want to modify that condition to... we thought the tree element with the trash enclosure would help as far as reducing.. . and also kind of create kind of an island out there. That's what we were looking for. And again we're open to discussion on that. That's kind of what we were thinking on that... Peterson: This item is also open for a public hearing. May I have a motion for the same and a second please. Sidney moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. LuAnn. Comments. Sidney: I have a few comments. I had been looking at the design as it's presented and the... drawing and I was a little concerned but after I saw your color sketches and the materials, I really warmed up to the building. I guess I don't have a great concern about the roof at this point. I understand the intent and it does serve the function of the retail building. I do have some concerns however with the element of the silo, and I can understand it might lend some interest but still I don't know if that's the kind of thing I want. That's right at the comer of that entrance to the Villages. So I would suggest maybe something else, I was thinking.. .maybe different landscaping or some other elements other than a silo because to me that's again, back to the Famous Dave's argument of it looks kind of western. This looks kind of farmstead. I'd like to have it more European looking if possible. And I guess about the trash enclosure. I guess I'm a little concerned about having that as an island. I really don't like to drive into a parking lot and see that type of thing in the middle of a parking lot. I'd rather see a tree, or some type of other piece ofplantings. And also that type of enclosure might work in Florida, but I'm not sure at 30 below in Minnesota somebody's going to be willing to tote trash out that far into the parking lot. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 I can see people just kind of putting it outside the door for you know, a convenient time so I'd question that as one of the things in the plan. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, can I comment on that? We had a lot of internal discussions on that, and maybe I can tell you where we ended up on that. If you look at the retail building, it's almost a triple sided building. You've got the presence on Great Plains, which you want to have. . . You've got the presence on Highway 5 and you've got the other entrance road coming in... It really limits the design of the building, what they're trying to do.. .but the other one that really gets difficult.. .so in putting it in the middle, we really... It's nice to have it inside the building... but for the retail building, that's really tough to have the look we're trying to get there and still accomplish that. Ifanybody's got any suggestions, we spent a lot of time on this. Joyce: Have you had any problems with...? Aanenson: No. Haven't. And they have to walk it across. Peterson: There's one by Subway too. Aanenson: Wendy's is actually between the buildings. Like some of them we have been requiring to actually put in the building. That's a first choice. To try and put it in the building. But because of the presence we're trying to create with the awnings and that, it just seemed to detract from the building. We struggled with it. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Brooks: Well I like this building. Now this is a building that I think of as fun. This is more fun, and I actually like the glass silo. I think this is where we're taking an element of American architecture and doing something funky with it. So instead of taking a ranch building and making it look like a ranch building, we're taking a feature from our past and playing with it, without I think.. . Disneyesk. I mean there's no neon involved here. We're making a glass silo and I think that's cool. I think you want to do something fun. I think it's fun without doing the main street replica thing. But I have to say that I really liked this building and this is the type of design that when we talk about Villages on the Ponds, that I think we're looking for. Not Disney World. It's funky and it's still a small town feel. It's pedestrian friendly, and it has some interesting elements that you don't see in other places. So those are my comments. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I agree. I like the building. I'm not an architect but I'm just the type of person that I know what I like. Famous Dave's, I didn't have a lot of affection for but this I like. I like the silo. The issue of the trash enclosure. I don't think there's a good place to put it on the building. So in the middle of a parking lot, although it might not be my first choice, I think is a good compromise. The landscaping I will let staff and the people work out because that's just something that's going to have to be decided later but I think that that's a good spot for the trash. I don't think you want to put it on the building because just like Kate said, there's not a good 43 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 place to put it and the building is nice the way it is. I like it. The 70% roof area, I would tend to side with what staff said. In other words that overall it should be 70% sloped but I don't even know if I want to tackle that issue. I think City Council can have a work session and can work it out so I will kind of I guess defer to what they think but my interpretation would be 70% overall and not 70% from the street because if it would have been 70% from the street, they would have said 70% from the street and not made exclusions for roof patios or that type of thing so I can see where the issue is but I don't even think I want to get into that. I like it overall. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, it's a neat building. Peterson: Beat that. Joyce: I was going to say. This is exactly what I envisioned the Villages on the Ponds. It's great. I think three facades. I really do, and that leads up to my, the business about the 70%. The interpretation I had is what the staff said. However, I can definitely see putting in a condition allowing this to avoid that because I think it would deter, if we forced the 70%. I like this very, very much. I wouldn't want to fool with it. I like the silo I'm sorry to say LuAnn. I think it's cool. I really do. I think it's a real nice, it could be kind of a trademark or something of the, of our Villages on the Pond. I think the trash enclosure's kind of neat too. I would suggest we really do a nice job on it. I don't know how you do a nice job on trash enclosures but if it works we can use it in other places. But I think it's a good idea. I mean it's what this is all about. It's trying to find different ways of handling things and the form to functionality situation so I liked the idea of the trash enclosure. I suggest that you really do a good job on it, however you do a good job on trash enclosures, I think will work. Great job. Peterson: I also think it's a great building. My first impression was I didn't like the silo. And the second impression was I liked it so I think it's going to be one of those controversial things where half of your audience is going to think it's great and half of your audience is going to think it's just totally off the wall. As it relates to the roofline, I think it works in this case if properly screened. If it's not properly screened...work. With regards to the trash enclosure, it's proven that it will work not connected to the building. You know I'm leaning more towards shrubs for what it's worth. I think that if your primary reason Kate was heat, 105 degrees outside, whether it's sunny or cloudy isn't going to make a great deal of difference ifthere's shade.. .hide it more pleasantly with the shrubs. With that, can I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: Well I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97 -12 for a 14,849 square foot building on Lot 2, Block 1, Villages on the Pond 2nd Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 7/23/97, subject to the conditions 1 through 11. Adding onto condition 3 that the staff review the landscape plan. Is that right Kate? Aanenson: Yes. Actually it's 3 and 4. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Joyce: Adding onto 3 and 4, the staff review all the landscape plans. Kate could you help me on item number 6, or condition number 6. To provide a pitched roof element to screen equipment and then. As shown on site plan. Aanenson: Dated September 3 rd. Joyce: I just want to make sure this is, going site by site on this. That it's just this project only. Aanenson: .. . remaining silent on it, I mean the general interpretation on the 70%... Joyce: Exactly. Thank you. Okay? That's mine. Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #97-12 for a 14,849 square foot building on Lot 2, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 7/23/97, subject to the following conditions: 1. Increase width of landscape islands. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed with the trees. 2. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security required by the agreement. 3. Add an overstory tree and shrubs or hedges at the north end of the parking lot area and have staff review the landscape plan. 4. Add two trees to parking lot landscaping in landscape islands adjacent to trash enclosure and have staff review the landscape plan. 5. Add planter boxes to west and south sides of building. 6. Provide a pitched roof element to screen the roof top equipment as shown on the plans dated September 3, 1997. 7. Provide the City with a detail on the trash enclosure for approval. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 9. 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. 10. The sidewalks and trails on the site shall be constructed in conjunction with the overall site improvements and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless inclement weather conditions prohibit. 11. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water and plumbing permits from the City's Building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE. CHAPTER 20. ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND ANTENNAS. TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY MOBILE TOWERS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff? Conrad: So tell me where it can be located. It said non-residential. Aanenson: So it's consistent with the underlying district. So we don't allow those in a residential district except for city parks, so they're not allowed in any residential single family district. But they are allowed in city parks. ... the City Council can do a lease. That would still be the... Conrad: But it's on a truck. So it's located in a parking lot. Aanenson: Well whatever the site's going to be. It's in close proximity while they're under construction. . Conrad: And normally there's a fence around all our sites. So there's a fence around the truck. Generous: Mr. Chairman. The site that was on Quattro Drive, they had a.. .Eden Prairie water tower and really it's a trailer. 46 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Sidney: I guess, when I saw condition to the applicant, let's make the tower inaccessible. I guess I thought well, we need to be more specific. For climbing and add that as part of the condition because inaccessibility implies you can never have access to it which you may need to at some point. So that would be my one comment. Joyce: Sounds good to me. Can we have a motion please? Brooks: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a 64 foot ham radio tower upon the findings presented in the staff report, and the following stipulations with 1 through 4 with 2 being amended to say the applicant must make the tower inaccessible for climbing. Joyce: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval ofthe Conditional Use Permit for a 64 foot ham radio tower upon the findings presented in staff report and the following: 1. The applicant must obtain a building permit. Engineering design for radial ice and tower structure is required for the permit. 2. The applicant must make the tower inaccessible for climbing. 3. Compliance with Section 20-915, amateur radio tower standards. 4. The applicant must obtain a building permit when the tower is increased from 48 feet to 64 feet in height. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5.300 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A FAMOUS DAVE'S RESTAURANT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BLVD. WITHIN THE VILLAGE ON THE PONDS DEVELOPMENT. LOTUS REALTY SERVICES. Sharmin Al-Jaffpresented the staff report on this item. 6 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Joyce: Is that II conditions now? Is that what we're talking about or IS? 16? It's the circled ones. Al-Jaff: It's 12. Joyce: Excuse me, 12. Yeah right. 12 conditions, okay. On the amended number 5, you have revised parking lot layout. AI-Jaff: Correct. Joyce: I didn't see that in the report. Al-Jaff: It's in, it is an attachment to a memo from David Hempel and this is the plan. Joyce: Okay, that's it? That's it? Okay. All right. All right, are there any questions for staff at this time? Sidney: Sharmin? I guess to the parking lot. Could you go over the changes. I guess I couldn't really tell on the drawing what the changes were. Al-Jaff: Dave, do you want to address that? Hempel: Sure. Maybe I can just throw it up. The proposal is to have a curvilinear drive aisle to a very large open area.. .Famous Dave's. In this area here. Staffs proposed to modify that area so that to. .. Joyce: So you're getting rid of the sidewalk? Hempel: No. Just move it over. It's actually. Joyce: Oh, I see. Okay yeah. I see it now. Straightening it out. Okay. Hempel: There's a very sharp curve as well with this... Joyce: Slows everything down. Okay. Thank you. Does that answer it? Sidney: Yes. Joyce: Anything else? Questions? Questions for staff? Brooks: At this point I don't. 7 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Blackowiak: No. Not at this point. Joyce: Kate? Is this a public hearing? Aanenson: No. You actually held your public hearing and closed it but if you wanted to take public comment, that's fine. Joyce: No, that's all right. Since we tabled it we're just getting them. Aanenson: You still have the right to open it again but you did hold the public hearing. Joyce: Is the applicant here and like to address the Planning Commission? Vernelle Clayton: I'm Vernelle Clayton and we'll just kind of go backwards a little bit. Since you talked about the drive aisle, just so you know where we were coming from it and where we're coming from it now. We'll make the change if you wish but it was done deliberately. What he was trying to correct was done deliberately so that we're trying to avoid having traffic swishing around through the area so that was a traffic calming technique that was. He's trying to open it up. I mean ifhe thinks it should be opened up, we're not going to have a big problem with it. I just wanted to explain what we were doing. Cutting up and around... Joyce: The way I understand it Dave is you're going to slow the traffic down by doing this, aren't you? Hempel: In either case you would be slowing traffic down. Joyce: Well I mean obviously we're doing this to slow traffic down. Isn't that the purpose of it? Hempel: Well it's to function better and more defined. Define better the traffic aisle. With the previous or the site plan that you have before you, it's kind of a wide open area to be turning there. Where this defines the path of the traffic better. Joyce: My opinion is a car can go around a curve easier than ifit has to go like this. So that's my opInIOn. Vernelle Clayton: That's why we had done it that way so you couldn't, actually you came up and you kind of had to drive around instead of.. .but we're not here to.. .just to explain it. We have what we think is a really nice plan to talk with you about tonight. I think though before we get into that, and so when we're done talking about the elevations, we can be done, I will just say that with respect to the landscaping. I'm not really going to spend much time on it unless you have questions but I'd be happy to answer questions. It gets a little confusing because we've complied with some of the conditions and so what you see doesn't relate to what we're asking 8 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 anymore in a couple cases but we're, while it does also get confusing in the development agreement, sometimes when it's already been accomplished, I think we'll work with staff with the understanding that for example one of the conditions is that we replace the coniferous trees with deciduous. So let's work with that so we have a development agreement that states clearly what we're doing. And with that we're comfortable with the conditions. We've got three folks here that are involved with Famous Dave's and we have Mika Milo who is the architect. We'll let Mika perhaps come up and explain what he's done and I'll say goodbye. Joyce: Okay. Mika Milo: Mika Milo, architect at Milo Architectural Group in Eden Prairie. This is my pleasure to present this plan ofthat second or third go around on that Famous Dave's Restaurant. We really appreciate the good input that we received from you at the last session we had. I think it was very appropriate. We have been working with their existing prototypical design, which is nothing wrong with that. It just did not quite fit with the Village image that we had projected from the beginning and striving for and we have been a little bit twisting and tweaking that design and trying to do something we thought maybe something sufficient but then really we realized more and more through the presentation last time that it really needs a little bit more of a fresh approach in the design. And that's what we did basically. We said okay. What do we really would like that to look for the Villages on the Pond, and just kind of tried to, for the moment leave the design on the side. However, we had to still to observe the function of that restaurant and the floor plan that has been really worked out very well for many years for all these locations that they have so we worked with the floor plan. We almost did not touch the floor plans still so we, that and the floor plans certainly determines the architecture to a great extent. We also have maintained some, tried to maintain some sense of warmth that they are trying to achieve through use of the wood and so I think that the overall colorful add here on the building is suggesting that type of warmth still is there. And that also works well in the Villages because if you remember the building #4, or I mean the retail building next door and the other buildings that we are showing always in presenting the Village, I think that they are showing a nice variety in the forms and materials but still projecting some human scale and feeling and warmth and that's we are trying to achieve with that building as well. That materials that we used, we are still using wood siding to great extent. However, we are covering that with a solid stain which is going to be a departure from the initial design that they had really a woody, woody design like a north woods shack in the woods or so. That was more like that type of design but did not fit very well for the Village. Then we also had the last time we had. . . was here that the building was looking more like, and still like a Wyoming. Small cowboy town or something like that. Very rustic and so we were really departing from that. I think we now have, we are using wood siding. Weare using the stucco. There is no more block here that you see around anymore. It used to be block and wood basically was, where now it is wood that is heavily covered with stain and also there is no block. It's stucco and the nice and warm and checkerboard like a roof shingle. Asphalt shingle roof that is grayish but has also some of the 9 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 yellow and blue so that I think it provides a nice blend and is going to be similar to our. . . that we were trying to develop here. I don't know whether you have seen that. Pardon? Joyce: It was fine right there. Mika Milo: But how about... Joyce: That's fine. I wanted to see the materials for sure. Do you have the other two elevations like this Mika? Mika Milo: Now the two elevations. We do have but didn't color all of them. I mean you have the elevations but they're the back side where the kitchen is and these are the two main elevations that we colored that. But the other two sides will be equally good looking and the same coloring following up and I mean we can color up the other two elevations. We just felt that this sufficiently depicts the intent and the color coordination. The overall building is more of a quiet background. There are no strong colors on the building itself. The stucco is light beige. Wood is some kind of a grayish, beige color and the roof is also gray and some beige in it. So it's fairly a neutral building background but then we use the awnings to again have a, give really a spark and a contrast. The awnings is a warm yellow, slightly orange but I would say more gold yellow awning with some red vertical stripes. That would be on the front portion of the building. Weare suggesting on the back side where the kitchen is, just to have awnings.. .back side ofthat building now anymore. Joyce: Are those cloth awnings? Is that what they are? Mika Milo: Yeah, cloth awnings. Yes. Maybe in brief to say, oh. We have another...that you see on the material board is some blue green type of dark blue green accent color here on the windows, as well as the exit doors which would seen also a very heavy. . . so that is unusual door. I think it fits well and emphasize the exiting. That's the end of the story. I hope that this time we did a better job in starting practically from scratch and coming up with that scheme that I believe really works well with the Village and with the surrounding area. Joyce: Okay. Are there any questions for Mika? Sidney: I have a question. I was wondering about the ventilation and you know, fans and air conditioning units. Are they going to be on the roof and if they are. Mika Milo: They are in the kitchen area on that flat roof area which has a parapet and are hidden completely from any view. There is no way you can see them. Sidney: Okay. 10 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Blackowiak: No questions right now. Joyce: I have a quick question. On the south elevation you have some wood paneling and then the stucco, I'm looking at here. My copy. I'm just curious. It looks like the wood paneling is kind of an afterthought. Mika Milo: I see.. . stucco face with the accent doors and also maybe.. . and the yellow and the yellow awnings. I just felt that just leaving plain stucco with these two vertical glass elements would not be enough. I felt, I just felt that it is good idea to have these two vertical elements with the wood siding and bring some.. . symmetry and proportions to that back side...I think it could work well with just plain stucco but. Joyce: I agree with you. It's just that it caught my eye. Mika Milo: .. . add the detail because the detail is the key for our Village. We want to have variety. . . Joyce: The other question I had is, is there an outside dining area, a patio area or anything incorporated into this? Mika Milo: Yes. Definitely the front area of the building and facing the lake from here to.. .here is the entry side here from the parking. This is the. . . but it is definitely an integral part of the building. You don't see anymore than... Joyce: So they'll have seating out there and you'll be able to enjoy the pond. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. This isn't a public hearing but anyone else would like to address the Planning Commission on this issue right now, certainly feel free to stand up and let us know your point of view. No? Okay. We'll bring it back to the commissioners. Allyson. Brooks: I think this is a vast improvement. I really, really like the building. I think it's still fun like Ladd wanted the buildings to look like. I wanted to make the point that Vemelle had said that when we signed up for the Planning Commission we didn't sign up to be architects. Well, that's not true. We signed up to be architects and naturalists and historians and environmentalists and transportation planners and I think this really shows that when we draw the line in the sand, especially over something like architecture, the incredible improvements that we get, and I think this building not only will make us much happier, but I think it will make your planned unit development much better and it fits much better with the design standards. It's still a fun building and in deference to Dave's barbecue shack, I still think you get the feeling of the road house. Of the barbecue shack with a really nice architectural design. Thanks Milo. You did a nice job. Joyce: Alison. 11 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 Blackowiak: I don't have that much to add. I totally agree with what Allyson said. It's a big improvement. It's much better than the plan we saw last time. I like the colors a lot better. I think it fits more of what we're looking for in the Villages on the Pond and since this is along Highway 5, it's important that we have a nice looking building and I think you've accomplished that. Sidney: Looks great. Thanks Milo. Good job and I think the City will be real pleased with the architecture. Mika Milo: ... from everybody... Sidney: Absolutely. Joyce: Yeah, I don't have much to add. I think that what you did is it looks like you've given the added value to the building and we're going to go through this time and again so don't take anything personally when we feel that we have to kind of work on this but it is a vast improvement. I'm proud of having a part of the Villages on the Pond. So with that, we can make a motion and get this moving along. Brooks: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 10/20/97, subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 through 8 with the extra conditions that were handed to us, 1, 4, ,5 and 7. Joyce: Okay. Can we get a second on that? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Brooks moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, dated 10/20/97, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security required by the agreement. 2. Add three ornamental trees to the north side of the building. 3. Add 3 overstory trees to parking lot landscaping plan: one on each side of the trash enclosure and one in the northwest comer of the parking lot. Enlarge islands on either side of trash enclosure to include planting space for trees. Enlarge landscape island at the north 12 Planning Commission minutes November 5, 1997 end of the parking lot to accommodate trees. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed with the trees. 4. Change 5 spruce trees to 5 deciduous trees on west side of building. 5. Add landscaping (shrubs or hedges) to north side of property to screen parking lot from Highway 5. 6. The applicant shall provide detailed sign plans for staffs review and approval. A separate sign permit shall be applied for by the applicant. 7. Lights that do not appear on the elevations plan shall not be permitted on the building. 8. The eyebrow window along the east elevation shall match the other windows and contain the same decorative element. 9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 10. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot. 11. Revise the parking lot layout per staffs design (see attached). 12. A building permit shall not be issued until the final plat of Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition is recorded and the access driveway meets fire code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Ladd Conrad removed himself from the Commission for comments and voting on this item.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated September 17, 1997 and October 15, 1997 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ONGOING ITEMS: 13