Loading...
3 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, and Steven Lillehaug MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Feik and Craig Claybaugh CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Jansen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Mak Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FOUR-STORY BUILDING CONSISTING OF UNDERGROUND PARKING, 19,000 SQUARE FEET OF STREET LEVEL COMMERCIAL AREA AND 2-3 STORIES WITH 54 APARTMENT UNITS AND A TWO-STORY, 11,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE AND BANK BUILDING WITH DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW AND UNDERGROUND PARKING, VARIANCES FOR BUILDING MATERIALS, PARKING AND SIGNAGE ON 3.18 ACRES ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE AND MAIN STREET, VOP I, LLC AND PEREGRINE CORPORATION. Public Present: . Name Address Bob Savard Vernelle Clayton Mika Milo, AiA Colleen Cannon Margaret Mazur Rita Klauda Jeff Burzinski 8080 Marsh Drive 422 Santa Fe Circle 250 Prairie Center Drive, Eden Prairie 8110 Marsh Drive 8140 Marsh Drive 8130 Marsh Drive Chaska Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, questions of staff. Sidney: I'll start off Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Go ahead. Sidney: Bob, we talked a little bit about this, about why, well I guess I was wondering why decorative towers weren't included in the height calculations? Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Generous: Madam Chair, Commissioner. As specifically as part of this we wanted to have additional architectural detailing and we wanted them to provide these opportunities, bell towers, regular towers, minuets, you know and so we didn't feel that penalizing them for that we should, so right in the standards we put that those were excluded. Sidney: Okay. And then for heights, how is this going to compare to other building heights in the development? Will this become the focal point do you believe? Generous: Well being in the center it will. It's at the high point of the project and the tower's actually the tallest tower within the development. It has an elevation of 78 feet. St. Hubert's, the top of their steeple is at 63 feet. They have another additional 19 feet but that's just the cross element. There are other buildings in there at like 36 feet in the Bell Mortgage building. 26 V2 feet in the Culver's Restaurant so everything else is lower here and it sort of builds up to this center point of the project. Sidney: Very good. Other questions. Probably a big question here. On pages 8 and 9 we have a table and I'ln wondering if you could walk us through that because I know we did some horse trading in terms of square footages of various uses and how did we come to our balance as shown here? Generous: Beginning on page 8, we started out with what the PUD standards said that the distribution of uses would be, and what we've tried to do is walk through the different uses that have been approved within the project. So the Lake Susan Apartment had, let's start over. The commercial component is 164,640 square feet of space within the entire project. The office services was 97,500. Residential units are 322, and the institutional is 134,000 square feet. And then from that we begin to subtract things out so for the Lake Susan Apartments, it's 162 units that came out. Bookoo Bikes was split into two uses. The commercial is approximately 5,000 square feet and the service was 6,000 square feet. Foss Swim School was a service. Houlihan's was commercial with a very minimal service because of the office space in that. Culver's was all commercial. Building 4, which is the Bell Mortgage building, that was split 50/50 between services and commercial. Building 17, which has approval but is not constructed south of St. Hubert's. They have, that's a 2 story office building. So we have to take that out so 30,000 square feet. Americlnn has 44,000 square feet of commercial and because of their offices we allocate about 1,500 square feet for the services. In the future they have approval for expansion and so we had to allocate that square footages. Presbyterian Homes on the Lake Street side, they have 9,000 square feet of commercial office space that will be built into the project. Plus for senior housing we don't count them the same as regular apartments..For an independent living unit it was counted as half an apartment per unit and for the assisted living I believe it was a ttSrd of apartment per unit so while we have, it shows 69 in here. There were a total of about, I believe it's 160, 3 i, 61. 161 units that were. And then when you get down to the bottom we have the bank building which is this project and the retail building C which is this project. Took up the 19,000 square feet of commercial and then the bank was 11,000 square feet of office. Retail Building E is a potential future building in there so we allocated those spaces. I think I double counted that one though. C-1 is a future building. Oh, Retail Building E would be the building to the west of this site. It's north of the Presbyterian Homes between this site and Bookoo Bikes. And then we have Retail Building G which would be on the southeast comer of Main Street and Lake Drive which would be a future one. And then St. Hubert's expansion and so doing all the calculations they actually have, well they're over on residential if they do the 40 additional units in another building but they have more than 5,600 square feet of commercial space so that could be reallocated. And so this project is still within the parameters of the overall development. Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Sidney: Okay. And it's driven by what, I seem to understand pretty much traffic isn't it? Generous: Correct. That's how we keep things balanced. Aanenson: Trips. Generous: Trip generation rates for the different uses. Sidney: So so far we're okay. Generous: Right. Sidney: Good. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions for you? Sidney: No. Blackowiak: Rich. Slagle: Just a couple. Bob on page 2, first paragraph at the end you say it should be noted that due to building code requirements separation from the two buildings may be increased. This will increase the amount of open area in this area on the north. Would there be merit to considering that additional open area if that does happen to be additional parking? Generous: Chair, Commissioners. The separation we're talking about is just between these two buildings. And it's just where the property line is. I don't know that we're going to gain enough space to create another, because we'd take out this and this is protection for the drive through and the last parking stall. Aanenson: Excuse me. I think the other thing we're trying to accomplish there is to interject some of those public spaces, and we thought this was a great opportunity to provide that public space where you've got that commercial in the first floor. If you're waiting for someone. Slagle: Okay. Same page. You talk about affordable living. Developer's going to work with staff. I'm just curious. What is the rent as affordable unit for a loft? You listed two of them. I know it's inbetween. I'm just curious. Any idea? Generous: That's $621 for an efficiency. $741 for a one bedroom per month. Slagle: And if you don't know it. Aanenson: That's it. Generous: Then it goes up for two bedrooms but I don't know that... Slagle: Okay. And then we had talked earlier today about the parking. Obviously it's as you mentioned, it' s sort of a joint effort among all of the tenants for parking. My only question is, once Culver's went up I did hear from some business owners in the unit that has Starbuck's and what not, concerned about parking. And I'll ask this of the applicant as well but I mean what Planning Commission Meeting - September 1'7, 2002 happens as time goes on if paring becomes more of a concern? Is that something that we'll address with the developer? Aanenson: Yep. Slagle: Okay. Generous: But in this instance, as this develops we'll get more parking on that promenade so that they can expand that area, and we have, hopefully there's enough complimentary uses so peak hour shift, like the coffee shop is earlier and then you have the lunch crowd and then with the bank building going in, if we had some evening users, they would have that potential space. Slagle: And then if you can go to that schematic you had. Yeah, right there. As you look at that going sort of to the northeast Bob, that would be the lanes of drive through, where it says ATM right in there. What would you project to be the normal traffic pattern for someone coming in? Generous: I believe they'd come off of Lake Drive East in here and back out. And then either back out to Lake Drive or into the project. Slagle: Okay. Generous: Depending on you know if they're going. Slagle: Sure. Okay, that's all. Sidney: Then a follow-up question to Rich's question about parking. In this development, is it possible to put a ramp in, parking ramp in at some other time? Aanenson: If they felt they needed it, sure. Sidney: There's ample room or a spot that would be amenable to that? I guess I'm just thinking ahead. Aanenson: In a concentrated area? Generous: Well there's room that they can do that. It's just a design issue. Right now this is a ramp. Starting of a ramp. Sidney: Starting of a ramp. Aanenson: Right, underground parking. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. iillehaug: I have a follow-up question with the traffic going to the drive through on the bank there. If you look at the schematic there. Where the ATM potentially would be, I would assume the ATM would be on the outer southerly island there. Generous: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Lillehaug: Measuring that it would probably only provide for stacking of two cars. Typically at an ATM there's sometimes more than a couple of cars stacked in there, so I would see a potential for cars to be stacking maybe 3 or 4 and then they'd be through the intersection there. And I see that kind of as problematic and I'm wondering, you indicated that the route would be typically off of Lake Drive East going over the parking deck and then to the drive through. Would that be considered to be limited to one way or is it intended to be a through in both directions? Generous: The intent is for two way operation on that driveway. Yeah, it'd be tough to make the turn back to come out. Lillehaug: I think the rest of my questions I'll address to the applicant. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli? Sacchet: Yeah, I have some questions. My-first question is the inside of the U shaped building. Is that all the same color and surface? Generous: On the interior? Sacchet: On the drawing it's on the east elevation you've got a little bit of... The whole thing is kind of that beigest and it's all the same? Generous: It looked to me like there was brick and then the center part was the EFIS but I'll have the architect. Sacchet: I can address it with the applicant. While you're there with this picture, I'm wondering whether you are aware. There are two blank squares on top of the roof. Do you know what they are? Or is this an applicant question probably too. Generous: That's the area behind the roof. You're seeing a back view. Sacchet: That's not going to be white though. Well we'll address, we'll get some input there. In terms of, just to be really clear since we went through quite a merry-go-round about the drive through with Culver' s, a drive through bank is something totally different. Generous: The design standards specifically address for a restaurant. Sacchet: And so a drive through here is alright then, okay. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Do we know what's going to happen on Site 2? The site between the bank, northeast from there? Generous: This area? There's a potential for about 24,000 square feet of building. We've had some preliminary discussions with the daycare. I've also talked to retail users so I'm not sure what's going to come out of that yet. Sacchet: So we don't know yet, okay. And then with the EFIS I'd like to clarify also. I was also a little confused by the staff report. The staff report says that the commercial residential building represents it's 50 percent of EFIS and I wonder whether that was a typo. Is it 50 percent? Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Generous: On the total residential building. Sacchet: So it is 30 percent on the bank and 50 percent on the commercial residential? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Then my question is, why is there only a condition on I think the bank building and not the commercial? Generous: Because residential's not covered by the design standards for the EFIS. Solely commercial. Sacchet: We can limit it on the bank but we can't limit it on the other one? Generotls: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: And so if you look at the analysis further, I looked at just the first level of that conwnercial space in that building and the other one came to 6 percent of that elevation that's commercial. Sacchet: Okay. So in other words we can restrict it on tile bank building but we can't restrict it Oll the other one. Generous: Yeah. without amending the ordinance con'ect. Sacchet: Because I didn't see exactly how that fit together. You only touched on the underground parking and you made that the hardship finding for the variance. That the hardship is because there are two 90 degree angles. Most buildings have 90 degree angles. How's that a hardship2 Generous: For providing the two, because they can't efficiently lay out the parking. If they kept this a straight building, they could make it. Sacchet: Oh because it's a U shape. Generous: Yeah, they lose it on the comers where they could put those extra spaces in. Sacchet: Okay. I see your thinking. Thank you. I believe that's my questions. Yes. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. I just have a couple questions. To follow-up on Uli's on the EFIS. I was looking in my design standards book and I don't see mention of EFIS at all really. Generous: Because that's the commercial-industrial-institutional portion of the city code that was adopted last July. Which is an overlay on everything in the cornmunity. Blackowiak: Okay. I'm looking at this Villages. Generous: Yes. Not part of that. It's in addition to that they have to meet these standards. Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. Generous: Yes, I reviewed it against both the Villages standards and those standards for the commercial portion. Blackowiak: Okay. Secondly we talked about this is in Sector I and in building height it does not say that Sector I is exclusive of steeples and bell towers. It only makes that distinction in Sector III. So has there been any change to the design standards as of, mine are dated August 21st. August 13, 2001. Generous: The intent was that we don't, the steeples and belfries and those architectural detailing that they're putting up on top aren't supposed to be, they're not supposed to be penalized for that. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I was just curious because it was called out specifically in Sector III. It says maximum building height shall be for example Sector III, three stories, 40 feet exclusive of steeples and bell towers. Generous: But there's a period inbetween there. Building. Height limitations are exclusive of steeples, towers and other architectural roof accents. Blackowiak: Okay where are you? What? Generous: At the bottom of, the Design Standards D-3. Blackowiak: D-3. Okay, that's not what mine says. That's why I'm asking if I have the latest iteration because mine says August 13, 2001. Then it talks about maximum building height shall be Sector I. It says three stories. Generous: No, it's amended November 26. Aanenson: 26~, 2001. Blackowiak: Okay, so I don't have the most current one. Generous: It should be attached to the report. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I was just looking in my book. That's why I was. Okay, so it was re- re-amended. Okay. Aanenson: One, two, three. Three amendments. Blackowiak: Yes, alright. So I want to go back. Aanenson: Actually page 4. Blackowiak: Yeah, because it was page 4 in the other one. Generous: Right. So it's the same page but it was under D-3. Blackowiak: Okay. So that's what was amended. Building and height limitations are exclusive. Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Generous: And that's also where we came up with thc street level elevations had to be primarily office retail. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, I don't have that. Actually Exhibit C. So that would be just the total, is Exhibit C the total amendments? Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. I can just add that so I don't need another one. Okay..That answers that question. Access. Can you show me the accesses off Lake Drive East? I think I'm missing something here. Two existing accesses. We're talking about the one across front Foss Swim School. Oh, you're talNng that one too. And then your new one is there? Aanenson: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, is the southwestern most I guess of that. Okay. Have we looked into any restrictions on right-in/right-out or anything, or is that full access on that one as well? Generous: They're full access to the best of my knowledge. Black, owiak: So all three are full access? Okay. Alrighty, then I'll just save my other questions for the applicant. Another question Uli? Sacchet: Yes please Madam Chair. if I may. There's a condition to revise the grade going into the underground parking to 3 to 1. In the plan it just says 10 percent. How do the two compare? Generous: On the side. Sacchet: Oh that's the slope. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. So the ramp is still 10 percent. It's the side cannot be more than 3 to 1. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Alright, thank you. That's very clear. Blackowiak: Okay. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Vernelle Clayton: Thank you Madam Chairman. My name is Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle, and I' m here just for a bit of an overview for both of the projects and then others will speak to more specific questions. Just going through, what I like to do is let you know up front where we might disagree with the condition and for the most part we're comfortable with the conditions. We think we understand them and we're going to work to comply with them. We do support staff' s recon'tmendation that we have the variance for the parking. I've talked a bit with Bob about that and I've done some calls to apartment managers and for the most part I think I don't need to go through it again because I heard the same thing as Bob did, and it really will be the enforcement and any of the issues that could occur will be a management issue perhaps more Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 than a city issue here because the, both the streets and the parking lots are private. So whereas there might be a reason for the ordinance in that you don't want, we want to keep people off the city streets. Here it's private streets and any issues with snowplowing and all that sort of thing will be a management issue. I just thought I would add that perspective.. We do want to go on record as Village on the Ponds folks in supporting a variance for the bankl both on their signs and their use of EFIS. Though this afternoon we did have an analysis done on the exact percentage of EFIS done by the designer and it turns out, and Mika will talk to this a bit more, that they are at 16 percent and so with it being at 16 percent, I guess we'd like to have a variance for 16 percent as opposed to 15. Or you know, maybe it could be a bit higher than that in case there's a miscalculation. But I was all prepared and so was Mika to talk to you a lot about the benefits of EFIS and I guess, both Mika and, or neither nor I, nor Jeff who's bank it is, really understand what the rationale was for limiting EFIS in the first place and we don't know how it came about that 15 percent was the number that was used. And I was going to show you, and I will because we'll have more discussion. This is a building that is almost all EFIS. It has some brick around the bottom and it's a building that folks in Chanhassen believe, at least tell me, that they believe it' s one of the nicer buildings in town. You mentioned earlier that, or you discussed briefly that the design standards for Village on the Ponds do not limit the use of EFIS. We specifically didn't limit the use by percentage or by elimination of most building materials because it was our goal to have a variety of materials there to create a more interesting project. And this ordinance did come along after our standards were established. We do recognize that we're bound by anything that does come along later, but just historically it was our hope to have a variety of materials. With that I think that I will let Mika talk about it a bit more and he can explain the calculations and so forth. As to the signs, we really would like to have a variance for these two sign locations that are problematic based on the requirement of the PUD. From one perspective it' s a bit arbitrary in that we have the sectors established. In Sector II, which is the sector that runs kind of along the highway, not necessarily in a straight line but that's approximately along highway. Higher signs than 20 feet are permitted and there's the additional language that says provided it fits with, it's kind of an integral part of the architecture, and so we have permitted signs in towers at Village on the Ponds. It is of great value to folks along the line of visibility from 5 to have a sign that can be seen, and that's what the bank's hope is. That they'd have a sign that could be seen and read from Highway 5. That goes to our hope to have a sign at the front. Personally I feel that towers look better if they have a sign in it, if they're designed such that it looks like that was what was intended rather than a contrived kind of design feature that looks exactly like a contrived design feature. With respect to the sign that was proposed at the rear of the building. This one is intended to be somewhat of a directional sign in that it's fairly important as people are driving along Lake Drive, that they know where they should be going if they're going to the drive up. It's been done as a part of the design of the building and at the end you'll probably hear this explained much better by Mika. Or Jeff. Also, it helps take away from noticing that this is a drive up. An alternative would be that there is a need for some signage on this side, a directional to make this band bigger...but then we're drawing attention to... So those are a couple of our reasons for wanting to see if you could give us a variance. Which I think we have worked out the space issue between the two buildings. We're adding only 3 more feet and that will provide the 5 feet necessary for the construction, but not enough for parking but really nice space for outdoor eating if we can manage to get the right tenant adjacent to that same space. What other questions did you have that you'd like to ask me? Blackowiak: Are you ready for questions now? Vemelle Clayton: I'm ready for questions but if you'd like to hear from Mika first and see if he answers them, I'll come back. Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Btackowiak: Okay, well why don't we hear the entire presentation and then we'll take questions at the end. Vernelle Clayton: Okay, very good. I will just say that this is Mika Milo. We almost missed him. If we hadn't been delayed for 2 weeks, he was in Europe picking up his 95 year otd mother who takes an annual trip back home every year so Mika, if that says anything about you, we don't see you often but we'll probably see you for a long time. Mika Milo: My name is Mika Milo. I'm an architect and principle with Milo Architecture Group with offices both in San Diego and also here in Midwest area. My address is at 1412 Cowling Drive, 20'7 at St Paul, Minnesota, 55108. It's pleasure for me to be here for you, for the Planning Commissioner to answer any question and present this project. Whatever questions you have on that. I really feel that this is most significant probably project from the Villages that we have conceptualize and worked with you, with the City of Chanhassen and the planning staff for years so to speak and conceptual...to have this character. We feel this building should be reflected more, reflecting most...and this project is I believe will get...and that was meant to accomplish all these goals that we have set at that time 5 or 6 years ago when Chanhassen approved that project and we look forward to a really...completion of that project as long as...once we have that village in a year or two hopefully...establish the core for the village...I think the project will really start to shape up and be really a very good addition and amenity for the city as well. Regarding that particular project, I understand that two issues have been mostly getting the attention as well as have been the aspect of the variance denial which is the signage above 40 feet, as well as the EFIS 15 percent of commercial industrial portion of the building, which... smaller portion than we're... As far as the EFIS, I would like to just join Vernelle and say that we don't really understand. We have not been part of that whole process here in Chanhassen and therefore we were, Bob said that last July has been on book... I can only tell with my 30 plus years of experience as architect, working in various regions in the world, not just in the United States. Both in Europe and here in Minnesota and California, that EFIS has been a very good material for us architects and developers to use and builders, and has greatly improved. It has some difficult...material about 10 years ago in it's infancy, 10-15 years ago, had some difficulties and therefore I could imagine that maybe 10 years ago somebody raised some concerns about that's really not very good quality...especially in the climate that we have here. Harsh climate. But it has greatly improved. Greatly and that project is as safe as stucco or any other material I would say if that is done properly in the context of...good job according to specifications and we do as architects...and make sure that everything is covered and that it's not going to fade and I can say that we have increasingly worked with EFIS very successfully and there was no...no problem. As far as the appearance, we prefer it more than stucco. It looks like stucco but it is actually a hard, it's a better looking product than stucco. It has some advantages. First of all from outside it is only a positive advantage of EFIS versus stucco. As far as the building material and the technology of it, there is certainly different process. But from outside is faced with the same thing...Much more precise for reveals and profiles. Everything is really done meticulously nice, especially... And also EFIS does not crack like stucco does, especially in this climate... over the years cracks and chips and so on. EFIS has also a problem because it has some portion of that is behind, the under layment is having some kind of styrofoam type of very dense styrofoam that is a little bit portion of the building just next to the ground or so, it can be by strong impact. If you punch...down below on the sidewalk. But up above...there is, no one is pushing it. Plus EFIS has also improved that as well. We are now much stronger. It forces... I don't want to give too much, take too much time on that because I'm just saying that EFIS has been shown as really I think it's a great material to work with and good technique to do it and we would like that we have the freedom to use them on these buildings as one of the materials and like Bob said, we have a lot of materials. A lot of materials. A lot of varieties...actually 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 expensive materials that we are using on this buildings and EFIS is also more expensive than stucco. We are talking here if stucco was let's say $14.00 per square foot and EFIS is like $17.00. It's like $3.00-$4.00 more so it's a higher quality finish really and professional...finishes that are pre-made and pre-mixed rather than stucco is a very subject to variation. So all together I'm saying that we would really appreciate that we have the opportunity to use EFIS here...making that 50 percent of residential and 50 percent of the bank building, but if that has to really be, we would not be happy about that and I don't know that's up to the owner of how they... I don't see really any reason. I would like...discuss with anybody another forum or something here to see if you have an expert at the table and discuss why we have... Regarding the bank percentage, the city percentage, we calculated it is, we are 16 percent right now with EFIS where you see it here on the plan. That is basically...the upper portion of the bank building, down to the entire first floor is... So what you see here is the upper part of the building is going to be EFIS and over here, the upper part of that building will be EFIS as well. Now, we are practically at the level of what is approval anyway, 15 percent. It's only 1 percent we are talking about. I can achieve that 1 percent by just simply changing something...the tower portion here. ...instead of EFIS we use another material... If I just go that, it will be fine... The variance doesn't do a lot of really harm here. I mean denial...we can easily achieve the 1 percent, this is not an issue really and but I would like that we have...a little more freedom in that we don't have to change it because I think it's exactly nice the way we have that tower with all the different colors... EFIS and I will be glad to... Regarding signage, the signage that we are talking about is the signage for the bank and one is facing the Lake Drive, southeast. South and southeast portion. I would like to show also on the... You see the signage is here facing the Lake Drive here. So that signage, this signage here is right here on that space. And it's about 2 V2, it's about 150 feet away fi'om the Lake Drive East. So, and they're building...along here and if they put the signage down below here, let's say here at 20 feet, then I don't think really, honestly I think that people will not see and will not recognize that here is a bank and like Vemelle said, it also gives a good, it drives the attention up to the building rather than to the canopy here. The drive through canopy and secondly it is also a good way...for the people to know first time coming where they're going and where the building is a bank...rather than going around to the parking lot and trying to find a way and read the signage is the lower level and so on so I think it's very functional. In this particular case...is really not pedestrian friendly. It's a plain parking...so that's what people are faced, we are... So therefore I think there's also a problem to have the signage and it's more making...rather than pedestrian level type...just look at these facades right here. If you take the signage off, I think that would aesthetically would be less desirable because somehow the...face has been made and it receives some attention for signage. If I take the signage out, I don't know what, maybe I don't even need to do that. I can probably not do that and just do that...roof all across. Have sloped roof or I think that the building would lose the variety of interest if I do that. See the whole thing by going straight up with the...but to have variety and expression of the building and building...so I think this would be aesthetically I think it will be our mistake that... Regarding the other sign...northwest and north...just that comer. We are talking about this corner, that's where the tower is. You see the tower is facing actually...here and the pond and so the tower's significance is more like the main entrance to the room. Here is the main entrance. Here's the focus of that building and we always all along had here the tower in the approval of the previous concept of the Villages...and so that tower is very fulfilling that function perfectly according to how the Villages is going to be. The only thing is that that tower is I think very, very...and interesting to including when we...name of the bank...and down below it is...a wall goes here and you see also on the other tower right here, is also the same...background so we have that each of on every tower it is a nice...green sheet metal roof so the whole thing is very plain at the...and I think really beneficial to keep that, just the logo in that segment, and also that logo is not much higher than the 20 feet. We're talking here maybe 23, 24 feet for the logo. The upper portion here of the tower...same thing. I think that way from the freeway there will be also 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 some understanding that here is the bank building rather than down below from the...I think you will not be able to read this...signage band, especially... And I think it's very modestly implanted here. That it's not much of that. I would like also to say that the project that your planning staff and Kate pointed to us is an excellent project here... Vernelle Clayton: Golden Valley and Winnetka. Mika Milo: In Golden Valley. We have also taken that into consideration. Not copying or anything but we felt that this is really a project that really shows a lot of variety in the signs and the signs are not so stiff, just one in one band... They go up and down and give a lot of character to that and giving some of the tower with that and so in our case we are not doing that much of signage and like on this project, we are much more restrictive but we just projected one ~nd to have something very significant to symbolize... I think there is more variety, interest to the project and I would really, I think it would...advantage to have that approval for that so that's my EFIS and signage... Blackowiak: Thank you. Mika Milo: Thank you and go back to space unless there are any question or. Blackowiak: Sure, that would be great. Vemelle Clayton: Madam Chair, if you would I'd like to introduce Jeff Burzinski. He's the chief person with the bank. Are you President or CEO or both? Jeff Burzinski: Sure. I wash windows and vacuum. I'm Jeff Burzinski. I live in 3350 Julian Drive in Chaska, Minnesota. The most northerly border of Chaska, just outside Chanhassen and it's my pleasure to finally be a part hopefully of Chanhassen. I've been trying to get here with the bank since 1992 in one way or another. As a head of another financial institution and actually was unsuccessful bidder for tile property at the Americana Bank, where it now sits and as my wife and I have driven by there many times and said, please buy that building for me and she said she can't. She teaches 6a, 7th and 8th grade religion at St. Hubert's. Not quite in her budget so. I have been involved itl the Chanhassen community since 1992. In addition to being a member of St. Hubert's, I'm also a trustee of St. Hubert's. Also on the Board of Directors of Chan Catholic Housing which is a joint venture between St. Hubert's Catholic Elder Care and Presbyterian Homes. I'm also on the Knights of Columbus with Chanhassen so we've been very involved in Chan. It just seems so logical that we might have a community bank here, and I tell you that just to try to separate us from maybe other financial institutions which have located branches here and maybe rhetorically tell you how much they're looking forward to being involved in Chanhassen, but we have been involved in Chanhassen and looking forward to getting across Highway 5 and being more involved with businesses in the city and community. Peregrine Corporation, just very briefly. I don't lq~ow anything about EFIS or signage or things like that so I won't bore you with that but we started Peregrine Corporation in 1999 and it was designed principally to owned cormnunity banks. We formed Con~nunity Bank Chaska in February of 2000, and actually opened up out of a trailer and after 2 V2 years we're about 42 V2 million dollars in assets which makes tis the second largest bank in Chaska. And we're basically we're owned by the connnunity. Peregrine Corporation is owned by members of the Chaska community as well as members of Chanhassen com_munity, and I have to tell you with 33 shareholders currently we have over 70 interested, or Chanhassen residents that are interested in investing in Peregrine Corporation and being a part of us which further commits us to investing in Chanhassen. The names like A1 Klingelhutz and Steve Burke and Gary Brown and Pat Minger may be names 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 familiar to you. They're also part of Peregrine so it's my pleasure to be here. I understand the difficulty relative to the variances. I also understand your role as leaders and if there's a way to administer, continue to administer consistently and fairly to the rest of your community by granting us this variance it'd be very much appreciated so thank you. Blackowiak: Commissioners. Vernelle, why don't you come on up to the microphone and you can sort of field the questions and call up people as you feel necessary. I'll start with you Rich. Any questions of the applicant? Slagle: No questions. Blackowiak: Uli, I know you had a couple I think. Sacchet: Yes, I have a few questions. First of all the question of the inside of the U. The color and materials, is it all the same? Vernelle Clayton: I only know what I see also, but it does appear that this list, back part is all the same color. Is that your intent Mika? Mika Milo: Yes. That is the part of the building that will be the least seen. It is way back and almost like... We did not feel that because we have been placing the money where people can see the buildings. We really have taken...details and expensive appearances really but we feel at least here where we are very back, almost nobody sees, still within decent. You go about... middle portion but we felt like we can at least... Blackowiak: Okay, could I get you to come up to the microphone. Yeah, then we can get your answers on tape. Thank you. Sacchet: So the material on that interior, is it a stucco or EFIS? Mika Milo: That's meant to be EFIS. Sacchet: That's EFIS In there? Okay. Okay. And then those two white squares. Can you explain those two white squares on the roof for me please? Mika Milo: Okay. Yeah, that is, as we peaked roofs, the corners where the building turns. You see this corner and this comer. The roofs are coming in such a fashion that we are leaving that area fiat roof to hide the conflict. So this is behind that would come up here. But it happened that from these end the roof is not going all the way up so you can see that wall, but this is only on the elevation. I don't think anybody will see that high or on the fourth floor above the parapets some difference in the height. Sacchet: So it's basically a wall? Mika Milo: Behind... Sacchet: And it's basically a wall? Mika Milo: Yeah, it's a wall and it's in the middle of the building. The building is 65-70 feet wide and this is in the middle and...nobody will see that. We can put some color to it. I don't 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 think it's meant to really be white. I think we should put the same colors that we are putting on this building. Sacchet: Right. That's what. Mika Milo: ...and you are right, there are... Sacchet: Because I couldn't figure out why it seemed like blank white so I figured what is it. Mika Milo: I think that by mistake in our printer and computer did not...in the color and I appreciate that comment. I will make some color there. Sacchet: It's definitely visible. Mika Milo: I appreciate that. I will make a note. Sacchet: Okay. And then I wanted to ask Vernelle, we don't know yet what happens on the Lot 2. I mean the part of that piece. Vernelle Clayton: You mean the not a part? Blackowiak: Yeah, the not part. Sacchet: The not part. The other blank spot. Vemelle Clayton: As Bob said, and several people have come in...not there yet. Sacchet: And then one more question. You have 54 apartments. You have 73 underground parking spots. Are these parking spots going to be like mostly going with apartlnents or do you have any vision how that's going to work there? Vemelle Clayton: They're strictly for the apartments. Sacchet: Primarily for the apatq:ments. Vernelle Clayton: Exclusively. Sacchet: Exclusively for apartments. Vemelle Clayton: Right. Sacchet: So sorne apartments may have more than one. Okay, that answers my questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve, any questions of the applicant? Lillehaug: I have a couple questions with the sign. On the north and east sides, you indicate you'd like to put a bank signage sign way up on the tower. A logo halfway up and then a bank sign about 15 for that also. What actually would that logo be? Not specific words but would it be a bank logo there? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Vernelle Clayton: Have you established a logo? JeffBurzinski: We do have a logo. It's a CB which means Community Bank. Lillehaug: Okay. And then what I'm looking at is on the tower on the r~Sidential portion, there wouldn't be a logo there but it would be accented with a red color? Jeff Burzinski: That is no logo... Vernelle Clayton: Just a design feature. Mika Milo: We did not detern-fine exactly what that would be. Either it would be maybe a metal or metal piece or maybe stucco or something, but in any case you see it's nice to have something here as a focal point so here is the logo is CB. It's a very simple... Lillehaug: So to follow up on that though. If that logo were absent, it would still match what was on the residential portion. Mika Milo: We would still do something in that, yes. Lillehaug: Okay. And could you also comment on, I questioned earlier the traffic flow to the drive through. Do you see any specific concerns with that or would you consider possibly looking at limiting that to a one way rather than two direction flow? Vernelle Clayton: Typically what we like to do in situations like this, in any development is live with it a little and see if we actually have an issue. We did that a lot in the Market Square project and then the city and we would, I'm sorry. Would re-evaluate it. It would be somewhat problematic to have, are you talking about this being a one way? Lillehaug: Yes. Vernelle Clayton: I think it would be a detriment to, or a disadvantage to the retailers to have one way traffic there. Kate, were you going to. Aanenson: Well I was just going to say. We looked at that too because that was, when we first met, that was our first, you know how is the bank going to fall looking at that. Anybody going through the bank drive through has to make a one way movement so, because to go through the drive through you can't come back out so the people that it's inhibiting is the people that want to go into the back of the retail, or the workers at the retail or somebody visiting the apartments. That's what's back there, so we didn't want to impede on that space. I think our preference would be to keep it two way. I think people are going to find out the times that it's resistant to go through. Your lunch hour on Friday, probably not the best time to try to sneak to the bank, so we looked at some of that. And hopefully some of that can also be accomplished through parking and going in. Or people in that area using the services too. Vernelle Clayton: We did make, the staff suggested we make a couple changes here on this part to make things flow a little better. Keep my hands off that thing. So we've done that. Aanenson: We did ask for some changes. We spent a lot of time working on that circulation. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Lillehaug: Okay. I have a couple other specific questions. One would be north of the Promenade, what is called Promenade. It's a drive aisle I guess in the parking lot. One of your plans show a sidewalk being constructed there. It's inbetween the pond and the parking lot. In that area. The plan that we're looking at there shows a parking lot being.constructed. Some other site plans in our packet don't show a sidewalk being constructed. Is that part of the overall plan or part of this plan? Because a portion of it is on, I'm not too clear where the property lines are but it appears that it's on this property that we're specifically talking about. Vemelle Clayton: You will get a plat that shows where the property lines will be and the intent is to make Pond Promenade in that area an outlot, just as the other streets are. So it won't be on this property. It will be it's own. We haven't been showing sidewalks on that on our master plan, have we on the north side? We have? Okay. Well, we're bound by the overall plan as it was originally approved and we're really dealing with, from here over tonight for this site plan. But, and I don't know how you want to deal with that. We already have approval that says that we have to put that in. Aanenson: Right. But I guess our position would be the nexus might be with this project. Generous: Well with the platting of this addition we would require that connection be made. Vemelle Clayton: Yes, I think that makes sense. Aanenson: Okay. Lillehaug: Okay. As long as I'm kind of on shaky ground here, how about that, it's called Shore Point Square. Clearly that seems to be on an outlot, not part of this property. Vernelle Clayton: Right. That's part of Outlot A. ~ think. It's at tile end of Outlot A. which is a street. Lillehaug: Okay. So you wouldn't intend oil repairing any real ugly settlement in that area that really draws from the whole area? Vernelle Clayton: You don't like the natural? Lillehaug: We're tal 'king about trying to make this as best as we can and 10 feet away there's some real... Vernelle Clayton: You're absolutely right. We are, and we've been working on the north end of Main Street. It's now, it used to be Pier Point and we are not having a pier there so now, what did you call it now? Pond Point or, anyhow. We're working on that and the irrigation. I met with the irrigation guy just today. We put in all the pavers and are putting in the irrigation so that next spring we can do plantings in there. We will probably just seed the edge this fall, but then dig up some of the seed and put in the plantings on sort of steps and along the concrete. I guess we don't have anything that really shows it here. And then I am, as a part of that. I kind of wanted to make a little progress out there and then come into staff and say look, here's what we're planning to do. Here's what we' ve done and what would you permit us to do about that reed grass, because it's excessive. I mean it's just, it blocks the view of the rest of the water and so we have to within the constraints and what can be done and still be fair to the environment, we have to do something with that. ~6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Lillehaug: Okay. That's probably about enough from me. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you. Sidney: One more question? Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead. Sidney: Question of the applicant and staff. I'm still confused about EFIS calculations. Are we in concun'ence with the calculations? Generous: I did a quick calculation. I took the 10 foot band and multiplied it by the length. He probably was able to do more detailed, taking out the windows where it jumps up and down so it could be less. Mika Milo: ...probably have more than...on this building? Generous: My calculation was based on a 10 foot band around the entire thing. Mika Milo: Yeah, no. No, we have a precise calculation done by computer. Generous: Which is better than me. Blackowiak: Oh come on now. Mika Milo: It's 16 percent including that where the signage will be and these...I guess when we put the signage on... We are tal 'king about here is the exact number. Here is the computer saying that we have on this building, on the bank building we have total of 12,200 square feet total of the surface of the sign. Out of that, 2,000 is EFIS. So there... Sidney: Does staff agree with that? You wouldn't have the information? Vernelle Clayton: We can get staff together with...of the calculations. Blackowiak: That's a applicant will work with staff. Alrighty. Seeing no more questions from commissioners, this item is open for a public hearing and I will open this item so anybody wishing to speak, please come to the nficrophone and state your name and address for the record. Rita Klauda: Good evening. My name is Rita Klauda, K-l-a-u-d-a. I live at 8130 Marsh Drive and I would be a neighbor to this proposed development. My issues are two fold this evening. The first one is traffic. I am very concerned about the development and what that will do to the increased traffic from our neighborhood and around our area. I understand retail needs to go in there and, but with the increase of apartments, people coming and going. Right now traffic is, there's all kinds of people speed. Numerous times through that area I've seen people slow down at the 4 way stop, but they absolutely do not stop. They just keep right on going. They pick up speed. They come around the comer by Foss, and there's been many a times where I've had to literally pull over in my van with my children because people are in the middle of the road because they' re coming around the curve too fast. Our neighbors who live up on Grandview, several times, their children get off the bus stop right there. Several times my neighbor has had to literally stand in the middle of the road waving her hands even though the bus, the lights are flashing, the stop arm is out, so people don't run her children down when they're getting off the 17 Planning Cormnission Meeting- September 17, 2009.2 bus. And so right now the traffic is fast and there's a lot of it. When we come off of Lake Drive by the Citgo, by the Starbucks, we wait and we wait and we wait and we wait to make a turn onto that road some days because the traffic, even now without this development, there's just a lot of people who cut through there. I just, I don't know what this is going to do and I don't know what the answer is but I just want to state that I am very concerned about the increased level of traffic it's going to put at the comer and around my neighborhood. The second part of my issue with this development is, is if the apartments and the height of the apartments. We live down a few houses. This spring my husband and I, we wanted to build a three season porch and a deck on the back of our home. Right now we see trees and blue sky. I don't want to see a pitched roof and towers and apartment buildings. That's something I don't want to see. And also our neighbors, all the way down to the comer. We have bedrooms and bathrooms and our family rooms that run across the back of our houses and if we have an apartment building with apartments that are 4 stories up, they look down into our homes. Why should we be forced to live in fish bowls when complete strangers can peak into o~lr homes anytime they wish. I don't think strangers should have that kind of access to my home, or to my neighbors homes. I just don't think it's fair that we have to live with our blinds shut because we don't know, and who's going to have that kind of access to our houses besides, if we look out our window and we see an apartment building. I just think 4 stories is just way too high. A pitched roof and towers. It's just, it's way too high and I understand we need retail back there. That's fine. Maybe one story on top of that, but the current proposal the way it stands, I think it's way too much height on the building. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bob, I want to ask just a couple questions right now. Traffic stud), I know has been done for this area. That's what we're basing a lot of things on. Has there been any discussion on traffic lights, signalizing when and where? Or not necessarily even when. \\"here have they talked about traffic lights? Generous: I don't remember for Lake Drive East. I do know on the west side they anticipated that it would take a traffic light. I believe it's too close to Highway 5 there and they were loo~ng at traffic control, stop signs rather than lights. Blackowiak: Okay, so but some type of control to, because I live in the area and I can certainly agree with what she's saying because a left turn from Lake Drive onto Great Plains or wherever it is right now', Lake Drive East, is rather tough. Generous: Yeah, I'll check for certain for council to find out what that called for. I know they were looking at widening there and limiting the access into the east. Blackowiak: Right, okay. Speed and bus issues. That would be a Carver County Sheriff, so call the sheriff and have them out because they can do, they can do speed. They can monitor, put out different type. Generous: We also have the Operation Hotfoot. Blackoxviak: Or Leadfoot. Generous: Leadfoot. Blackowiak: That's what they are. Generous: So that might be something that the neighborhood would like, and actually as this place develops it will help to slow down traffic. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. Privacy and sight lines. Generous: That's a long way. Aanenson: We're trying to scale it off exactly. A couple hundred feet. Sidney: Can we have that for council? Blackowiak: Yeah, is that something that we could get for council? Aanenson: We can get a perspective of the elevation of that house and the top of that and what the perspective is. We'd be happy to get that and share it with the neighbors. Blackowiak: Okay that would be, I think that would be very helpful for the neighbors, just to give them some more information. Yes. Thank you. Anybody else like to get up and speak. I didn't mean to take up anybody's turn but. Colleen Cannon: Hi, my name is Colleen Cannon. I'm at 8110 Marsh Drive. I'm on the same street that Rita Klauda is. I just, I wanted to bring up one point. I don't know how valid it is but we know of one neighbor in our street who wasn't notified of this meeting. It was changed once, and I' m really surprised at the low attendance. I know that when there was a commercial venture being proposed for Lake Drive, or Lake Street, there was quite a number of people who showed up so I'm really a little bit concerned that so few people are here and I'm going to talk to my neighbors when I get home and make sure that everyone was notified. I'd be surprised if they were. The other thing that I wanted to bring up is, a lot of the discussion this evening is about what the fagade is going to be made out of, and that's not really a concern for me as a neighbor. I really don't care an'awful lot what the facade is made of. This is really an enormous project. I moved in 5 years ago and spoke with someone at City Hall who told me that nothing on that site would be taller than 2 or 3 stories. And I'm not sure why no one is questioning or if there was some agreement that was breached without consultation with people who are going to be living in the residential neighborhoods next door, but that is a real issue of concern for me. Four stories with a peaked roof and towers is enormous. And with signage, and I think if you're going to be looking at sight lines or a perspective lines, you have to remember that a lot of those trees are deciduous trees and there's not going to be any leaves on those in the winter. The sight lines are going to be very Iow and I think I'm going to be able to see any building that goes up, but that's tall from ahnost every room in my house and that makes me very angry to think about that. When I purchased this house I knew that this was going to be developed. I knew that it was going to be a mixed area with commercial, residential but I didn't expect anything of this size so I feel deceived. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, notification. I know Rich in the past has said that he'd be happy to receive mailings so. Aanenson: He does. Blackowiak: Did you get this mailing? Okay. Good. Twice? Generous: Did you get it both times? Slagle: Yes. 19 Planning Commission Meeting- September 17, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. And what we're talking about is that we have often said that we want to make sure that people are being notified, which is why Rich Slagle, Mr. Slagle here one of our cormnissioners, has volunteered to receive a mailing. So anytime a mail!ng goes out, he is supposed to get a mailing. He is supposed to be on the mailing list. So at least he said he got this one, which is good to -know but it's just sort of a check for us to make sure that indeed it is going out. Yeah, and there is a mailing list on the packet that shows who the mailing was supposed to be sent to. So okay. Slagle: I was going to say if she wants the list. Blackowiak: Yeah, there is a list on there that will show you who received the mailing, but it's nice to 'know that you did get the mailing because that has been a concern of our's in the past. Kate or Bob, would you like to talk about the size and the original plan and heights and different sectors. I don't know what else to add. Generous: It hasn't been revised. For residential we wanted it to load up higher because that's the only way we could get the density. We do restrict it if it was commercial only. They wouldn't be able to go that high. I know immediately across or the next building, that not part of site, is limited to 2 stories. Aanenson: That's one that's closer to them. Generous: Yeah, the one that's closer to Lake Drive and Great Plains, but it's always been in the design standards to go up and because they're putting in residential, to go up to the 4 story rather than 3 stories for commercial. Blackowiak: Okay, so this is something that has been constant or has remained the same since the original agreement. Aanenson: Can we show them the sector map which is the height, so we can just to be clear. Blackowiak: Sure. That would probably be helpful, thanks. Generous: So within the interior of the project we allowed it to go to 4 stories. However as part of that, I think it was the November amendment, they specifically called out for this building being lin-fited to a 2 story because one of the concerns was for the neighborhood. We wanted to bring it down on the edge, so it's always been 3 stories if you have cormnercial. Four stories if you do residential. Blackowiak: Okay, so that hasn't changed since the initial agreement? Aanellson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to make any comments this evening? Bob Savard: Good evening. My name is Bob Savard. I live at 8080 Marsh Drive. It's nice to see you all again. Blackowiak: And you can move that microphone if it's more convenient. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Bob Savard: It's fine where it is. I share some of my neighbors concerns regarding the traffic situation. And whether or not the enforcement will improve the situation there, I'm not sure but it is unsafe. It's certainly unsafe for pedestrians at this point. The children in our neighborhood cannot cross Lake Drive safely. There's not a marked crosswalk at our end of the neighborhood. The marked crosswalk between the Citgo station and the Starbucks, no one pays attention to. So if you're caught in the crosswalk, you could very well get run over. And I'm sure Rita has experienced that, and I have personally as well. I' ve also experienced some of the traffic situations, especially on the curve right behind my property line. People travel at a high rate of speed. I realize it's private property. That is not public street at that point as far as I understand it, but something needs to be done. Secondly, I have some concern about the amount of paved surface and where the storm water runoff will go. I didn't hear that discussed. I don't get to see the documents that you' re privy to, but I am concerned because of storm runoff, at least part of it, goes right through my back yard. And there's a lot of sediment in that pond as it is right now, and the pond is getter larger because it has, it's not deep enough. So it's spreading out. And if we increase the water flow and the sediments that goes into that pond, I have already had to re- landscape my back yard because of that. Shared parking appears to be a real problem. I hope that everybody's wishes come true because I've seen the struggle over there, especially ilmnediately after Culver's opened, and now there are signs saying hey, this is my parking spot, which runs contrary to the shared parking philosophy I think. I have no concern about the drive through. It turns out that the Culver's drive through, since my house is closest to Culver's, doesn't present any problems for us. And we have no concerns about the building materials. You know if it turns out as nice as the Bookoo Bike Shop is, and I can still see that building from my home, that's perfectly okay with me. Signage above 20 feet concerns me but I guess the sign wouldn't be facing my house directly. And finally I share the same concern with Rita and all of my other neighbors regarding a 4 story apartment building in my back yard. If anyone can see these buildings from the back of their home, I certainly can. I can see all the way to the Americlnn as it is right now. The grade of Great Plains Boulevard is just a little bit higher than Marsh Drive where my home is, and I don't know what the elevation is for the building above the grade of the street, but that would clearly put it at least 15 to 20 feet higher than my home. And anything higher than one story is certainly looking down upon my house. So I share the same concerns. I see the plan saying 2 to 3 stories, but the drawings are drawn with a 4 story apartment. Is that your evaluation of what it's doing? Blackowiak: Yes, but it's only part of it. 2 to 3 stories above the first story of commercial retail. So you have story one is commercial retail and then 2 to 3 above that. So you have to add those 2. Bob Savard: Those are my concerns. I hope you'll take them into consideration. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, again we're hearing about traffic. Impervious Kate. I know we've got a number for the entire project and then, but any one site can go over that 70 percent number, and I'm assuming we're. Aanenson: The PUD balances it out. Blackowiak: Right. I'm assuming we're on track to. Generous: Right. They could actually do 100 percent impervious and still meet the standards. But on this one they're at 17 percent landscaping. Blackoxviak: Okay. Storm water. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Aanenson: I want to see specifically where his concern was. Where the drainage is coming from, if he could show us on a map. Is it on his property corning from this property? Blackowiak: Mr. Savard, if you could come up and show us again where you are? Bob Savard: I'm not sure it will be on this map. Blackowiak: There we go. Bob Savard: Oh, okay. This is my property. Can I use your pen Bob? Thank you. This is my property right here. There's a storm water runoff that runs through the back of my property, lily neighbors and then it cuts through and runs underneath Marsh Drive and into the ravine. There's a pond here right now and it's getting larger as we speak because of sediments filling up that pond. Blackowiak: Okay, and that would just be a city. Aanenson: We'll check on that. Blackowiak: Yeah, that they need to check on. So Mak, where would the storm water be going from that property or the new development? Can you. Sweidan: What they are proposing by storlil sewer connecting towards south and southwest... stub sewer. Blackowiak: So not connecting. Sweidan: It shouldn't be affecting actually his property. Blackowiak: Okay, so it would connect to a different storm sewer completely and not to. Sweidan: Away from it. Blackowiak: Away from him, okay. Sweidan: So we will check this area to see what is concerning or what is happening there. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Generous: Madam Chair, the pond for this is actually south of the apartment building on the west side of 101. Blackowiak: Oh it's that one over by the other apartments? Okay. Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to speak this evening? Okay seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Alright, we have 3 motions we're going to have to make so I think what we should do is go ahead and just make our comments in general and then make them all at the beginning and then go ahead and make the three motions at the end. So some brief comments, Rich would you like to start out? Slagle: Sure. I think that the proposal is fine. I am tending to lean towards the applicant on some of their points of variances, but I do want to make one editorial comment if I may, and 29_. Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 that's relating to the traffic and what not and I' ve said this before but I frequently visit that area and it's a lovely area, but that parking and traffic is going to get worst. And because they are private streets, I'm going to throw out at least something to consider to the applicant and that is, trying to come up with creative ways to slow down traffic, there are lots of ways to do it. I don't need to list the different ways but I'm going to ask you to consider that. And then also for viewing, for the citizens here, I had a situation in Woodbury where we purchased a piece of property. Were told that we're going to have a 2 story State Farm building across the street from us. It turned into a zoning change and became a Lifetime Fitness, 24 hours, 3 stories, towers, what have you. And what they did for us is they actually came and said we will purchase a number of evergreens for a number of homes and put those up. Thinking that it would be cheaper and easier for them to do it on our property than to do something on a mass area for their's so I just throw that out as having been in that situation and that might be some type of a compromise. But anyway, that is my biggest concern. I think this project is wonderful but going forward in the development I think it's going to be a concern. Blackowiak: LuAnn. Sidney: Well I really like the project. Beautifully designed. Would I expect anything less? Probably not from Milo. Just a gorgeous building. I do appreciate the comments from the neighbors, and I think Rich makes a good point about neighbors working with the developer to see if there's some solution to any problems with sight lines. The development appears consistent with the comprehensive plan and design standards for commercial industrial office institutional developlnents as well as a PUD so I think we're in really good shape. The only concern I have is about EFIS and how we deal with that. We have a different opinion on the calculations so wondering how the commissioners would like to handle that as a possible variance or not. Blackowiak: I don't know. We'll have to hear what other people weigh in on. Any other comments? Sidney: No, not at this point. Blackowiak: Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: I think it's a very attractive project. I understand the concern of the neighbors, but I also have to acknowledge the quality of the project that's in front of us. Now this is Village on the Ponds. It' s an extension of downtown and I appreciate the effort that went into designing this with all the character and detailing and everything. It is within the PUD framework that they can go up to 4 stories if they do residential. Now I'd like to point out for the neighbors benefit that the 4 stories is really the furthest away from where that neighborhood is, and actually the way you, this part of the Village on the Ponds is designed the way I see it, it's actually staggered. It starts like there's 2 stories and then it's 3 stories and it only has 4 stories at the very far side towards the center part of the Village. It appears to me that only very small part of what is really 4 stories will be visible from the neighborhood. What you will see is mostly the 2 story and 3 story portion, and even those will be at a pretty good distance, and yes it's mostly the city street but there' s a fair amount of trees inbetween there. I would go one step further with Cotmnissioner Slagle's suggestion. I would make it a condition that the developer would put some evergreens in there, into that buffer zone to balance out the neighborhood because it's a valid concern. In terms of the traffic, it's definitely an issue and I remember Vernelle's statement of the past that more traffic will slow it down. I'm still looking forward to that. I do think that traffic control is a real issue through. People cannot safely cross a crosswalk. That's really not acceptable to the point of view. In terms of the runoff, it seems like the Savard property is not 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 impacted. I think that's something that needs to be said...verified. In terms of the EFIS, it's kind of funny that we have 50 percent on the bulk of the building and then we're squabbling over 1 percent on the small building, so I would think a 1 percent variance is a very small variance and if it's within the context, I don't see a problem with giving them a 1 percent variance on EFIS on the bank building. With the sign, the architect or designer pretty much sold me on the sign on the back side of the building where the drive through is. I do believe it's going to add an aesthetic value...to what is designed right now. It has a very functional purpose that people driving by there see and go the right place because we certainly don't want people driving around more than they have to be, because it's supposed to be pedestrian. Now aside from the tower, and for me personally the balance would be to consider having the sign on top of the high one on the tower. I mean it' s kind of contradictory with the ordinance because if we would... I'm of the opinion that I would be inclined to allow the higher one with the framework, and I can't verify that, that along the Highway 5 there's a strip where higher signs seem to be allowed by the PUD. And I can see the wisdom of having a sign up there but then to balance, I don't see why he needs two. And then the sign in the middle n~ght as well be an accent as it is on the other tower as well. That would be sort of the balance. How we can anchor it in so it's in line with the ordinance and everything, that's a little more of a challenge. I mean there's obviously, it's hard to say what's the hardship in not being able to put a sign up there. So I'm a little bit struggling with that one. I think that's my con2-nents. Blackowiak: Steve. Lillehaug: Well I also agree and I think this is a very high quality project. I do have concerns with the shared parking. You can only share so much and when I look at that, the parcel there or property that says not a part, and I saw an imprint of a building on one of those sketches, it really didn't show that area contributing any more parking spaces so when it's full from what's out there now, and that's developed, I don't see that area contributing to any more parking spaces because it looked all building to me on that plan that I saw there. So I do see that as a concern. I don't know how to address it right now because the parking that is proposed for this project is on this property and for these offices and residents. So we'll have to address that at a later time. EFIS. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think stucco would be allowed as this accent. Aesthetically I think they're pretty much equal so I think it's a reasonable request. Signing, I agree with Uli that the one on the south, that that is also reasonable and I' m also on the other views of the building, I'm not too sure it's, it looks like we're tripling up on the signs so I don't know if we should be allowing triple on the signs. So I'm not too sure which way to go on that either, but I guess that would end my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I just have a couple new conm-~ents to add. Again overall I think this is a nice looking project. Traffic, I live in the area. I don't live right up on Marsh. I live down a little farther, but I've seen the problems with the traffic. I have kids that like to walk up to Citgo or like to walk over to Starbucks and it's treacherous. I mean I'm always, before they leave every time I say you watch when you cross. You be careful, and they know but still they've come back telling me, oh this car didn't even slow down for us and you know, so I would really encourage, and I know this is not even a part of this but encourage Vernelle to look into a 4 way stop right there at Starbucks or something right now, and that's my little bit of narrative. I'll get back on track here. I like the building. EFIS versus stucco. Again, if it's 1 percent I would be okay with tile variance for 1 percent. I don't have a problem with 1 percent. If we're talking more than 1 percent, then I start getting a little more concerned. But 1 percent, that's negligible to me. Sign on the back of the bank. I' m WO~Tied about tile fact that we are going up too high and we're bringing eyes up and drawing attention to advertising, which is what it is. I mean we've got all this, we've got these beautiful buildings and we're just putting lots of signs and lots 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 of advertising up and I understand the value of that, but by the same token it's supposed to be pedestrian oriented. It's supposed to be European look and feel, and you'd never see signs slapped up on every little awning in Europe. It's just not done, so for me to hear you know, we need that, I don't really necessarily agree. That being signage, I'd almost rather see it more at the awning level. I do realize it would draw attention to the awning but I think that's what you're trying to tell me that people are going to be wanting to find anyway is the drive through. So then let' s put the sign close to where it is and it makes, I think it would kind of make sense for me. I do not like the idea of the signage in the front tower, or the logo. I think we've got lots of opportunity for signage and we could just do some kind of a fill in, like is on the taller tower. We don't need to keep, I think it could be done very tastefully without the signs, I guess that's what I'm trying to say and I would like that, so I would not support a variance for the signage there. Site plan, totally agree with it and I would also just add a condition about, before going to council show placement of the sidewalk and then also before going to council, have the applicant work with neighbors to demonstrate sight lines and give the neighbors some kind of idea of what they're going to be seeing potentially from their homes. So those would be conditions I'd like to see on that so, LuAnn you have another comment? Sidney: Yeah, are you finished? Blackowiak: Yeah I'm finished, yep. Sidney: Question for Kate. This second motion with the variances. Can we split those into, split into two? Aanenson: Yes. Sidney: Okay. I think that's where we're heading with, oh I guess personally I'd recommend approval roi' the variance for the EFIS, however deny the sign. Blackowiak: So that would be four motions then. Why don't you go ahead and we'll see what happens here. Sidney: Do you want to start with. Blackowiak: Let's start with the first one. Sidney: Okay. Want me to make the motion? I can make it. Blackowiak: Go fight again. Sidney: Okay. I guess we have some friendly amendments here. I'll go ahead. The Planning Connnission recommends approval of Site Plan #2002-7, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, Incorporated, dated August 2, 2002 for a street level commercial and upper level apartment building with a variance for the number of underground parking spaces subject to the following conditions. 1 through 32. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: Second. Blackowiak: Moved and seconded. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1'7, :2002 Sacchet: Friendly amendments? Sidney: Yes. Sacchet: First, let's take them one at a time. First of all, I really think it's necessary to specify what the variance is with underground parking that we're giving. Discussing space, so I'd like to be specific and state that we give a variance, and if I read the report correctly, we give a variance to have 1.35 stalls per unit... 1.5 stalls. I'd like to spell that out. Is that okay? Sidney: Yes. Blackowiak: Or even a comment. I guess a question Kate, or Bob. Do we have any reason to believe that the number of units would change? Generous: I don't believe so because the building would shift. Blackowiak: I'm just curious because maybe we want to specify a specific number of parking stalls. Sacchet: Just mention the number of stalls, so we say there are '73 stalls in there. Is that the number? Blackowiak: Yeah. So that if i%r some reason the unit is lost, we don't lose a parking stall as xvell. Sacchet: Okay. So we say we want, we would keep the variance at 73 stalls for this building is sufficient. Okay, then I'm happy with that. Then I'd like. Blackowiak: Wait, do you accept that amendment? Sidney: Yeah. Sacchet: Then I'd like to propose 2 additional conditions. And I think it could go actually with both buildings. The first one would be condition 33. That applicant will work with staff to determine the planting of evergreens as a sight buffer towards the neighbors. Do you want to add something to that? Slagle: Can I add something? I don't ~ow if I would do it that way. I think I would, I would be comfortable if we just ask staff to work together with the applicant and homeowners on Marsh, probably the ones that are most impacted, and just ask that they work to something that's agreeable. But I would actually like to see, get something in writing as to what the actual actions were. Because evergreens in some yards might not fit. It might be better to have some fencing, you ~ow I don't ~ow. Sacchet: Okay. So we would say, applicant will work with staff and neighbors to mitigate sight, how would you say that? Slagle: Views of development. Sacchet: Can you help me out? :26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Aanenson: Sure. I guess what, the first step we'd like to see is just show the sight lines. So understand the impacts and then after we understand what the sight line is and what the impacts and the view shed is, ask the neighbors some options, just as you're saying. And then we would present those options, what the neighbors would like to see based on that information to the City Council with our recommendation and the applicant's recommendation. Sacchet: So there are really several steps. First step would be the applicant will make a study of sight lines? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: ...to the applicant. Aanenson: So they have the information and see what they want to screen, is what you're saying. Sacchet: And then the second step would be, based on that applicant and staff and the neighbors will work together to find. Aanenson: Appropriate buffering, whatever it is. And I think that's what Rich is saying. It may not be an evergreen. It may be something else, depending on what their needs are. Sacchet: Appropriate buffering, yeah. Sounds good to me. Aanenson: Present those options. Slagle: And I would just, and maybe it's in the minutes and I'll be able to read it. I just want to be able to know what happens. Aanenson: Yep, and then we'll present those options to the council and forward them back to you too. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, accepted? Sidney: Alright. Sacchet: Alright, and one more. I'm getting out on a limb a little bit. This would be number 34. Traffic control. Applicant will work with staff to consider a 4 way stop on Lake Drive East and Great Plains Boulevard. Blackowiak: Private street, we can't really do that can we? Sacchet: Well, we could be doing a trade here. Blackowiak: It is public in that area? Okay. Aanenson: Well it has to meet warrants but I think we can make that a condition but I'd like to make it even more broader. I think what you were saying. Sacchet: Traffic control. Let's just say. 27 Planning Comn-fission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Aanenson: Well I would even say, work on traffic calming, and that's what I heard you say, in the entire project. And I think that's kind of what we said. When we have more on street parking, that's going to slow it down because people are getting in and out of the cars but I think traffic calming in the overall project we want to work towards. Including this intersection, but the entire project. Sacchet: Could we say, applicant will work with staff to calm traffic in the project and specifically at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Great Plains? Aanenson: Yeah. I just don't want to commit for the traffic stop sign if it doesn't meet warrants. Sacchet: It might be a different solution, absolutely. Aanenson: Right. Slagle: Can I just ask a question, or point of clarification. I 'know it sounds crazy coming from me but is it really needed on this one? I mean. Sacchet: Well it seems to be a real concern. Slagle: I mean I think it's more overall and not just for this applicant and I think just as long as we voice the concerns of the applicantl I mean I think. Aanenson: For the entire project, right. Sacchet: Where I'm coming from is, we're giving some variances and in that context there's a give and take and this is an area where I think we have a real concern. Documented, acknowledged, so why not make it not a firm condition like Kate says, with some open endedness but make it a condition. That's where I' m at with it. That's what I'm proposing. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, accept that? Sidney: Sounds good. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Got a motion and a second and some amendments. Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan g2002-7, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, Inc., dated August 2, 2002, for a street level commercial and upper level apartment building with a variance for 73 underground parking spaces, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. . Site plan approval is contingent on final platting of Outlet A, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, to a block and lot designation. The developer shall work with the city to provide 20 percent of the units at affordable l'elltS. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 . . . . . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Lighting shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards. Signage shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards. A separate sign permit is required for each sign. The applicant shall eliminate parkway maple from the plant schedule. A suitable replacement shall be substituted. Submit storm sewer design calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event with drainage flow map. Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plate Nos.: 3101, 5201, 5207 and 5300. The applicant is responsible to obtain and comply with all regulatory agency permits. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height must be designed by a registered engineer and requires an approved fence at the top of the wall. All plan sheets must be signed by a registered engineer. Add rock construction entrance a minimum of 75 feet in length and revise the note from 50 feet to 75 feet. Add a storm sewer schedule to the plans. Type II silt fence shall be used around the grading area. Also, existing catch basins around the site perimeter must be protected from construction-related sediment through the use of filter barriers (see City Detail Plate No. 5302). Add a legend to the plans. On the site plan, show the dimensions of the parking stalls, access aisles and driveway widths. Revise the grade to 3:1 maximum on the south side of the underground garage entrance. On the grading plan: · Show storm sewer size, type, class and slope. · Show CB and CBMH numbers, rim and invert elevations. · On the utility plan, show all existing and proposed utility sewer type, class, size and slope. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. '29. 30. 31. 32. 33. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required as well as curbing to be painted yellow. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Codes Section 904.1. The radius turns shall be designed to accommodate the turning of Chanhassen Fire Department's largest apparatus. Submit radius turns and dimensions to the Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. The proposed parking deck over the underground parking must be built to support the load of Chanhassen Fire Department's largest apparatus or shall have vehicle height limiters installed. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for additional requirements. If Chanhassen Fire Department's aerial ladder truck is unable to negotiate access via the east parking lots, Fire Department standpipes along with fully sprinkdered buildings will be required. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for locations. The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. The buildings must be constructed in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code and the International Building Code (IBC) as amended by the State of Minnesota. The IBC is scheduled to become effective this fall. The architect must provide a detailed code analysis, during the preliminary plan stage, for review for compliance with the new code. Special attention must be paid to the fire-resistance and opening protection of the exterior walls between the two buildings, and the parking garage below, in relation to the placement of a property line. An accessible route must be provided to both buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. The utility plan does not contain enough information for review at this time; plans will be reviewed when submitted for permit. The building owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and pen-nit procedures. In particular, type of construction and allowable area issues need to be addressed as soon as the Minnesota Amendments to the IBC are available. The applicant will work with staff to address mitigating the sight line concerns of the neighbors. 3O / Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 34. The applicant will work with staff to provide traffic claming measures throughout Villages on the Ponds, specifically at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Great Plains. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Blackowiak: Next motion please, and if you're going to split it. Sidney: I will split it. Blackowiak: Okay. Sidney: Can I do the first one? Sacchet: Sure. Sidney: I recommend the Planning Commission, well make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approvals of a variance for the use of 16 percent EFIS on the bank building with one condition. The applicant shall work with staff to verify the percentage EFIS. Slagle: So you're flip flopping then. You're flip flopping from the recommendation in (b), which recommends denial. Sidney: Yes. Slagle: So you turned it around to an approval? Sidney: Yep. Slagle: Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Blackowiak: Okay. Motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sidney moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variauce for the use of 16 percent EFIS on the bank building with the following condition: 1. The applicant will work with staff to verify the percentage of EFIS. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Blackowiak: B(2) we'll call it. Second part of that. Sacchet: Yeah, you don't want to do the second one. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, you want to go ahead then? Sidney: You sure? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1'7, 2002 Slagle: I can do it. Blackowiak: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: If you want mine. Either way we'll vote wtfich way we do. I'm going to call B(2) as the Planning Commission recommends approval of a variance for signage in excess of 20 feet in tneight on the bank building based on the findings in the staff report. Blackowiak: There's been a motion. Is ttnere a second? Sacchet: You do it in general? Slagle: Yeah, I'm happy with it. I am. Sacchet: Okay. Doesn't look like you're getting a second. Slagle: Try again. Blackowiak: No second. Okay, withdraw your motion? Slagle: Someone else. Yeah, I withdraw my motion. Sacchet: So we go down...I'm probably the next one then. Blackowiak: AMght, go ahead. Sacchet: Alright. B(2). The Planning Commission reconm~ends to grant a variance for specific signage in excess of 20 feet in heiglnt on the bank building, namely on tine south elevation as shown on the plan and on tile bank tower for tile bank. And ttnen signage, let's call bank signage but not the logo. Blackowiak: Okay, tlnere's been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Wait. we're going to have like how many? I mean we're going to have like 3 or 4 sign motions. Blackowiak: This is the sign motion. Yeah on the bank signage on the back side. Yes on the tower, but no logo below the tower. In a nutshell... Lillehaug: I'll second that. Sacchet: We got a second. Blackowiak: Okay, moved and seconded. Did you understand that, I'm son'y. Slagle: You're making a motion to approve fine signage in all areas except for the logo. Sacchet: The logo. Blackowiak: The tower. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Slagle: ...on the west elevation. Oh okay, so in the tower. Sacchet: Just the logo on the tower. That's going to be the same accent as on the other tower. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: The logo in the tower? Sacchet: The logo band. The thing that's... Blackowiak: So it's not in the, you're saying. Sacchet: It's the base of the tower, not on top of the tower. Blackowiak: Okay, let's clarify that. Sacchet: We need to be specific here. Blackowiak: That's right. Slagle: Bob, can you show me which signs? Lillehaug: I've got to make sure I seconded what I thought I seconded. Generous: What I got is you approved it in the tower, but not. Blackowiak: Below. Sacchet: Correct, that's my motion Bob. Blackowiak: And on the back of the bank. Generous: Yes, on the back side. Blackowiak: Okay, is that what you meant to? Lillehaug: Second, yes. Blackowiak: Okay, a motion and second. Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to grant a variance for specific signage in excess of 20 feet in height on the bank building, namely on the south elevation as shown on the plan and bank signage but not the logo on the tower. Sacchet and Lillehaug voted in favor. The rest voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Blackowiak: Motion is not. Sacchet: So where does that leave us? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Blackowiak: That leaves us, so we can try one more time or we can try as many times as we need to, but who hasn't made the motion? Have you made one? Sidney: I'll make one again. I guess my thought here, and I'll just express it is that, I'd like to make a motion to deny and it will prompt more discussion between the applicant and staff. Blackowiak: At City Council? Sidney: Before City Council. I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for the signage in excess of 20 feet in height on the bank building based on the findings in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay. Motion. Is there a second? Can I second? Technically I can't, can I? Aanenson: Yes you can. Blackowiak: I can? Oh, I'm seconding that. Been a motion and a second. Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for the signage in excess of 20 feet in height on the bank building based on the findings in the staff report. Sidney and Blackowiak voted in favor. The rest voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Blackowiak: Okay, we're at an impasse. How many iterations? Slagle: How about this? How about a motion to approve the variance for the signage on all aspects with a condition that one of the, that condition one is that staff and, staff present to council the concern of whatever the logo underneath the tower, which it seems is what people are concerned about. I'm okay with all the requests of the applicant for signage. Blackowiak: See I'm not so. Slagle: Help us Kate. Blackowiak: Yeah. I mean should we just deny it all and send it to council? Sacchet: I mean council certainly gets the idea on this. Blackowiak: Yeah, make a note of that. Confused commissioner. Do we have to vote on it, or can it just go forward to council without a vote? Aanenson: You should make a motion. Blackowiak: We should have some resolution, is that what you're saying Kate? Aanenson: On a straight variance, if you don't have a simple majority it would still go forward because you need the super majority as approving it but without the majority. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: So either way it goes to council, in this particular, even if... 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Yeah, in this instance it wouldn't have a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Blackowiak: Well let's do that then. Let's just send it without a recommendation. Sidney: And a lot of confusion. Blackowiak: Yeah, exactly. Is that fair enough? Sacchet: A mixed recommendation. Aanenson: Right. Well you'd need the 75 percent to make it pass, correct. Blackowiak: Right, and we don't have that. Aanenson: Right. And it's happened in the past when we've done a variance, you don't have the 75 percent so it goes forward to them, even though it may have been approved, it's not a majority. Blackowiak: It doesn't pass, yeah. So then why don't we just let it be and let them sort it out. Sidney: Any guidance for staff at this point? Aanenson: I think you still need a motion. Blackowiak: We still need a motion. Slagle: We need to vote on that and it needs to be approved, not by the super majority. Aanenson: Con'ect. Blackowiak: By your smile I think I know what it's going to be. Go ahead. Sacchet: I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for signage in excess of 20 feet, with the exception of the south elevation. Blackowiak: Motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for signage in excess of 20 feet, with the exception of the south elevation. Sacchet and Lillehaug voted in favor. The rest voted in opposition and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Blackowiak: You 'know I was thinhng you were going to move to send it onto council without a recommendation. That's what I was, so would you like to do that? Sidney: Yes. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17,200:2 Slagle: Wait, I don't knox,,, if we can do that. Aanenson: I'm not sure we can do that. Blackowiak: We can't do that? Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: We're stuck. I mean I don't want to be stuck here. This is such a, I think. Aanenson: Why don't you move to motion C while we're getting an opinion on this. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, let's do that. I think we're rather split on this and it's an issue that we shouldn't take a lot of, I mean council's ultimately going to decide. We'll let them decide and they'll understand that we were divided. Aanenson: If you want to go to motion C, we'll... Blackowiak: Okay, motion C please. Sacchet: Motion C. Do you want to do it? Lillehaug: Sure. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2002-7, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, Incorporated dated August 2, 2002 for a 11,000 square foot two story bank and office building with drive through facilities, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 31. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Blackowiak: Okay. And also I had talked about placement of sidewalk and sight lines as well. Lillehaug: Sure. Blackowiak: For this building. Okay, accepted? Lillehaug: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. We need a vote. Lillehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2002-7, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, Inc., dated August 2, 2002 for a 11,000 square foot two story bank and office building with drive through facilities, subject to the following conditions: i. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. Site plan approval is contingent on final platting of Outlot A, Villages on the Ponds 2~d Addition to a block and lot designation. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 , , o o . . , 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Lighting shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards. Signage shall comply with the Villages on the Ponds design standards. A separate sign permit is required for each sign. The applicant shall eliminate Parkway maple from the plant schedule. A suitable replacement shall be substituted. The use of EFIS shall be limited to a maximum of 15 percent of the building elevation. Submit storm sewer design calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event with drainage flow map. Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plate Nos.: 3101, 5201, 5207, and 5300. The applicant is responsible to obtain and comply with all regulatory agency permits. Retaining walls over 4 feet in height must be designed by a registered engineer and requires an approved fence at the top of the wall. All plan sheets must be signed by a registered engineer. Add rock construction entrance to a minimum of 75 feet in length and revise the note from 50 feet to 75 feet. Add a storm sewer schedule to the plans. Type II silt fence shall be used around the grading area. Also, existing catch basins around the site perimeter must be protected from construction-related sediment through the use of filter barriers (see City Detail Plate No. 5302). Add a legend to the plans. On the site plan, show the dimensions of the parking stalls, access aisles and driveway xvidths. Revise the grade to 3:1 maximum on the south side of the underground garage entrance. On the grading plan: · Show storm sewer size, type, class and slope. · Show CB and CBMH numbers, rim and invert elevations. · On the utility plan, show all existing and proposed utility sewer type, class, size and slope. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quic 'kly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 33. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required as well as curbing to be painted yellow. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Codes Section 904.1. The radius turns shall be designed to accommodate the turning of Chanhassen Fire Department's largest apparatus. Submit radius turns and dimensions to the Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. The proposed parking deck over the underground parking must be built to support the load of Chanhassen Fire Department's largest apparatus or shall have vehicle height limiters installed. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for additional requirements. If Chanhassen Fire Department's aerial ladder truck is unable to negotiate access via the east parking lots, Fire Department standpipes along with fully sprinklered buildings will be required. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for locations. The buildings must be protected xvith automatic fire sprinkler systems. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in tile State of Minnesota. The buildings must be constructed in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code and the International Building Code (iBC) as amended by the State of Minnesota. The IBC is scheduled to become effective this fall. Tile architect must provide a detailed code analysis, during the preliminary plan stage, for review for compliance with the new code. Special attention must be paid to the fire-resistance and opening protection of the exterior walls between the two buildings, and the parking garage below, in relation to the placement of a property line. An accessible route must be provided to both buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. The utility plan does not contain enough information for review at this time; plans will be reviewed when submitted for a permit. The building owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Ill particular, type of construction and allowable area issues need to be addressed as soon as the Minnesota Amendments to the IBC are available. Tile applicant will work with staff to address mitigating the sight line concerns of the neighbors. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 34. The applicant will work with staff to provide traffic claming measures throughout Villages on the Ponds, specifically at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Great Plains. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of $ to O. Blackowiak: Now back to the sticky one. Okay, what's the word? Aanenson: When we do a straight variance, I just want to be clear on this. When we do a variance, typically if someone's doing a porch or something like that, that's a separate variance. The way this process is being handled, we're doing a variance with a site plan so the code addresses that specifically. So I'm going to read it and tell you how I'm interpreting it to make sure we' re all clear. What it says is that, a vote of less than 3,4 of the members present on any vote in a variance, in conjunction with platting, site plan review or conditional use permit, or interim use permit, serve only as a recommendation to the City Council so that super majority rule doesn't carry forward and that's what I was concerned about. So in this circumstance it's a little bit different weighting than a typical just straight variance because it's in conjunction with other issues. The site plan. So back to what you said before, and I think this is what the Chair was saying is that you just recommend what you feel, and then ultimately council's going to make that decision. So we don't need the super majority. Blackowiak: But we still need. Aanenson: A motion. Blackowiak: A motion that carries. Aanenson: Correct. No. No. You just need a motion that you want to forward through. So even if it doesn't carry, if you want to go back to your first motion. Blackowiak: Let's just go back to whatever the first one was. Or somebody just give me a motion. Let's just. Slagle: I'll do it. Planning Commission recommends approval of signage in excess of 20 feet in height on the bank building based on findings in the staff report. I will need a second in order to have a vote. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Oh come on. Somebody just second it and then we can. Slagle: Yeah, then you can vote. Win or lose. Sacchet: Can you second and then deny? Aanenson: Sure. Sacchet: That's kind of hokey. Alright, I'll second. Sidney: Friendly connnent? They recommended denial not approval so you can't. Slagle: I understand. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Sidney: But you said based on the staff report. Slagle: Oh I'm son'y. Good point, good point. Oh okay. Then how about I do this. The Planning Commission recommends denial of signage in excess of 20 feet in height on the bank building based on findings in the staff report. Go with me on this. Blackowiak: Okay, motion. Sacchet: Second. Slagle moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial for the request for signage in excess of 20 feet in height on the bank building based on the findings in the staff report. Sacchet and Blackowiak voted in favor, Slagle, Lillehaug and Sidney voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Blackowiak: So as long as we didn't have the super majority thing, that's good. Alright, we got out of that one. Dodged a bullet there. Alright, this item goes to the City Council on October 14~h. Correct? October 14~h. Aanenson: Yeah. Vemelle Clayton: And I have a question. I would like to have it on the record that we need help with the traffic. Specifically, this is a very good example of a wide street inviting high speeds. And there are a couple things. We'd be happy to have angled parking. That might help, but we've got parallel parking which makes the street wider. That's something we could think about, but that was something that was denied us when the project was approved. So this is, if we're going to solve the traffic problem, we're all going to have to work on it. The other thing that I would like the engineering department to work on is because we asked for stop signs that restricted the traffic to a lower speed, and we were told that we could not do that because as you approach the Highway 5, it has to gradually reduce instead of suddenly becoming at a slow rate in our area. So I'd like to see if the standards might be bent, if they still exist, and. Blackowiak: Well it sounds like you need to sit down with staff and engineering and work out these issues and bring them up with them because I think you understood tonight that we're all fairly concerned about traffic. Vernelle Clayton: And we all want to make it slower and I'm on record as saying when it gets really busy out there it will be slower, but we have this period of time now that we should be dealing with too. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Slagle: If I can add. I mean it is truly a shortcut for a lot of people, 101 to get to 5 to avoid the intersection at 5 on 101 and then. Vernelle Clayton: Yep, so we want to make it so inconvenient that they won't do that. Slagle: E, xactly. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. New or old business Kate. It wasn't on the agenda but. No? 40 Planning Commission Meeting - September 17, 2002 Aanenson: I' ve asked her just to put new business on only if there is new business, to kind of help us so we don't get stuck on that. Blackowiak: Right. Tomorrow night, joint meeting. 7:00 with the council, is it courtyard conference room? Aanenson: Courtyard conference room. Blackowiak: Okay. 7:00 then tomorrow night, and that's 2005 MUSA stuff and Roger will be there and all council? Aanenson: Yep. Blackowiak: Good. Slagle: If I could ask. In the Bluff Creek, we are talking Figure 11 the low ones, is that correct? Just so I have my pictures right. Aanenson: Yeah, I was going to bring those too. The bigger ones. I have those upstairs. Slagle: But it is the low ones? Aanenson: Yep. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 20, 2002 as presented. Chairwonmn Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 41