Loading...
12 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 1999 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Matt Burton, Ladd Conrad and Craig Peterson MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A 9 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 7091 REDMAN LANE, DALE GREGORY. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: With her invitation, are there any questions of staff?. Thorough report. Would the applicant or their representative like to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Dale Gregory: My name is Dale Gregory at 7091 Redman Lane. Staffhas pretty much covered the majority of the problems I've got reconstructing the shed right there. We have done a lot of landscaping and everything around the shed. We've got some raised flower beds and everything else which makes it a little bit more difficult to try to move it. We looked at that possibility also. The garage was not far from it so it makes it a little bit more difficult to try to move and try to make the 10 foot setbacks. Like I said, it was there back when we bought the property 29 years ago and that and we tried to keep it up in as good as shape as we could but it's getting to the point now where it does need to be repaired and that so we thought it was better to try to rebuild it and use the same siding and roofing and everything else that the house has to make it a little more conforming to the house. So that's all. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Conrad: The shed looks like your house? Dale Gregory: Yes. Peterson: It will look like your house. Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Dale Gregory: It will. Right now it's...We'll go with the same siding, the same roofing and!' everything... Peterson: May I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. Blackowiak moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing Mas opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please coma ' forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none. Conrad moved, Blaekowiak seconded to dose the public hearing. The public heariag closed. Peterson: Commissioners, any thoughts on this one? Burton: I think staff did a good report and I agree with it. .- Kind: I did go out to the site and took a look at it and I think that it would be an improveme~ to match the house. Peterson: Okay, I'll entertain a motion. Burton: Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission approve the request for a 9 foot _ variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for the reconstruction of an accessory structure based upon the findings presented in the staff report. Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, Any discussion? Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approve the request fora 9 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback for the reconstruction of an accessOry structure based upon the findings presented in the staff report. All voted in-favor 2 motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A 14 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 75 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND SCREENED PORCH/DECK ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT 42, SHORE ACRES, BRINN AND BOB WITT. Public Present: Name Address Bob & Brinn M. Witt Don Sitter 8572 Cardiff Lane #2, Eden Prairie 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Could you take a couple seconds Cindy and just kind of point out where you feel as though it could move. Kirchoff.' Sure. The 74 foot, or...that the Board of Adjustments approved back in...and the applicant would like to locate a screened porch and deck right here so it encroaches imo the shoreland setback. They have buildable area...garage that a living space could be... Peterson: You're saying move what is now right at 77 feet, move that living area back in that kind of comer where the garage is and then put the deck where the current living quarters are. Kirchoff: Basically staff believes that they should utilize the buildable area that has been given to them by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals rather than requesting an additional 10 feet. Peterson: Other questions of staff?. Kind: I have a setback question and encroachmem. Decks are allowed to encroach 5 feet into setbacks. Is that tree when a variance has been granted or? Kirchoff: Decks are allowed to encroach into a required from, side or rear setback when a variance has been granted. They are not allowed to encroach into a lakeshore setback or wetland setback. Kind: Ever? Kirchoff.' No. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Riparian lot size is 20,000 square feet so all of these lots are, or most of this neighborhood is far below that, right? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Kirchoff.' Correct. Conrad: That's why the 12,000 foot variance was granted. It was a neighborhood issue. Kirchoff: Correct, and it is a lot of record so staff felt a variance would be appropriate. It was platted in 1951 when we didn't have the required area for lakeshore lots. Aanenson: Just to clarify that, we did support the variance. Some variances. To make the lot buildable some variances had to be given. And that's our position that relief was granted. Not every home is going to fit on this lot so we felt that based on the first time through, reasonable use of the lot was given and while there is, this may not be their first choice for the configuration of the home, there is reasonable use based on the variances that were granted. Conrad: Typical lot size in this neighborhood might be? Kirchoff: It's larger than 7,000 square feet. Probably. Conrad: So the lots are big? Kirchoff: Actually a lot of the lots are joined together. They'll have two lots for one home. That's pretty typical. Conrad: So when I look at the plat, or not the plat. When I look at the neighborhood and all the lot lines here, that doesn't really mean that the houses are line, are any of those lines? Aanenson: Correct. We can maybe put that up there. We can show you the variances that were granted in that. Kirchoff: Staff did include in the packet a plat of the shore acres subdivision and there was lines drawn showing the home. For instance this lot right here, or address 9119 is two lots. Whereas this subject property is only one lot. There are a few other properties that have, are only one lot. This parcel has two, so they just joined two lots together in order to build a larger home. Conrad: So are those the square footages you've written in on those? Kirchoff: Those are addresses. Conrad: So what would be a typical square footage for a lot in this neighborhood? I see the lots with variances. They're anywhere between, it looks like 7,000 and 14,000. Aanenson: It's on page 3. Lot area on page 3. Conrad: Lots with variances. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Aanenson: Right, but I would say that's probably pretty close to average. 15,000 would probably be the. Conrad: The lot we're looking at tonight is fairly small. Aanenson: Right. That's why we're saying that size home that's in that area doesn't fit on this lot. That's our position. Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, give your name and address please. Bob Witt: Well I'll put a few things down here as well too. My name's Bob Witt and I'm at 8572 Cardiff Lane in Eden Prairie temporarily. Hopefully temporarily. Very frustrating situation. I don't know if you know all, everything behind it but I guess we found that when we did, when the survey was done that there was a 10 foot error. The plans themselves haven't changed since we came and presented the plans last time to the other group that was here. The only thing that has changed is when we did come they asked if it would be okay if we pushed the house back 4 feet from the front, and we thought that would be okay. When we did that we had to pull the house in another 2 feet on the side. We're sitting with about 800 feet of living area on the main level, which makes for a really small house. We understand that the lot is a very difficult to build on and it is very small. One of the things that was impressed on us was that we needed to keep it within a 25% impervious surface. We've been able to do that. I think if we moved up to putting, you know actually went and redesigned the whole house again and started by putting into, ! don't know if you can see that again but into that building area that they were talking about, we'd probably go past that impervious surface area if we put a porch on the back because that would again, have more lot coverage there. That's why we kind of left that open. One of the things was, as we were going through the designing of the house, was that we wanted to keep it within that 25% and we've been able to accomplish that, even with the error, whatever, we still can't figure out where that came from. It had to come from the architect. We're still staying within the 25% impervious surface. The previous plan that was approved on there by the, for the landowner was somewhere in the neighborhood of about 36% impervious surface and he was in that particular area and that was Jim Jessup who owns the property right now. And we're not really, we initially asked for 10 feet which would bring us to 61 feet. What we're really trying to do is get to the point where we can build this house on this property without having to go back and redesign. We're $15,000.00 and 9 months into this and an extreme amount of frustration at this point. But what we'd like to do is, and I don't know if this will show up on here either. Yeah, I guess it will. This shows the main level of the house and when you're looking at that 61 feet, you're seeing this portion of the deck over that and that's 4 feet that you're looking at right there and so if we were to take that 4 feet off of the deck, that would still leave us with a porch and a reasonable deck. It wouldn't be anymore than 10 feet which is a 10 x 10 deck, which is as you know, everything on this house is extremely small. And our proposal is, and what we're really asking for is if we could, if we compromised and took 4 feet off of the deck and were able to move the house on the lot, whether it would be forward or however you would want to, you know you would like us to move it, we're happy to do that. And then what we'd be asking for is the same consideration that was given to Jim Jessup and this is his plan that 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 was approved and that was approved in 1991 and it says, his front setback was 16 feet so he was 16 feet from the front. His lakeshore setback was 68 feet so we're not even quite asking for that. We're asking for, if we went 16 in the front, we'd be at 69 in the back. And that's the consideration that Jim got and that was approved. And we'd like to see that same consideration given to us. Again, it is really frustrating. We hate to even be back asking for this thing. We'd like to be in the, you know going out there and looking at a frame being built and things like that but we find ourselves back here again and it's frustrating for everybody I know. But that's really all I have. If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer anything I can answer. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? If you, let me ask this of Kate and Cindy first. If we were to grant a variance on the impervious surface is that, is staff generally more amenable to that happening versus the setback variance? It's an option. Aanenson: Trading one thing for another, you know. Peterson: Any other questions? Motion and second for a public hearing. Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the planning commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Don Sitter: Hello, my name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard. I'm the adjacent property owner just to the west of this. This is, this has been a little bit ora frustrating project. I think the Witt's have worked really hard. They've been very cooperative in their attitudes so I'd really like to see them be able to build a house here. It's an ugly lot. It's full of weeds and it's been a hassle for the last, oh going on 13 years now so we'd sure like to see this thing resolved. But I'm a little concerned. Right now there's a 10 foot encroachment I guess on the variances that they were given and Bob and Brinn are willing to take off 4 feet but that still leaves us with a 6 foot. Now I don't know if maybe you understood, I think what Bob is asking is to slide the whole house back closer to the road. Is that what you're, okay. So I think we're working with a little bit of soft numbers here and I'm not too sure exactly what we're going for. But I feel like, as the neighbors we supported them on their last variance request. We gave them enough variances so that they could build their house. I would like to see you stand on those variances and I'm sorry. I don't mean to make this even more of a problem but I can't support going any closer to the lake and I certainly can't support going any closer to the road. They're at 20 feet now and if they go any closer to the road, this is a mm around by the way. I'm not sure if you know but it's a very, very small mm around at the end of the road and if there's any kind of large vehicles, they're going to be hanging out over into the street so that would make it difficult for the neighborhood. As nice as the Witt's have been, we've got to make sure we're looking at this not as nice people but what is the house, is it right for the lot that it's on. And I know it's going to throw them into a total redesign if they have to take that square foot off the front and stick it into that open comer, but boy as much as I'd like to see this happen, I would really like to see that the Board here keep it within the variances that have already been granted. It is now a 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 buildable lot by the variances granted and I'd like to recommend that we keep them within those variances. Thank you for your time. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, motion to close. Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Anyone care to offer their respective thoughts on this one? Kind: Mr. Chairman? I did go take a look at the site and very small and quite beautiful. The view is very nice and right now it's in a state of disrepair as far as the weeds and that sort of thing so it would be great to see a house there. If the applicant could figure out a way to get a house up. Peterson: How do you feel about the variance? Kind: I think it's our job as a commission to uphold the variances the way they are. Peterson: Other comments? Questions? Discussion? Conrad: Two quick ones. Or one. I think the lake setback is real important to maintain a few feet here or there doesn't matter but 14 feet does. There is buildable land and I think as long as we know that there's buildable land, they can design to fit with the previous variances granted. Peterson: Comments? Burton: Yeah, it does kind of bother me that they were... Blackowiak: To piggy back on that. I understand that variances were granted at one point in time and, but things change. As we learn more about water quality and things like that, I think it's important like Ladd said to respect those lake setbacks and maybe in 1989 we didn't know as much as we know now about the importance of keeping things back from the lake so what happened in the past doesn't always make it right so I would agree with staff and say that there is a buildable lot and we need to respect those lake variances especially. And 20 feet from the street as is, that's close. I mean that's, people are going to be looking in your windows so. I sympathize with you if your architect made a mistake on the footage, then he's the one you should be talking to. Peterson: Okay, I'll entertain a motion. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request for a 14 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback requirement for the construction of a single family home and screen porch/deck based on the findings presented in the staff report. Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request for a 14 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback requirement for the construction of a single family home and screen porch/deck based on the findings presented in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Burton who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Peterson: Your comment on the nay. Burton: Same comments. I think that it seems unfair that it was okay in 1989...front setback and ...shoreland setback and now it's not...the history and that but it just seems that it was close enough in time and they had to come back five times to get...basically approved so that's the basis. Peterson: With this decision, a notation to the parties. A City Council member or the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal such decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the zoning administrator within four days after the date of this board's decision. This appeal will be placed on the next available City Council agenda which is? Kirchoff: June 28th. Peterson: The 28th, okay. So, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 44,692 SO. FT. TWO STORY TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED STORAGE BUILDING AND A 40 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING AT THE ESTABLISHED 30 FOOT SETBACK ON 3.84 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND PARK DRIVE ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, MINNESOTA MINI- STORAGE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of Bob? Conrad: So the rebuilding would occur exactly where the footprint is today? Generous: Yes. They'd meet that wall. Aanenson: There was some additional taking with Highway 5's frontage too. After the building was put in place so. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Conrad: Okay. So it is right where it is so. Generous: Correct. Peterson: Bob, on the design specifically on the west elevation, you see the small multiple doors and then the large garage door. I'm assuming it's a garage door. I'm trying to figure out what it iS. Generous: It's a drive through doorway for the building. So that the tenants can use the interior space. There will be an elevator in there. Peterson: An elevator the size to handle, I mean I'm just trying to get a sense. Proportionally the garage door looks so much bigger than the ones, I assume that the ones that are there are the standard storage ones that are smaller. My second question, on the left hand side of that same picture, the parapet on top, that looks like it's wood. Generous: That's the standing seam metal. Peterson: Any other questions of staff?. Sidney: Just for clarification I was wondering if you could mention in the report it says the utility plans were not reviewed. Which utility plans? Generous: That's the building department actually made that comment. They haven't looked at the service lines into the building. Whether they comply with ordinance. That's usually done when they bring the construction plans in. But like storm drainage and that is reviewed by Dave. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Mr. Chairman. What is that red deal? Aanenson: It's a parapet. Generous: Roof element. Aanenson: It's a standing seam roof screen. Conrad: Screening what? At the comer. Aanenson: The roof top equipment. Well it's wrapping around. Sidney: Could you show us? Conrad: What's there? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Generous: Actually the mechanical is located an access that runs down the middle of the building. And then you have the parapet wall arc on the north end. It's mostly a decorative feature on the east side. Conrad: Okay. Peterson: Save that one for the applicant too. He's sitting over there grinning so I think. Other questions of staff?. Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? Give your name and address please. Todd Jones: Good evening, my name is Todd Jones. I'm with Minnesota Mini-Storage, the applicant. My address is 601 Carlson Parkway, Minnetonka. I'm here tonight with Paul Strother, our architect. I'd like to just give a very brief presentation and I'd like Paul to talk about a little bit about the architectural elements, including the red deal. I chuckled about it because when I got the same drawing I called Paul, I said what, I said what is this red thing? His perspective.., a lot better so that kind of explains it in his perspective but I asked the same thing. The other question was what is that big garage door on the west elevation. Well there's also one on the east elevation and what that is is, we've got kind ora hybrid what we call mini-storage. ...what we're developing is a component of a storage center and if you're in the business, there's a difference. This facility was built 10-12 years ago and for it's day it was a fine mini-storage. Things have changed. It's a relatively new industry and it has changed quite a bit and one of the main things that changed in this neck of the woods, part of the country, is that a lot of this has become climate controlled. Meaning air conditioned in the summer which also treats the humidity and heated in the winter. And our customers love it and that's one of the main reasons why we'd like to update this portion of the facility and put in this type of product is because of our customers are wanting it. And by the way when I talk about our customers, 80% of our customers are residents of Chanhassen so in that respect we're very much a neighborhood business. We cater to the community. The drive thru element that we have is really another thing that our customers like and it's also kind of a nice situation because it keeps all the activity to the storage center portion of this proposed facility internal. If you're a customer of ours and you chose to have a climate controlled unit in the new building, you would, if you folks were customers you would come in. There would be an entry gate. You would push in your special code to get in this gate here. You would come around, people would turn and drive into the facility. If you're on the main level, you would access from the main level either direct off the corridor or the drive thru corridor...to get to your storage space. Or if you're on the second level, you drive right up to the elevator. Put your stuff in the elevator, bring it to the second level and then distribute it to your particular unit. When it's January and it's 20 below and we give you an option of two different types of product, it's a little easier sell in January for this type of product. It's very convenient. When people are moving. Buying, selling, remodeling, so on and so forth, there's often times a stressful situation and this type product has just really been accepted by our customer base and we're excited about it. One of the things I always like to talk about is traffic because of all commercial uses existing in the whole world, our use generates the lowest traffic. What I've got here is a study of two different, one week snapshots. This is a week in March and here's a week in April. This is a back-up, what it all boils down to is on average, existing, we have 124 trips per week. Well, if you have a couple of teenagers, you probably do that at your 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 house. Per week. Per day it's about 18. Then the key thing these days seems to be peak a.m. and p.m., also very, very Iow. Our traffic seems to not necessarily hit those peak times. Peak a.m., 3.3 on average. Peak p.m., 1.9 trips per day on average. In looking at this, our proposal on a square foot basis, what's going to be the impact on traffic? Well, my guess it's very low. We'll be adding 23 trips per day. Excuse me. Will be the difference. We'll be adding 5 trips per day. 1 car. 1 trip in the peak a.m. and half a car in the peak p.m. so the traffic impact is extremely low. But the benefits are there. You know why are we doing this? Why are we tearing down a building that's full and things are going well? I mean we don't have a problem, everything is good. It's just, we really kind of have a long term outlook on this and we didn't build this one and if we were to build it today, we would build it much differently. We'd build it more in line with what we're proposing today. It's kind ofa nitch we choose. Number one it's climate control product, but mini storage, as this was approved 10-12 years ago, has evolved and we want to make it nicer. We want to make it more customer friendly. We want to make it more aesthetically pleasing. What we're proposing today is kind ora tease our objectives but I think kind of the beauty of it and what's kind of fun about this proposal is it also enhances things for everybody else around here. With that I'd like to mm things over to Paul and just kind of have him walk you around architecturally and any other questions, we're available to answer them. Thank you very much. Paul Strother: I'm Paul Strother. I'm with Cluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects, 7520 Marketplace Drive in Eden Prairie. I'll explain the red deal here. The drawings that you have for the building elevations, which because they're direct elevations distort some of the views of what you'll see. The picture here is a view from Highway 5, westbound as if you were turning into Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. We have the existing building is a single story building. It's about so high. We're proposing a two story building with a rock face block face to match the existing built up precast panels that are there. We're proposing a complimentary tan EFIS with an accent band in white separated by a reveal with some small accents at the comers and at the intersections of the band. We're also proposing arches. This one being the red deal. One at the center on Park, and the other one on Highway 5. These windows are at the comers. They're in the aisle ways serving the units. Not opening up into units. They won't see the contents of the units but they're simply in the hallway so as they go by them. The rooftop equipment is screened from above. The top of this band up so we have a parapet wall all around the building...to screen the mechanical equipment. One comment to respond to Mr. Peterson's observation on the west elevation. The existing west elevation view fi.om Highway 5, I kind of ghosted in the profile of the building. The west elevation that was in your packet, these are doors to the individual units. The larger overhead door into the drive aisle. Because of the change in elevation between Highway 5 and the interior of the site, you won't see these doors from Highway 5. They'll be screened by the existing building as well as the... One other remark that I thought I should make is that on the, within the staff report there were some remarks regarding lighting. We propose ground mounted flood lights and that was in my view the'best way to illuminate the building. The detailing on this building is very... The colors are again fairly subtle. The cornice detailing is subtle as well and my thought was that by having ground mounted lighting, you'd illuminate the building without glare to the street and... Peterson: Questions of the applicant? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Conrad: Impervious surface ratio is what? Todd Jones: Exactly as it was. Whatever that was. Generous: It's actually been reduced a little bit. Because you're adding green. Conrad: That building signage on the north face, what is that made out of?. Paul Strother: On the north face we're proposing the building mounted. That would be illuminated, internally lit sign. Conrad: Staff didn't respond to that, or at least I didn't see it. That met your standards, our standards, right? Generous: The 50 square foot wall sign. Conrad: I thought that was a monument. You talk about monument. Did you talk about the wall mounted? Generous: Yeah, I don't have any dimensions on that. It looks like it would comply but it would comply with the IOP district. Conrad: Does that take a sign permit? Generous: Yes, that takes a separate permit to come through. Conrad: And temperature controlled storage is permitted in our, and a phone number is permitted? Aanenson: Oh, I see what you're saying as far as content. Probably not. Probably not. Just advertise the name, that's correct. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Kind: I have one Mr. Chairman. Piggy backing on Ladd's comment about the sign. The sign appears to me to be the same design as in the past. I was wondering if with this great new architecture, if you thought about redesigning that logo or look of that sign as well. Paul Strother: Well the, some of the sign itself is designed is kind of a corporate identity but the actual sign itself, we're proposing a whole new base. If you look at it now, it's a metal, it's bad. And we really felt that we were upgrading very much the monument portion. It's hard to read on here but you can see kind of the metal red there versus the split face with the EFIS base so. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Kind: I was thinking more color and just kind of the overall topography. That sort of thing. It just seems to not fit with the building to me. Something to think about. And then I had one other question. Oh, did you speak to the existing structure, with the facade on the north side facing Highway 5? It's kind of an aggregate material right now. Will that change at all with this project? Paul Strother: ...and what, of course we'll have a gap between that and the new building...by using the rock face block is reasonably close by having the same textures and colors. It will be closely related. And again because they're separated a little bit, they will seem like... Kind: I think that's it. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Oh! I did have one more, sorry Mr. Chairman. I noticed on the landscaping plan there's spruce trees in front of where the signage is going to be. Black Hills Spruce gets to be 60 feet tall and will be covering up your sign. And they grow about 2, 1 to 2 feet every year. Something to think about in your landscaping plan. Paul Strother: I appreciate that. Peterson: Thank you. May I have a motion and a second for public hearing please. Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Your thoughts on this one. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I would like to ask Dave a question before I get into this. As I was reading through and listening a little bit more, I went back to the new driveway entrance. The drive sitting on Park Drive. Will that be a right out only or will they be allowed to turn left from that new driveway entrance? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, they will be able to access both right and left from that new driveway location. Blackowiak: And that's MnDOT is okay with that? It's awfully close to Highway 5. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Hempel: Correct. Eventually when Trunk Highway 5 is upgraded in the near future, Park Drive at Trunk Highway 5 will be restricted to a right in/right out only. But the drive aisle onto Park Drive, with the amount of traffic generated from that use is relatively low. Blackowiak: You're comfortable with, okay. That was it, thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Any comments? Conrad: I think it's quite nice. It's great. Something that won't be in any of our motions but I do agree that the signage doesn't look good. And I am not going to make a motion to change it however, but it doesn't look good so I'd challenge you to take a good look at that. Your building outclasses your signage. It shouldn't. Peterson: Okay, thoughts? Kind: I agree with Ladd. Peterson: Motion? Kind: I'll make a motion Mr. Chairman. I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #99-12 for a 44,692 sq. ft. two story temporary controlled storage building, and a 40 foot setback variance from the Highway Corridor District building setback to permit the construction of the new building at the established 30 foot setback, as shown on plans prepared by Cluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects dated May 14, 1999, subject to the following conditions which are 1 through 13. Conrad: I'd second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #99-12 for a 44,692 sq. ft. two story temporary controlled storage building, and a 40 foot setback variance from the Highway Corridor District building setback to permit the construction of the new building at the established 30 foot setback, as shown on plans prepared by Cluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects dated May 14, 1999, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall be responsible for relocation of existing street lights and street wiring. All street light wiring shall be installed with conduit. The applicant shall escrow with the City $4,000 to guarantee curb replacement and boulevard restoration. Contract the City Engineering Department prior to pouring industrial driveway aprons for inspection. A minimum of 24 hour notice is required. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 3. The plans shall be revised to expand the driveway radii in the existing driveway to Park Road to 20 foot radiuses versus the 15 as proposed. In addition, traffic control signage shall be added for the new driveway access. 4. Retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will require a building permit. 5. A rock construction entrance shall be shown on the plans and maintained until the parking lot and drive aisles are paved with bituminous. 6. Relocation of the fire hydrant requires a permit and inspection from the City's Utility and/or Building Department. A 48 hour advance notiCe is required by the City to turn on/off water service. Contact the City Utility Department to schedule water turn off/on. 7. 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. 8. Separate sign permits are required for each sign. 9. Ground mounted wall wash lighting shall be deleted. 10. A permit must be obtained to demolish the existing storage building. 11. The building is required to be accessible and must be provided with an elevator. 12. The west and south walls of the building are required to be one-hour fire-resistive construction because of their proximity to assumed property lines at thirteen and sixteen feet away respectively. 13. A one hour fire resistive occupancy separation will be required between the S3 parking area and the S 1 storage area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: STEINER DEVELOPMENT FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 59,990 SO. FT. OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 4.53 ACRES ZONED PUD AND LOCATED SOUTH OF WATER TOWER PLACE, EAST OF TH 41, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK, BUILDING III. Public Present: Name Address Tom Christensen 8681 Alisa Lane 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of Bob? Conrad: Bob, could you specifically detail what you're talking about in terms of the reveal? Show us what you're adjusting. Generous: This is the entrance feature I was talking about. Originally I was looking at taking this panel and having it recessed. So that we get more shadowing in there and it's sort of reflects the Building I. As an alternative I discussed taking this whole area and recessing that to the plane of the doorway. That would also be an acceptable alternative. I think it adds enough differentiation to that. So that was the area that. Conrad: Okay, and you do that under every entry? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, Bob. I'd kind of like to add another question to that. Talking about the...do they have a recess over the entire entry or what was done over there? Generous: It was just recessed at the panel... Blackowiak: Okay, that was it. Peterson: Other questions of Bob? Kind: Mr. Chairman. Page 4 of the staff report, there's...underneath the table. There's that asterisk that says as stated in city ordinance, the project developer shall be responsible for providing 75% of the required plantings. This was the question that Ladd asked Sharmin a few meetings ago, and I think it might have even been my first meeting and I just kind of, not in my head and I thought I understood what it meant but I don't get it. Could you explain it? Generous: Sure. As part of the buffer yard ordinance, there's a formula that you use to determine the amount of planting that would be required for each 100 linear feet. However, there was an amendment at the second reading of the ordinance that said, and then the developer shall only be required to provide 75% of that. So that's what the 75% issue is so you calculate the number of landscaping materials they need and then they provide sA of that. Kind: So the minimum number is reflected 75%. Thank you. Peterson: Other questions of Bob? Conrad: How long is the building Bob? Generous: 320 feet. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Peterson: That's a nice transition to my question Bob. Help me, and maybe the applicant can also but as I look at the west elevation, 320 feet of almost continuous wall without a lot of deviation from just a wall. Walk me through how much of that's going to be seen. Orient me a little bit to the site. Generous: This is Water Tower Place. Highway 5. This is the outline of the All About Lights building. This driveway, the building's about 10 or 11 feet up from this point on Water Tower Place. I would think you can't see more than the first dock area. Peterson: Really? Fred Richter: ...will be totally sheltered...manual here and then this is landscaped and has the windows. So that's the angle on TH 41 going south. Going north on TH 41, this topography rises up and there's a lot of tree coverage in here. So that's virtually, totally secluded so basically we have a service elevation to our neighbor, All About Lights... Peterson: Okay, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address. Fred Richter: I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. With me tonight is JeffBarrons on our architectural team. I think Bob's done a good job of orienting you to the project. I take it you have the colored rendering in front of you. With that, most of what I'll say will be a little redundant but just so we make sure we all understand what the planning issues are here and how we're addressing them. First off, well I don't know if that. Generous: We can zoom in. Fred Richter: Yeah, I just want you to understand this location because really the issues are, this is the site right here. This is the Heartland site. This is what we call the second building, it's the Wrase building. This is the All About Lights building. Presently Water Tower cul-de-sacs here. This is 41 so it's an interior lot. However it is the highest lot in the development. A lot of it's view, there will be glimpses of it from 5. It's quite a distance. It will have the water tower in the background. What we did with that in mind was try to take our industrial, I'll call it concept or parquet of these buildings, and kind of take it one step further and blend it in to the two original buildings and then the... On the Phase I building you will recall we had an industrial building where we started with the painted exterior and developed the articulation by taking the entrance and structurally having that wall in back be a precast wall. This building we were quite happy with and when we moved to the second building, we worked with the planning commission and basically took the dollars we spent there and added some to that and created the projections which gave the building I think obliquely a little more interest and a little more scale and at the same time we added a cornice to the top and that gave it added definition. This whole element sticks 5 feet above the building adding for screening and other things. So what we did when we moved up to this building was take this element here and then we added the brick at the base and start to make the transition building to the office/showroom buildings up on 41. The economics from our standpoint, the rent structure and all, these are industrial buildings and we are 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 constantly fighting a cap in that market on our rent so we've actually made two improvements in cost and at the same time we feel we're getting the impact of the arch with the painted elements like we did here reinforced by the reveals in the concrete. So from our standpoint we feel we've got a building that seems to be compatible. Has a good...as people come closer we've got the brick at the entrances. And we feel we've got one that has the economics and kind of the architectural integrity for office/warehouse buildings. So from that standpoint we feel, and not to get into the detailed structurally but this is a much simpler detail for us to build all on that one plane versus getting a second plane. Adding in this piece a whole other material, a discipline or trade to our construction methods and we just feel albeit more shade and shadow has some advantages but we really achieve that look in the patterning and the color and from the distances this thing will be viewed we feel captures the spirit and the elements we're after. Looking at the site plan, we've got the angle entrances. The truck moving around. We've discussed that with our neighbor All About Lights and it's a pretty functional plan I think for multi-purpose. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Kind: Mr. Chairman, does the applicant have building materials? Fred Richter: I really don't. I apologize for that. They're the same building materials basically that's in these pictures and we've added, I'll go back to this one here. This will be a brick base and this will be the canopy. Otherwise what we have technically is a precast panel that's poured face down so it gets a real smooth finish. Then we get these reveals that are poured into it that are very sharp and crisp. And then through the painting techniques we give articulation to these architectural elements. Giving a variety of colors and scale to the building. And that way we take what is relatively a large building and an economical wall and bring architectural interest, scale and character which has a great impact as you can see from these photographs from a distance. And it really does come alive in shade and shadow when the sun goes across it. Kind: And that's the EFIS material? Fred Richter: No, it's not an EFIS material. It's spancrete. It's Fab-Con product. It's their full structural panel so the only thing in this technique we've reversed it so the structural panel, which is the...outside, then we have the foam and then we have the inside. Where we've done other materials, sometimes they reverse it but then you get a more raked finish or a more textural finish. I'm getting a little technical but that's kind of the technique here. Kind: And is there a way to precolor it or any color has to be applied afterwards by painting it on? Fred Richter: In this system it's better to apply it and you get a lot of advantages. In the integral color ones, you end up getting more muted subtleties. The advantages, you know it's in there forever where this, but our experience with the new paint, the kind that won't fade and if anything from the ownership standpoint, 10-15 years out, they get a freshen up look and actually 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 be updated much more easier than the integral colors so we see a lot of advantages for these large industrial buildings. Kind: Thank you. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair? I was wondering if the applicant could talk a little bit about the Building Number I and show us exactly what the reveal was or what was set back or recessed on that Building Number I. How far? Fred Richter: Well this is set back 5 feet because the structural precast panels back in that plane. Now we did, we had problems. If you look closely, we had detailed an arch and we ended up having to cut it in the field and that's the only technology they have with this system. So it's a fastening, if you look closely, straight line. So there's that disadvantage but other than that we were very happy with this building because when we went to the projected method which has additional advantages, we spent more money than we did on this one to get the projections and then we've got the recessed entrance and this total precast panel over here is structural and is one system and when we get into the issue of building another plane behind it, we're actually duplicating the wall and in duplicating the wall, we're adding to the cost of the building. What we're trying to do is measure the impact of this like it is here, which has the advantages of the crisp, rounded comers and the architectural articulation is given by the reveals and then reinforced by the change of colors versus this one which you know... Blackowiak: But the Heartland building is actually 5 feet in is what you're telling me? Okay. Kind: I have a question along those lines too. What's the maximum reveal you can do? Right now it's 2 inches or something like that? Fred Richter: Yeah, it's all. Kind: Is that the max? Fred Richter: Yeah basically. It's all on that plane of concrete. To build a structural wall, you can only, what they do is they place wood or something in the form which forms the reveal. Kind: The maximum is 2 inches or can you go 6? Fred Richter: I'd say more like 2. Kind: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Conrad: The south elevation points at what? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Fred Richter: The water tower. This building is a unique, I mean again this was, this was sold to the city and here's the water tower. This elevation is totally secluded and there's a lot of trees on the Wrase property. This whole thing, as the planning commission knows that was some of the issues behind the water tower. That's heavily treed. There's a large topographical rise up to this point and there's some trees over here so the only view is this comer here, which is the sketch. For all practical purposes how this building will be viewed from the public. And the majority of that will be from a distance of, well this is a quarter mile. Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, a motion and a second to open the public hearing please. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward and state your name and address please. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Interesting building. Any interesting comments? Do you have any? Burton: Well I could... It's my understanding is that the PUD requires a higher quality of architecture and...and I think the other buildings have a higher, in my opinion, have a higher quality of architecture and design than this. And I wonder... Conrad: Well I think I'm straggling with the reveal. I'm trying to figure out if there's some value in it. Looking...I don't know exactly what Bob's asking for but I'm looking for the value architecturally. I'm not sure, so they can persuade me on that. Otherwise... Peterson: Part of what kind of led me to the direction where I'm going Ladd was when you put up the picture of Building II. Building II, I felt as though it looked like a movie set. That it was straight and painted and didn't have the character that Building I had. I don't know whether it was the shadows or whether it was the time of day when the picture was taken...Building II being more similar to this without the setback. That bothers me. A picture can only say so much but that's what we're dealing with. I'm up for going back to... Kind: Piggy backing on that. I did go out and take a look at the site because when I read that in the report I thought, what is that reveal thing and I thought oh that can't be that big of a deal. And I went out there to look at it and some of the buildings have just the 2 inches and then the... Building I or Building II and I think it's Building II that has the 5 foot. Generous: That's the Heartland. 2O Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Kind: Oh, that's what he's talking about and it does look quite a bit better. Although if it's a trade off between having a flat wall and that just sat in versus the entryway coming forward, I think I'd pick the entryway coming forward. I do like how that makes the front line interesting. Actually I'd pick both. But that would be my choice. Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I guess just one comment. I guess the building is adequate. I don't have a real problem with it except I was disappointed again that we're dealing with a painted building. I'd like to see different materials. Different textures. It's the third ora number of buildings, three buildings now that are basically in my mind much too similar. And I would hope that the applicant the next time around, as we stated before, and I guess Commissioner Joyce had asked for some other types of materials to be presented. I understand economics but still this is a PUD and we would like to have higher standards. Peterson: Other comments? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I have one comment. I too have some concems about the west elevation and when he said 320 feet I thought, that's a football field. And granted, it won't be seen by a lot of people. And there may be trees there now but what happens to the trees. I mean they get hit by a tornado or something happens and the trees are gone and we have to look at that. Are we going to be happy with it? I don't know. I'd like to see materials. We don't have any materials tonight. I mean unfortunately I can't remember what they all look like. I wish I could but I have a problem approving something without actually physically seeing the materials. I'd kind of like to see what I'm voting for and I'm not real comfortable with this huge football field of unknown material. That's what I'm feeling right now. Peterson: Other comments? Is there a motion? Fred Richter: Could I make a comment? Peterson: Four minutes. Fred Richter: On the back wall, this wall has these projections for the docks which is screened in from the north and from this way so it's not just a straight wall. And the exterior materials are the raked concrete finish, exactly the same as the other two painted the mid tan color. The other thing is in the PUD all the peripheral lots are guided to have office showroom or higher end finishes. The interior lots are the ones that have the office warehouse so this probably, from that standpoint, with the exception of Lot 7, would be the last one to even be in this issue. And then finally, we basically worked with the city. We had made improvements from the first building where we had the recess to get the projection. Now we've gone up the hill and we've put the arch on the top which we think is the best bang for our buck because it's going to be viewed from a distance. To kind of give it some articulation. And we've added the brick at the entrance and we feel we kind of made some compromises so when someone says this is the worse of three, in terms of what we're doing where we kind of kept adding, adding, and adding. Hopefully it's got more windows. More this. More that than the others. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Peterson: Okay, thank you. Is there a motion? Kind: I can make a motion Mr. Chairman. I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #99-13 for a 59,990 square foot office warehouse building (Building III) as shown on the plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc. dated May 14, 1999, subject to the following conditions 1 through 16. I have a revision to number 4 to read, the panel area above the entrances shall be recessed approximately 3 feet in line with the doorway of the building facade. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: I'll second it. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Conrad: I would like an amendment on that however. And I think it's real valid to see the materials. Real valid to see the contrast of the materials here and the materials from Buildings I and II. I think if this motion doesn't pass, it's going to be because you didn't bring materials. That's my guess...talk to the people over here. But if this passes, I want the next point on the motion to read that you do bring those materials in. In terms of materials and color and also show how they have changed or the similarities between this building. I think that's important. You should have done that tonight. Kind: Yes. Under the heading of discussion. Are you proposing Ladd that we not pass this for the reason of the materials? Is that a justifiable reason to not? Conrad: Yeah, we get into this, should we do it or should the City Council. They'll do it. Yeah this is one that we, ifI was kind of, it'd be real easy to table this. If this doesn't pass, if you and I are the only people voting for it, then somebody else has a chance to make the motion but I think City Council can look at the materials just as easily as we can. I don't think we're costing them any time. I don't know that we're going to turn it down to tell you the truth when they bring the materials in. If I thought we would, if I thought there was some issue out there that they couldn't handle, I'd have them get back in two weeks. They're going to bring the materials in. We're all going to bob up and down...more than likely. That's my gut feel so I'm comfortable sending it through with your motion that, and then they present those to the City Council. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: As point of discussion. You mentioned 3 foot. Kind: I said approximately. What do you think about that? Peterson: Well that's fine. Just wanted to clarify if you wanted 3 feet or just to work with staff to create the appropriate recessed per Bob's attachment. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Kind: Yes. Peterson: I want to give staff the intent. It's been moved and seconded and discussed and a friendly amendment. Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #99-13 for a 59,990 square foot office warehouse building (Building III) as shown on the plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc. dated May 14, 1999, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Arboretum Business Park. 3. The applicant shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage on site. 4. The developer shall work with staff on resolution of the entrance details. o Increase plantings for parking lot in order to meet ordinance requirements. Placement of required trees shall first be considered on the north side of the lot, then landscape islands, and finally in other areas on site. 6. Revise plant schedule and landscape plan to specify mislabeled trees at entrance of site and along south property line. 7. The applicant shall submit revised landscape plan including the above revisions. 8. Each landscape peninsula must have one shade tree. Landscape peninsulas less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed. 9. The developer shall add two landscape peninsulas to the easterly parking lot. 10. The developer shall pay full trail fees pursuant to city ordinance. 11. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for each catch basin shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The storm sewer calculations shall be for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. The calculations and drainage map shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. The site plan shall be modified to incorporate sidewalk out to Water Tower Place following the drive aisle in the northwest comer of the site. In addition, the proposed sidewalk along the north side of the building shall be extended northerly adjacent to the parking stall in the 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 northwest comer of the site to provide continuity between the sidewalk for Water Tower Place and the proposed building. 13. The plans shall revise the tuming radius of the drive aisle out to Water Tower Place to a minimum of a 25-foot radii. In addition, if necessary, change the catch basin grate in Water Tower Place to a drive-over type pursuant to City staff. 14. The applicant and/or contractor applying for the building permit shall be responsible for the additional sanitary sewer and water hookup charges over and above what was assessed. The number of sewer and water hookup charges are based on the number of SAC units determined by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. The 1999 hookup charges for sanitary sewer and water are $1,252 and $1,632, respectively per unit. 15. Revise plans to include rock construction entrance. 16. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide a $2,500 security to guarantee boulevard and curb restoration. The security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow." All voted in favor, except Burton and Blackowiak who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Peterson: Nays care to comment over and above what they already have? Blackowiak: Materials. I'd like...how it compares to the other buildings that are there because it's not a stand alone building. We need to look at the entire development and the City Council I think relies on us to do some of the weeding out for them so I think we should be dealing with it here. I know they are able to but I think we should see it. Burton: And my other comment, I still have that same concern... Peterson: Okay, so noted. The motion is carried and goes on to City Council July 12th. Fred Richter: ...we have been talking back and forth with them... Peterson: Thank you. I'd like to make a notation to the meeting minutes that I appreciate the staff working with the applicants. All three presentations tonight had color renderings. I think it makes it a heck of a lot easier. Aanenson: We do ask them to bring samples. Generally they do come at the meeting... The other thing we were just talking about too is try to put together maps on these where we've got industrial parks, labeling all the buildings and putting those on to give you a frame of reference. What's back to back. We need to do a better job on that so you understand the relationship to the surrounding uses. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 NEW BUSINESS: Sidney: One comment. Piggy backing on that and I mentioned this to Alison about thinking about how we could formalize the check off procedure for having materials, building materials and I guess that's in the development review application. It says to do that. And then also color renderings. If there would be a statement there that they need to bring that or, and then sight lines. That's the other thing we were talking about tonight with the Steiner Development building and Commissioner Conrad had some ideas about. Aanenson: We did amend the code to talk about that. We added somethingwhere they can do a visual representations, i.e. the Foss Swim SchOol brought the 3D model in. I think that helps. When you're trying to understand reveal, it's very complicated for lay people. We have a hard time understanding that. I think you have...model of that portion. Some of that sort of thing helps. We're going to do a better job making sure that they have that here for you to understand. I think that would help better presentations. Sidney: Does it need to be in writing though? Aanenson: It is an ordinance. Sidney: It is? Aanenson: Yes. Sidney: Okay. And they understand that? Aanenson: Right. There's different ways that you can do it visually and that is computer photo composite. And that's helpful too where you actually superimpose where, for example when we saw the mini storage. She actually drew the existing building and showed where the new sight line. That speaks volumes when you can see the difference. So those sort of photo composites I think are very helpful. And also still having relationships between existing, for example showing where the All About Lights is. That was back to back and what you're actually going to see if he would have done a photo composite of that, that would have been very helpful too so you could see what's back to back. And that there are just sort of the wing walls and what you're effectively standing out on 5 looking at it. Requiring more of that so you can see that photo composites. I think that's helpful because it is hard. When you're looking that far away to understand. We generally go out and walk them but still, for you to understand the impacts for the decision, it's important to have that information. Burton: Kate on the application...I think it might be helpful to have the applicant... Aanenson: Sure, I think that's fine. Very appropriate. Yeah, these are large buildings in the interior and we know on the out, on that 5 and 41 comer that it be more a corporate user and we expect that to be a higher quality office, but those are good questions. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Burton: I think it makes... Aanenson: We are doing a lot of industrial this year. You're going to see more of it too in the next couple meetings. Sidney: One more comment please? I guess one thought, and I guess maybe just to bring it up, if it's appropriate. When we have a repeat of like a discussion of a variance like the Witt property came back and back and back. I don't know ifI want to see all of the meeting minutes for all of those but at least the previous discussion about a variance on the same property might be useful. Aanenson: Sure. Peterson: New business? Aanenson: That's a good segway into new business because we actually have six variances on the next agenda. Sidney: Are they repeats on the same property? Aanenson: ...but that is a good point to kind of summarize if some of these have been through the process before. So we'll have six variances. The theaters are on. We also have a subdivision. Peterson: Getting rid of the alley? Aanenson: No. But I think we've made some good progress there as far as some design. How that works and functions. And there's also another industrial building on. So that will be a long meeting, depending on how complex the variances get. And I also just wanted to let you know what happened. The City Council did meet Monday. This is only twice a year we have City Council and Planning Commission on the same, and this is one of them. They did approve the Dover Building, which is... They also approved the three site plans for Eden Trace. I believe probably only two of those... They did order the road project but in order to get access, there's two of them that have, should be on hard surface coverage to get access for emergency so those two will be starting. Then they did approve the Foss Swim School with the following caveats. They did bring in the colors. They muted down the yellow a little bit more. They also agreed with the blue around the windows. So that really subdued the building quite a bit. They felt strongly about the white, and in looking around the city, looking at Richfield Bank and Chan Bank and kind of the muted silver that they have, it seems to work pretty well. Kind of disappears into the sky and they felt the blue would actually be too loud. So they felt strongly about the white. Peterson: Of leaving the white or taking it? 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Aanenson: Leaving the white, but the blue around the windows which I think really does take down some of the whimsy of the building. Then they also are going with the cut face block around the main swimming structure. Then the two kind of appendixes would be the EFIS and that's what they muted down the yellow. So they did approve it with those conditions. And Ruby Tuesdays will probably be on the second meeting in July. They also have another industrial building coming in that second one in July. That one was tabled because we only had three council members. For rezoning you need four votes. We'll still only have four. The Mayor will be gone still on the 28th SO we'll still only have four votes so we'll see if we go forward or not but you have to have four concurring votes so, that's where that sits. Peterson: Any other new or old business? APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ladd Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 2, 1999 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Yes, Bob reminded me. We did go down to the Met Council and our comprehensive plan was approved. We were the first one to go through with the Council. We were a little nervous because there are some other issues there regarding comprehensive plans and Livable Communities Act and eligibility of transit funds, ISTEA but we did get approved. But we're on for the City Council the 28th. We'll be making a few minor changes that they had recommended and then we'll be reproducing that and getting you copies of that. Peterson: Congratulations. You forgot to mention that to us? Aanenson: I know. So that's pretty exciting. Yeah, it's good news. Only 28 communities have been approved... 130 or something like that. That asked for extensions that still probably won't get through. And it's interesting because what they were approving ahead of us was the new funding, what's called, instead of the ISTEA it's now called T-21 which is the new federal highway money which we've got some for the ped bridge. You know underpasses. So what they're saying is they're trying to with the smart growth and Mr. Mondale's and the Governor's growth management strategies that they're going to be looking...so we should be in good standing. They want to link it to density and some of those sort of things so I think that speaks well for us. Peterson: Ongoing items? Aanenson: We're doing a heck of a lot of development out there. If you see things out there and you have questions, you know is this what we approved? Is this what's going on? Let us know. We try to get out there. We're very busy but we're trying to manage the construction projects. There's a lot of private development going on. A lot of changes so if you see something and you say, I'm not sure that's what we wanted or you know, we'll go on out and take a look. Peterson: Anything else? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Kind: A question, made we think about it. That letter and the gentleman who spoke, I think it was on the Dover building. Talking about the city's supposed to put some plantings along the fence. Is that true or is that rumor? Aanenson: No, that's true. What happened on that, that was the post office. The post office being a federal agency was exempt from jurisdiction of the local government. As a part of that they never disclosed in their environmental assessment document how many times they would be having deliveries and we found out that they'd have deliveries at like 4:00 in the morning and like 1:00 in the morning and they have the OSHA backing up of the semi's so we did a noise study. The City ended up paying for the wall. The wood fence. Based on the noise consultant, and doing the landscaping. The landscaping has been ordered and should be in in the next couple of weeks. But it had not been completed. Kind: I hate that when people say the city was supposed to do this and then they never did and I never know if it's true or not true. Aanenson: It's true. It's about $35,000.00-$40,000.00 that the city did that, and it was not our intent to do it all the way down. But that was true. We haven't had any noise complaints so far. Peterson: Now that they can do anything with them anyway so. Aanenson: Yeah, right. Right, it's not perfect because some of the sound's bouncing over. And we are out measuring at Trotter's. We did the decimeter was out maybe 3 or 4 weeks ago but. Sidney: Lewison? Aanenson: Yeah, Lewison Engineering. And we could only do it one hour. You had to do hand increments so we've got a different instrument. Cindy set that out there today and we'll take it down Friday so we're doing it over a period of a couple days. Trying to measure. See if we can, if it exceeds the OSHA standards so working with that neighborhood regarding noise. We are getting those complaints. It's that time of the year too. We haven't had a lot but there's a couple areas that rear their ugly head. It's also code enforcement time of the year too. We've got chickens at large. It's spring time... Conrad: ...go to City Council? Aanenson: That will be on the 28th. He did appeal, yes. Kind: And how about the other guy? Aanenson: Actually all of them did. All of them did. Blackowiak: Kate, can I ask just one more question? This 75% buffer yard thing is starting to bug me. Why was it changed and do we need to do anything about it? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1999 Aanenson: What we did is when we looked at the ordinance we said it's not all the responsibility of the new person coming in. It's also the responsibility of the other property owners so the 75% takes into consideration what the appropriate balance should be so. Blackowiak: So who does the 25% then? Or are we just out that? Generous: The abutting property owners. Blackowiak: So Ladd's building a building. He's responsible, next door to my building. He's responsible for 75%. I'm responsible for 25%. On his property? Aanenson: ...yeah but see if like in this industrial park, if you've got the 75% in and you put 75%, you've already exceeded. Blackowiak: So it's not 100% on your property? That's what I'm, I thought you had to have 100% of the. Aanenson: This came up before and I think we've got. Blackowiak: I'm sorry. Aanenson: No, this is a good question. It came up before and I think what we need to do is go back through the ordinance and show you how we got there because when we see 75%, you're still getting an effective screen. Blackowiak: I understand but what I'm saying is if we have a piece of property and we're told there's a buffer yard requirement and it's 10 trees. And now we're saying but they don't have to do the 10 trees. They only have to do 7.5 trees. Aanenson: Yeah, but there's different ways within that buffer. There's ways you can make it. You can do less buffering by creating a bigger setback. You could say instead of 10 feet, I'm going to give you 25. That's another way to buffer. You can also say there's a huge wetland and there's a rolling hill so that also accommodates so we have to look at the topography, the setbacks. Blackowiak: So what was it about the 100 linear feet? I mean that's just one measure? Aanenson: That's one measure. There's landscaping on top of it. So what we're saying is, and that's why we'll go through it with a couple different scenarios. The next two agendas are full but that's a good thing for a work session and I'd like to take you out in the field and show you a couple examples of how that works. But what we're saying is, and we went through this when we did the ordinance. It's punitive to say the person that comes in last has got to make up for all the sins of the, you know there's also responsibilities on both sides. 29 Planning Commlssion Meeting - June 16, 1999 Blackowiak: I just thought that this had to do with specific properties. In other words there were certainly requirements, 10 trees and it goes on this lot. So help me. Conrad: ...when we did the buffer ordinance, the only land we have control over is the one that is being developed. And I thought the City Council just plain backed off of what we sent them. Aanenson: We'll go back through it. Like I say, there's different ways of doing it. One is increasing the distance or increasing the density of the trees. Conrad: But that's part of the ordinance. Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: It has nothing to do with the 75%. Does it? Aanenson: That's a part of the ordinance, yes. We'll show you how that works. But it won't be the next. We've got too much on the next agenda. Chairman Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 3O