Loading...
PC 2004 09 07 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Bethany Tjornhom, Dan Keefe, Steve Lillehaug and Kurt Papke MEMBERS ABSENT: Rich Slagle and Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Robert Generous, Senior Planner and Josh Metzer, Planning Intern PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: None PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE FROM THE CITY’S LIGHTING STANDARDS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41. APPLICANT: LIFE TIME FITNESS CENTER, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-22. Public Present: Name Address Jeff Melby, Life Time Fitness 6442 City West Parkway, Suite 300, Eden Prairie Bill Doerr, Life Time Fitness 6442 City West Parkway, Suite 300, Eden Prairie Robert Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Staff report please, Bob? Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. As you stated, this is a request for a variance from our lighting ordinance which prohibits directing lighting for commercial and industrial buildings to the sky. There is one difference between this and normal variances. This actually came up as part of the site plan review for the Life Time Fitness building which was recently approved by the City Council with the final plat for the development. By the way, they did start site grading on this last week so it’s under construction. However, as part of it, there are architectural features on the building they wanted to provide some uplighting on the north elevation of the building to enhance or bring out the architectural detailing on that. Unfortunately, our ordinance prohibits that and when it came through the first time we hadn’t noticed it properly so we couldn’t act on it so Council directed that we bring it back to you. While it’s possible to do uplighting and there are ways to control to limit the nighttime spillover, our ordinance is very specific and it says no uplighting on industrial or commercial buildings. Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 There are other ways to highlight this architecturally. They could have cone lights towards the top directed down so we don’t believe that they actually meet the requirements for granting of the variance. They have provided this, and if you want to move in a little bit so people at home can see it, that as the lighting gets up higher towards the top of the building, the amount of illumination is greatly reduced. Towards the bottom of the building it’s the highest intensity, about 34 lumens and then it goes down quickly after that. However, from staff’s standpoint, any lighting directed skyward, especially in this area, would be detrimental to the solitude and enjoyment of the night sky. Toward the west of this site is the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, to the east of this site is the 100-acre woods that the City is preserving and will create a nature trail in and anything that would contribute to lighting of the night sky we would be opposed to. Staff is recommending denial of the variance and with that I would be happy to answer any questions. Sacchet: Thanks, Bob. Questions for staff? Keefe: In terms of, it says one foot candle at the top of the building. I’m presuming we’re concerned about the light that goes above the building? Generous: Yes. Keefe: What impact would one foot candle above the building have on the Landscape Arboretum in this location? It’s a fair distance from there and/or potentially east of there. Sacchet: To clarify that question, is it one foot candle or .01 foot candle? Generous: .01. Keefe: So it’s one one-hundreths of a foot candle at the top? Generous: It’s not very intense light, its just there is that illumination that escapes into the sky and you will get some glow effect. Keefe: Is the glow more because of the light itself going up or from the reflection potentially off of the signage? Presumably, it’s the reflection of these lights that would go into the signage and probably reflect up, given the angle. Generous: …direction of the lighting. Specifically that was a concern about… Keefe: Okay. That’s all I have. Sacchet: Bethany? Tjornhom: I don’t think I have any real questions. The only question that I do have, Bob, is are there any other buildings in the City that do have uplighting? I don’t want to put them aside or anything but I’ve just been wondering. Are they more in the center of the City or do you have an example of another place? 2 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Generous: We have St. Hubert’s, I know the old St. Hubert’s was uplit. I’m trying to think. I think the new one might have gotten backlit lighting in November. There are some other buildings but I don’t know all of them. I was told today that Eckankar has uplighting. I wasn’t aware of that so I have to check the plans. Tjornhom: That’s all I have for right now. Sacchet: Do you have questions, Kurt? Papke: Yes, I have a couple. The calculations that we have here for the intensity of the different levels, do you know what assumptions were made here? For instance, what kind of diffusion of light? These calculations carried out to several decimal places. Can I assume that you’re using a laser to light this up here? Generous: I’m not aware. Maybe that would be more appropriate for the applicant? Papke: The other question I would have surrounding that is it would seem that this Z-light is adjustable angle and would also seem that this would be easily jarred or moved by someone doing landscaping work, yes? The precise calculations here are very dependent on the angle that the light makes with the ground. Is that the reason for your recommendation that it be aimed more towards the middle if we do allow it at all… Generous: If you approve it, yes. Papke: …because of the wobbly nature of angle light? Generous: I think they can probably lock it in. I’ve seen them where they can tighten the screws up, if you will, the bolts on it so that it doesn’t move anymore. Papke: But I imagine there is still a stake that goes in the ground and the stake could be perturbed or something like that? Generous: Yes, but that wasn’t really figured into our review. We weren’t concerned that someone was going to bump. Papke: You mentioned some of the other uses in the area, the Arboretum and so on. What’s the spirit of the City Code here for disallowing uplighting? What constituency are we attempting to protect? Generous: It started with actually Villages on the Ponds and they had decorative lighting that didn’t have the 90-degree cutoff, and that led to the discussion of lighting the sky. When that was vacant over there, there was more spillover into the night sky. Sacchet: If you don’t mind, I will jump in here. What you are asking is, where did this start? What’s the motivation behind it? 3 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Papke: Yes. Sacchet: I can that very clearly because this was initiated by the Environmental Commission at the time when I was on the Environmental Commission. There is an aspect of uplighting that generally people are not aware of. We had one member of a society, was it called the Dark Night Society or something like that? Generous: Dark Sky. Sacchet: Dark Sky Society. Jack Atkins was on the Environmental Commission at that time and he came in gave us a very enthusiastic presentation educating us as the Environmental Commission of the City of Chanhassen of the importance of avoiding any light that escapes off into the sky. Personally, I didn’t happen to notice that until I got that presentation that indeed when you are in a town, and it doesn’t have to be a big town, you cannot see the sky. You cannot see all the stars. You cannot see the Milky Way from anywhere in even a little town. There is enough light that escapes skyward that you cannot see the Milky Way. In a bigger city where a lot of lights escape, you can see hardly any stars at all. So we pushed at the time and it was accepted and went through. There was one Council member, Mason I believe was his name, who was very supportive of that at the time and we ended up with this ordinance, the City ordinance that basically prohibits upwards lighting, specifically for commercial/industrial. That’s where I’m going to have some questions about this. I think that’s only what you’re asking. Where does it come from and what’s the point? Papke: What’s the spirit of the code that we’re trying to uphold? Sacchet: Does that give you an idea? Papke: Yes. That’s all the questions I have. Thank you. Sacchet: I do have definitely some questions, too. First of all, please define skyward? Generous: I’ve been debating that myself. I was thinking anything above a 45-degree angle. Sacchet: Above a 45-degree angle. Okay. Generous: From my personal observation. Sacchet: Because it makes a difference. Obviously, you could go at the building. That’s not skyward. If you go up, where exactly…maybe it’s not 45. Maybe it’s 90. Maybe it’s 60. Generous: But that’s just from my interpretation. It’s part of interpretation. Sacchet: To be specific, at this point as a City we have not defined where it starts skyward? Generous: Correct. 4 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Sacchet: Obviously, this is skyward. We would have an issue with that. This is not skyward. Generous: Somewhere in between in that 90-degree angle. Sacchet: That’s one of the problems we are facing. Now the other problem we are facing at this point as it says here in your report on page 2, lighting skyward for commercial and industrial building is prohibited. So it’s not prohibited for residential? Generous: No. Sacchet: Now a church would be considered commercial/industrial? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: But residential would not fall under this ordinance? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: So we have people having uplights into their trees and to their houses and all that. There is nothing there? Papke: Christmas lights. Sacchet: Well, yes. I’m more concerned about the permanent ones. I’ve already added some meter on the board of why the City has this ordinance but you’re basically taking the position that it can be accomplished by downlighting? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Is there a reason why we don’t ask that of the City as a whole? As in residential and everything? Generous: Well, generally we do get that from the residential but single-family homes we don’t issue permits to put up that lighting. It’s really hard to enforce. This we get as part of the site plan review or building permit process. Generally, they will create the most lighting. Now, when we do that multi-family standards that you’ll discuss next time and hopefully have the public hearing in October, maybe at that point we look at adding that. Sacchet: Now to come back to Bethany’s point, in terms of how consistent have we applied that. I remember we made somewhat of an exception with the cinema, with the concentration that’s in the middle of downtown, have we made any other…and you just mentioned the old St. Hubert’s church. Generous: That was existing… 5 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Sacchet: It was grandfathered. Generous: The one that came through and was denied was Family of Christ where they had their cross with the spotlight on it. Sacchet: There was a huge glare and, by the way, I think they came up with an excellent solution having it backlit. It’s actually much better than it was before. Generous: Internally lit. We always try to propose other alternatives with people. Sacchet: I guess I don’t want to beat this to death. Final question: When I start from the report, this is a prototype? This is not a standard feature? That’s probably more of an applicant question. That’s all my questions. Thank you. With that I would like the applicant to come forward and see where you can convince us or exactly what the framework is at. As you can tell, we’re in a quandary in terms of where exactly starts skyward and I believe you heard me in terms of why we are actually pushing this. Doerr: Yes. My name is William Doerr. I’m an architect for Life Time Fitness, Plymouth, Minnesota. We’ve pondered those same questions and what we feel is if it isn’t a 45 it might be, say, a 60-degree. We don’t feel that we’re trying to get skyward. We are directing that beam completely into the building. You see them shining up on trees, different things. I think it’s allowed to shine on a flag or flag pole. That doesn’t do much to block light and there is a lot of escaped light. Sacchet: Yes, the flag is indeed the exception that we had in the ordinance. U.S. flag. Doerr: Yes. The movie theatre in question. I heard the comment last time that lighting was added because the building lacked architectural feature. We feel our building has an abundance of architectural feature. Sacchet: Then you don’t need it. Doerr: You wouldn’t think so. What happens is you’ve got your parking lot lighting and it’s coming from all different angles and there is a certain ambient light on that building. Very monolithic. Very monochromatic. It doesn’t do much to detail the building. What we’re doing is using a 60-watt incandescent bulb, very low wattage in comparison to the level of light in the parking lot and we are simply accenting it at an upward angle. We do have downward lighting and that creates some interest, but like in movies and other ways, theatrical lighting at a multitude of angles helps define the materials in the project. We are using a natural stone base with a lot of variation and texture and so most important for us is that base of the building and how it looks. I have some photos taken from our Canton project and you’ll see that these lights are very directed to the lower portion of the building and you’ll see that light dissipate as it moves up the wall. The light stops there but nearly nothing by the top of that. Sacchet: Do you know what angle these are? 6 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Doerr: These are…I wouldn’t say they’re much more than 45. They’re about five feet back from the building in the center of the beam is where we aim it is around that 8-foot mark. That’s the transition between the stone and the brick above and there’s a shadow line there and that’s where we’re directing it. Sacchet: So it will actually be less that 45? Doerr: I think it will be a little more thank 45. I think it will be about 60. We want the most impact out of these lights so we’re not going to aim them beyond the building to lose that. We’re trying to get the dramatic effect. It is something that often I’ll do or someone else in the grand opening night, if they’re not right we’ll adjust them on site. They do have a locking knuckle so they’re not going to be moved but, of course, with a wrench anybody could readjust these lights. There’s no safety against someone readjusting them, only that it would be wasting light and hopefully they would get readjusted back. I would like to pass out some photographs… Sacchet: Thank you. Doerr: Being that it’s 60-watt incandescent, that would be normal for what someone would use residentially to light up a tree or anything else. As you can see in the photometrics, there’s .1 foot candles at the top. That is much less than the acceptable light levels still that would occur over a property line from parking lot lighting and things. We really feel like it’s an important asset to the building. It’s going to be our corporate headquarters site. We kind of want all the whistles and bells on this one. It really does pull out the richness of the materials and I think it will be an asset to really read the building. It is only on the north side. Another thing that may help…this exhibit shows ________ light pictures by the same manufacturer. The smallest of them is the light that we’re speaking of. It’s a pretty small picture. It isn’t these large box lights that you may have seen used as uplights in other projects. It is pretty directed. There is also a variance of beam sizes. What we’re using is a narrow spot. A wide flood would give you a much wider band and that’s why you’re seeing in that exhibit 34 foot candles at the center of that and not more than a couple feet away you’re seeing light levels drop significantly. There will be next to no lights filled beyond the building. We would be comfortable with being allowed to even install these and work with staff on site after installation to get the proper positioning of them reviewed at any time if they felt like they were getting moved. There’s no incentive for us obviously to light the sky or beyond and I understand the ordinance. We’ve seen this ordinance in the past and it’s been in the southwest and Phoenix area. We’ve seen it a lot. There usually is a limitation that anything below 100 watts or an incandescent fixture doesn’t fall into that category and a lot of times it’s been used to protect from 500-watt mercury haloid lights shining straight to the sky. We’re not trying to do that. We’re really just trying to accent the front of it. We’re back here one more time just to try to get it because we think it’s an asset. I think we’re giving you something for the community. I think people will enjoy the building and see a little more textural quality of the building at night and we’d really like to do it. We’d like to offer any reassurances that it will be used as intended. We would work with staff to work with the position of the lights once they are in place. It is allowing only the north of the building. It occurs exactly between each window and they are very narrow so that we’re not getting reflection off the glass. The comment on the signage I don’t see as an issue either. There shouldn’t be anything really lost there. By the time it gets up to the sign, you can see in that 7 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 exhibit that the foot candles have dropped off almost to nothing. Just right at the bottom of the sign, a little above you’ll see that light fade out. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions for the applicant? Kurt? Papke: I’ve got one. Are you sure it’s an incandescent? The picture almost looks more like a halogen? Doerr: It’s a digital picture so everything’s kind of coming off the other. You’ll see from inside the building it’s definitely incandescent and we avoid using like the high-pressure sodium or any of the other ones because they are really not true to color. We are trying to bring out natural colors of the building. That’s more of a function of that photo, I think. Papke: How may will there be? Doerr: There are, this is really hard to see, but between each one there are 10 on that side, and 4 on that side for a total of 14. Papke: 14. How high are they off the ground. Doerr: They are just on a short pole approximately 12 inches to the base of the fixture and the fixture is another 4 inches. 14-16 inches. Papke: And if there is snow during the wintertime? Doerr: They would probably melt that snow. As is comes and piles up they may be, hopefully our maintenance crew is clearing them away. Generally there is landscaping along that perimeter of the building. In all cases there is. There is a landscaped grassy area between there so hopefully they’re not shoveling the sidewalk snow on there. They’ll get some snow on there and hopefully it will melt off and be cleared off. Sacchet: Any other questions? Tjornhom: I have one. When I was reading the report I was trying to figure out why this is so important because you could light your building with downward lights and have the same building. Is it because this is like you’re advertising your sign on your building? Doerr: The sign is halo lit. It’s a metallic sign with neon behind it. You can see the effect there. It lights around it. You actually wouldn’t want intense light on it to flood that our or wash that out. It’s not for us to light the signage. It may have some residual effect on getting some light on that, but actually opposite of the lighting effect that we go for with the sign. It’s a halo lit sign. It’s strictly for the materials. These may have even been aimed a little high. We like to see the bright spot right at the 8-foot mark, or right at the transition between the stone and the brick. There are a series of downlights and it’s the combination of those two lights that really bring out the architecture of the building. Simply having downlights washes it out and all the shadowing is created below and you lose that material. Anything that sticks out you’ve lost 8 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 what’s behind it and it sometimes distorts the image, much like if you took a flashlight to your face to make a creepy face look. It’s not true to texture of your face. Having multiple lights are going to give you better representation of what you’re trying to look at. Tjornhom: My next question is, if this was to pass, who would decide what angle the lights would be placed? Doerr: We have a detail in our drawing that’s pretty similar to the exhibit you have. It shows a mounting angle and it asks for them to mount them at, to aim the light at 8 feet above the ground plain. Ultimately, it’s the electrician. Sometimes they aim them straight up the building and they need to be adjusted slightly if they don’t take of care. Hopefully, it’s the electrician and then we would do a walk-through. Oftentimes I’m there on grand opening making some adjustments like that and that’s one thing that we always look for. Sacchet: I have a few questions, too. It looks like you’re actually very specific. You have 14 of these lights, they’re 60-watt incandescent. You showed us a fixture. How big is that fixture roughly in reality? Doerr: I would say it’s about 6” x 12”. Sacchet: 6” x 12”? Awfully small shoe box size? Doerr: Yes. Sacchet: And you say you would angle them at roughly a 60-degree angle? Doerr: Yes. That’s a guess. Sacchet: At 8 feet above and how far away from the building? Doerr: They’re about 4 feet back and you’re aiming up 8 feet so I think that gives you like a 60- degree angle. Sacchet: According to the drawing, it’s 3 feet so that would have to angle higher at that point so if you go with the center, that would be 8 feet. Now the building’s how high again? Doerr: 42 feet and that wall that it’s actually shining on is 38.8 before it steps up and we’re only lighting the two ends of it. Sacchet: So you would be focusing on that break of the material? Doerr: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. It’s actually very good that you’re that specific. Thank you. I appreciate your presentation. This is a public hearing so if somebody wants to comment about this, please come 9 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 forward. I don’t see anybody getting up so I close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission. Steve? Lillehaug: Can I ask Bob one more question here? Sacchet: Absolutely. Lillehaug: On page 2 in the report, Bob, you indicated that the ordinance includes not directing light skyward and do I have that date correct? Is it May 24, 2004? Generous: Yes, we cleaned up that ordinance. Lillehaug: So we just adopted and cleaned up an ordinance, period this May of 2004? Okay. Sacchet: There was an ordinance for that before but this was revised? Generous: Yes, it was. It said what shouldn’t be lit. It was more vague in its wording. Sacchet: Even more vague? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: I wonder how that’s possible? Generous: ___________ Lillehaug: Can I start with comments, then? Sacchet: Yes, comments please, if you have any. Lillehaug: I commend Life Time on wanting to make their building more architecturally pleasing. Definitely I think that’s great. But with light I don’t agree with it. My definition of skyward is upward. Anything above 90 degrees, that’s upward in my mind. Anything above this, which is 90 degrees, that’s skyward, that’s upward. I think that’s a clear definition. Obviously, it’s not clear to everyone so Bob, we probably need to include a definition in our ordinance. My recommendation would be skyward is upward, anything above 90 degrees. I think the City is sending a clear message here. We just revised our ordinance indicating no lighting directed skyward and I strongly support that. These pictures are good but they really don’t show the spillover. There’s going to be spillover, period. In my mind, the intent of the ordinance is to eliminate all spillover from any upward lighting. I simply don’t think, I know it might be a small amount but I think that small amount if relevant. I think we need to be consistent throughout the City as of May 24, 2004. It’s clarified. Yes, there may be some that do have lighting upward but from here on out I think we need to set the precedence as well as I hope the City Council sets a precedence that skyward will not be tolerated. That’s my opinion that that’s what I support. 10 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Sacchet: Thanks, Steve. Dan, do you have a comment? Keefe: Yes. I somewhat agree with what Steve’s comments were. The problem I’m having is with consistency and the lack of definition that we tried to impose. I think we need to go further in terms of defining what is skyward. I kind of look at this and I think of it as a 60-watt bulb going 42 feet. I don’t know that I would go out in my backyard with a 60-watt bulb 40 feet across the backyard. I don’t know that my neighbors would be too concerned if I had a bulb at one end of it and this is an industrial area. I just don’t see it’s that big of a deal. I don’t think there’s going to be much spillover at all and I have a concern that we haven’t defined it well enough yet to really give appropriate guidance in terms of what skyward is. So I would kind of go the opposite way. I would actually support the variance. Sacchet: Thanks, Dan. Do you have a comment, Bethany? Tjornhom: My comment is, I should say no comment, I guess, because I too agree that the ordinance that was drafted and approved probably should have had some measure to it so it could have been not 90 degrees but just 60 degrees. Then we have something to go by because my definition of upward is upward where there’s just a light and it’s just shining upward. To me, this is a light and it’s bouncing off of a building and its just illuminating lightly the architectural characteristics of the building. But there is the ordinance that does prohibit it so it’s kind of a catch 22. I think because we are not very specific in our ordinance about the degree angle, I think I would have to approve it. The tape was changed at this point. Papke: …We’ve struggled with the Onan Observatory out in Norwood Young America, very big issue with light pollution out there. Right now the biggest issue is light pollution growth in Waconia. I’m very sensitive to the issue of light pollution but, on the other hand when I look at the amount of spillover here, I think it’s just microscopic in comparison to what’s reflecting off the parking lots, the streets from streetlights, Highway 5 lighting, and so on. I think this is just inconsequential. I feel badly in that having been part of the review of the City Code we approved this and now I think we’re seeing some of the consequences of the code we put in place, that we have this iron-clad, nothing higher than 90 degrees. I think it was a good first stab at a very noble goal which is to prevent losing our dark skies. On the other hand, this is a gateway facility into western Chanhassen. When you come in from Victoria, this is what you’re going to see. I think this is a beautiful building. They’re making a huge investment and I think the lighting that they’re proposing here adds tremendous value to the aesthetics of the building and I would hate to see the City lose that aesthetic appeal of the building just because we have this City Code in place that is well-intentioned, but I think a little inflexible for this kind of situation so I support it, even though I’m a strong believe in dark skies. Sacchet: I’ve been struggling with this one and I’m glad that you’re so specific; the applicant was so specific in terms of what they’re doing. But I think it’s important that we, on the one hand, are consistent with ordinances, with the rules that apply, which at this point we are not. I think that’s something that I really would like staff to look at. That we have a consistent position that goes across the whole City and not just a particular type of building, for one thing. There is 11 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 a lower end where it becomes trivial or even a farce. We’re looking at a 60-watt bulb. Is that going to light up the sky when you have thousands of cars driving a couple hundred feet away from it. I think it becomes almost ridiculous to be insistent on it, but then at the same time are we undermining the ordinance that we are trying to put in place. I was thinking, well maybe it is appropriate for this to go to the City Council but it looks like we may, if we have three or four. I guess that is the question if it goes to City Council, right? If we make this really specific and we say 14 lights at 60-watt incandescent, at no more than 60 degrees angled off, focused at a height of 8 feet on a 42-foot building, I think that is specific enough to put into a category of trivial in this context. I don’t think we’re impeding the validity of the ordinance as long as it’s clearly understood that we ask staff to put a better frame around this. I think if we can as specific as that, I would be inclined to support it because, like any rule, if it gets carried to an extreme it actually loses what it stands for. We have to pick our battles where they’re worth something and if somebody comes in here with a naked floodlight or something like that, it’s a very different story than if somebody comes in with a 60-watt incandescent bulb. The photo that you did bring added a better understanding because it definitely warms up the feel of the place, the ambiance, I would say. That’s something, I don’t think the City should need to get involved in that level because it’s down to the level of detail where I doubt it would have the City not be involved, which is contradiction. On the other hand, I’m asking for these specifics to be in the condition that since that was the applicant is asking for, if we hold them to that I think I can make peace with that. Yes Steve, please. Lillehaug: I respect all of your positions, but I do want to point out one thing that if we are directing staff to re-look at this ordinance, I think anything above 90 degrees is going to be projected skyward unless it’s, in this example, directed directly at a building. I think upward is skyward. If you’re going to review it, please look at that more closely. I want to point out one more thing. There was one spotlight, and we’re looking at consistency throughout the City, there’s an adjacent church here a couple of blocks away that the City Council denied having a spotlight, a single spotlight, not a floodlight but a spotlight on a cross, that was denied. Here we have 14 lights and I don’t know the wattage or the spillover, but we’re talking 14 compared to 1. Talking about consistency, I just want to point that out. Papke?: That light was directed at a very sparse structure where as these are directed at walls. Lillehaug: Right. And was there spillover on that cross? Papke?: Yes. Sacchet: Huge. Lillehaug: Did I see it? Was it up there? I think it was actually up there. Sacchet: I’ve been struggling with that, too because that light was actually not at a very steep angle. That probably was at a 40-foot angle? It created a huge spillover because it was really going into the sky, there was a cross and it was a huge light. In this case, and I don’t know what the wattage was of that thing, it was a halogen, it was a high-intensity. I have a hard time 12 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 envisioning how a 60-watt incandescent aimed at a building from 3-4 feet away at a height where the building is multiple, 5 times as high, could create a glare. Lillehaug: More than what other surrounding lights may create. Sacchet: Right. Lillehaug: The other question that kind of comes to mind and I think Kurt brought it up, which is, this is going to be an anchor for the west end of Chanhassen. It’s going to be really nice to have something great as people come into Chanhassen, particularly a development of this size, so I’d like it to look as good as it possibly can. Sacchet: Now we have to put this into the context of the framework that we are supposed to look at. One aspect is, is it an undue hardship? Well, it’s certainly not a hardship, but its lights there or not. But I keep bringing up the point, well is it a reasonable request? I think with the magnitude of what it is, what it does, how its put in front of us, I would consider it a reasonable request. It’s definitely absent of the hardship. There’s no question about that. Then the other aspect, does it apply to other areas? Yes, we are setting a precedent and so that’s why I really want to emphasize that we have to have a lower-end minimum consideration. I mean, somebody aiming a flashlight against the sky, is that illegal? There comes a point where it just doesn’t make sense. I think we pretty much at that point, this is 60-watt incandescent aimed at a building with the angle that is specified. Is it self-created? Of course it’s self-created, because they want to make it as nice as possible. Is it detrimental? Well, that’s the big question because dark sky destruction can be considered detrimental. Is it detrimental in this context? I think we agreed that it’s not. At least, most of us. Actually, the only one that would be hard to argue away is, is it self-created, but that is if it’s a hardship. It’s not really a hardship. How are we doing with these conditions? Those are the rules we have to work by, Bob? Generous: You could always make an argument. Sacchet: You could always make an argument. Lillehaug: I don’t think this is a forum to set precedents. I think it’s already set. It’s in the ordinance. Sacchet: You have a good point. Lillehaug: To me we’re changing the ordinance and this isn’t the forum to change it. I think… Sacchet: It should go to Council on that basis. Lillehaug: In my opinion, it should. Again, I’m one of five. That’s my opinion. Sacchet: Any other discussion? 13 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Papke or Keefe?: It feels like we need to revisit the ordinance. So the question is, when do we do that and how do you do that? It seems like we need more definition on the ordinance. This is the first time that this has really even come up since we put this in place in May. Sacchet: How urgent is approval of this? Lillehaug: I would think that Life Time is not going to get to the point of installing lighting for some time now. Generous: Yes. Doerr: We’ve already bid out the documents so we pay more for a change then we will to bid this thing competitively. The wiring will be put in the ground with other utilities which we’re pretty close to. It’s pretty important to us. We would like to have the answer just to keep moving forward and keep it cost-effective for us to provide this for the City. Sacchet: So, in other words we will create a hardship… Doerr: By holding it up. Sacchet: I think that’s a fair thing to say. Doerr: Yes. Sacchet: Alright. Any other aspects? Thank you. Are we changing an ordinance? I think we’re not changing it, we’re trying to implement it in a way that is reasonable and makes sense. This is the variance for a reasonable request. Alright, somebody make a motion. Papke: I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance to permit the lighting as detailed by Life Time Fitness Development with the following four conditions: 1.Less than or equal to 14 lights. 2.Less than or equal to 60 degrees from horizontal of the beam. 3.Less than or equal to 60-watt incandescent light. 4.Aimed at a spot less than or equal to 10 feet from the ground. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Keefe: Second. Sacchet: Everybody in favor say aye. Opposed? Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance to permit the lighting as detailed by Life Time Fitness Development with the following four conditions: 14 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 1.Less than or equal to 14 lights. 2.Less than or equal to 60 degrees from horizontal of the beam. 3.Less than or equal to 60-watt incandescent light. 4.Aimed at a spot less than or equal to 10 feet from the ground. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Sacchet: We have 4 to 1 which is 80% so it actually carries. I do want to emphasize the importance of bringing this up with Council. Frankly, what made me go for this is that we do have a Council work session scheduled in, how much, a week or two? th Generous: Monday the 13. th Sacchet: The 13. One week. I think we have to bring it up there and make it clear because with that in the picture I don’t think it was necessary to send it to Council to catch their attention and create potentially an order of difficulty for the applicant. So that’s my comment here. Did you want to state, I guess you stated your opposition, its clear enough, Steve. Lillehaug: It passes; it doesn’t have to go to Council, correct? Sacchet: It does not; we would have to have needed two oppositions for it to go to Council. Alright, thank you very much. Good luck. With that, we get to our second item. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-SEASON PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R), LOCATED AT 7200 LODGEPOLE POINT, JAMES & KRISTIN RUELLE – PLANNING CASE NO. 04-28. Public Present: Name Address Jim Ruelle 7200 Lodgepole Point Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Metzer: Chairman Sacchet, members of the Planning Commission. I am Josh Metzer. I’m an intern with the Planning Department. The next item before you is a request for a variance from the side yard setback for the construction of a three-season porch. As you can see, this site is corner lot located southwest of the intersection of Lodgepole Point and Longacres Drive. The property is zoned Planned Unit Development-Residential. The applicant is proposing the construction of a three-season porch. This porch will be located 6.75 feet from the southern property line. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 2.25-foot side yard setback variance from 15 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 the required 9-foot setback. One of the conditions of approval for The Woods at Longacres subdivision allowed interior side yard setbacks of 9 feet for living areas. For the purposes of this variance, the side yard setback was measured from the eaves of the proposed porch rather than the footings. Typically, eaves are permitted to encroach two feet, six inches into required setbacks; however, for variances granted from a required setback, they are not entitled to such an encroachment. Staff realizes that the portion of the porch which will require a variance is minimal at 4.68 square feet; however, in order to recommend approval of a variance, a hardship must exist and staff has determined that the applicant could build a three-season porch without the need for a variance by choosing a design which is different or is angled. The current design could be angled. Therefore, staff sees this as a self-created hardship. Staff has reviewed variance applications filed for properties within 500 feet of the subject property. One request for a 26-foot wetland setback was approved for a patio, and another request for a 4-foot side yard setback and a less than 20-foot separation between neighboring buildings was denied for a screen porch. Staff has recommended denial of this application based on the fact that applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, the applicant has a reasonable use of the property, and there is sufficient area on the property to construct a three-season porch meeting required setbacks. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve this variance, there are a set of conditions located on page 6 of the staff report. Sacchet: Thanks, Josh. Questions for staff? Kurt? Papke: Yeah, I’ll start. What is the elevation difference between this house and the adjacent house to the south, if any? Metzer: I’m not sure what the difference in elevation is. The back of the house is a walkout from the front so from the front yard to the back yard it drops about the elevation of equal to a… Papke: But how about the change in elevation from this property to the property to the south on which we’re encroaching. Metzer: The back yard where the proposed three-season porch would be located, I believe there is not a great difference in elevation. Maybe Jim Ruelle could better give us an idea. Ruelle: The elevation is the same as the neighbors. Papke: Pretty much level? How about the distance to the neighboring house to the south? Metzer: The distance between the current structures, the existing structures, is 33 feet and the distance between the proposed three-season porch and the neighboring structure is 35 feet so they’re within that 20-foot separation. Papke: I think there was a mention that there are some trees separating these two houses. Yes? No? Metzer: No, there is not. 16 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Ruelle:…tree that separates… Papke: There’s one tree? Ruelle: …one tree that… Sacchet: We’ll have you up in a minute… Papke: Okay. That’s all. Sacchet: Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: Does the City, do you know if the City has any potential need for a full 9 feet on this side as far as a emergency response access, future utility easement, something like that? Metzer: There is currently a 5-foot utility and drainage easement… Lillehaug: So 5-foot on each side of the property line? So there will be a 10-foot path that’s reserved by the D & U easement? Metzer: This PUD was allowed to have 9-foot side yard setbacks so yes, between the two properties yes, 10 feet. Lillehaug: Thanks. Sacchet: A couple of quick questions. So the 9-foot side yard setback was something specific to this PUD when that was created? Metzer: Correct. Sacchet: Now, there is actually an existing patio door that is not going to be centered to that porch. It’s actually just going to be barely in that porch? They already accommodated as much as they can by actually putting the wall right up to the patio door? Metzer: That’s correct. Sacchet: So when this plan came in, City staff didn’t realize that this was kind of a unique angle? It seems like in fact Lundgren Bros. having goofed a little bit, isn’t it? Metzer: Staff realized that the home was constructed at a funny angle. Sacchet: The angle of the home, it makes sense it’s angled that way so its away from the road and all that but to it that much onto that short setback basically made it impossible to build the porch flush with the building from the very start. I would think ideally staff would catch something like that when a site plan review comes in. I don’t know, as an intern it’s probably unfair to ask you this question and Bob is safely there operating the video equipment but I think 17 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 that’s a valid question ultimately if you really try to figure out what’s the root cause of this here? Root cause is the way this house is situated and you can say, well Lundgren goofed, but then we have to turn around and say, well why didn’t City staff catch that? So we goofed also. Metzer: Actually, there is another piece. The application for the variance that was denied was also in the same development… Sacchet: That was my next question. We have two comparable variances. One was denied in 2000 and the other one was approved a year ago. Can you tell us a little bit the specifics of that please? Metzer: The one that was denied, the way the home was angled on the lot and the shape of the lot itself are almost identical to Ruelle’s property and it was the same situation. They wanted to build a three-season porch at the corner of the lot which was going to encroach, I believe 4 feet into the side yard setback and it was also going to create a less than 20-foot separation between neighboring structures. Sacchet: So there was much more encroachment than what we’re talking about here? Metzer: Right. As far as the neighboring building is concerned, but yes, it was almost identical. Sacchet: Identical in terms of the type of request but it was not identical in terms of the space that was left between the buildings? Metzer: The angles of the homes were built the same. Sacchet: So there was another one of those? Metzer: I’m just stating that this might have been Lundgren Bros.’ shortcoming. Sacchet: They were consistent with it. Keefe: It’s a good question for comparative purposes. The one that was denied was, there’s 20- foot separation between the proposed improvement and the house next door. This one we’re looking at 35 feet, correct? Metzer: Correct. Keefe: So we really, there’s 15 additional feet that would be on this if it were to be approved. Sacchet: So there were two aspects to that other one that led to denial, one of them which are comparable to the one we have in front of us, correct? Metzer: The reason that those were denied, the Commission stated that the applicant had reasonable use of the property and that a hardship was not demonstrated. 18 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Sacchet: Okay. And then the wetland setback? I guess most of us would remember that one. That was the one with the pavers, right? Keefe: In terms of the design, I think I noticed somewhere in here that staff thought that the porch and deck could be accommodated through a different design. Can you speak to that a little bit, just in terms of… Metzer: If you look at the area of living space, if that small bit of living space were eliminated, the eave, we wouldn’t have to count the eaves in the variance. They could have been overhanging. So it’s just that one small section that could be designed in a different way. Keefe: Would it line up appropriately with the sliding glass door and be a standard, it looks like… Sacchet: It already does line up with the sliding door. The sliding door is at the very edge. If you look at the plan, it’s actually pretty dramatic. Like this one, you see it. The door is actually flush with the wall of the porch already, they went the max they can. Keefe: But if you slid it…to get it within, you would need to move it over 4 feet or something like that with 2 foot of right in the edge, right in the middle of that door. It looks like it matches right at the edge. Sacchet: It would be in the middle of the door if went the same distance. Keefe: Right. And it looks like the way they’ve got it now it goes up over the door itself, if you look at these drawings. Papke: If you move it over anymore it’s going to block windows. Keefe: Right. Metzer: No, I don’t mean move the entire porch over. I’m just talking placement of the one footing. Sacchet: Now, you made an interesting other point, Josh. You said that we consider only the structure, the building, and not the overhang? Metzer: If that part of the structure was eliminated, then there would be no need for a variance because our code permits… Sacchet: If it’s only the overhang that encroaches then it’s not a variance need. I think that’s significant, too. Metzer: Right…In the case of a variance they have to include… Sacchet: Okay. Any more aspects, Dan, that you wanted to ask? 19 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Keefe: One little question. In comparison to the 2000 variance that was denied, you say it was a 4-foot side, now is that… Metzer: I’m not exactly sure how many feet it was. Keefe: So here we’re asking for 2.25-foot variance. Was this a 4-foot variance or was this the actual setback, in comparison? Metzer: They were requesting a 4-foot variance from the 9-foot setback so it would have been 5 feet from the property line. Keefe: Okay. That’s it. Thanks. Sacchet: Alright. There’s currently a concrete patio underneath it already? Metzer: There is. Sacchet: So there is a structure underneath. Metzer: Which I don’t believe encroaches into the setback. Sacchet: Okay. So really that encroachment of the porch is only like, less than 2 feet? Metzer: The square footage of the living area is 4.68 square feet. Sacchet: Alright. I think that’s all our questions. If the applicant wants to come forward, state your name and address for the record. Actually, we know your address. Ruelle: My name is Jim Ruelle and I do live at 7200 Lodgepole Point. (NOTE: Mr. Ruelle’s comments were mostly inaudible and difficult to transcribe) …I think you’re right when you state that…our house was positioned on the lot at a ___-degree angle…towards the south property line which we share with our neighbor. …We had looked at many different ways of laying this out and even to the point of cutting this off at this angle right here and leaving the opposite side the same. The only problem we encountered was matching of the roofline… We probably went through about 8 or 9 different drawings when we were looking at what we thought was originally a 10-foot setback and angling even farther in there. Based on all the different scenarios in order to find…square footage of usable space, this is the best possible…space. …Do you have any questions? Sacchet: Questions for the applicant? Steve, go ahead. 20 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Lillehaug: I have one quick one. I need a hardship here. In your letter that you submitted to staff you indicated that you did look at different options and the one I’m looking at is, one of the options was moving the sliding the glass door and removing the window. Can you maybe speak on that a little about why that is just not feasible? Ruelle: In order to move one we would have to move the other two. There are two sliding glass doors, one on the second level and one on the first level… Lillehaug: And are you saying it’s just not feasible to do that structurally for some reason? Ruelle: …was talking to some people…in order to do that and structurally I’m not sure from what… Lillehaug: That works for me. Ruelle: We also looked at… Sacchet: Steve’s got his hardship. Alright. Any other questions of the applicant? No? No questions of the applicant? I think you’ve pretty much answered the questions I had. Let me look. Obviously, I did want to emphasize you have a signed letter from the neighbor to the south supporting you in this. I think that’s quite significant also. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Anybody want to come address this point, please come forward now. I don’t see anybody so I close the public hearing. (The tape was changed at this point). Josh: …a couple weeks ago just to check on the property and I did speak with the neighbor directly next door and she let me know that they were in support of the variance. Sacchet: Alright. Any other comments? Papke: I think my night is the night to be the contrarian. I’m not supportive of this. I think there’s plenty of other opportunities here, whether it be a gazebo detached. I understand the applicant’s desire to enjoy your property in a bug-free environment but I think there’s other ways of skinning this particular cat. I don’t really see a hardship in this particular case. Granted, we do have a letter from the neighbor but that neighbor may not be there one year of five years from now. This could be a different neighbor that has a very different view. We’re only talking a separation of 35 feet which is quite small. This is 10 feet above the ground looking down into some portions of the neighbor’s property with only one tree in between the two so I don’t see sufficient justification to allow the incursion in this case so I do not support this request. Sacchet: Thanks, Kurt. I come at this from a little bit different angle. I think Lundgren goofed and I think we goofed at the City when this was reviewed so I would say shame on us. I would commend the applicant for having gone through considering a list of different alternatives. I think considering how small this variance is and then that only I would have to say the City is part of the responsibility why this situation got created in the first place. Looking at the fact that 21 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 the door into this porch is actually flush with the wall of the porch and obviously, in terms of design it was meant to be in the center of the porch and the porch would be flush with the outside wall of the building. I would think it would be excessive to deny this and I think it’s a reasonable request. Is it self-created? I don’t think it’s self-created in this particular case. It’s created by the builder and by the City. What are the other things we need to look at? Is it applicable to other properties? Yes, it’s applicable to other properties where the City didn’t catch, that site plan wasn’t lined up in a way that could be built to the way it was intended with the door of that porch being built into there. Papke: A previous case was denied for a similar variance. Sacchet: Yes. That’s a good point, Kurt. I would say that in the context that if you get into less than a 20-foot separation, we start having a safety issue or an access issue for drainage and all that. In this case, we’re far beyond that so I would put it into that context to distinguish it. So, with that, I’m willing to take a motion. Lillehaug: Can I make a comment? Sacchet: Yes, go ahead, Steve, please. Lillehaug: Just my quick comments. Probably in my two-and-a-half years I’ve been here I’ve been a real stickler on preserving setbacks and whatever between properties. I have strong opinions on that, but in this case I think it’s a reasonable request. It’s pretty small looking at the eaves compared to the actual structure. We lose that two feet somewhere. That’s always kind of funny to think about. Sacchet: Even less than two feet… Lillehaug: But that’s the way our code is and that’s the way… Sacchet: And we have to implement it. It’s not up to us to… Lillehaug: I think this is a reasonable request. I’ve seen many other setbacks that have been far more than this, especially along lake lots. We’re maintaining more than the 20-foot separation between structures and I support it. Sacchet: Okay. Any more comments or a motion? Now Kurt is not going to make this motion? Papke: I’ll make a motion. Papke moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance 04-28 for a 6.75-foot setback as shown on the plans stamped “Received August 5, 2004” with the following conditions: 1.A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or it shall become void. 22 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 2.The proposed addition must be built per plans stamped “Received August 05, 2004.” 3.The proposed addition must not encroach into the existing 5 foot drainage and utility easement. All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Sacchet: Looks like that is our ratio for tonight. Thank you very much. Good luck with your porch. With that, we get up to our third item. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK PUD DESIGN STANDARDS TH TO PERMIT RETAIL USES ON BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 4 ADDITION, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, WEST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF CORPORATE PLACE, HELSENE PARTNERS, LLC – PLANNING CASE NO. 04-29. Public Present: Name Address Chris Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Brenda M. Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Gene Helsene, Helsene Partners, LLC Robert Generous presented the staff report on this item. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Again, this is an amendment to an existing Planned Unit Development. It was designed to be a light industrial park. There are some commercials in the development. A hotel is going up across the street from this site. They do have a restaurant pad. However, retail uses were never anticipated as part of this project with nd one exception of the C-store on 82 Street and Highway 41. Sacchet: The convenience store there? Generous: The convenience store, yes. Citgo. Arboretum Citgo. The design standards were very specific in that there would be the only one retail site within the development street and it nd would be on 82 Street. That was intentionally put in there to provide for the large industrial base in Chaska just to the south of there and as a convenience retail opportunity for the rest of this development. The City has other areas that are currently guided and zoned for commercial uses just to the north of Highway 5 on Century there’s a commercial center going in. That’s where we believe retail operations should be located. There is an advantage to this site because it wasn’t zoned commercial for retail uses. There is a different valuation type down there so we would put the other commercial sites at a disadvantage if we permit it in there. Staff is 23 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 recommending denial of the amendment to the PUD. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions. Sacchet: Thanks, Bob. Questions for staff? Bethany, go ahead. Tjornhom: I want to have my standard question to you, Bob. Have you made other exceptions in this area for any retail store? Generous: Not within the PUD. There is, to the north of it, within the shopping center, the Century Plaza Development. Sacchet: Is that an exception? Generous: No, but that’s really located in commercial for this area. The City, over time we’ve allowed commercial to creep out of our downtown because our downtown area has been planned for our primary commercial uses; however, we do allow some support commercial out within planned developments and they’re out in other areas within the City but within the PUD, no. We have allowed personal services which are more office-type uses, but no retail with people coming in and buying an item and leaving. Tjornhom: And convince me why that’s bad, or why is that what we don’t want there. Generous: Because this is an area that was intended for more office/industrial-type uses and once you start going away from that then, retail is a lot easier to get people in, especially if you have the price advantage that there is the potential for an industrial park to do. Land values in industrial parks are much less than in a straight commercial retail zoning category. Papke: I guess I do have a question. What do you think the response would be of the…I guess this is intended to be a floral shop? Generous: A floral shop. Papke: What do you think the response would be of the existing floral shops in downtown Chanhassen who are paying retail property taxes and so on to this request? Generous: Of course they may be opposed to it but that… Sacchet: Steve? Dan? Do you have more questions, Bethany? Tjornhom: No. I don’t think so. Sacchet: More questions? Steve? Dan? Keefe: The use that’s in there, it looks like there’s some, it’s not really retail. You’ve got a restaurant, right? Subway. 24 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Generous: Yes. Keefe: Styles, that’s a hair salon? Generous: Personal services. Keefe: Okay. That’s personal services and karate is? Generous: It’s on the personal services side… Keefe: Okay. So there is some sort of breadth of uses which you actually can go in there, personal services that are not specifically retail? Generous: Yes. Keefe: Okay. Sacchet: There are two parts of this building where you can, do we know what part the floral shop want? The big one on the south or the little one on the northwest? Generous: I believe it’s the big one on the south part. Sacchet: Part of it? Now, we touched on what’s in there currently. Subway is not considered retail? I mean, people come to buy something to go. Generous: Yes, but it we were looking at that as a commercial support, almost like a service. This was approved for up to 1.2 million square feet of office/industrial development and we wanted people to have an opportunity to get… Sacchet: Eat a sub but we don’t want them to buy flowers? Generous: Well, then you turn it all into retail. Sacchet: I’m not trying to make a joke here but we have like borderline retail with the lighting store, with the furniture store and the paint shop over on the west side. That’s not retail? Generous: Those were primarily geared toward supplying the builders and so they contract with like Lundgren Bros. and they’ll outfit a whole house and then the contractor actually gets the stuff from there; however, it is open for people to come in, yes. Sacchet: So it is sort of retail. Keefe(?): A combination wholesale & retail. 25 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Sacchet: So it’s kind of neither bird nor fish. I’ve used that before. People don’t understand it in this country. Now there is an allowance of, what is it? Twenty percent or something that can be showroom or what? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Where stuff that is manufactured on-site or assembled or…now with furniture and lighting, the assembly probably goes as far as taking it out of the box? Does that fall into that category? Generous: That went under the direction of Council. Council interpreted that that is an appropriate use in that location. Sacchet: So, could we possibly argue that a flower bouquet is assembled in a store? Generous: When they first came in they were arguing that they were providing a consulting service and most of their operation would be actually someplace else. Someone comes in and orders the arrangements for a wedding for instance; however, when we looked at it, we saw a flower shop. Sacchet: What I’m trying to hammer on here is, this is such a gray area. You rolled out big guns here saying it’s contrary to code, to the comprehensive plan. It’s hard to argue with that and then the property value aspect is very significant. Do we have more questions? Lillehaug: I have one quick one. Bob, can you give me…we keep talking flower shop. What does this actually open up the door for? Are we specifically requesting for a flower shop or is it all retail? Generous: Any retail. Lillehaug: So what does that open the door for? What other types of retail do you see that changes the character? Generous: A convenience store would be able to go in there. Anything that sells on a retail basis… Lillehaug: So it wouldn’t necessarily remain a flower shop? Generous: No. Lillehaug: So it could turn over to be a record store, whatever? Generous: Specialty retail… 26 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Sacchet: Alright. I think we are ready to hear from the applicant. If you please want to come forward, state your name and address and see what you can tell us to try to convince us that this is appropriate. Chris Helsene: My name is Chris Helsene from the Century Boulevard Court, Gene Helsene and Brenda Helsene. Sacchet: A family venture, I can tell. Welcome. Helsene: As far as we think, the way the corner is developing, not only the southwest corner but the northeast corner, it seems to be that there is retail on the north side just the way it’s going with the hotel. I don’t know if hotels fall under office and light industry, but we’re trying to get that small portion as you can see, maybe possibly rezoned. Trying to head off maybe future problems. We are working with a florist. We hope that hasn’t gone away because this process does take some time. I have been in communication with them and they seem to be still eager. We tried to go with just getting a florist in but evidently it doesn’t fall under the appropriate term, so the only other alternative that we know of is to try to change the whole corner unless there are other alternatives. Sacchet: Just to clarify: you said the florist’s specific request was not… Helsene: As far as? We’re working with a florist. We’ve come to terms. Sacchet: Why did you not come in specifically asking for florist? That’s my question. Helsene: Why were we specifically? Sacchet: Why were you not specifically asking for florist? Helsene: Well, we did when we first went to the City. We tried to get a permit to get the florist in. Generous: Administratively. Sacchet: Okay. Helsene: But staff, we weren’t going to get the permit because they don’t fall under personal service, they fall under the category of, I can’t name it offhand, but it falls under retail. Sacchet: Okay. I didn’t mean to interrupt. Helsene: No, that’s fine. So that’s why we’re doing what we are doing is to hopefully still get the florist in. Sacchet: Alright. Questions for the applicant? 27 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Keefe: I’ve got to believe that this particular corner is really going to improve, particularly with Life Time coming in. You’re going to have additional companies that are going to want to locate on your particular corner that are even beyond what the florist would want to do. I assume you’re probably starting to see some of that activity already. I’m kind of looking at it, I’ve got to believe there’s going to be other potential beyond just a florist that may not be just retail. I mean you’ve already got current uses in there, so I’m kind of scratching my head a little bit going, well as this corner improves, I think you’re going to get more visibility, there’s going to be more traffic going by, there’s going to be more people coming there with Life Time corporate coming in. I just keep thinking that you’re going to have other… Helsene: And we hope potentially to see that come. There are other alternatives that we wouldn’t have to go this route. To kind of clarify, as far as the CB Styles and the It Figures, that is our own…that’s what we’ve always done and we’ve always rented from others so we decided to go out and do this ourselves. So we ourselves are trying to make a living off of a third of it and we’re not filling the other portion as of yet…we’ve come to terms on a lease we think should be drying as we speak, but of course they didn’t fit into the plans…It’s not that we’re asking for medium markets to come in or anything like that. It’s not that big of a building…It’s so a convenience-type retailer can go that way…or a specialty destination. That’s what I would think of it. As a smaller company, I know they don’t fall under the category of say, personal services but, kind of when you think about it, a lot of their business does, a majority of their business doesn’t actually go out the door, cash-in out the door with the product, its a lot of funeral arrangements, people order up and they deliver later. Sacchet: I remember when you came in for your building there and I’m trying to remember. When I went looking at it I seem to recall that you would have actually have used a large part of the building. Did that change in the process? Helsene: That we, ourselves? Sacchet: Yes, yourself for the hair place. Helsene: We use over a third of the building ourselves for our… Sacchet: Which part are you actually using? Helsene: We’re using the middle section. Sacchet: You’re using the middle for… Helsene: We felt the middle section would be the least desirable so we took it ourselves. Sacchet: So you have it on both sides, the middle part? Straight across. Okay. That’s what confused me because it looked like, I remember you wanted a third of it. Helsene: We have this section straight through… 28 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Sacchet: So you got the Subway in one corner and then the other corner on the north side is vacant and the third on the south is vacant? Helsene: Yes. We have a small section on the northwest corner that is vacant and we have a much larger section on the south side. Sacchet: And you haven’t seen much interest in that? Helsene: …and our rates are very good for whoever’s listening. Sacchet: And staff said in order to get a flower shop in there you would need to ask for this to be commercial across the board. Helsene: That’s our understanding. Sacchet: Okay. Go ahead, Bethany. Tjornhom: Maybe this is an inappropriate question again, Bob, but do you ever see this area changing so it’s not office industrial park anymore? Sacchet: Unpredictable. Tjornhom: Well, with all the changes that are happening in the City. Generous: I don’t, I never say never but we have Life Time Fitness going in but then they’re having their corporate offices coming in and then they have two vacant lots within the development and I don’t anticipate those changing…Could it be convenience? That’s a policy decision that would be ultimately up to the City Council. Tjornhom: Okay. Sacchet: You were clear about that restriction on that site when you went in there that it was not retail. The PUD specifically lists the things of what is acceptable and that list has been amended a couple of times. Helsene: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. If anybody wants to speak up about this, this is your time. Since we don’t have too many people here, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission. Keefe: Do you ever permit an interim use for a particular… Sacchet: That’s a question for Bob. Do we have an interim use permit for something that is? 29 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Generous: Well, we do in this development for the church. It’s permitted in one of the buildings and there are some standards that once they exceed that pressure of the need to develop. Keefe: So have we ever seen anything like where we would tie an interim use to a lease, potentially? Generous: No, we generally try not to get into that lease arrangement. We look at the size of the operation…once it hits a certain threshold is where we say no, it’s no longer appropriate there. Generally, like for churches, once they get a certain membership they can afford to go out and get their own operation and facilities. Tjornhom: I have one more question. I’m sorry; I have one more question for the applicant. What percentage of your business is walk-in to buy a pot of flowers and walk out versus weddings or someone ordering flowers to be delivered? Helsene: I can’t say about the flowers. Sacchet: He’s not the flowers. They’re the haircutters. Helsene: In talking to the florist I gather that it tends to be the main focus. I don’t know anything about running a florist but I’ve ordered flowers. I’ve never actually gone into a store. I either called for a funeral or have them sent to my wife. …I’m just generalizing…I think a smaller portion of their business is actually retail in the sense of what retail as the scope is as far as walk in and walk out with a product. Tjornhom: Right. Because like All About Lights… Sacchet: The furniture store next door. Keefe: …Sherwin-Williams… Tjornhom: It is where you can walk in. You can buy a sofa or you could just order through your builder. To me, and I’m making a comment now, but it just seems to be on the same line… Sacchet: We are on comments. You’re right on target, Bethany. Tjornhom: We are? Okay. To me it just seems like it’s the same thing in my mind. It’s the same thing if I’m going to order some flowers or order some lighting. I’m not necessarily shopping in a floral store. Keefe: About an interim use on a percentage basis, are we looking at, I mean does the use within the PUD that is currently retail is just limited to the location of the PUD which is that C- store…What we are looking to be approved here is retail for the entire PUD? th Generous: No, just for that 4 Addition. 30 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Keefe: Okay. Sacchet: So it would include the bank and the childcare place? Generous: Right. Helsene: And then our location. Sacchet: And then your place. th Generous: Block 1 of the 4 Addition. Sacchet: Is that going to track off their property taxes? Generous: I think that the assessor looks at it more by the actual uses there so if they got a lot retail in, it may. I don’t know exactly how they calculate all that. Look at income potential of the property? Lillehaug: I respect the comments everybody’s making about the precedent already set by All About Lights and Buck’s Unpainted Furniture and all that kind of stuff, but if I understand where you’re going Bob, the intent here is to prevent the sprawl, if you will, of retail out into a commercial/industrial area and, at this point, with Life Time just starting to move dirt, I would be reluctant to say that there is a financial hardship in this case. The applicants came into this with their eyes wide open knowing that this was commercial/industrial, not retail, and we’re just breaking ground on Life Time. I think it’s a little early to know what the needs are going to be in that part of the City right now to change the plan for this property so, even though I think as a couple people have pointed out that there is some quasi-retail in the area already, that doesn’t mean we want to encourage more of that kind of thing. Sacchet: That’s a question, just a second Steve. Bob, we have empty retail space available in the City in downtown and north of Highway 5? Generous: Yes. That new building that’s going in isn’t fully leased. I think they only have one tenant. Sacchet: Alright. Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: I guess my comment, I don’t have any questions. Sacchet: Yes, were on comments. That’s fine. Lillehaug: The main thing in my mind is changing the character of the development. Does a flower shop change the character of that development? Probably not, but that’s not what’s in front of us here. We’re asking to change the PUD standard to retail for that entire lot and I don’t support doing that. 31 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Sacchet: That’s clear. Bethany, Dan, anything more to add? Keefe: I have a tendency to agree with Steve on that. The question I have is, is there any way to do something interim but I just don’t know. Sacchet: I think that’s a good point, Dan. When you bring in the concept of a possible interim use permit, specifically to flower shops to kind of bridge the gap, but then the timeline of Life Time Fitness is obviously very accelerated and I think Kurt had a very good point about that. Where I stand with this, I mean to make that whole area, which is not a big area, but make that available for retail, we’d really be modifying the comprehensive plan and that’s not our role as the Planning Commission. That would definitely have to be the City Council in my opinion. That’s where I do have to draw the line. You could say well, we’ve had these other variances earlier tonight where we decided was sort of in the realm of triviality. To change the comprehensive plan is certainly not trivial and it is very clearly not within our reach of authority to deal with and, unfortunately, the way this proposal has come in front of us, it is asking for this to make it flat-out retail and I don’t think that is within our reach. It simply is not within our reach of authority, the way I understand what our role is. It isn’t compatible with the complete set plan of the City, as such, and I have to agree with staff on that and I can’t really argue with that even if it were within our reach of authority to deal with. Now, would it be within our reach to add florists to the list of allowed uses in the PUD? There, I would feel more comfortable deciding and discussing it, but I’m sure whether I would want to add it in there because then where do we end? You already have a sort of a lighting store, a sort of a furniture store. Is Subway going to be considered retail? If we would apply, was it 20% or 25%, showroom aspect that can be sort-of retail, we could probably argue away why there is a lighting store, why there is a furniture store, paint shop, and we could apply it to this particular development. We could argue well, is Subway a retail-oriented thing or not, that would certainly fit within that 20% to 25% of the space, but does it still fit in the 20% to 25% if we add a florist store. That would be a totally different discussion at that point. Lillehaug: If I could interject. That would come back to my rhetorical question before of would that be equitable to the existing two floral businesses here in Market Square and just down the street here and from a competitive standpoint we would be placing the existing businesses at a financial disadvantage by doing that to them. Sacchet: Which is definitely a thing we have to be conscious and careful about, too. As much as we’d like to help the applicant get over filling the vacancy, I do think it is a very promising situation there with Life Time Fitness going… (The tape was changed at this point) Sacchet: …It’s way out of our reach to make a decision about the comprehensive plan here. So with that, unless there are more comments, I’m willing to take a motion. Lillehaug: Mr. Chair, I’d like to make a motion. 32 Planning Commission Meeting – September 7, 2004 Lillehaug moved, Papke(?) seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD #92-6) development design standards to permit retail uses based on the findings of fact and recommendation attached to the staff report dated September 7, 2004. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: I would like to recommend to the applicant, if you want to pursue this further to appeal it to the City Council. That would be the right body to look at this but I would actually more encourage you to try to be more specific in your request and try to make a blanket change. I think it would be very hard to justify that at this point in the circumstances you have because really what this request in front of us asks is something very different from just having a flower shop there. Helsene: Is there any way… Sacchet: I would have to direct you to work with staff with this, and apparently staff directed you to take this approach. Maybe that could be revisited. I don’t know. But that’s something you would have to discuss with staff, with Bob and I don’t know where he worked with any of the other planners. Whether it is a possibility to consider maybe an amendment to the list of allowed uses, rather than a rezoning of this to be retail. It may be that this is so clearly retail that it would need the bigger change and that would be hard. From that angle, I think that Life Time Fitness is going to put a lot of attention to this place. That is not far away. That’s always the fallback which is not all that bad in the end. But I’m not in a position to really counsel you, I’m just making a few comments to give you a framework and you will have to work with staff in particular. So, with that, I thank you very much. Does somebody want to note the minutes from last time, please? APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 17, 2004 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Kim Meuwissen 33