Loading...
PC Minutes 6-7-05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 7, 2005 Acting Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Deborah Zorn, Kurt Papke, Dan Keefe, Mark Undestad, and Debbie Larson MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED USE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND REALIGNED TH 101. APPLICANT SAND COMPANIES, INC., PLANNING CASE NO. 05-01. Public Present: Name Address Mary Lou & Tom Whaley 851 Lyman Boulevard Cindy Miller & David Delforge 891 Lyman Boulevard Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Boulevard Richard S. Hennings 366 South Tenth Avenue, Waite Park, MN Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Papke: Question on that sidewalk, if I may. When you were tracing that with your finger you only traced a path on the east side of 101. Are there sidewalks on both side of 101 there? Al-Jaff: No. They will be along the east side of 101. Papke: So residents of that northern residential will have to cross over twice in order to get down to that little. What’s the constraint there? Why wouldn’t we put a sidewalk on the west side of 101? Al-Jaff: Paul, can you help me out here. Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 Oehme: Thank you Chairman, Planning Commission members. The issue I think with 101 was when we were going through the design, we had definitely. McDonald: Excuse me, before you start. Would you identify yourself. Oehme: Sure, I’m sorry. I’m Paul Oehme. I’m the City Engineer/Public Works Director. Going through the 212 design and when this, when the park and rec department looked at trail connections and access to future sites, the trail along 101 did, you know there was, as I recall several discussions on the necessity for the trails on both sides of the bridge at 101 but just due to the cost prohibitive nature of installing that trail on both sides, they felt that access is still being provided across 101 to the future developments and to the future park and ride on the east side of 101. So there is continuity in terms of a trail access. You know it’s not a perfect design but we’re trying to stay within our budget limits. McDonald: I have a question for you along those lines and I know with Highway 5, the pedestrian bridge came in later after everything had been taken care of. Is there a possibility here of a connection with a pedestrian bridge later as funds become available? Oehme: Absolutely. We can talk with MnDot and a lot of cities, if there is a trail connection need, there are grant applications out there through Met Council and other government agencies where we could look at an overpass bridge of 212 sometime in the future. McDonald: Well is that something as part of your planning now that you need to at least put the stake in the ground that we would like to do that so it is in the record as part of your planning as you look and evaluate these sites, is that something you can put in for us? Oehme: Well I can’t really comment on that. We’d have to talk to the park and rec department about that issue. That’s more their area. But that’s something we’ll definitely bring up to them. McDonald: Okay. Anything more? Sharmeen Al-Jaff continued with the staff report. McDonald: I’ll throw the floor open. Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got a couple questions. Just from a process standpoint, we’re moving forward with the rezoning tonight. And with site plan approval later. Al-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: Later. Why would they not come together, just from a process standpoint? Because one thing I’m having a difficult time with is grappling with well, we’re setting up a design standard. They’ve come forward with kind of a site plan but they haven’t really proposed a site plan other than conceptual I guess is kind of where we’re at now. And then we’re going to sort of go ahead 2 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 and approve mixed use development, which they could presumably go and change. I’m just trying to get a sense for the timing and order and how do we keep control around, yeah. Al-Jaff: Absolutely. Think of it this way. You are telling them what their setbacks are going to be. What the maximum height is going to be. Right now you don’t have these standards in place. When they come in trying to design a building, what guidelines do they follow? You are putting all of their guidelines for them. And they will design their buildings accordingly. And that would deal with the architecture. Their signage. Their, basically what you see in a city code, the compliance table that we typically provide you with, this is your compliance table. These are the standards that you are setting for them. Keefe: With what they proposed so far, do they fit within the design standards that we’re proposing here? That we would be approving this evening. Al-Jaff: Couple of things we have discussed. We do have a comfort level that they will be able to meet these requirements. There were some things that they thought might be a little strict and we invited them to discuss these with the Planning Commission. This is staff’s recommendation and they definitely can, it is their right to present their perspective and their request in front of you. Keefe: What is the general timing for them to come back for site plan approval? Do we have a time line or a general…in regards to that? Al-Jaff: No we don’t. However, once the highway is complete, you know that. They won’t sit on it too long. Keefe: Right. It’s, do you have a comfort level that this is going to be generally where they’re going to end up or do you have? Al-Jaff: Yes. Keefe: Because there’s really nothing other than the design standard that we’ll approve tonight to really hold them to it but. Al-Jaff: Exactly. Keefe: Yep, okay. That’s all. Papke: I’ve got a couple questions. In the letter from the Chamber there was a note about the intent of it’s permission of the use shopping center. I couldn’t find shopping center in the staff report tonight. Do you happen to know what reference that was to? Al-Jaff: First of all if you will. Papke: I understand what they mean, but it seemed to imply that there was some mention of shopping center in the PUD, and I didn’t have an electronic copy so I couldn’t search for it 3 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 electronically or anything, but a brief scan didn’t turn it up. I was just curious as to whether you were aware of where that might be present in the proposal. Al-Jaff: There’s retail shops. Maybe that’s what was, what might be confusing. Papke: Okay. I have a question about, or maybe a request for a clarification of the, an individual user would be limited to 8,000 square feet in the second paragraph of page 3. We had an example a few months ago, well more than a few months ago now. I can’t recall how long ago it was. Where Edina Realty, when they did exactly what the Chamber of Commerce was trying to prevent and bugged out of downtown and moved out to Century Boulevard out there by let’s say very interesting definition of individual user with 3 different entities. Is there any way we can crispen this up a little bit to make sure that we don’t have that occur again or do you feel that this is sufficiently restrictive or? Al-Jaff: I do believe it is restrictive. The business community, and if you read the Chamber’s, it’s the government action from the Chamber, it basically is not as, they’re concerned with commercial types of competition. That’s more of a concern for them. Papke: Okay. But you know things moving out of downtown, I mean it’s kind of in the same bucket in my mind. You know that’s a pretty fine distinction to draw. But I’ll let that one go. Al-Jaff: I can definitely add that limitation. Papke: What would it actually, what are you proposing? Al-Jaff: When we say no single user can exceed. No single tenant can occupy more than 8,000 square feet. Papke: No single tenant, not just a user. Okay. I think that might help. Those are the only questions I have, thanks. Larson: Okay, the only question I’ve got, getting back to, briefly I wanted to touch on the walking access. Based on what I’m seeing here, it looks like most of your residential is on the west side. You’ve got freeway on ramps and all that stuff on the east side. Is there a reason why the east side was chosen versus the west side? Just curious. Al-Jaff: As far as the sidewalks? Oehme: Again, I think we’d have to talk to the park and rec department because they more or less set the locations for those trail accesses. Larson: The park is on the other side. Oehme: Yeah, I think the park and ride had a big influence on where that trail was going to go in the end, but. 4 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 Larson: You know if I had my child riding their bike, I don’t want them to go over, you know what I mean? Oehme: Yep, exactly. Larson: So that’s really my main question in this whole deal. That’s all. McDonald: No questions? At this point I have no questions either. I’ll reserve any of my comments until later. What I’d like to do now is, do we have an applicant at this point to? Why don’t you come on up sir and identify yourself and address the council. Richard Hennings: My name is Richard Hennings. I’m an architect with Sand Companies and have done most of the planning for this project so far. I think there are just a couple of issues I’d like to mention. One is the timing of this and it is a little strange and it’s at our request that the city planning staff would help us, and that’s because for the building on the north site, it’s the question marked shaped apartment building, we’re making an application to the Minnesota Housing and Finance Authority for a tax credit housing project, and that application has to be in th by June 28. Then you carry that further and say well why aren’t you doing the whole thing? Well we don’t have any of the grading information from 312/212 to show what happens around the edge of the site, and so we can’t complete your requirements until the final grading on that and so we kind of begged the planning department to get us you know this far. If we forward the application to the tax credit to the Minnesota Housing and Finance, having PUD approval would be sufficient. And so it’s kind of an interim step and they’re doing it as kind of a favor to us to get it this far. Couple of other issues you asked about the future location for crossing of 212, and I would point out that there’s an easement, a utility easement that runs along the current 101 here, existing water and sewer line there and that easement’s pretty wide. It’s 60 and 70 feet wide and you know, that might be a good future location. Obviously that will be vacant the whole time there so that would be one possibility. And then there was one, a concern…in the recommendations from planning staff and that’s on the height of the apartment buildings, and that’s kind of a funny technical issue but we don’t have any issue with the 3 story requirement. That’s our intention. That’s an efficient way to build an apartment building, but your ordinance also has a limitation of 35 feet and it’s kind of a funny thing because you also have requirements that we have varied roof lines and pitched roofs and all those kind of things and the way buildings are built nowadays, if you start at grade and you go 8 foot ceilings and 2 foot structure and 8 foot ceiling and 2 foot structure, and 8 foot ceiling, then 1 foot structure on your roof… you’re at 29 feet. By limiting to 35 feet you basically push us into a relatively flat roof like a 4:12 pitch, and I really think that’s not what you want. It has that strange effect of doing that. In order to put a 5:12 pitch on buildings…building nowadays, you measure to the average height of the roof. Not the top. That requirement would be something like 37-38 feet to get just that kind of pitch, and I just pointed that out to you. I mean we can live with this if we have to, but it would really actually lead to probably better architecture I think if you were to allow a little bit higher there. We don’t have choices on the 8 foot ceilings and those kind of things. Those are… by the code. And with that I guess I’d just answer any other questions there might be. Larson: One quick question. Is it a consideration to not do 3 stories? I mean I know you’re trying to get the most money out of your deal, you know but. 5 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 Richard Hennings: I guess what I would say, given what we’ve got invested in land and infrastructure here, we won’t be able to make the project work if it’s not 3 stories. Larson: Gotch ya. Okay, that’s it. Thank you. Undestad: I just had a question on the 3 story with the height issue on there. You know there might be some language in there as far as restraining to the residential units to 3 stories and I don’t know if you guys, is there any concern about any office, warehouse or anything else trying to. Richard Hennings: Actually that one is 2 story, the office building. Undestad: I mean I’m sorry, the residential. So you’re keeping that at 3 story and… Al-Jaff: If they have to go to a higher roof, then we come before the Planning Commission. Undestad: I haven’t seen any, we don’t know what your building designs are as to how wide or what your roof lines will be anyways. Richard Hennings: I guess all I’m saying this for is because you have to hear the issue again. We’re okay with doing it at that time if that’s… McDonald: Okay, I’ve got a couple questions. I’m not sure if you’re far enough along to be able to answer any of this but, give me an idea of what your vision is for these sites. I mean what are we looking at that you could point to within the city that we currently have that might be comparable to what you’re planning for this area? Or not even this city you know. One of the other surrounding cities. Is this going to be comparable to a development we’re looking at in those areas? Richard Hennings: I guess I’m not prepared to name those. You know the buildings we’re talking about, you have you know a good set of design standards in place so we’re looking at doing you know high quality buildings. We on the apartment buildings are not only develop them but we continue to own and manage them so we have a vested interest in doing the project right. We understand all of your landscaping standards and your parking standards and all those things and fully intend to meet all of those. I guess we think it will be a high quality project and high quality building. The building that we’re talking about on the north site is predominantly 2 and 3 bedroom units. It’s aimed at family housing. So there’d be at least 75% of the units are 2 and 3 bedrooms. Relatively smaller number of 1 bedroom units. They’re larger you know apartments. They run up to 1,400 square feet per apartment. That kind of building will allow us to get actually about 1.2 cars per apartment in the parking garage because the building’s larger, so we’ll have nearly half or about exactly half of our parking requirement inside the building. Keeping fewer cars outside. The western part of the site is showing development in townhouse units which would be 2 story, or potentially I suppose split level. 1 and 2 story and this would have 2 stall garages in every townhome. 6 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 McDonald: Can I ask, what kind of price range are you looking at? Richard Hennings: The townhouse units we would guess are going to have to be priced in the high 200’s, the low 300’s. Again to justify the cost of the land and development it’s going to have to be in that range. Keefe: I’ve got one more question. It looks like the site plan that you’ve got here is pretty similar to the one that you brought in before and I just want to ask a similar question I asked Sharmeen, do you anticipate a significant changes beyond here? Richard Hennings: I’m actually hoping not. I’m hoping that my anticipations about the grades and what the highway grades are going to be are reasonable in that we’ll be able to you know, for instance we show entering that apartment building on the south edge because that’s the lower corner of the site now. I can only presume that they’re not going to change that. One thing I would point out, Paul mentioned to me that this area here, which the MnDot had shown as a pond related to their project, they actually claimed that little piece and as part of the land that they were acquiring, and it seemed strange to us because it was over the top of the sewer and water right-of-way and we couldn’t understand how they decided to put a pond there. Paul tells me they’ve since changed their viewpoint on that which, I don’t know if that means they’ve changed their viewpoint on acquiring the land or not. It’s just an easement so it won’t be used for anything else anyway. But for instance we then show our pond development as adjacent to that because it makes certain sense. That’s the way the site drains. That could be effected by how they do their back slope grading and everything on that, so we’re doing a little bit of guessing here. Keefe: Just one other question. The road which cuts through the south side, that one. It looks like it’s more defined than what we’ve seen in previous renditions. Is there? Richard Hennings: It may have for instance some sharper corners and things. We had talked with planning about making sure that we have kind of traffic calming here. That we don’t want to provide a faster route between this intersection and this intersection than the State is, so the concept here, and we haven’t kind of looked it a great deal but would be to keep the travel right- of-way relatively narrow and to keep the intersection or the corners relatively sharp as ways of keeping the speeds down. The other thing I would say is that the south end, the connection with Lyman is relatively flexible and I think what’s actually going to happen is that they’re suggesting the intersection get moved somewhat further to the east because of some slope problems back here, and also it makes a certain amount of sense to get the water and sewer right-of-way takes a chink to the east at that point and it may make some sense to move the road right-of-way at least parallel to it, if not partially onto it. And so moving that intersection a little bit further east. We’re flexible there and I guess we were waiting for someone to kind of give us a cue on where exactly they want that. This drawing has not been updated. I think they’re actually, we might even have a drawing where it’s been moved over a little ways but it was just a guess on our part so. 7 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 Oehme: I think we’ve tentatively moved that intersection over approximately 40 feet from it’s current location on this drawing. It stages us better for access to the north and future development to the south as well. Keefe: Well and it looks like that might be a…store or something there. That corner. Would that potentially go, no at the south end. Richard Hennings: No, we’re actually seeing these two south ends as office developments. We kind of committed when we talked at neighborhood meetings and stuff about keeping this portion and office because of it facing the residential across the intersection, and so I think that’s been our view that it’s, you know it may be that drive up office to the insurance agent or a dentist or whatever, but we see, we’ve seen that as primarily office with the retail and the other two sites so. McDonald: Anyone else have any questions on the commission? No? Thank you very much then. At this point I would open up the meeting to the floor. Anyone interested in coming up and making a comment, please come up to the mic. State your name and your address and give us your comments. Okay, no one wishes to make a comment then what we will do now, we will go in and, oh I’m sorry. Al Klingelhutz: I’m Al Klingelhutz that abuts the property on the north side of Lake Susan Drive and there’s a small sliver of land between our property and Lake Susan Drive and I’m wondering that is going to be used for. That little triangular piece. McDonald: Is it possible for you to point that out on the map there? Does it show on that map? Al Klingelhutz: And what is planned for that piece of land? Is this Lake Susan Drive here? Al-Jaff: This is Lake Susan Drive. Lake Susan Drive is right here. Richard Hennings: The white piece here is the Qwest telephone building. Switching building, and so then there’s this other little sliver on the west side of that. Al-Jaff: It’s landscaping. Landscaping. Nothing. Al Klingelhutz: That’s all landscaping there? Al-Jaff: Yes. Al Klingelhutz: Is there an access to Lake Susan Drive from the property to the north, or must it be on the old 101? Al-Jaff: The intent is to have the access off of 101. Al Klingelhutz: For his piece of property. 8 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 Al-Jaff: For this piece of property, access will be off of Lake Susan Drive. Al Klingelhutz: What about this one? Al-Jaff: It will be off of the same drive. Al Klingelhutz: Now when I come in to develop the rest of my property to the north of that property, can I get access to Lake Susan Drive or must I come over here? …about the access and where it should go onto Lake Susan Drive or onto the present 101. It’s kind of a sharp grade beyond that triangle piece. Going up like that is going to be kind of hard to build an access to the old 101 at that point. Keefe: I think he’s asking a question in terms of access from his parcel to the north, is it going to be the old 101? Oehme: Yeah, right now it is planned for the old 101. The existing 101 or Great Plains Boulevard when we reconstruct the grades and change it slightly, approximately 2 feet by the curb there. Al Klingelhutz: That little triangle piece by the telephone building is going to be. Al-Jaff: Landscaping. Al Klingelhutz: Huh? Al-Jaff: Landscaping. Al Klingelhutz: All landscaping? It’s about an acre parcel. Acre and a half parcel at the most. Then where is the big apartment building going? Al-Jaff: Here is one right here. This is future 101. This is existing 101. Al Klingelhutz: That’s the old 101 there. Al-Jaff: This is old 101. This is new 101. So right here. Papke: And the bigger one is to the south of 212, isn’t it? Al-Jaff: And then there is another one down here. Keefe: So as I recall we were talking about whether there should be access from your parcel to the north there, straight down to Lake Susan Drive. Straight south to Lake Susan Drive, or should it go west to the old 101, right. And that’s what we were talking about and what I’m hearing you guys say, it’s 101. Oehme: Yeah, that’s the intent right now. 9 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 Keefe: Right, and the concern is the grade. Al Klingelhutz: Well the grade, the last 2/3 of the property up to Lake Susan, up to their property is quite a steep bank. I mean it is steep that you can’t use. It’d be kind of tough to put a outlet to my piece of property at that point. Keefe: To the west onto 101 is what you’re saying. Oehme: Again, existing 101 will be reconstructed. We’re looking at the grades out in that area and we are tentatively lowering the grades right by that north jog there by approximately about 2 feet so we’re trying to tie in to the existing grades more than they are right now and when future development is slated for that area, we’re going to try to work that area and try to make those grades work in terms of access issues. Keefe: So by approving this tonight and maybe I’m getting directly to your question, by approving this mixed use development tonight, do we preclude any access to Lake Susan Drive from the Klingelhutz property? Al-Jaff: That would be looked into and again, when the site plan is before you as well as the subdivision. Keefe: Okay, so it could potentially come back at a later date. Al-Jaff: It has to come back. Keefe: Well it has to, but I mean that specific question could come back. Al-Jaff: But for now, and based upon studies that we have conducted, we have, we are leaning towards providing access off of old 101. Keefe: Right. So the direction is towards old 101. However it’s not set in stone because they have to come back for a site plan review. Al Klingelhutz: Is that little piece going to be landscaped property and will that be city property after the development is approved? McDonald: I’m totally lost I have to tell you. I’m not following all this where we’re talking. Is this part of what we’re looking at? Al-Jaff: It will belong to the developer. It’s intended to belong to the developer. It’s intended to be landscaped. One of the things that the planned unit development ordinance does is it requires buffers. Buffer strips around the development and that’s true with any such development and that’s what, this is part of the buffer that surrounds the development. 10 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 Al Klingelhutz: It belongs to the developer. That’s going to be pretty dog gone tough in the future to get access to Lake Susan Drive from my property to the north. Richard Hennings: Well that triangle really has nothing, would not do you any good. It doesn’t come up to your property. Al Klingelhutz: Yeah it does. Richard Hennings: Unless you’re talking about crossing that, but our property line is up here and this only comes that far so. Keefe: You’d have to get an easement to go across your property to get there anyway wouldn’t you? Somehow. Richard Hennings: So that little triangle won’t do any good. It doesn’t come up far enough to the north. Keefe: It’s not wide enough either at the north to consider. You couldn’t get a road up there anyway because you don’t have enough land that abuts. Al Klingelhutz: Where’s the telephone building here? And this will be landscape property. Al-Jaff: Yes. Al Klingelhutz: Then what goes in here then? Richard Hennings: It’s not our property so I don’t know. Al-Jaff: The phone company. Al Klingelhutz: This is the phone company here. Al-Jaff: Yes, it’s all phone company. All of this is phone company. Al Klingelhutz: The phone company comes down to Lake Susan Drive right now. Richard Hennings: No, it comes down to 101. Al Klingelhutz: I was a little concerned about this big apartment building going onto that 3 corner piece there. It wouldn’t probably fit of what’s going to come onto the other piece. McDonald: Did we answer your questions? Al Klingelhutz: Well not really because I still think that it should have an outlet onto Lake Susan Drive. 11 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 Keefe: We will get a chance to consider that. We’ll get a chance to consider that when the site plan review. Al Klingelhutz: Well go down and take a look at it. The telephone land I don’t think extends as far to the east as it shows on that map. McDonald: Okay. Al Klingelhutz: That’s a narrow strip right along side of 101. McDonald: Does anyone else have any comments or anything they want to bring to our attention? Al Klingelhutz: What was that? McDonald: Does anyone else have any comments or anything they want to bring to our attention? Okay. At that point I’ll throw it, I will close the open hearing session and we will open discussion with the commissioners. Who’d like to start? Go ahead. Keefe: You know all we’re approving tonight is a change of zoning and then the design standards and from what I can tell and what I’m hearing from staff I think it’s reasonable to move forward with in terms of the zoning change. We’ll get a chance to look at the site plan and the more specifics on what the layouts of the buildings and the roads and so forth within the development at a later time so at this time I’m in support of the zoning change. Zorn: I would agree with Dan. Papke: Yeah, I think this is, the design standards look pretty good as long as we clarify individual tenant versus individual user being limited to 8,000 square feet. I’m still really uncomfortable with this sidewalk on the east side of 101 though. It just, I don’t fully understand the rationale. I understand the cost constraints and so on, but it would just seem to be a heck of a lot cheaper to put a sidewalk on the west side of 101 than it would be to build a bridge over 212 or something of that nature. So it would seem to be the time to do something like that, but other than that I think the PUD looks good. Larson: Well I confer with Kurt on that sidewalk issue. That’s the only problem I have is I’d like it to maybe be considered on the other side. Or understand why they’re putting it where it is. Other than that I think it looks good. I have no problems with it. Undestad: No. McDonald: No comments. I guess the only comments I have is that it appears we’re doing what we say we won’t do with a lot of other people. In some cases I would like to know a little bit more about what’s going in there. I understand we can’t, and the design standards for what should go in there would probably cover us. I have no problems with any of that. Also have some concerns about the sidewalk. I’d like to see something that, whatever it is it’s temporary 12 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 and that we go to, I’m not even that much in favor on the west side because I think we ought to get the pedestrians away from 101 period. So anything that we could do to get that back into the development where it’s a little safer. If those are the people we’re trying to encourage to use that, which I believe we are, it’s the neighborhood, it should be easy, easier for them to get across for that. So I guess I would encourage you to look at that and if there’s some way to either put a stake in the ground for some right-of-way for a pedestrian bridge or to do something to make that a little bit safer because you’re making two big crossings there and that just doesn’t seem right. I understand cost constraints too but what’s the difference between the east and west side? We need to understand that better. With that, I guess I will throw it open for a motion from the commission. Papke: Mr. Chair, I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning the property located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of realigned Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 24 acres from residential single family to planned unit development mixed use incorporating design standards as listed in staff report and just a comment here, the staff report design standards do state pretty unequivocally 8,000 square feet per tenant so that’s different than the language used earlier in the staff report so I think we’re cool there so. McDonald: Do I have a second? Keefe: Second. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning the property located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of realigned Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard with an approximate area of 24 acres from Residential Single Family to Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use incorporating the following design standards: CHANHASSEN GATEWAY PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a MIXED USE PUD including a NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. b. Permitted Uses ? The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a 13 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 use meets the definition, the Community Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and office uses shall be limited to the area located south of Highway 212. Residential uses shall be located north of Highway 212 and along the western portion of the southern half. ? Small to medium-sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no drive-thru windows) ? Banks with a drive-in service window ? Office ? Day care ? Neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 square feet per tenant ? Convenience store with or without gas pumps ? Specialty retail (Book Store, Jewelry, Sporting Goods Sale/Rental, Retail Sales, Retail Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.) ? Personal Services(an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a Tailor Shop, Shoe Repair, Self-Service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning, Dance Studios, etc). ? Residential High Density (8-16 units per net acre). The total number of units for the entire site may not exceed 150 units. c. Building Area ? Commercial/Office – Not to exceed 75,000 square feet for the entire development ? Maximum Commercial/Office lot usage is a Floor Area Ratio of 0.3 ? Maximum office/commercial building area per tenant may not exceed 8,000 square feet ? Maximum residential units may not exceed 150 units. d. Prohibited Ancillary Uses ? Drive-thru Windows except banks or pharmacies. ? Outdoor storage and display of merchandise e. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Boundary Building/ Parking Setbacks (feet) Lyman Boulevard 50/50 Highway 101 50/50 Highway 212 50/50 14 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 Boundary Building/ Parking Setbacks (feet) Northerly Project Property Line 50/20 Westerly Project Property Line 50/20 Internal Project property lines 0 /0 Hard Surface Coverage-Residential 50 % Commercial and Office Hard Surface Coverage 70 % Maximum Commercial (Retail) Building/Structure Height 1 story Maximum Office Building/Structure Height 2 stories Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 or 3 stories, whichever is less f. Non Residential Building Materials and Design There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities. Buildings and site design shall comply with design standards outlined in Article XXIII. General Supplemental Regulations, Division 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. g. Residential Standards Buildings and site design shall comply with design standards outlined in Article XXIII. General Supplemental Regulations, Division 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. 1.All units shall have access onto an interior private street. 2.A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick, stone, etc. 3.All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls. h. Site Landscaping and Screening The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare. 1.The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc. 2.Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process. 15 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 3.All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas. 4.Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard, north and south of Highway 212 and west of Highway 101 shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded. 5.Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required where deemed appropriate. 6.Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible. i. Street Furnishings Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian movement. j. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business’s ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: a.Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service; b.Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination; c.Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards; d.Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; e.Preserve and protect property values; 16 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 f.Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures; g.Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. j.1. Project Identification Sign: One project identification sign for the commercial portion of the development located at the entrance off of Highway 101. Project identification signs shall not exceed 80square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. j.2. Monument Sign: One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of Lake Susan Drive. One monument sign per lot shall be permitted for the commercial portion of the site. These signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height. These signs shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. j.3. Wall Signs: a.The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b.Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c.Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant’s proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. j.4. Festive Flags/Banners a.Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b.Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. 17 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 c.Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. d.Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet. e.Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. f.Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. j.5. Building Directory a.In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. j.6 Directional Signs a.On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties (including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b.Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from the roadway and shall be approved by the city council. c.Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. d.Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. j.7.Prohibited Signs: ? Pylon signs are prohibited. ? Back lit awnings are prohibited. 18 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 ? Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area ? Menu Signs are prohibited. j.8. Sign Design and Permit Requirements: a.The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b.All signs require a separate sign permit. c.Wall business signs shall comply with the city’s sign ordinance for the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the “street” front and primary parking lot front of each building. k. Lighting 1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot areas. 2. Light fixtures should be kept to a pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet). Street light fixtures should accommodate vertical banners for use in identifying the commercial area. 3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than ½ candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. l. Non Residential Parking 1.Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city. 2.The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. 19 Planning Commission Meeting – June 7, 2005 m. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McDonald: Okay, next up on the agenda, and I guess I should make the announcement that there were two public hearings scheduled for tonight. The first public hearing dealt with a variance for a, hard surface coverage variance and I understand that that was withdrawn so that the applicant could make certain changes and then readdress it to the commission at a future date so we will be hearing that one later. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 17, 2005 as presented. Acting Chair McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:55 p.m.. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 20