Loading...
1986 05 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING May 14, 19 8 6 ~ Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m. e e MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad and Mike Thompson. MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Ryan and Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Bill Monk, City Engineer, Vicki Churchill, Secretary and Nann Opheim, Secretary. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment request to amend section 19.03 of the Zoning Ordinance (No. 47) to regulate corner lot setbacks, City of Chanhassen. Dacy: This was brought to the commission's attention at your last regular meeting. Staff is requesting that a zoning ordinance amendment be processed to change the corner lot setbacks as they apply to residential properties. We found through recent variance applications that three 30 foot setbacks, two 30 foot setbacks along the street sides and remaining rear yard setback, has really constricted buildable areas of corner lots. We did investigate the commercial and industrial district as part of the our review but we would recommend that the ordinance be amended only for residential lots because the commercial and industrial districts have special setbacks concerning corner lots especially as they abut to residential areas. Legally, the existing ordinance should have a specific provision to regulate corner lot setbacks and staff just feels uncomfortable as to approving an administrative variance for some of these situations. There is the need for a zoning ordinance amendment, so our recommended language is contained on page two of your staff report. Conrad: It is kind of confusing to me. what you want. There is a discrepency as to Dacy: Some examples here maybe would be a better way to approach it. For example, in Chanhassen Estates at the corner of Erie Spur and Erie Avenue, we have a front yard setback of 30 feet here, 30 feet here and another 30 foot setback in the rear. So you can see that there is this amount of room for a house. Normally in an interior lot situation where you wouldn't have this extra 30 feet, the lot would e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Two be narrower and would allow for such improvements like decks, and additions to single family homes and so on. Another example is the variance we just processed in Colonial Grove. It is kind of an odd shape lot but with this triangular shaped lot you have the odd buildable area reducing the rear setback from 30 feet to 10 feet, this will provide more flexibility for structures on corner lots and still maintain an adequate distance between the next lot. Usually corner lots abut the sideline of the adjacent lot so therefore, at a minimum there will always be a 20 foot separation between the structures. Conrad: Where in the wording in your recommendation does it take that into consideration. I don't see a ten, I don't see numbers in your recommendation. Dacy: It doesn't say 10 feet specifically because, for example in the R-1 it has a side yard setback of 10 feet, in the R-2, multiple family area it is 25 feet, so this is just to allow staff, or whoever the public, that on a corner lot you just have to meet the front yard setbacks from the street side plus the two remaining lot lines will be the side lot lines instead of the rear lot line. So we can't mess with the numbers in parts of the ordinance. Conrad: This is a public hearing, we will open it up for the public. Is anybody here with anything to say in this situation? No comments. Now is there a Motion to close public hearing. Emmings made the Motion to close the public hearing, Thompson seconded it. All voted in favor and the public hearing was closed. Discussion followed. Conrad: I have problems with the wording, would you clarify it for me. Dacy: It is the same as proposed in the ou tl i nee Conrad: I have no more questions. Emmings made a Motion, and Thompson seconded, asking that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #86-2 to amend Section 19.03 of Ordinance 47 as follows: 3. In all residential districts, the front yard setback requirement shall be observed on each street side of a corner lot; provid~d, however, that the remaining two yards will meet the side yard setbacks. 4It All voted in favor and the Motion carried unanimously. e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Three PUBLIC HEARING 3. Preliminary Plat request to subdivide a 36,440 square foot parcel into two single family lots of 18,212 and 18,228 square feet on property zoned R-1, Single Family Residence and located at 7061 Shawnee Lane, James Agnew. Public Present James Agnew, Applicant Dacy: The lot is located in Greenwood Shores on the corner of Shawnee Lane and Redman Lane, and is zoned R-l, single family. The request was brought to the attention of the City Council on the May 5th meeting because the subdivision ordinance allows the metes and bounds provision of the plat subject if certain conditions are met. However, the council felt that the proposed metes and bounds description was too lengthy and did not result in a simple east half/west half legal description, therefore they recommended that the property be platted instead. There was concern from the adjacent property owners as to the proposed lot size even though each parcel contains 18,000 feet. It meets the lot width requirements in the R-l district buffer, adjacent property owners were concerned about the proposed lot sizes as compared to some of the existing lot sizes in the Greenwood Shores subdivision. Greenwood Shores was platted in the late 50's prior to the installation of water and sewer service, then water and sewer service was installed in the late 70's. So the applicant has complied with the council's recommendation and prepared a plat, and because the proposed split exceeds the minimum requirements in our district, over 15,000 square feet, and has appropriate frontage, we recommend approval based on the plat that is in your packet. Public hearing was opened up for comments. Conrad asked if there were any? Thompson asked is the applicant was here. The applicant was present. Motion by Seigel, seconded by Emmings to close public hearing. All voted in favor of closing public hearing. Motion by Seigel that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request #86-8 as presented in the preliminary plat stamped "Received April 21, 1986". Thompson seconded the Motion. All voted in favor and the Motion carried unanimously. e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Four Conrad: When will this Motion go to City Council. Oacy: June 2, 1986. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Final Plan Amendment request to subdivide 2.62 acres into six single family lots on property zoned P-l, Planned Residential, Development and located in the Pheasant Hill subdivision, north of Lake Lucy Road, Tom Klingelhutz. Public Present Harry OeSantes Mike Schmidt Mrs. David Hughes 6440 Yosemite Avenue 6470 Yosemite Avenue 1780 Lake Lucy Road Oacy: The proposed request is the final plan amendment as part of the overall Pheasant Hills subdivision and PUO that was approved in 1984. The parcel was legally described at the time of platting as outlot "0" and is located on the north side of Lake Lucy Road east of Galpin Blvd. The proposed final plan amendment is to contain six single family lots. The original sketch plan that was considered by the city in late 1983 proposed seven lots basically in the same street pattern on the proposed cul-de-sac into the area. Between the sketch plan and the preliminary plat review it was reserved as an outlot because at that time it was stated that the adjacent property owner was interested in purchasing the property, so it was reserved as an outlot. However,'that is not the case and the applicant is now proposing development of the parcel. The average lot size of the proposed subdivision is 17,020 square feet. The median lot size is approximately 16,825 square feet. As far as the density affecting the entire plat, it will 4ecrease the gross density of the Pheasant Hill subdivision from 2.08 unit per acre to 1.97, and the net density from 2.61 to 2.79. The subdivision itself has a gross density of 2.3 units per acre and a net density of 2.56 units per acre. Again, looking at the particular lot design of the subdivision, staff was concerned about the buildable area of Lot 4 at the end of the cul-de-sac. After applying the required setbacks, it seemed to be too small and odd shaped buildable area. Therefore, we are recommending that the cul- de-sac be shortened by approximately 10 feet and this will allow additional flexibility for a house design in that lot. Also, two lots do abut Lake Lucy Road; The Subdivision ordinance does require that double frontage lots require creation of a ten foot landscape strip eaesment along the rear of the properties. This is consistent with the condition passed by the Council with the overall property to the west. Staff finds that the proposed final plan amendment does not adversely affect the density of the subdivision and Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 ~ Page Five is consistent with the original design anticipated. Therefore, we are recommending approval as presented subject to that creation of the 10 foot landscape strip along the two lots abutting Lake Lucy Road, shortening of the cul-de-sac by 10 feet, that all construction meet urban design standards for utilities and finally, that the site grading be I already developed property to the east. The meeting was opened for public discussion. Harry DeSantos: I live on Yosemite Avenue and I want to know what was going to be done about the streets out there. They have torn them down, now they just keep building more and more houses along there. We used to have black top street on Yosemite, now we have got a dirt street, our taxes are still alot, and I want to know you are going to do about that. Conrad: Is the applicant, Mark Koegler present, and if he would like to address this question. ~ Mark Koegler: My involvement with the city goes back to about 1978. In that time period I guess I have experienced various types of road servicing on Yosemite and various types of grading. I am aware that the project's impact will be substantial. I think the question is if municipal street improvements are desired. The question to the engineers ia how that will be addressed. That is definitely off site as far as this property goes. The fourth addition on the east side ultimately mayor may not have access onto Yosemite. At this point in time, this plat will be subject to tonights action. Conrad asked if Bill had any comments. -- Monk: As we look at the pheasant Hill subdivision as part of the plat overall, I can give a general answer. One of the things the city was striving for as we looked at this plan was not to hold with anyone street with all the traffic on the subdivision knowing that a lot of the surrounding land in this area was rural in nature and not subject to urban type development. One of the things the city pushed for while laying down the plan, was an easement be required so that pheasant Drive could be extended out to Galpin. Again you take some of the road off the eastern and southern areas of town, the city has since done feasability studies and is hearing a public hearing Monday to consider improvements to Lake Lucy Road already from County Ro ad 11 7 0 ve r t 0 Co un t y R 0 a d 1 7 . I am a wa r e t hat Yo s em i t e f r om approximate this location down to Lake Lucy Road is gravel at this time. There are no plans to pave that road but again, no petition was received to improve it or if the city found it impossible to maintain its present condition as development occurs, I am sure the project would be proposed. That was just an overall concept that was recommended and is about the best answer I can give at this point. e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Six Conrad: Does that answer your question. Basically the answer is that nothing can be done at this point in time unless there is a petition to do something to that. Harry DeSantes: There is only two lanes that you can run that traffic out and only if at all, down Yosemite Avenue it. seems like we have more traffic there than we have downtown half of the time. Conrad: That does present a fair number of new vehicles going down tha t road. Monk: There is no question that the traffic is increased throughout the entire area. As I said, what you have really got is ~n urban development at the fringe of a rural area, and these types of problems come up. The City is facing that as we look at improving Lake Lucy Road. Many of the people have been there a long time and aren't too keen, to say the least, on seeing it improved and see it turned into more of a major roadway. But I guess that is some of things that happens in these cities as it develops, and I am not sure I can give an answer that is going to satisfy everybody. James VanLawrence: I live at 6371 Yosemite and I want to address that same problem that Harry was talking about. The vehicles on Yosemite, I have been there for 16 years almost now, and the traffic has increased quite noticeably. Vehicles turning up 63rd Street are coming along at a pretty good clip and they will miss the turn on 63rd and all of a sudden I will hear brakes and wheels sliding as they go by and they have to put it in reverse and back up the hill again to get into the subdivision. I come out of my yard, which has always been enclosed by evergreens, and I have to be cautious about the traffic from years ago wasn't a serious problem. My wife and I over the years have been hiking and jogging and riding bicycles around Yosemite down Lake Lucy to 117 and back up Murry Hill and this last week the traffic on Lake Lucy Road, we almost got run off the road by somebody that was apparently trying to figure out how to get up to that subdivision looking at a map and not watching the road. So we are seeing a great increase in traffic in what used to be generally a rural area and for us citizens that have been there for quite some time, dumping alot of these people in here and then to even propose to bring another road back onto Yosemite is completely unreasonable as far as I am concerned. It is within a 100 yards of my property line. I can sympthize with Mr. DeSantes over there. Motion to close public hearing was made by Thompson, seconded by Seigel. All voted in favor of closing public hearing. Conrad asked what he thought about traffic. What do you think about recommending to the Council? e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Seven Thompson: I think the traffic has already been cleared up based upon the approval of the subdivision, as an alteration to the subdivision. The subdivision won't make that much difference as far as traffic. As Bill says, this is an urban area bordering on a rural area. Unfortunately there is going to be an increase in traffic. I live on Pleasant View Road and there isn't anything immediately next to me that is being developed because of a lot of stuff down on 101 but traffic has tripled on Pleasant View Road. I think that this is part of the problems you have when you have urbanization in a rural area. Erhart: I agree with Mike that it is zoned for a subdivision as part of the original plan and I think the conclusion to the traffic problem is as Bill mentioned, to improve the streets in the area to coincide with the development. Conrad asked Bill, as a resident, what would you recommend to these two gentlemen do to stimulate interest on doing a paving project in that area. e Monk: Again, there are two ways it will occur. One is to directly petition for it. The City would entertain a petition and perhaps proceed with the project. The other is if the city can not keep up with ma i ntenance as it happens on Lake Lucy Road, then the city might have to initiate its own project. Those are the two ways that improvements take place. Motion by Thompson, seconded by Emmings that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Plan Amendment Request 83-1 for platting six single family lots in Outlot 0 as presented on the plans stamped "Received April 24, 1986" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Creation of a 10 foot landscaped strip along the two lots abutting Lake Lucy Road. 2. Shorten the cul-de-sac ten feet. 3. All construction meet urban design standards for utilties. 4. Site grading be required to route runoff away for the already developed property to the east. All voted in favor of the Motion and the Motion carried unanimously. e Conrad: This item will reach City Council on June 2nd and for those two gentlemen who had comments I think it is valid if you are concerned about Yosemite, I think you should do something now, I think it would be valid to submit a petition of the neighborhood to the city and I think they will listen to you. We are not going to include it as part of what we are talking about here tonight but I . e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Eight think you have some valid concerns and if you want action quickly, or at least if you want staff to consider it quickly, you should submit a petition by the neighborhood. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING 5. Tomac Development: a. Request to rezone 5.4 acres of C-1, Office Building to C-2, Commercial on property located at the southwest corner of Hwy. 7 and 41. b. Preliminary plat request to subdivide 7.9 acres into six lots on property zoned R-1, Single Family Residence and C-l, Office Building and located at the northeast corner of Hwy. 101 and Lake Drive East. Public Present Steve Ruegg Sam Stern Todd Thompson Doug Arndt, Jr. Doug Arndt, Sr. Robert Vanhey 1610 So 6th St., Mpls 5401 Gamble Drive, #200, Mpls. 19705 Grandview, Excelsior 4225 Northern Road, Excelsior 17190 3rd Avenue No, Plymouth Heise, Vanhey & Assoc-Architects 119 No. 4th Street, Mpls. Heise, Vanhey & Assoc. 2204 Girard Avenue So., Mpls. Land Design & Planning Wm. R. Engelhardt Assoc. 5915 Galpin Lake Road 1780 Lake Lucy Road 6441 Oriole Avenue 6451 Oriole Avenue 6451 Oriole Avenue 6441 Oriole Avenue 6461 Oriole Avenue 2521 Orchard Lane J.D. MacRae Reed Becker Stephen Sullivan Dennis W. Saari Robert Reutiman Mrs. David Hughes Dolores Ziegler Fay Dudycha Don Dudycha Kenneth W. Ziegler Sandy Lehmer Gene Conner Dacy: I would like to cover both the rezoning issue and the preliminary plat request at once. Both myself and the city engineer have small presentations. The parcel is located at the corner of TH 7 and TH 41. As everyone knows, there is a lot of history to this particular parcel. In your packets we did attach all of the petition letters, correspondence received and records to the 1985 request as well as previous history . prior to that. As you recall, originally in 1983 Mr. Reutiman e e e ~ Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Nine petitioned for a land use amendment for the area from low density residential to commercial. That request was denied in 198~ Then last year at approximately the same time, the planning commission and the council considered the present applicant's land use plan amendment zoning request and plat request. The Planning Commission as to the land use plan amendment request from residential to commercial came to a split vote at that meeting on page 5 of that meeting and it is attached to your packet. No decision could be reached on the plan amendment request and the minutes reflected each of the members particular findings regarding the proposed request. The City Council on June 3, 1985 did approve the land use request to commercial and did move to rezone the property, except for the Reutiman house which is legally part of the property, to C-l, Office Building District. The preliminary plat application however, was tabled at the request of the applicant. So now, the request, and just for the sake of clarity, the last page of your packet should be the same transparency. Now the applicant's request is to rezone the northeast corner of the "property from C-l to C-2 leaving the western part of the property as C-l and the Reutiman lot as R-l. I would like to briefly review the differences as far as the uses concerned between the C-l and the C-2 district. For permitted uses, the C-l district is strictly administrative, medical, professional and executive offices and also the C-l district permits financial institu- tions. As a conditional use, C-l district will allow hospitals, mortuaries, research facilities and single family and multi family uses. The C-2 district is more intense. It will permit general retail uses, financial institutions, offices, restaurants, theaters, taverns, and I qualify tavern use because that is also governed by liquor ordinance by the states regulations as far on-salejoff-sale liquor, dry cleaning establishments, and civic institutions. As a conditional use, it will a~low auto service stations, drive-in estab- lishments, motels, hotels, parking ramps and private clubs and lodges. The proposed transition is from the more intense C-2 use to the resi- dential area. Now that the existing area is zoned C-l as Lots 2 and 5 develop during the site plan review procedure, screening will be required between the residential area and the commercial area. As you know, TH 41 and TH 7 are designated as arterials. Staff's position remains the same from 1985 wherein the proposal is providing a transi- tion of uses from the single family to the C-l office district into the C-2 district. This part of the parcel is located at a major intersection. We feel that the proposed C-2 zoning is appropriate at the proposed location. I would like to move into the plat description in a little more detail now. The preliminary plat as you see before you proposes a set of private streets as was the plan last year, but a right in only off of TH 7, right in only off of TH 41 and an intersection on 64th street. Also, different from last year's application was that Oriole Avenue is e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Ten to remain open. To refresh your memory a little bit I will put up the plat from last year's application. You can see this was labeled as Option No.2. There were 5 options being considered at the time of the plat review. However, because the plat was tabled there really was no consensus or direction about the traffic pattern. This was the proposed request last year which did close Oriole Avenue and provide a connection from Oriole Avenue to a new intersection on TH 7 which would have required median improvements and a right turn lane improvement onto TH 7. So there is a switch in that the previous plan there was a lot of emphasis on the impact onto TH 7 but in the proposed plan that is lessened to a certain degree. As you know, the city is participating in a Corridor Study of TH 7 corridor study with adjacent communities and MnDot and the Metropolitan Council. The corridor study is still in its preliminary stages. In fact, they did hold the public hearing in April and more public hearings are scheduled for the summer. possible completion at the end of the summer and maybe this fall. But the intent of this study is to look at the function and design of TH 7 as its function in the southwest area in a regional context. Staff did meet with the consulting firm and forwarded the information to BRW. The proposed plan is not contrary to anything that is now being considered by the consultant. As I said, they are now in the preliminary stages. The proposed plan has been considered by MnDot. A letter is included in your packet in which they are in general agreement with the proposed plan subject to certain design requirements for the right hand turn off of TH 7 and 41. This is a transparency of their attachment to their letter. As you can see, they are recommending that certain design requirements for both of the right turn movements. They had a concern about site signage on site and wanted to make sure that the one way traffic in would not be directed back out in the same direction that they came. So they also had noted some sign requirements as well. Because of the concerns raised at the last applicant during the last year, staff also recommended that the applicate get a traffic analysis by a traffic engineering firm. Thus included in your packet is the report from Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Basically they have four findings regarding proposed traffic planning. 1. The intersection can handle the proposed traffic generated under the proposed zoning plan. However, they do have four recommendations as far as traffic improvements. a. That 64th Street from the intersection be improved as it approaches TH 41 and the City Engineer will go into more detail as to that; b. That the traffic turning right from the interior access onto 64th Street be discouraged as much as possible. They suggested a sign, for example saying "Local Traffic Only"; e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Eleven c. They state a concern that the right in only off of TH 7 should not conflict with access to Oriole Avenue, and finally; d. That the existing shoulder off of TH 41 act as a storge and decleration area into the site. I would like to go to the City Engineer who has more detail as far as drainage is concerned and on the traffic. Monk: I wanted to start by saying that I think everybody is pretty familar with the setting so I will forego portions. To answer your questions, I will attempt to answer them as they come out. As far as access goes, this plan does rely upon two right ins. One from TH 7 and one from TH 41. Major reliance, not so much for an entrance but for an exit, lies entirely upon 64th Street. Based on the findings of the traffic study that was submitted which I agreed to in almost all portions, did show that traffic levels at peak hours can be tolerated as for residential streets and will not reduce or show a warrant at this point based on the ultimate development numbers used don't show a warrant for a traffic signal being needed on TH 41 which is of interest to the city also. But there is no question that a variance to a portion of west 64th Street would be required with the exception of West 64th Street that would have to be improved far from TH 41 down to the curb in the road which basically is where the entrance goes into the commercial site. This is just for location purposes just to give an overall view of existing streets in the area. I did a free hand blow-up of that portion of the street to give you a rough idea of what improvements would be needed. This is the same lines as you saw on a previous map. TH 41 and 64th Street from point 1 into the commercial entrance. The improvements to 64th Street would include widening for two through lanes and then additional lanes for a right into the commercial site and for a right turn onto TH 41 so that traffic could be moved in conjunction with the recommendations of the traffic study. Staff is recommending that those improvements to 64th Street be included as any form of approval of this subdivision. I will switch into a discussion of the water and storm sewer. It is kind of a busy drawing but it shows the contour on the site as they were basically being developed. The plan that is being developed right now is in accordance with city policy that says that the rate of runoff of the site prior to development must be the same after development, but developers have come in there with a series of ponds around the exterior of the various lots that would release onto 64th Street at the same rate that the site releases right now. In essence the watershed district and the city requirements for drainage from this study would be met and although there would be considerable increase in volume of runoff, the rate would be controlled at the rate e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Twelve e that exists now. From the city's perspective I am not real excited about the drainage plan because it does call for outletting water that will run over the streets. There has been a drainage deficiency in this area for some time. Again we go back to an old wall street map of this area. Drainage from this site as well as_ some drainage from the school and drainage from property to the south of the road, all drain onto the street, drain westerly down the street to a low point just before you get to water, at this point it moves off the road, across basically two properties. This one here and the one over here. There is no easement or anything, it is just a long standing drainage way. The water carries across that area. If any development were to occur here, whether it was commercial or residential, it would be an increase in runoff and what I am proposing if this goes to City Council, that the council give consideration to a minor storm sewer improvement in this area that would include installation of catch bases in this area requiring easements and a pipe that would direct water down to this area to a better outlet and improve the handling of the water. From that point, any development that would occur on this site would, through the deletion of several ponds, would be allowed to be piped down to that drainage way system for just an overall better collection of water, not only for this site but for the entire neighborhood, and I guess that is the concept that I will be taking to City Council, but again the proposal as it has been made does adhere to city requirements for control of the rate of runoff and the intent for recommending that we get down to this low point, make some storn sewer improvements where pipe could be run down to this development would again allow us to or the developer to delete several of the ponds in this area which I think would be to everyone's benefit and to use some of the ponds to control the rate, but then to pipe the water down to a better discharge point. I am going to end it with that, I am sure there will be a lot of questions on this, not only from a legality standpoint but also from the dra inage and traffic prospecti ve but I guess I would just as soon wait for questions at this time. e Doug Arndt Jr.: I am one of the partners in Tomac Development. Thank you for your time tonight. The reason that we are here requesting the C-2 zoning is that there is a need found through calls and interest in the site. What we are proposing to develop on the site, the southeast corner is a 28,000 foot high quality retail service type center that would be of benefit to the neighborhood and immediate area. Not just a plain old strip service center, but a very nice upscale type project. The reason that we discovered the interest in it is because close to 50% is verbally preleased. I wouldn't say that we haven't entered into any leases until we get through the various processes that we have to go through. We have preliminary financing committed to the project, we are willing to enter into the developers agreement the city engineers has recommended. We came back e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Thirteen as opposed to what you recall we went through last year, with a specific proposal and we tried to address some of the problems that came up last year and solve them as best we can. We would like to ask for your approval tonight. If I may, I would like to introduce our architect, Bob Vanney and with your indulgence, to give him a couple of minutes to quickly run through what we are proposing for the site. Bob Vanney, of Heise, Vanney and Associates: I am Vice President of the company and I brought with me our design team, the project manager and J.D. MacRae from our office and if you will, give us a few minutes we would like to explain to you and show you what type of development we are proposing. (They then set up drawings of the proposed development.) As Doug Arndt Jr. said we are proposing a 27,5lHJ square foot development and before we do get into that I would like to take a minute to inform the commission and the other people. We have also brought along some other members of our design team to answer some questions if you have them, we have Steve Sullivan, Landscape Architect, we have brought along Steve Ruegg from Barton- Aschman, traffic consultant, we also have two representatives from Wm. R. Engelhardt Associates, civil engineer, that being William Engelhardt and Dennis Saari. If you have questions regarding those matters we are prepared to answer them as well. One of the things that the developers came to us with was a couple of charges. First of all they came with to us with the charges that the City Council and Planning Commission had given them last time and that was to address traffic issues and to address appropriate development of this site. Second of all they came to us with the charge of the owners on this site. They are going to be here for a long time. They are going to own the building, manage the building and they want the neighbors in the area to support the building and retail development within the building. As part of being a good neighbor they also wan ted us to develop a qual i ty leve 1 with i n the cen ter tha t the community would support and the commission and the city council. So as you can see on these drawings, we tried to create, and we feel we have done that, created a specialty retail center that would provide upscale retail for the area. You can see in our planning that we provided an interesting plan with landscaping, the appropriate amount of parking, in fact we provided more parking then is required by the city limits, and you can see in our rendering that an architectual expression of an appropriate scale to the adjacent ne{ghbor and also we have used residential type of elements to again, address the appropriate scale and residential feeling. Also the height of the building, and this is plus or minus, about 16 feet. Basically a one story building. The other thing we included in this plan is again, a change from the standard strip center and convenience group of stores, and that is we have included an enclosed walkway. That enclosed walkway upgrades the center from an occasional convenience, stop in, jump out of the car, back out and off the site to more of a shoppers e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Fourteen e type of center to come to. Enclosed to be free from the elements and encouraging flow through types of clientelle. As Doug had mentioned earlier , the reason we were going to r eta i 1 at this site was that we don't feel that the zoning for an office building is appropriate for this site. The level of traffic that is on the site, or around the site would support the retail. The area needs i retail center. We just have gotten an enormous response for prospective tenants. We also feel that an office use on this site would generate other spinoff developments and this type of thing, in fact other type of things, more convenience related retail, will start to generate because the office workers and tenants there would demand that to the area. As you can see on the plan, we have the retail center facing internally in the site. We did that for a couple of different reasons. One of the things that we were very concerned about is the outer expression in the center. We did not want to impose onto the adjacent properties. We felt that by turning inside we would be able to spur development on the other outlots for the inside creating a developed area that becomes an entity in itself. We are also addressing a grade change along TH 41 as you go to the south. The grade is about 14 to 16 feet above the floor level of the center, so rather than facing into the side of the hill you face into our development. I guess that within the C-l zoning, we are not asking for any variances within that zoning, we will not ask for any rezoning. We will not need any, we would be able to conform very comfortably to all the compliances of that zoning. I guess with that I would like to stop our portion of the presentation and entertain any questions the commission may have of us or our consultants. Conrad: Does anyone have any questions of the developers or if you have any specific things that you would like to clear up, I think we can talk to them or else I will open it up for public hearing and we can go in and follow up with more detailed questions later on. Okay we will open the public hearing now that we have had the developers presentation. Are there other comments that people would like to make, that is if you have some comments, we would sure like you to precede your comments with your name so that we have that for Our records. e Gene Conner: I have a couple of questions. They talk about the intersection of 64th Street and the comment was made that their traffic study at the present time did show that a signal would be necessary at 64th Street. Assuming that this development did prove to be successful and generated quite a bit of traffic and in addition to which, the C-l portion of the property was developed and it generated even more traffic, would the state even allow a signal at 64th Street. When I talked to the State on the last go around, they indicated to me that they would not consider a traffic signal that close to the intersection of TH 7 and TH 41. Has the State been approached by the e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Fifteen possibility of a signal there in the case of a necessity there in the future? Monk: I have talked to MnDot and I guess I am surprised by your comment because I talked personally to a couple of MnDot representatives and was told by two that basically a signal could be put there. They hope that the warrants never show it. The traffic study does take into account estimates for full development. Not only the C-2 but basically of the whole site. That doesn't mean that other development from, I don't know if the owners would sell, but if they were to develop their property too, and the whole place was developed, the traffic study didn't warrant a signal. Two people from MnDot had said that. I will check it again for those counts, but that is what was said. e Gene Conner: The other concern I have from a traffic standpoint, and I say "I" as opposed to saying "we", is you talked about a sign "Local Traffic Only". Well as sometimes not too perhaps responsible of a citizen, I have been known to ignore "Local Traffic Only" signs thoroughly when it is more convenient for me to go that way then another way. Do you really think a Local Traffic Only sign does any good for people that use the area frequently and really know their way around? I don't know whether another possibility would be a One Way Only east on 64th street but that might pose other problems as far as accidents are concerned for the neighborhood. I really don't know what the solution to that problem is. I foresee a lot of traffic coming out of that job once you go west on TH 7 coming down and going down, not exiting on Oriole but going down Orchard Lane to the next exit so rather than going east on 64th Street, trying to make a left turn against traffic and then going west on TH 7. I see that as a potential real problem. Monk: Again I will go back to my free hand sketch. What Mr. Conners is talking about is basically people coming out of the commercial site and turning right, going through the development, using Oriole and local streets basically to exit onto TH 7 is a concern. One of the things I am looking at right now is that the proposal does include in the second plan that just was submitted for a future meeting, construction of this private road with a right hand turn lane to almost make it easier for people to make a right hand turn and one of the things I would probably recommend if that go through, that there be no right hand turn lane but instead just one lane coming down so people be required to wait that long so at that point they might just make a left instead of going to the right. Another possiblity that we did look at was to curb this around and basically make the through movement into the commercial site and bring this into a "T" which e would maybe make it a little bit easier for people to go out. The e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Sixteen problem I have wi th that i s that I have never been i nvol vedw i th a project where you run municipal street directly into a private street and stop traffic on public street, but instead make the public street a through street, so at this point I am not recommending that. The thing you mentioned about the One Way only basically does not let people coming into. the neighborhood use 64th Street, so we kind of ruled that out. No Right Turn, basically what you get into is you have a sign that says No Right Turn unless you live here. There is the same possibility using-another sign for the same purpose but we would definitely have to take a look at that. It would have to be monitored. There is no questions that any proposal we are making here that we probably would do traffic counts here and take a look at what could be done. If it did get real bad we might get into No Right Turn. Gene Conner: What would be enforceable and probably would be acceptable to the neighborhood is a very low speed limit of 15-20 MPH. Monk: You could do that, but keep in mind, I am not trying to find fault with this, but these things have been tried before. If you get a ticket for less than 30 MPH you have to have that speed limit approved by the State. I can try to get it approved by the State but they send their experts out, look for vertical curves, horizontal curves and if it doesn't warrant a reduced speed, they wouldn't approve it, because everybody wants their streets to have 15 MPH and they could get thousand requests a year. We could do that. A lot of cities sign their street down but it does become an enforcement problem because somebody fights the ticket. You can't uphold in Court. There are a lot of possibilities ! guess that go through my mind on what we might do and I haven't made a decison at this point and I am not making a recommendation on how that would be signed or even how it would be constructed. We get more into that as any specific site plan 'would come in and as I said one is in right now for this portion of the property and then we will have to make some decisions about traffic iSlands, and turn lanes and a10t of those other things. But this is the basic alignment and we will have to take a look at this because the big failing is in that right turn. This is not an answer so much as it is an acknowledgment of the problem. Gene Conner: The first gentlemen said there was a Reed for C- 2 zoning. I hope nobody will object too greatly if I retranslated that as I heard it to if we are going to be able to do anything with the property we can't do it as C-l. I see that as their need, not necessarily as our need, the City of Chanhassen's need. The architect said that the City Council gave them a format, a charter they could have an appropriate plan. As I recall the City Council's action on the last go around, what city council gave them was a direction that if the property was to be developed it would be within the C-l Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1996 Page Seventeen e concept, and I view this, and please don't misunderstand this becaupe I think the plan they have today is infinitely better than what they had before, but my intitia1 reaction was well here we go again. Even though I see this as a lot better, I don't think I speak just for myself, in the previous go around I have to admit that I had great concern with the concept of creeping toward commercialism. The rest of the property will remain zoned C-I for the present time. If it doesn't develop as C-l, then they will come back and ask for C-2 for the rest of the property. I think that bothers us. Conrad: I understand your concern. Dolores Ziegler: I 1i ve right next to the property. I think it should be go back to residential again. Conrad: Where do you live? Dolores Ziegler: I live next door, on the west side. Conner: Bob Wagner and I discussed to make a specific proposal that it be rezoned residential. e Mrs. Ziegler: That was discussed last time. Why should we keep going higher and higher because you have to live there. One more thing, fast food and Hardees wasn't even brought up in the meeting. Dacy: I think the map you are referring to is enclosed in the traffic analysis report. Yes, exactly right. What the applicants need to do first is apply for a rezoning and get the plat approved before uses can be b~ilt and proposed on the site, and that is the basis for the whole rezoning request. What the commission and council has to decide, is the C-2 district fo~ those three lots appropriate with the understanding that the C-2 district will allow fast food, standard restaurants, and the pommercial center that the applicant has now shown you tonight. So the action tonight is for the rezoning request. If the council denies the C-2 rezoning request, then obviously those uses can not be located on the site so they are starting allover aga in I guess. Jay Johnson: 9496 Saratoga Drive. What kind of shops or whatever are going in generality are we talking here. Are we talking a Hardees will be inside here or Brauns Fashions or what type. What are we looking at for this type of building? e Doug Arndt Jr.:L The types of tenants that would fit within this specialty retail, as we call it, and I will give you general catagories because it wouldn't be appropriate at this time to mention any specific stores, but I think from this list and their description I think you can get the general idea. The specialty groce~y store, e e - Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Eighteen specialty hardware, boat accessories, wome~'s sportswear, mens sportswear, men and womens shoes, hobby store, a medium range to high range liquor store, not a discount liquor store. Those are the types of tenants that we are looking for and that the development is pursuing and have had interest in a great deal. Jay Johnson: What is the back of the property supposed to be looking at? You have drawings of the front of the property, the bacl of the property would be toward the highway. Is that concealed by hills and shrubbery or are the residents looking at backdoors and garbage cans? Doug Arndt Jr.: Two things. There will be no garbage cans on the site obviously. We wil 1 meet all city ordinances for concealed trash containers which is built into our site plan. We have got an expensive and extensive landscaping plan proposed. Motion to close public hearing by Emming, seconded by Siegel. All voted in favor of closing public hearing, and motion carried. Conrad: For some of us this has been important, for some of you I don't know if you have been around to hear some of the past, hopefully you have read some of the history, there has been a little bit of history to this and I hope that you have toured the site. That helps a little bit. Mike you have been here before, I am going to start with you as far as comments or questions to the developer and comments on the rezoning. . Thompson: Where on the drawing does the three lots show just where the center layout is. The one that they have up here. Dacy showed where the three lots were located on the map. Thompson: The layout we are looking at would actually have two lots above that would be C-2. This was zoned by the council right? Dacy: That is correct. e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Nineteen Thompson: For some reason this was just a guide plan but I guess maybe it wasn't. You seem to refer to the fact that when it was here before we didn't have a consensus, and I guess looking at the minutes I would have to agree with you, but my recollection of that meeting was that we did have some consensus as this issue departed from the Planning Commission. I sort of felt that at that time the problem was that what we were dealing with was whether it was going to be residential or commercial and I think that we all agreed that maybe it wasn't a single family location but there was some other residential uses or if it were commercial we were looking for a less intense commercial use and at that time the C-2 was described to us versus C-l we chose C-1 because we thought that maybe C-1 was more compatible because we were introducing into a residential neighborhood a commercial use. I thought the majority of us felt that C-l would work, now maybe I am wrong. Obviously it went to council and that is what happened, am I correct? Dacy: This is correct. Thompson: Then it came back and then th i s was zoned a yea r ago? Dacy: Yes. e Thompson: At that point the developer dropped his request for final approval or what? Dacy: They acted on land use plan amendment first then the rezoning to C-l and then at the request of the applicant, the preliminary plat application was tabled. So there was no action on the plat. Thompson: If there was any specific request at that time for the use of the property that they had specific uses that they were proposing for that rezoning? Dacy: Do you mean the applicant's specific use? Thompson: Yes. Dacy: Not that I recall. Thompson: Is it to our benefit to zone property without a particular use in an area as sensitive as this area? e Dacy: I think in your evaluation of the zoning case, you have to look at what a C-2 district is going to allow. You have to feel comfortable with the uses proposed in that they can locate them without any adverse impact because once it is zoned, as you well know, then uses that are permitted by right do have the legal right to locate on this parcel. Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Twenty e Thompson: For instance, lets say that we looked at this on a favorable basis, and right before us we have nothing other than what we have shown. You haven't presented us with a plan have you? Dacy: No. Thompson: Unless I am overlooking something, I have no plan in my packet for that property. All I have is a piece of property that they want to go C-2 and in that particular plan we don't even show what the other two lots would be, so they could be any use tha t C- 2 would allow at this point. Dacy: That is correct. Thompson: In some instances that isn't always necessarily to our advantage or the city' advantage to go ahead and zone something without a request particularly when we are changing the zoning and particularily when the zoning of the property at this point is probably acceptable. e Dacy: I think it is a double edged sword. If they did come in with a specific site plan for a commercial building and two restaurants on the out sites, everything is approved at once, but lets say that the three proposals are dropped by the three proposal owners, you still have the property zoned C-2 and then anything can go in there. Thompson: You could make it a condition of that zoning, couldn't you? I know that some communities for instance, they impose a PUD ordinance based on a specific plan, saying that this particular piece of property can have this type of use based on a PUD which has to be approved specifically and that specific plan has to be approved and if it isn't there, then that use isn't allowed. Dacy: Once the property is zoned C-2 then the City has authorized any permitted use in that district to locate on that property and to condition a rezoning for a specific use, I am confident that the City At torney would come back and say tha t tha t would not be proper. Tha t would be referred to as contract zoning for a specific use. Thompson: You would agree that this particular piece of property though is a fairly sensitive area based on the residential opposition that we have had in the past on this? e Dacy: That is why staff felt that it was imperative to keep the C-l buffer between the residential areas. From the previous plan the C-2 area would touch the corner of the Reutiman prope.rty and Ziegler property, however, under this proposed traffic plan, what is being proposed is a reservation of at least another strip of buffer there. e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Twenty One Thompson: I take it that since there is not a large group of people like there usually is, that the developer has had neighborhood meetings with all the neighborhoods over there and removed all of the opposition to the project. Dacy: There was a meeting on Saturday out at the site for planning commission members as well as the homeowners. Thompson: Does it show on the public hearing notice as to who was notified based on this? Dacy: Yes. Approximately 40-50 people were notified. Thompson: Did all of those people received those notices about 10 days before the meeting? Dacy: Yes, I have an Affidavit of Mailing. e Thompson: To make some additional comments in relation to this, I would like to point out that some people don't consider the shopping center across the street as a successful shopping center, if you would at least this point of the stage. I have heard them say that. I don't know if that has changed in the past couple of years. I guess I would like to hear some other comments before I decide. Siegel: The only thing I have to say, that it seems to me that this is a very nice plan for the center location. I am concerned that the C-l designation here would be eventually changed to C-2 also would be for the citizens benefit have to come before the Planning Commission again or if approved, that would be a serious concern. Other than the express comments from the public and engineer about the traffic problems, I think it is appropriate use. e Emmings: I tend toward, yes, I think the C-l is very appropriate and the C-2 is very questionable on this site and I think that I read the stuff in the packet and yes, I am firmly convinced that traffic is a terrible problem and I know, that there is no doubt in my mind that traffic is going to go down Oriole to get up to TH 7, there is just no doubt in my mind at all. That is the way I think I would go no matter what sign was up there. I guess I am troubled by the order of development too. They wanted commercial use and they got that last year and now they want to go C-2 because they don't have the demand for C-l. C-l is supposed to be the transition between the C-2 and neighborhood and there doesn't seem to be enough demand for them to be building it. It makes me wonder if that transition is anything that is ever going to be real. Maybe the presence of the shopping center, which I think is a very nice plan, I really like it, I really have no trouble with it at all, but what if the C-l is never built. What if there is never a demand for C-l, then we have lost the transitional e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Twenty Two use between the properties and I think that is very important, that transition. I would be a lot happier if the order of development were different and C-l were being built now and the C-2 later. That is a huge parking lot out there in front of this place and it has got to be well lit and all of that light is going to be washing into the neighbors, a lot of people are shaking their heads, I guess I am wrong about that, if you want to address that, but I would certainly be in favor of hearing about that, and yet the C-l would be awkard for that light and I don't see the C-l being built. I guess I wonder do they think the presence of the shopping center would bring in more interest in the office type development? Doug Arndt Sr.: I would like to speak for the whole group. I have been a developer for my whole life, and am currently with the Krause- Anderson Company and I am responsible for the shopping center developments for Krause-Anderson. We are not perfect by a long shot but we work very hard at it and I think we do, on the average, a good job. To answer your question, and I guess I can speak to this not about this property, but just in general because we do have over 40 shopping centers, that office use is usually a result of a commercial development first. I can't tell you that there aren't always exceptions to this, but I can show you quite a few of them where we have put a center in to an area specifically, pioneer Village up in Blaine, and until we put the shopping center in there, there was no activity and now we are getting the office, now they are getting some nice residential that goes along with it. It just happens to be the example, I not saying that is good or bad, but seems to follow that kind of a pattern. The office business, and I guess we build those too, seems to me that sometimes offices are built to be built without having good justification. To answer the question also that you raised relative to the buffer, you have an ideal buffer just having raw land without a building. So your transition retains itself so the only thing that can be built there eventually would be an office without coming back and requesting a change of zoning for that area. I hope that answers that for you. Emmings: You were one of the people who shook their heads when I was talking about the lights in the parking lot. Doug Arndt Sr.: The lighting that is used today in Shopping center lots does not spray itself out. It is contained lighting, and as a matter of fact, there is usually a complaint that it doesn't light up the neighbors back yard quite as well as they would like to have it lighted, and that happens occasionally. The shopping center lighting today is really contained lighting and it doesn't spread itself too far. You can set it and stop it and start it just about wherever you like. That was the only reason I shook my head. It can be controlled. Planning Commiss ion Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Twenty Three e Conrad: Your comment about transition, open space is a good transition. I really have a problem with that. Doug Arndt Sr.: In this particular case, I comment to that because the only alternative would be the C-2 office building and so what if from a transition standpoint, it is awfully nice to have a nice big field between you and anything, regardless of what it is. Conrad: What we are looking at are residential neighbors that back up and have empty space unti 1 we get to the shopping center, and based on elevation and what have you of the property, I'm not sure that open space would apply to this transition. Doug Arndt Sr.: I really can't speak for them, but I would assume that their landscaping program would deal with that. Emmings: The only other thing I was wondering about with this shopping center drawing you have out here, how do deliveries get made to these places? Apparently you don't go behind the building. e Doug Arndt Jr.: How it is going to work is that most of the uses that we are talking about going in are generally front end loading type businesses that don't have a need for high volume deliveries of a semi pulling up or a large truck pulling up. The doors will be adequate for them, and with the ample parking we have got, it will be enough to accommodate. Emmings: My comment would be that if, at the most I think, changing this one lot, Lot 6, to C-2 for this particular project doesn't bother me much. I don't see any reason at all to rezone Lot 3 and 4 at this time for a lot of reasons that might be expressed. I think one of the big problems is traffic and even though he says he doesn't think it is, I think even to bring 64th Street into the project more so that 64th will no longer be going west will come out later after they have already made that corner and they are already heading out on TH 41 would be better. That corner needs a lot of work and another thing, if that whole thing were developed putting all that traffic out onto TH 41, I don't see how it works. The other thing that bothers me is rezoning Lot 6, g~ving them the C-2 on Lot 6 and seeing this project turn into a gas station and Burger King or whatever. I don't want to see that. I don't think that is appropriate in that area. Erhart stated that regarding the problem with traffic, it appears that the real concern is that people will go west on 64th Street, go toward TH 7 try to take a left. Why can't you turn left on TH 7? e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Twenty Four e Monk: tha t cou ld be done but tha tal so pr oh ib i ts people who live in the area from doing the same thing. Erhart: Couldn't you go through a service road? Monk: I'm not suggesting that might be something you couldn't get, that seems to be the real issue, that people wanting to go west on TH 7. Erhart: Regarding the plan, regarding how we got to this plan, I don't think any of us will say that the city has infinite wisdom in planning or that the developers do, so I don't have a problem if we take the time to say that here is a proposal that looks great and we ought to make some changes to respond to that. The concern I would have to that is, if we change this to C-2 at this point, what guarantee is there that this building is going to be built. What if the developer changes his mind and decides to put a Burger King in? Dacy: Yes, that is correct. The applicant has filed a site plan application for the proposed building but once it is zoned then any use in that district can occur on that lot. Ownership can change, new proposals can come in. e Erhart: I tihnk it was a great proposal. I tend to believe in the market, and if you guys think you want to spend the money to put a very nice building that fits into the neighborhood and landscape it very nice, then that tells me that probably somebody wants it there. But my concern would be, and this probably is not related to just to traffic so much, if we rezone things to more aggressive commercialization, are we losing the ability to allow these people to know what they are really going to get. Is there any way to get assurances to that? Conrad: Once you put the C-2 stamp on that they have the right to put in anything but we would have the right to reject based on some other principals. Still they sure have the right, we're talking Burger Ki ng. Erhart: There is nothing wrong with Burger King, but I think if you are going to change it to C-2 you need a center attraction that is nice and well landscaped. Conrad: There is no way to guarantee that. e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Twenty Five Erhart: Other than that I agree that, or emphasize in our comments here that these Lots 2 and 5 should be C-l. e Conrad: Overall, except for the rezoning and the plan request, it sure is better than what we saw before and I agree with the neighbors, it is a whole lot better. I had some concerns. I think the traffic concerns can be resolved. I am real uncomfortable with neighborhood transition. We talked neighborhood transition a year ago and that was our C-l but that is blank right now and that is my transition area to the back yards. We don't know when that is going to be developed and we don't know if it ever will and therefore, I feel I am loosing a transitional area and in planning that is rather important. In this case I don't see that space as being the right transition. That bothers me and the reason it bothers me is that I don't know if there is enough space there when something goes in to provide the right transitional area to back yards or what have you. I don't know what I want there but I don't know what is going in, therefore I don't know if that configuration is appropriate. If the road is at the right location because I don't know what the transitional use is going there. If it is office building, we just assume the office building is a transition in itself and needs nothing to separate office from neighbors. That worries me, that bothers me and that tells me that I am concerned about the C-2 use because I'm not sure what happens in the C-l area. The other thing that bothers me is the drainage, and I would never, and I'm not sure what our city standards are, to basically be able to contain the same runoff, but I would never allow the project to go forward unless we felt real good with the storm water management that you are proposing, Bill. Don't we take opportunities like this to improve situations rather than to maintain, maybe a poor one? e Monk: Yes. It becomes extremely difficult when you are talking about off site and ground stream improvements that bog your area. You really can't put a condition on this plan that go in a fully improved drainage system all the way down to the lake when its not even a good one. So what I am looking at proposing to the council is a joint venture where we would do the down stream improvements and the developer would do the up stream improvements and tie into the system, and through a joint effort you would be able to do area wide storm work improvements that would benefit a lot of people without requiring assessments, and I guess I see this as a combined effort, but there are real legal limits to what we can require as far as off site improvements go. If they are not fully generating the problem and they are not. Right now you have got drainage that comes down Oriole down to tJiis location from the properties in this area and you have got basically this entire area that drains out here and outlets at this point. I believe that some of the school property even comes this way and the other goes to the pond in this direction. There is a tremendous amount of flow across the site and comes onto the road at Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Twenty Six e this location. That is all in addition to what is being generated on this site and generated by the State Highway. Now, from a legal standpoint, impossible to require that a developer make off site improvements when there is so much other benefiting property and I guess I have come to grips with if we can1t cooperate this point, then I think we can come up with a better drainage scheme and get rid of some of the ponds and so on, but if the council baulks at the improvement project, we would have a very difficult time zoning this portion saying that this plan didn1t meet our standards because they are patrolling the rate. Therefore, it is a very complicated issue and I am hoping that the council will consider these improvements because this area has been a problem for a long time. Erhart asked Monk what he had against ponds. e Monk: I don1t have anything against ponds, the problem is based on our way of thinking, closing four ponds, one is a low area in this location, one is a low area in this location, they are taking what is already low water terrain and basically sinking. I guess when you do that next to parking lots and next to roads, you are basically forcing the ground in this area to retain moisture and water that it wouldn't normally retain and I guess creating these multiple ponds here that will need to periodically be dredged and cleaned out before sediment will go in them, I am just not convinced that this is the best system and I think a combined system with several ponds and then a more contained pipe system is the way to go. Erhart: What is the problem with having the ground retain the moisture? Monk: Again, you keep moisture under the ground and then as the freeze/thaw happens every year, eventually will take its toll. Creating ponds next to roadways where they would not naturally be, I don1t see as terribly beneficial to everybody involved. Erhart: I don't want'to turn this into a pond issue, but if you try to reduce the rate of runnoff, if you were to put a pipe in, you are going to get all the runoff at once, where these ponds will delay the runoff until such time as that over flows and runs off. Gene Conner: For those of you who don't drive it all the time, even in very dry weather, I don't mean desert type, but even in normal weather, there is usually water running down 64th Street most of the time, not just after a rain. Its almost a creek. Erhart: Anyway, I think the issue here is the rezoning and I guess if someone could give me a comment again on what commitments have been made to actually going through with if it is rezoned. e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Twenty Seven e Doug Arndt Jr.: What we are doing is, like I said, we have roughly 50% of it preleased for potential tenants like Bob outlined to go into the project. Obviously I am going to have a hard time coming back in here telling we are going to build something different. We are not going to do that. We are going to the site plan review with this project because this is what we want to build, this is what will work on the site for us. We are fully intending to enter into development of this agreement which will contractually bind us to this city to perform exactly as we said we are going to perform. Erhart: When would you start construction? Doug Arndt Jr.: We would like to start construction in July and have the center open in November, possibly earlier. Conrad: Any other comments that we didn't make. I guess as the bottom line, I still am nervous about it and I find that distressing because I do like what I see there on the plan, I think that is appropriate. I am nervous about the surrounding areas. I have a tough time not knowing about that transition area, also rezoning to C- 2 gives more development potential which I don't think is appropriate for that parcel. ~ Doug Arndt Jr.: What we are proposing with the landscaping, we also talked about doing some landscaping on the C-l border transition area that is of concern to you. We have our landscape architect engineer can give insight into that if you like. Conrad: Sure, if you can talk about C-l area. Doug Arndt Jr.: We are certainly willing to address that. Steve Sullivan: I am the landscape architect that has been involved with the project that we've done with the design here. What can be done to replicate this section across the side lines are, what people are going to be viewing from the back of their homes, based on those side lines, we could determine where strategically to place plant materials, within the C-l parcel and try to mitigate any sight lines that would be in the best interest of those residents. That is what we are planning to build and that will become part of .the site plan approval. Erhart: I think my reaction to the recommendation to landscape the viewing problems particular building is built. that is that ought to be included in the west side of that in response to because it will be years before any e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 e Page Twenty Eight Conrad: Yes, it sure could be. I think the first thing I would like a Motion on is a Motion on the rezoning if somebody would like to tackle the rezoning issue. Erhart made the following Motion and Seigel seconded: 1. That the Planning Commissionio~ recommend that the City Council approve rezoning request #85-2 for the rezoning of Lots 3, 4 and 6, Block 1 proposed on the preliminary plat stamped "Received April 23, 1986" to C-2 Commercial District. 2. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Subdivision Request #85-7 as depicted on the plan stamped "Received April 23, 1986" with the following conditions: a. Developer execute a development contract for owner installation of utility lines with City approval of final design. e b. Street improvements to West 64th Street between TH 41 and the site entrance be required as a part of the development contract with City approval of the final design. c. Approval by and compliance with MnDot conditions for the highway access and drainage system permits. d. Approval of the final drainage plan by the city and Watershed District. e. Tnat landscaping include provisions to mask off the area between the residents to the west that would meet staff's approval. Dacy: Just a note, as site plans would be processed for those individual lots that screening landscaping, etc. would be required at that time as well. So your intent is to make it part of the plat approval so that future site plan reviews shall contain adequate screening between the residential area and lots 2 and 5. Emming: I want to know why we 'want to rezone Lots 3 and 4 at this time? I am not going to be able to vote for your Motion if it incl udes Lots 3 and 4, I don't see any reason to do that at thi s time. Otherwise I am basically in agreement. Would you be willing to amend your Motion to exclude the rezoning of Lots 3 and 4? I would just to e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 tit Page Twenty Nine see that taken one step at a time. C-l here, I have problems building C-l as long as we can, I feel that If they are C-2 they can be as fast in, without going through us? I don't have any problem building C-2 and maybe if we can hold on to can give us an element of control. food or whatever they want to put Dacy: For the rezoning of those two lots? yes. Emmings: No, if we rezone those and they want to put in anything under C-2, they don't come back here. Dacy: If they are a conditional use, and an auto service station is a conditional use and that does require a public hearing so yes, you will see them again. Emmings: But any permitted use under C-2 they don't have to come back. Dacy: For a site plan review but the use is not the issue. e Emming: Because this is a sensitive area and because of the neighborhood concern, I think we ought to keep a greater element of control on the lots. I would like to see Lots 3 and 4 be withdrawn from the Motion to rezone. Seigel: Seems to me that Lots 3 and 4 are more conducive to C-2 than possible Lot 6. I have less of a problem there possibly than with the lot designation bordering R-l than with Lot 6 bordering the highway than Lots 3 and 4. Erhart: I guess my response would be that I would like to proceed with it and try another shot at it. Conrad: Okay, a motion has been made and seconded. Erhart Emmings Seigel Conrad Thompson Aye Nay Aye Nay Nay Motion failed. Conrad: Do you want to make a Motion Steve? - Emmings: Yes, I would move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve for rezoning for Lot 6, Block 1 proposed on the preliminary plat stamped "Received April 23, 1986" to C-2 commercial and that we recommend the subdivision request with the e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Thirty conditions as stated by Staff plus the (e) that was previously added to get the screening onto the C-l area so that we have the C-2 well screened from the neighbors on the west: (e) That screening and landscaping be installed along Lots 2 and 5 to adequately screen the C-2-area. Erhart seconded the Motion. Erhart Aye Emmings Aye Seigel Aye Conrad Nay Thompson Nay Motion Passes. Conrad: Michael, your reasons for opposing the Motion. Conrad: Thank you all for attending tonight. We appreciate your support. Public Hearing 6. Blue Circle Association: a. preliminary Plat request to subdivide 1.93 acres into two commercial lots of 1.35 and .58 acres on property zoned C-2, Commercial and located at the northeast corner of Hwy 101 and Lake Drive East. b. Conditional Use Permit request for gasoline sales on property zoned C-2, Commercial and located at the northeast corner of Hwy 101 and Lake Drive East. e \ e e - Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Thirty One public present Jim and Sue Lawrence 6841 penamint Lane Dacy: If you don't mind I can cover all three issues at once. The site is south of the American Legion property, north of the new Lake Drive East coming from Hwy 101 over into Chanhassen Estates. It was zoned as part of the Hidden Valley PUD last summer to C-2. The plat request is basically to split the property so that the second building that you see on your site plan can be conveyed in separate ownership. As far as setbacks are concerned, the C-2 district allows buildings and parking to come up right to the lot line if the adjacent lot is zoned C-2, so there should be no problems from the setback point of view. However, we are requiring that Lot 2 should share the access as proposed on the Lake Drive East. Thompson: This is the first issue, correct? Dacy: That is correct. The second issue is the conditional use permit for gasoline sales. This is the proposed site plan that should be in your packet. The gas pumps are located in the southwest corner of the property proposed in conjunction with a Q convenient store on the western end of the proposal. The site plan review request is just for the commercial uses itself. This conditional use permit is for the gasoline sales. We had our public safety director review this site plan and he advised us that the appropriate permits have to be obtained by the State for the underground installation of gas tanks. Also, proposed in conjunction with this are 17 foot 10 inch gas pump canopy. There is signage proposed on the canopy. Past history in the City of Chanhassen for signage on gas pump canopys are for example, the Holiday Station was not granted signage on the canopy. The older members will recall that the site plan was approved on 169 for Lincoln Properties to redo the Mobile Station site. One of the conditions of approval there was that there be no gas canopy signage. Depending on what the City feels as to continue that policy or to relax that policy, in this case Staff is recommending that at least signage be restricted from the south and east sides because that faces the neighborhood area to the south. As far as the conditional use permit is concerned for gasoline sales, we are recommending approval subject to the storage tanks being in compliance with the uniform fire code and requiring permits obtained and then that signage can only located along the north and west facia of the canopy then approval of the site plan request. The third request, the site plan review request is for a 9,090 square foot shopping center on Lot 1 and 4,000 square foot commerecial building on Lot 2. The proposed parking requirements that are based on a ratio of one space for 200 square feet of retail store e e - Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 page Thirty Two area, these are attachments the applicant has outlined exactly how much retail floor area is going to be used in the shopping center. The proposed parking does meet the code requirements. utility service and drainage improvements to the site were addressed during the original plat process for Hidden Valley. The next issue is traffic issue and as you note in your report, MnDot was to meet with the. developer on Monday morning of this week regarding the one way in and the one way out onto TH HH. At this point I would like to switch to the City Engineer, he has prepared another condition of approval for the site plan and when he is completed with that I would like to follow up with a last few comments. Monk: As Barbara has noted, the sanitary sewer and water matters were issued or were resolved as part of the Hidden Valley proposal. Subsequent runoff will run into the site to service all three utility items and if there are questions about how exactly this is being done I can answer those questions as discussion takes place. One of the issues with this site was its traffic in and out and access. Several of the things that have been done with the leading entrance and exit into the sitehas been lined up with Marsh Drive, the access into Hidden Valley will help eliminate conflicts associated with offset access and so on. It was very important to staff that any building proposed on this site basically use that access and developer has been good about providing that as a major access. Because of the shortness of the throat in this area, ingrade the access or anything to the property, we have recommended that the applicants come in for basically a double exit movement so that right hand turns can be allowed while people wanting to go straight or turn left can be accomodated in a separate motion and I think that is very important again. I am recommending that this island be extended to the north slightly just to allow for a little bit more satin on the exit mode and to restrict the entrance movement from cutting the corner and causing potential conflicts with people trying to get out. The other issue is, of course, access onto TH 101. Discussion started with the developer we were talking about whole access on that road and quickly came down to the everyone realized that that close to Lake Drive East, another full access just could not tolerate it, and it was a safety hazard. We started to overtune the right in, right out proposal and I think did come to agreement on its placement and how to construct it. In meeting with MnDot, I don't want to get into this too much, but the proposal is in this location. MnDot started to look at this in terms of what would happen with the Legion site. There is on question that their existing access in this location would have to be maintained until such time as they developed, but what MnDot relations back to is they would like to see a consolidated access either descending this property line as Hwy 5 and the Legion develops and ultimate development in this area takes place. We basically came up with that it would be very difficult to construct that access in this location Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Thirty Three e e now because now we are closer to the existing Legion entrance. Instead we carne up with a proposal condition No. 12 which staff recommends that the access into this site be allowed as an interim use. We don't like to use the work temporary or interim, but it be allowed as a interim use. At such time as the Legion site is developed, there is no question in my mind that, not only will the Legion want to maintain some access on the one lane, you will remember they were platted a separate right of way on the very eastern edge of the parcel you are looking right now. The full development of the Legion's property, we did require the developer in Hidden Valley plot a 613 foot right of way as the major entrance into this Legion property ultimately. But there is no question that they will want to maintain also some access onto TH 1131, be it right in or right out, which is probably what they will get after their plat is approved. Based on that we put a condition in, the condition no. 12 basically states that as the Legion site would be developed, we are anticipating that this is the perferred location for the right in, right out. They will be constructing that as a part of this site. If that occurs we are basically saying that the entrance we provided for it now would be interim and city would have the right to close that entrance and require access into this right in and right out would be constructed here, as long as the city is successful in gating the right for that access, which I think we can condition develop of the Legion property, we can include that as a condition of their approval. Just because of the timing difficulty involved when one parcel wants development and other does not. I would recommend that in addition to the conditions that the Commission looks at tonight, that they also consider some form of condition number, I think it is number 12, concerning this access location. Again, very briefly as I explained, as the Commission enters into discussion. Thompson: Bill, did you talk to the applicant about that? Is that an acceptable solution? Monk: Yes, they agreed that although my wording may not be perfect on the condition, I have stated on the condition general comments of MnDot and if we can work out the details of that access in the future, that would be agreed. They would have to change the site plan slightly to accomodate that access but it can be done. Thompson: This all happened in the past couple of days? e Dacy: Just a couple more thoughts. Just after what Bill has gone through on the access on the proposed connection possibly in the future to the Legion property, one of our conditions on the landscaping plan was to bring landscaping around to the edge of the building so that it would have a planted area to contain parking on this corner. I guess at this point that I don't know if the condition needs to be modified, but our intent would be, obviously we don't want Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Thirty Four e e to plant any trees, etc. in the way of possible connections so we are just looking for a modification to bring landscaping around a little bit to dress up the rear of the building. Very minor correction. Signage, what is being proposed is a pylon sign in the northwestern corner of the site and long Lake Drive East. The sign along Lake Drive East, we would encourage that the applicant install a ground profile sign instead of a pylon sign to again, minimize impact against the residential area to the south. As you recall from the Hidden Valley plat directly across the street from Lake Drive East, is, I believe a 6 to 8 foot berm along the entire length of Lake Drive East so that will screen out alot of the activity occuring in the commercial area here, however, as far as light from the sign, etc. we would recommend that a ground profile sign would be best in that location. Trash enclosures and rool top structures are to be screened as depicted in your sight plan materials. The fire marshall has also asked that an additional hydrant be located at the entrance to the site on Lake Drive East to ensure water supply capacity. Also, at the time of building permit application that one of the parking spaces may have to be eliminated for proper fire lane access to the building. This loss of the parking space will not affect ability to provide adequate parking on site. We are recommending approval of the site plan review request subject to the twelve conditions contained in the staff report. Bob Froemming, Developer: We have gone through and read her comments to you tonight and we are in agreement to do all those things that they are recommending. Conrad: Any other comments. Thompson moved to close public hearing, Emming seconded. All voted in favor. Erhart: What is going to happen to the Legion site? It's for sale isn't it? Dacy: It is zoned C-2 for commercial. Erhart: The Legion site is for sale, I just wanted to. make sure I wasn't saying something that wasn't true. That's a beautiful site in our City of Chanhassen, that whole area in between Lake Drive East and Hwy 5 and Hwy 101 in there, and!. realize that you guys have a major investment In this thing and want to proceed with something and you should be allowed to do that. I guess overall from a planning standpoint I would like to see how, to see if there is anyway to sit back and look at this thing as a whole site and make sure that we do as many things as we can today to make it better for all of us down the road. If you are thinking that someday you might put a road e e e - Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Thirty Five across the north the back of the building ever being proposed. Dacy: The north lot line is the rear of the shopping center. Thompson: Maybe they don't understand why that Lake Drive is proposed, I don't know if they understand that concept. These gentlemen down at the end. Monk: The development plan shows existing Chanhassen Estates all in this area and Hidden Valley plot and the Legion property. Right now the council will be looking at plans and specs for construction of this entire point road to cope within the next 45 days, so that is what we anticipate at this point. The first half of this development is basically in progress right now and is anticipated to be finished with year with the second half starting later this year or next year. In looking at the Legion site we did do quite a bit of work in providing for this access at this location between these two sites in Hidden Valley. Getting that 60 foot lighted way so that ultimate development of the Legion could eventually take place while the building was orientated in this direction, with the parking and access, directed down to Lake Drive. There is another reason for the burm and the large land on these lots was to separate these potential uses. Condition number 12, you know we aren't trying to over burden this development with conditions, but that is being put in there because we are concerned about the number of access points between Lake Drive East and TH 5. As TH 5 gets widen to four lanes, chances are that there will be median strip going from Lake Drive East up to TH 5 so the through movements would not be allowed and consolidation of these access points at that point would be very desirable. As far as the access into the site goes, one of the things that we did look at, and we will look at the MnDot drawing. One of the things we did looked at as this lane comes in, chances are this will stay. This is the problem, it would stay in at this location but as soon as you got there you would probably end up at the Legion site leaving an area here where the back of this building could be buffered. This is not proposed to be a street all the way through here. Anything can happen. There is a 10 foot separation now with the potential for more, but again I think it is good that the chance that the line would bend in and the reason for this condition is just to try and provide for the best planning possible as far as access goes here. It will have a definite effect on these people but the reasons being put on there is that we are trying to look at the overall picture. Erhart: You are proposing that the driveway into the entrance from this plan up north. Monk: Eventually, yes, on the plan as it is shown we are recommending that it be placed as shown and in the future that the access as it is e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Thirty Six planned could be closed and that condition would be viable. The access at this point would come in off of TH 101 in here. In the future we recommending again as the Legion Post develops as we anticipate, they put an access down here but then this site would access to that. We would make that a condition of the Legion site. If that occurs this one would be closed. So again, interim and temporary access is not recommended by any stretch of the imagination but because of timing problems, sometimes you do get into them. But these developers are at least provided access to TH 101, which is important. Seigel: Just one question to clarify that access to TH 101. Is that access coming from the south only on TH 101 into the service station area? Monk: It would be right in, right out so you would be able to get into the subdivision coming northbond on TH 101 and get back on going from the south. Seigel: But you can't turn from the north. Monk: You have to use Lake Drive East. e Seigel: I would just question why anybody coming heading north would not take Lake Drive East into the same thing and exit. Monk: You could probably take a look at closing off the right in and you know the proposal could survive with the right out. I guess the question might come from a good developer. They would like two ways into the site. We don't see a lot of traffic using the right in at this point in time but eventually as TH 101 gears up, it will become a more prevelent movement, especially with some of the subdivisions that you will be seeing south of Lake Susan and so on. Seigel: I guess my point is if you are going to eventually move that north to the share of 2-way entry with the Legion property, then it would become more likely that anybody heading north would use Lake Drive East entrance into the facility. Monk: Again, I think the question might be better with the developer in terms of what they are expecting the flow of traffic to come into. Emmings: Have you done any studies on that. It seems a little redundant to have. that entrance into that facility. Froemming: As I understand the proposal once the access moves to the north, it will not be a two way access. There will also be a right in r i gh t ou t access so it would be the same type 0 f access on ly 1 oca ted __ to the north. I would expect that the right in would work very e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Thirty Seven extensively with our major tenant on it. They know peoples habits coming in and out of their stores and stations. Their major concern is that people coming from the south, by the time they usually see and react to Lake Drive East to make the right turn to go in there, then if you pass it, once you see it, you are there, you can still get in. If you miss that second chance at coming in, then they are gone and you have lost them. Seigel: Do you plan not to have a two way entrance into the property at the Legion Hall? Monk: The TH 101 access between Lake Drive East and TH 5, no matter where it is or what side, would be right in right out only. There is no way that another four corner intersection could ever be designed. The distances are just too short so even if it is moved up to the Legion property, in the future it will just be right in right out only. Seigel: You say that the road into the Legion property is not going to connect with Lake Drive East straight across, it is going to go inside that property? e Monk: Basically what you have happening is a right in right out off of Hwy 101 would be a private access and it would access into a parking lot or whatever. Not necessarily into a frontage road because we are thinking the Legion might develop into one large use. Full access for the Legion would be provided by Lake Drive East on the other corner. This would only be a back door along TH 101 but we are sure that the Legion is going to request that. Conrad: Okay, then there is a connection between Lake Drive East on the other side of the Legion. Monk: Yes there is. Conrad: Well I understood that would dead end but as a separate entrance. Monk: It is a separate entrance. Again, I didn't do a separate exhibit. I should have for that. Conrad: Do we have any indication of what else would be involved or would be included in the shopping mall. What kind of stor'es, tenants? e Bob Froemming: Different types of things. Gas and goods, restaurant, take out restaurant such as pizza, dentist, dry cleaning, typical service type of center. Those type of stores. Typical service kind of tenants from surveying a neighborhood district. These stores, with the exception of the gas and goods, will be from about 1,000 square e e e Planning Commission Minutas May 14, 1986 Page Thirty Eight foot to 2,000 square foot. They are quite small. Conrad: It would be quite a heavily traveled area with a lot of short term people going in and out. They are not going to be spending hours at this mall. Bob Froemming: No it is not that large that they would spend hours at there. It is maybe a gas and goods, if you stop and buy gas you also pick up some food or something, like a modern Kenney's. Thompson moved to close public hearing, Emmings seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Thompson moved to recommend approval of Subdivision Request 86-8 as depicted on the plat stamped "Received April 24, 1986" and subject to an access easement across Lot 1 being recorded in conjunction with filing the plat to insure permanent access for Lot 2. Emmings seconded. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Seigel made a Motion, Thompson seconded, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Request #86-2 for installation of gasoline pumps as depicted on the Site Plan stamped "Received April 24, 1986" subject to the following conditions: 1. Gasoline tank storage shall be in compliance with the Uniform Fire Code and a permit must be obtained from the State Fire Marshall. 2. Gas pump canopy signage shall only be located along the north and west facis of the canopy. 3. Approval of Site Plan Request #86-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Thompson made a motion, Emmings seconded, to recommend approval of Site Plan Review Request #86-1 as depicted on the site plan stamped "Received April 24, 1986" and subject to the following conditions: 1. The free-standing sign along Lake Drive.East shall be a ground profile sign. 2. Additional landscaping shall be installed in the northwest corner of the site. A landscaping plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application for Lot 2 which would include installation Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Thirty Nine e of a 2 foot berm along Lake Drive East and installation of plantings consistent with those that are depicted for Lot 1. 3. All site drainage be directed to on-site catch basins and not to Lake Drive East. 4. The access island on Lake Drive East be lengthened 10 feet to the north to assist with traffic channelization. 5. The exit lines to Lake Drive East be clearly signed and striped to designate proper turning and directional movements. A detailed plan be submitted with the building permit denoting signage and stripage of the access area. 6. The developer acquire a permit from MnDot for the TH 101 access and adhere to all conditions of said permit including maintaining ditch drainage. 7. All bituminous areas shall be lined with concrete curb, including the islands at both access points. 8. Roof-top equipment and trash enclosures shall be screened as depicted on the plan stamped "Received April 24, 1986". e 9. Installation of landscaping as depicted on the plan stamped "April 24, 1986". 10. An additional fire hydrant will be located on Lake Drive East. This will insure proper water supply and availability for fire aparatus. 11. Fire lane access will be provided in the front of the building. The specific location to be determined after final building plans are submitted. 12. The TH 101 access is approved as an interim entrance/exit with closure required upon the construction of an access along the north property line at a future date. Such closure shall be-required only upon the legal right of Lot 1, Hidden Valley 2nd Addition to use said access. Also, site plan revisions to allow for this access shift shall be approved by the City to insure proper vehicular movements. All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed. Erhart stated that a better layout of structures could be achieved in relation to e surrounding properties. e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Forty New Business 8. Sign Variance request for a 96 square foot temporary real estate sign and an off premise directional sign at the estate sign and an off premise directional sign at the Hidden Valley subdivision site, Hemphill Northen, Inc. NOTE: Tape change occurred at this point. Dacy presented Staff Recommendation. Thompson: In the past, recently we have had a couple of signs that have come up. How did they fare when they went to council. Dacy: The council approved those requests. Thompson: As we sent them through? e Dacy: Yes. Thompson: What you are doing is following the ordinance as I understand it. Dacy: Yes, that is correct. I was going to go back and check the size of the Lundgren Brother sign that they had proposed, but I forgot to do that and I can't remember how large that was. Conrad: Is the developer here? Do you have any questions to persuade us to correct the ordinance for any particular reason. e Tom Bracher: First of all, I will give you a little background. Hemphill Northern isgoing to bedoing a joint venture now with the United Mortgage Company who is the developer of the Hidden Valley site, and our plan is to, right now there are 54 lots that are developed and we hope to be marketing those in 1986 and then as Bill had mentioned eariler, the remaining 55 lots we hope to develop this fall or at the latest next spring and market those in 1987, and complete the development in 1988. Hemphill is a builqer from Chicago, the present time we are also doing or working with Lundgren Brothers in their development two miles north of here near Mountain project. As Barbara had mentioned, to help us in the marketing of that subdivision, there is a problem with that subdivision lying approximately three blocks to the south of TH 5. With the higher elevation there, it is difficult for customers to get to the development and being the large amount of traffic, approximately l5,llHHJ cars a day that use TH 5, we would like to have some type exposure on TH 5 so that the people can get to our subdivision. we would like to do is, Barbara had mentioned the 32 square foot of What sign, e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Forty One we would like to try and keep it in a ratio of 2 to 3. The 96 square foot sign, the 8 foot high by 12 foot wide, if that wasn't acceptable, we are looking for something possibly 6 feet high by 9 feet long. Again, in that 2 to 3 ratio. However, the 32 square foot size would meet our requirements if that is what the Planning Commission and the City Council desire. That would be fine too. The reason we were requesting two signs is we would like the double faced sign, a larger sign along that commercial property to help at least attract attention, and then the sign at the Legion site would be a directional sign indicating for the people to turn at that particular location. Where the other sign was more to get the people's awareness that the area is approximately just south of that intersection. Now we are proposed to rename that area Brook Hill, as you may have seen in the literature. It still would be the Hidden Valley subdivision, but we were proposing for the marketing purposes, to rename that Brook Hill, and I think you had a sketch of that sign in your packet. Seems to me we had a color sketch of what that sign would look like which we didn't have available at the time and it would look something like this. Any that is all the comments I have at this time. Thank you. e Erhart: I don't know what the proper size of the sign is. It is certinaly to our advantage to try to, within certain limitations, help these developers sell their lots. I guess the question is what is appropriate. Obviously we have made exceptions in the past. I don't think we've adhered strictly to the sign ordinance in these cases. Conrad: We haven't made many exceptions. Erhart: No. We haven't had many requests. Is there a time limit on these signs. Monk: Yes, that would be two years. Erhart: Is that what we have done in the past, two years? Conrad: Two years or a certain percentage or something. Erhart: That seems like a long time. Thompson: You see he has two developments going up. I would imagine right now with the single family market heating up, your lots, there is probably a pretty good demand for them. Tom Bracher: Oh yes. We are just in the very early stages of starting our models last week. We expect the name to there and our sales to be very strong throughout the rest of the year. e Thompson: Where abouts are you in relation to Ponds development on the other side? e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Forty Two Torn Bracher: We are in Trappers Pass which is his higher bracket homes. Thompson: You have the two or three houses built at the end there? Torn Bracher: Well, two are ours and two are Lundgrens. Conrad: I take it you have a different product for this market. Torn Bracher: Yes, the price range of this product would be $90,000.00 to $130,000.00. Emmings: I am not clear where the signs are going to be, and it is probably right here in front of me. Dacy: Somewhere on the property on the south side of TH 5 in a commercial area and that is one of the options they could have. Staff is proposing two signs on the south side of TH 5 or one on TH 5 and one on TH 101. Thompson: A 6 foot square sign really isn't adequate. Dacy: We are recommending against the off premise directional sign. Emm ings: I agree exactly with wha t Mi ke sa id that it really doesn't get us anywhere. You ought to have a large enough to build himself a project and I have no idea how big that is. Conrad: It says 32 square feet. Emmings: That strikes me as being too small to do what he needs to get done. Conrad: As soon as you grant this ordinance then every developer has the right. Thompson: We did it before. Conrad: No we didn't. Thompson: Yes we did, we did it twice. Conrad: And that was on the basis of a humugous piece of property, right? Thompson: The second one was, you're right. The first one wasn't. Seigel: The sign questions is starting to corne up more and more frequently on TH 5. I think we have to try to maintain consistancy e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Forty Three here. As I recall, I agree with Mike's position. On the previous one or two, that isn't to say isolating this based on where it is going to be located and where the other one is going to be located. Conrad: So you believe in a 96 square foot sign? Seigel: Well, I don't think necessarily 96, it would be 60 or 54 or something like that. Conrad: Where was that one where staff had given 64 square feet of signage and they were two signs. Thompson: Staff is following the ordinance on this and they did the other times too. Conrad: I am trying to be consistent here and I got off by voting for the change to begin with. Now I feel a little bit misgiving about not approving a similar type of application for another petitioner. I can't remember exactly what we approved before for variance sign from that other developer? Barb can you. Dacy: Is that the Lundgren sign? here. I can look. I don't know right Conrad: I don't remember the size we said that was a conditional use. Dacy: I t was a sign var i ance. Conrad: It was a sign variance. Double face sign right? Was it a conditional use because of the location? Dacy: It was processed as a variance. Thompson: How long would it take you to find out. Conrad: A motion could be made to use the square footage of the Lundgren sign. Dacy: Do you want to go up and verify that now. Thompson: You don't have to now. Conrad: No. I just want to maintain some type of consistency here as a planning commission I know a lot of things will develop, but I feel a little guilty not approving something like this in the same light that we approved something before and that is why I think we should be justifying these things based on some sort of previous record. Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 ~ Page Forty Four Dacy: The property I mentioned earlier, the Near Mountain site, is significantly larger. It has three roadways, Townline Road, TH 101 and Pleasant View. This is a different situation so if you are concerned about a precedent I can understand that but then again this is an entirely different location. Conrad: Yes, I think this location probably bears having a larger sign on it than on TH 101 because the traffic conditions, the higher speeds, the notice of a sign is going to be less. I think justification of a larger sign would be appropriate here but I think if the petitioner is willing to accept a 48 square foot sign why not say 48 square foot, or whatever you said before. Thompson: 54 square feet, 6 feet by 9 feet. Conrad: I am comfortable with a 6 by 9 foot sign out there. I am not comfortable with the off premise directional sign. Anybody want to make a motion? ~ Thompson: I'll make a motion that we allow the applicant to have a 6 foot by 9 foot sign, 54 square foot sign east of TH 101 on commercial zoned property of Hidden Valley subdivision for a two year period of time. Dacy: Just one sign? Nothing on TH l01? Thompson: He wanted to do it in two parts, so I thought I would get that portion of the Motion done and passed. Emming seconded it. All voted in favor and the Motion carried. Thompson: Now the next question is the off premise sign. think that if the off premise sign is small enough, in this there might be some justification for an off premise sign. to a church here not too long ago. Don't you case, that We gave it Conrad: That is right. Dacy: My only comment on the off premise sign is, you would have to allow all subdivisions that are located throughout the city to have these requests for six square foot off premise directional signs. e Thompson: You know what, going down Pleasant View Road today there are six off premise signs right today. Conrad: We can get rid of them if we want. e e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Forty Five Dacy: By the same token too, the Near Mountain site, they did have an illegal sign out on TH 101 and we did remove that, they had it nailed to a tree or something. Thompson: But there are off premise signs. You look at the corner of TH 101 and Vine Hill. There are a bunch of them there. Conrad: I can't believe the council will approve it. Erhart: If we were to permit an off premise sign that would be more professionally done that these black market. Thompson: Whatever the name of that development next to me is? Fox Chase. They have a off premise sign. Conrad: You should have somebody revise the ordinance, there is nothing unique about this. Thompson: Does New Horizon have off premise signs? Dacy: They were approved one in the late 70's, but now it has been taken down. Thompson: I haven't been by for a month. It was there a month ago. Dacy: It should be down now. Staff's whole contention is off premise. No matter if it is leasing signs or Mr. Korzonowski's sign, our intent, off premise means off premise and we should be consistent. Seigel: I just want to clarify if there is no motion made it is the same as denying it. Dacy: You should make a Motion, unless you are just going to pass it on. Erhart made a motion that a SlX square foot off premise directional sign be approved. Seigel seconded it. Tim Erhart Bob Seigel Steve Emmings Ladd Conrad Mike Thompson Aye Aye Nay Nay Abstained Dacy: Just to make sure that I have it right on the first Motion. It was for one 54 square foot sign on TH 5. Conrad: One double faced. e -e e Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 1986 Page Forty Six Thompson made a motion to amend the Minutes of the April 23, 1986 meeting with the following amendment on page 16: Substation was not in the proper place and sites to the north adjacent to the railroad should be evaluated. No options were submitted to review for the substation. Emmings seconded the motion. All voted in favor of amended the minutes as stated and the motion carried. Dacy: We just wanted to notify you that next Monday the council members will be hear to listen to elected officials from the southwest communities about the development framework. If any of you are interested in coming, you are more than welcomed to attend. To keep you posted about the progress, attached are some comments prepared by the communities. They have increased our population by about 500 but we are still maintaining that it not up to par. Emmings moved that the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned and Seigel seconded it. Meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Submitted by Barbara Dacy, City Planner. Prepared by Nann Opheim May 21, 1986