Loading...
1989 04 19 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ~GULAR MEETING .RIL 19, 1989 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette ElIson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and David Headla. Jim Wildermuth arrived during discussion on item 2, Oak View Heights and did not vote on item 1. STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 13.49 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE SOUTH OF HWY. 5, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Ray Brandt: Ray Brandt with Brandt and Brandt. I prepared the plans. If you were concerned about moving this around, I would think from the .~eloper's standpoint, if they needed to move, I think we would probably ther just have the street run across here... I would think this would be a better situation if we did... This is just graded. In the dry weather it's alright. Otherwise I don't have... Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: This whole packet...the most incomplete packet. We get a sketch tonight. If I can't have 24 hours to look at it, I can't... I'm not going to look at it tonight. I looked at these drawings and trying to figure out what in the world, where are these 21 lots. I couldn't figure out where in the world those 21 they were talking about. Olsen: You don't have the plan? Headla: No, this is what we got. I couldn't figure out where the 21 were. And as I went through and looked at... Take a scenario like number 7 where..., supposed you have a fire there on a cold and icy night. You've got a lot of people coming in. That curve out there, off of Powers Blvd.. If we have one truck that has a collision there, you'd block that access to the whole thing. You aren't going to drive up on the lawns to get there. Now you've got something... I think the Fire Department... what in the world are they talking about? They're talking a tree falling down. I'm not talking about a tree falling down. I'm talking about a <<ckage that could be extremely serious. I think you have to have a ond access with anything that large. If you're talking...I don't have problem...coming in from Powers Blvd., I think that's got a lot of merit. I'd like to see it permanently. That's my philosophy... I think that secondary access is just mandatory. I also think that the...a check Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 2 _ list. A checklist that many of us have a chance to go over to say yes, this is the checklist they should have. Then when something like this comes up of this magnitude and later on...then we check it off saying if it's appropriate or not. Batzli: I guess I had a problem understanding what lots we were talking about as well...perhaps it would be appropriate to table it. The question I had was...the amended landscaping plan prior to the Planning Commisison meeting. Do you have that? Olsen: I have that. I assumed you had the plans. Batzli: Okay, so this is just the landscaping plan and not the actual plan? Olsen: Right. didn't. It was supposed to go out in the packet. Obviously it Batzli: Is the watermain ever going to be moved? The watermain that's going into the project. Are there plans for looping it or is it going to dead end? Olsen: Yes... _atzli: Is it appropriate to eventually loop it? to say it in here somewhere that they are going Don Patton: That's part of the PUD plan. Batzli: That's part of the overall plan? When would it be appropriate to dedicate the park? Do we typically do that in a preliminary plat? Olsen: As long as it's approved as an outlot... Batzli: without that being a condition? Don Patton: Jo Ann, that's part of the PUD already. Outlot H is part of the public open space and dedicated for... Olsen: That's one of the original conditions of the PUD. They would have to provide those outlots for park. Batzli: But you said there were changes on this that we're looking at now from your original plat PUD. Olsen: The outlot itself is... You can make it a specific condition. Batzli: If you don't see any problems, I don't want it in here. The only _other things I had were some technical... ElIson: I don't have anything new. I was kind of confused on this too but from what I see... Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 3 _ Emmings: I guess I don't see any real reason to table it. I think it probably fits within the overall plan for what was approved here. Actually it appears that the area...is actually reducing the number of lots... As far as the conditions are concerned... Number 2, the applicant shall receive any necessary permits from the Watershed District and I did see a letter from them in here. Also from Carver County. There's a letter in here that would seem to indicate that Carver County wasn't requiring anything. Olsen: They want that secondary access. Emmings: Okay, and then what does etc. mean? Olsen: Any other conditions from... Emmings: We eithe:r want to tell them which ones they have to get or else just eliminate that because that tells them nothing. So if we don't know, if there's nothing there, then let's just take it out because it doesn't mean anything anyway. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the through street shown as West Lake Drive. Now I take it that's, if you look at the landscaping plans, since that's all we've got, that's the road that's coming out that says West Lake Drive on it? Which side of that street is this concrete sidewalk? -Olsen: The Park and Recreation Commission did meet to determine which side... Emmings: I guess I'd change number 6. It says prior to assigning street names, the applicant shall consult with the Public Safety for recommendations. I think that ought to say, proposed street names shall be submitted to the Public Safety for approval. Then it says on number 7, revised plans that address the conditions and discussion contined in this staff report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. That one came out of the City Engineer's report. Is that right? So shouldn't it say that the :revised plans that add:res the conditions and discussion contained in the City Engineer's report will be submitted to the City Engineer for approval? That's all I've got. Otherwise, I guess I wouldn't have any trouble moving approval with those changes. Erhart: In the handout there, it's designated as outlot Hand... Olsen: Again, I assumed that you had those lots which showed that as Outlot B. The concept plan... Erhart: That is basically just a dead end street? Olsen: The cul-de-sac? No. tlfrhart: This street just comes to a dead end. Olsen: There will be a temporary turn around there but it will be... ~ - Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 4 e Erhart: Is there anything on the end that's suppose to show it's a turn around? The tape didn't pick up Jo Ann Olsen's answer. Erhart: ...a major portion of our pollution problem with plastic seems to be erosion barriers and not removing them after the area has been revegetated. Olsen: The development contracts now cover that... Erhart: What about on the City projects? It really is... If that's part of the process, then that's great. Since most of this has been, I assume this whole plat was all part of the PUD and what we're really seeing tonight is... Olsen: They had to come in for each phase of the project. Erhart: I understand but as far as the overall plan, this has already... so I guess in that respect, not having the plan... Conrad: Normally when things are missing or late I assume that means that staff hasn't had time to look at it and give us their opinion. In this ~articular case, that's not the case. They've responded with their ~omments... I think we have to come to some kind of resolution on the secondary access... Have you reviewed the two, has anybody reviewed the two and what's the reason for the grading of the other street versus this one? Olsen: When we were always discussing this during the PUD concept plan, the temporary access through the park to Powers was what we were always looking at in the second access so that's what we were looking at when we first met with Engineering and Public Safety. That's when Public Safety felt well what they're proposing is okay. We don't have to necessarily have that second access. Then the engineering department saw that they were going to be, that some of the street had already been put in. That they could rough grade the rest and have a secondary access that way. As far as one over the other, the only difficult is getting a temporary access to Powers from Carver County. They don't like giving those. Especially when it's in a location that's not so, I don't know if that's a good location but anything along Powers there, it's really tough. That would be one of the deciding factors I believe. And then when the park is planned to be improved. Conrad: Any directions on this particular one Tim? Do you feel that we should continue along with the staff report or look at a different access off the cul-de-sac or what do you think? ..~rhart: The Public Safety Director indicated that he was satisfied ~ithout the second access. Conrad: The Safety Director said no secondary access. Engineer said to provide secondary access. The access of the cul-de-sac, can you eliminate Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 5 _ one of those... Ray Brandt: I don't know what rough grading this would do. If they wanted a second access... I did this one place in Burnsville where we have an access that's graded but you at least can drive on it. Put a chain across there, a break away chain so an emergency vehicle would just run right into it and break. You don't want people driving in there...but if Public Safety says we don't care, we don't need another access, my point is, I don't have any idea what this or what benefit of having this rough graded if that's... Batzli: How long are we talking for temporary? Is that next week, tomorrow or next year? Olsen: The next phase is coming in from the west side.. . Batzli: So if we put it through the park, it may be there for a while? Conrad: It appears that cul-de-sac serves...the access for the cul-de-sac. . . Ray Brandt: Also, the secondary road...doesn't own this land. That's another consideration. He doesn't own that land. &rhart: We've had developments in the City that have cul-de-sacs that... and it seems to me that it's arbitrary... Ray Brandt: There have been several people that... Erhart: I know we have. I'm just trying to think... Conrad: We should be debating this. This isn't on our shot. We're making a recommendation, or planning staff is recommending one alternative and another branch of the city government, they're not concerned about this situation. Batzli: I pesonally can't believe that it said that after listening to the Public Safety Director stand up and talk for 15 minutes to my neighborhood and the whole neighborhood showed up and they decided to put an emergency exit... I couldn't believe it when I read his recommendation here so I will definitely vote to put it in. Conrad: It's inconsistent and that really makes us confused. At least I am. I go back to the days when cul-de-sacs were 500 feet. I guess Steve and Jo Ann, is it still your firm belief what control do we have in the adjoining property to grade it when we're dealing with this particular plat? 01 sen: . . . access to the proper ty. . . -conrad: Okay, you're comfortable that we could say at least explore that, at least to the tune of whether Carver County would accept a temporary and then at least we have a secondary? I think we're all, well I'm not sure. Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 6 e I think most of us believe a secondary access, I think it's, especially on a real, some longer cul-de-sacs that it's just a risk that I don't think we want to take. The one thing that maybe you could help us with in the future is why we got the recommendation that we don't need that. Maybe if we could understand that, we could apply it. We need a standard and that's what we're looking for so we're not arbitrary in dealing with one developer versus another. So I guess in our tickler file we better look into that at least so we can understand...secondary access and maybe there's rationale for it. Anyway, with what Jo Ann said, I guess it's up to whoever makes the motion. Jo Ann said they find it acceptable having a secondary access through the cul-de-sac if Carver County would grant a permit so that's an option for somebody to make a motion that we really... Again staff is saying that the developer can make a path, make a graded road a secondary access. The comment would be, that road won't solve all the problems if we do have a blockage. Erhart: I think clarification... In your report on streets it says, I think it reads the...Public Safety felt it not necessary to have it... 01 sen: Right. It was after we had our meeting and... Erhart: What did the engineer's comments say? Clsen: ...to have that there and their option was to grade that road. gain, all during the...that's why he brought it up. Conrad: Council. I'm sure this will be resolved by the time it gets to City Is there somebody that'd like to make a motion? Emmings: I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary plat #87-3 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "April 12, 1989" with the following conditions. Number 1 would be deleted. Number 2, the etc. would be removed unless there's something to put in there. If there's some other body...specifically named. 3, 4 and 5 will stay the same. 6 would be changed to read that, proposed street names shall be submitted to the Department of Public Safety for approval. 7 would be changed to read that revised plans that address the conditions and discussion contained in the City Engineer's report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Then there will be a number 12 added that states that there should be a secondary access going off of the cul-de-sac out to County Road 17 and that if that's not an item that approval may be obtained from the County, then the Public Safety Director and the City Engineer ought to get together and decide what can be done if something needs to be done to provide a secondary access as it gets to the City Council. I would like to delete number 10. My thinking there. If we just rough grade that road, I don't think it does that much number one. Number two, it's going to sit there...and just cover it however it is now. ~Erhar~: Second. Ba t zl J. : In the Eng ineer 's report it tal ks about that... Is that covered by your rewording that that will be taken care of or we should write it within the City Engineer report? Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 7 e Emmings: I hope so. Batzli: The other question is, would it be thinkable to include as a condition the...or is that a given? Olsen: That's a given but... Batzli: If they have to follow that, I'm confused because they didn't follow it. They adjusted it from what was already... Olsen: The contract is still the same. It still applies and there are certain conditions in there and they always use that... Batzli: ...if that's not correct, then that's the way it is. Conrad: Any other discussion. Tim, let me get this straight. Were you concerned about the turn around? Erhart: Yes. Conrad: Are you going to let it lay there or? 4Irrhart: Jo Ann explained it to me... Conrad: Normally on temporary dead ends, we do have a turn around. We don't really have a turn around but when you say it's being taken care of, I don't know what that means. Emmings: Let cut this short. I want to amend my own motion to include that if West Lake Drive is not looped but comes to an end as it's shown on the preliminary plat we're looking at here, then there will be a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of that. Erhart: I'll second the amendment. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #87-3 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "April 12, 1989" with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall receive any necessary permits from the Watershed District and Carver County. 2. The applicant shall install a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the through street shown as West Lake Drive on the plat. 3. The applicant shall provide an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard. - 4. The applicant shall receive 50% credit on park dedication fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees. Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 8 e 10. ell. 5. Proposed street names shall be submitted to the Department of Public Safety for approval. 6. Revised plans that address the conditions and discussion contained in the City Engineer's report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. 7. Since the watermain is not looped, proper sizing of the watermain will be required for fire and health reasons. 8. A typical section of roadway is to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. There should be a secondary access going off of the cul-de-sac out to County Road 17. If approval can not be obtained from the County, then the Public Safety Director and the City Engineer ought to get together and decide what can be done, if something n~eds to be done, to provide a secondary access. If West Lake Drive is not looped but comes to an end as it's shown on the preliminary plat, then there will be a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of tha t . All voted in favor except David Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Headla: I certainly agree with the applicant's desire. I believe Tim's recommendation... PUBLIC HEARING: OAK VIEW HEIGHTS, PROPERTY ZONED R-12 AND LOCATED BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, CENVESCO: A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS ON 19 ACRES OF PROPERTY. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A WETLAND AND STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO A WETLAND. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS. ~JO Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 9 _ Conrad: Just a question. If they meet what your recommendations are, do they still get PUD status? Olsen: ...because the lots are smaller... Conrad: So they're forced to a PUD status not because they're meeting what we look for in a PUD. It is a mechanical reason that simply they have to have the PUD status to do what they want to do. Not that they're meeting our PUD ordinance which says we're looking for these things...to grant a PUD you should be looking for these characteristics that add value to this whole project. Whether it be a park. Whether it be certain improvements. Public improvements. Whether it be open space. They have not done that or you have not, have they done in your mind those things? I think that's what's not in the staff report right now and I'm sure they want to talk to us about that but it's kind of, it's one of those things that I'd like to see before hand where staff or the applicant says we want PUD status because we are going to offer these benefits and therefore I can grant them the additional units. Let them go over the impervious surface ratio. I guess now is a chance for you to give us your viewpoint. Olsen: I tried to point out what they were giving.. .and the first thing would be that totlot. This area is not park deficient and they are giving that. They are providing additional landscaping. -conrad: They are? Olsen: They are giving more than what would be typically required. Conrad: How much more? Olsen: When you start getting into the replacement. Conrad: So it's not a requirement. Normally we require 1 tree per lot on a subdivision right? Do we have 1 tree per lot here? And their landscape plan would improve the site? Olsen: They've got a lot of trees. Conrad: What else Jo Ann. Be persuasive. Olsen: The PUD site... Conrad: We're pretty tough on PUD's. Olsen: They know that. I explained that to them. The thing is, the reason that it's going with the PUD is because of individually owned units and the thing that's really hard is that when they actually... The way our ordinance is written, this would actually be more...comes to _individUallY owned units... The way our ordinance is written... Conrad: Your other point is that individually owned units would be better than rental units? We'll open it up for public hearing and I'm sure that the applicant will have a chance to talk to us. You've heard my Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - page 10 - comments as I've directed them to the staff and really we have, I don't want to get into a whole lot of detail on some of this stuff if the Planning Commission doesn't really like what they see. We've got a concept and then we get into the development plan but if we don't like what we see in terms of the concept, I think I don't want to get into details. Yet on the other hand, if everybody things that the concept's alright, we can do that too. But basically...is way, way different from what we've ever granted in the City to my knowledge and the number of units is over what this supposedly could have based on the number in the ordinance so I guess I'll open it up for public hearing. I'd like the applicant to tell us why they think this should be granted as a PUD. Gary Purser: My name is Gary Purser. We originally submitted a plan to the city and it was Steve that indicated that because of the fact that we were going to go with individually owned houses. So in other words, we ended up with a zero lot line. We're selling fee simple title to people to own the land underneath them indicating that we would have to go on a PUD. That would be one way we would have to submit because of the 3,600 square feet minimum. We feel that what's required under the PUD, as far as offering additional amenities to the project, we feel that we've met that in preserving the wetlands. The City had asked us to provide a totlot and to their specifications. It came in, actually the one that we submitted, they've altered and the cost of this totlot is around, our cost _os around $30,000.00 to provide it. Also, providing the additional . sidewalks and the landscaping, we feel that under the PUD concept, that it's a give and take situation and we'll providing the additional items to be approved by a PUD concept. In addition, I'd like to just make a comment as far as the idea behind the zero lot line and a condominium concept. If we were not to do this on individually owned lots, we'd simply do it under a condominium concept. By doing it under a condominium concept, the owners or the people who are going to be purchasing the property of course would not have fee simple title and it's basically more expensive for them to purchase it because there's considerably more cost in doing it. It seems like it's almost a glitch in the zoning ordinance because it does not, because your ordinance differentiates between common ownership and fee simple. Do you have any questions I can answer? Conrad: Anything you want to react to in terms of the staff report? Gary Purser: Well I guess with regard to the engineering..., Randy. Randy Hedlund: My name is Randy Hedlund. I'm the engineering for Dean Johnson, the developer and one other item I want to point out. As far as the give and take on the PUD, from the vexy start we have been extremely concerned with this area here. Jo Ann pointed out, there were 11 large oak trees up on the upland part of the site that really can not be saved but down in this wooded slope area, which I'm sure most of you are familiar with the site, coming up from the wetland there's a considerable amount of oak trees and I didn't get an actual count on them but I might ~uess maybe 50 to 100 large mature oak trees. Now what the developer can do is come in with this proposal to just meet the city's requirements as far as impervious and density with the City, because these future parcels, Outlot A and B are not developed at this time. Somebody else can Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 11 e come in and do a lot of damage to that slope with the oak trees on there and there wouldn't be anything to prevent them from doing that. The only thing that's really required is the 75 foot setback from the wetland that's down at the 940 contour. One thing that the City is asking for is that we provide a conservation easement all the way up to the 980 contour which is 40 feet above that wetland. That will basically insure that all these oak trees down on the slope are preserved. As far as the grading, like for this future apartment that would have the driveway entrance down here and it would be all underground parking. The building could be designed where this grade along here would be about at garage floor. Up here would be about even with the first floor of the apartments so from this end of the apartments, patio and decks, you can walk right out onto open grade. It's still some distance from the tree line. Down here there'd be decks out over the garage level of the apartment. It fit the site very nicely. Is there any other questions concerning that? That was something that we've always done quite heavily was the preservation of this large wooded area, the wetland and the slopes in that area and that's another, I think that's a valid point to bring up in order... Conrad: Are reviewing that tonight? That's not part of the PUD is it? That's not what we're... Olsen: That's part of the concept. _andY Hedlund: We showed this, the developer does not have architectural plans for the apartment at this time so it's almost like this is a first phase and that would be coming later. This is what he's intending to do with it. That it would be covered with restrictions that limits him to do this. The developer is also willing to give Lot 14 into Outlot B as the City had requested. That lowers the density of this portion of the site to about 11 units per acre and I not exactly sure how it affects the impervious. If we look at the density over the whole site, the impervious over the whole site, we're at about 12 units per acre for density assuming each...building 8 units and we're at, I believe 33.3% impervious on the overall site and that's what we were planning toward... He doesn't really have architectural plans for this so...site plan for the apartment at this time. Dean Johnson: My name is Dean Johnson. I'm one of the co-developers. One thing I wanted to...validity. We looked at this site... We don't really look at it as say the numbers. We look at it as outlot...so we worked our site plan...and we did save these groves of trees... As Gary pointed out, there's some trees on the ordinance having to do with townhomes that are independently owned with a zero lot line. Whereas if they were condos...discussing this issue. ...amenities that are going to go to the homeowners. We do have plans here that... We have done another townhome project. You always learn by doing. This one will have a sprinkler system. This one will have...maintenance free type of a siding. That always seem to be the thing that plagued the association once the tlbuilding was up was the maintenance. Totlot was something that as much as Todd recommended we do and something we had in the plans already because we expect these things to be sold to a lot of starter families... We also too have learned that sprinkler systems...so the piece of property is - Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 12 e going to be irrigated. One of the issues that came up here has to do with Lot 14 and Lot 13. Lot 14 seems to be an open piece of ground. Lot 13 is the one with the apartment building. Something that's been brought up is the fact that we could sell it do something else... The reason we split half of it was because we did not feel it was a fair burden to the townhomes to have that piece of ground next to a...that the residents and quantity of residents that came into the apartment building should share in some of the costs of maintaining this property per density...are worked so that... That is the reason why... We have seen those types of problems. Did do a townhome project in Plymouth. At the time cedar siding. We all all weather this and that...and the painting bill and their watering are their two largest expenses that they have... Any questions? Mavis Sculley: Mavis Sculley and I live at 787...Drive which I believe is right across the highway from this development and I guess I haven't quite understand the map. How does this connect up with Kerber? I can see the line there but where does it actually come out on this side? So this does not extend all the way over to Kerber? Does it begin at Powers then? Olsen: Right. And then where those other townhomes are, that's where it will connect. ~avis Sculley: That's what concerns me. That was one the things that was concerning me. Considering the density there already and with apartments or townhomes or whatever so I'm concerned that if this ran into that, that it would make literally just a wall of townhomes and multiple unit dwellings. The second thing that concerns me was that hillside. We have to have an easement. We know we bought ours so we could maintain the sanctity so to speak of the valley and we were just under the impression that was also going to be maintained on the opposite side of the highway and when you look in the direction of the valley across the way, you would also see trees and greenery and things other than man made landscaping. That was...but that will be maintained? Okay, thank you. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor except Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. (Tim Erhart's discussion with Jo Ann Olsen and the developers was not audible on the tape.) Emmings: I'm opposed to it the way it's...but it's almost okay. I take it that this is a good location to have some high density development. I like the zero lot line business of locating... I think again we need to offer a diversity of housing in our city that we don't have now...and this almost does it. I like the way they look. I think a reasonable amount of thought has gone into the plan. My objections are these. I could almost .ive with the Lot 14 and sliding everything over and open a space up a ~ittle bit and making more density on the south side that way. Then I can't 1 i ve wi th. . . My obj ections are these. I think the parking is woefully inadequate. I think that the setbacks from the property lines are totally inadequate and I think that the setbacks from the road itself Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 13 e are inadequate. The density is too high. The impervious surface is too high and I see that the potential for that apartment building coming in, that just adds... That being said, on top of everything else, you talk about a glitch in our ordinance but we've still got an ordinance to apply. When we put together this PUD ordinance, the essence of it was that the City should get something. That a PUD should not be granted unless the City gets something that... So far nothing that I've heard offered, the preservation of wetlands which is required under our ordinance... And a tot lot which it seems to me for the amount of development that's going in, in itself would decide... The totlot again is something that would be used as an amenity to sale of the units. Anybody who would look at them is going to say do you have a place for my kids to play but I don't think the City is getting anything at all. And for all those reasons, I'm opposed to it. I said a lot of negative things. Now let's go back to the positive things. I like this type of development. I like it where you've got it. I'd just like to see it done a little differently. The applicant's architect made a statement from the audience. Emmings: When it becomes a PUD it's not R-12. And it's not R-12 anymore, then I get to say the setbacks are... 14 extra spaces for visitors is... We could argue all night long but I'm getting my comments. You've had your chance and not it's my chance. It's inadequate and it's inadequate ~ecause every, I think it's inadequate because you have a single car ~arage for those units. You're talking about young families though. That's what you said the market is. Most of those young families are going to have two cars. That puts 1 in the garage and 1 outside and 1 as a visitor car. Where do the people with the single car garage... When they have Thanksgiving at their house, where do they park? It's inadequate. Ellson: Jo Ann, when you were giving your report you said that the oak trees were being designated... Olsen: Alan Olsen, when he came out and he is doing all of that and that was one of the sites that was... Ellson: The 11 as well as the hill? Olsen: The hill is definitely... Ellson: My biggest concern was those oak trees. They're about 100 years old and I'm not going to be around by the time we replace them and... I think the City has already made, indicated that if we really wanted to say respect the trees that are out there, it's almost impossible to do something to protect them and maybe it's just bad timing. Who knows. In a month they might have been a protected woods... f/iatzli: Would this require a zoning amendment? Olsen: A rezoning is part of the PUD. Batzli: So the people to the north were notified that this was...? Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 14 e Jo Ann Olsen's answer wasn't audible on the tape. Batzli: Do you plan on putting deed restrictions on Lot 13 or is this actually a registered deed? Is that what we did on the other lot where they clearcut the trees? Olsen: Which lot? Triple Crown? Batzli: Yes. Olsen: That was just, there wasn't anything in the plan. Batzli: Was that just in their covenants? I guess I had a couple questions. One thing that I'd really like to see is that we're not... If we're not building the apartment building right now, I have a question why it's even in there...if that's what they're going to have. If this is being separated, I don't want to give approval to it now. I'd rather see it all open and have them spread everything out a little bit here rather than cram it together and then decide that they have to go with a PUD. So I agree it should probably be higher density development but I think there's room in the lot to do something like that without doing what they're requesting tonight. I'd prefer to see more given to the city ~l though. . . Wildermuth: I don't think we're at the PUD point... I'd like to see the applicant improve the building... The parking adequate addressed. Unless the applicant can convince me otherwise, I think there should be a provision...to change to double garages for each unit. In looking at the plan... What is the construction... Applicant's answer from the audience wasn't audible on the tape. Wildermuth: What is the difference in cost, construction cost for putting that in brick? The applicant's answer from the audience wasn't audible on the tape. Dean Johnson: I'd like to point out that... The small units will require an annual income to qualify of $30,057.00 per year to qualify for those units. It's going to be our goal to try to keep the price low so they're more affordable units... Headla: ...totlot near the parking. equipment? Who pays for the playground Dean Johnson: The homeowners association. We as developers pay for the equipment... ~eadla: And then the City maintains it? Dean Johnson: No... Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 15 e Headla: ...1 looked at that and it's a 50 foot drop. I thought that's terrible. I think the Park and Recreation Committee would take that tremendous asset. All the people...just think what they could do for sliding in the wintertime. They could be out there 8 hours a day and I think the City could really capitalize on that. I just think that's a tremendous asset that we overlook and we ought to try to capture it. ...it's a safe place for them to be. I like the plantings. I like all the deciduous. I'm not that concerned about the oak trees. I think they're past their ultimate climax. If we put anything in there...is going to kill them. Not today or tomorrow but 3-4 years when we kill them, then the City doesn't get anything out of it. But if they come in and...I think if we can get that trade, I think that's reasonable. Gary Purser: ...the zero lot line. Conrad: The zero lot line is a little bit different issue than the ordinance says in the PUD what we're trying to accomplish. The accomplishment is we relax standards and hopefully we get something in return. That's pure and simple what a PUD is. Maybe this concept which you've got, obviously there's some glitches but there's some glitches in what you've got planned, you obviously knew it didn't meet our ordinance. You put more density on, you put more impervious surface on. The way I have to read it, it's our norm...so if there was a plan that kind of meets ~ur ordinance and meets the intent of the ordinance, and I think most of ~the people here said they don't mind the townhouses and I like the townhouse idea. I think we all envisioned apartments going in here and that's why we have an R-12 designation and you're trying to do something a little bit different. Maybe it doesn't quite work as easily but I don't mind the townhouse. The zero lot line is fine and maybe there's some problems in our ordinance to try to accommodate that that you can resolve in the future but I think the from the pure and simple standpoint, I don't believe you've tried to meet the intent of the ordinance and that's why I prefaced our whole discussion saying, if you want, you're here under a technicality basically. You're applying for the PUD because of a technicality. Not because you have some interesting features and property that you want to alter. Not because you want to embellish something and give the City something. I didn't see many cases other than the landscaping. That's alright. I didn't see anything where we would feel, the Planning Commission comfortable with this. On the other hand, I think we see a lot of things that are positive that unfortunately, my preference is that you try to meet the ordinance as it stands and we would work with you to try to help you to do that but my preference right now, unless you can go out and show us how you're embellishing this into a PUD... On the other hand, I'll remind you that we're pretty strict on PUD's and City Council sometimes has differed. They take other views besides ours when they review them as a concept for a PUD... I think you're missing the intent of our ordinance basically and you came in not trying to not meet them and our intent in Chanhassen is greenery and open spaces and the ..ereservation of some of the wetlands and I think you're missing the mark. ~e obviously want high density here. That's why we zoned it R-12 but if you want to increase the density over what we originally intended, and I think when you do that we become a little more critical. I think the parking appears to be a problem to me like it has been with some other Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 16 e people. In other residential subdivisions, when a house goes in and they bring in a single family unit and there's one garage and no place for storage and what have you, we've been very critical of those designs. So I want, now that you're really giving home ownership here, I think we've become kind of critical of what this neighborhood is going to look like in 10 years. The parking appears to be a problem to me. I know you've got more parking than individual units and I, like other members, are concerned with visitors and 14 units. I've visited developments like this and parking becomes a problem and I think the city will end up with the problem as people end up parking on the main road. So from that standpoint I'm concerned and I'm a little bit concerned and my direction is for you to somehow meet the impervious surface...but I think we have to meet that because that has some meaning in what we're trying to develop in Chanhassen. That means green spaces and a little bit of openness and places for people to go. Based on the land, and again I don't care how you do it. If you bundle more property in here or not, I think you have to meet the density standards that we set but I think I'd go along with the other small lots that you recommend and I can go along setting the lot lines so if that means you have to take out one whole unit or you have to bundle in additional property, that's what you do. I guess I can give you my direction but I think...and I think the staff has given us some other alternatives of bundling in some land where the apartments are but that chunk sort of bothers me too. I guess I could prefer to look at the units ~ere as being as what we're looking at and hopefully that will mee tthe ~oning ordiance, or the ordinances as they stand. Unless you start developing some... Here are some reasons for granting a PUD which then you could possibly say, yes that is PUD. The last thing I'll say is we try to, one thing sets precedent and...we're always concerned if we set precedent on the Planning Commission and I think our minds tell us that other things that have come in the past that have looked like this...PUD status. So those are my comments. My preference tonight and I guess I'll ask the applicants what they'd like to do on this one. My preference tonight would be to table it or turn it down. Tabling it to see if staff and the applicant can work together to see if could come in with something that staff believes is good. Whether it be a PUD and bringing something or whether it's something different on meeting the certain zoning requirements. Or we could vote on it tonight and send it along so you could get reaction from the City Council which many times is different than ours. Gary Purser: ...We in our minds have met that. Now as I see it then, what you're deciding on tonight, we can go back and... To do that, we can have an architect draw up some prelims on the building. Say this is the building. We can bring it back in... What you're deciding tonight, just so you know...3,600 square foot on the lot and that's something...zero lot line is fee simple ownership. We looked at the lot line...something that should be, as much as it's a progressive idea, should be considered as something that we are giving to the city. They are getting...and that is 4liomething... Conrad: But you can't...this parcel to meet the impervious surface ratio. without the condo, you can't structure that whole parcel, the overall parcel within the apartment and Lots 13 and 14 is 34.3%. Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 17 e Gary Purser: Granted we don't have the building design but we're saying we're going to live within that lot... We are already within your building service so that really isn't the issue. Jo Ann Olsen discussed the impervious surface ratio. Gary Purser: What we're saying, is that really that much of a consideration? ...That's why we get back to this zero lot line. That's why I'm saying... I guess what we're trying to do is get it less of a cost. Something that is an advantage to the City as well. That's what we really want to do. Conrad: Any other comments? What do you want to do with this one? Erhart: ...as part of your PUD...maybe you meet the coverage, you meet the density. The one thing you don't meet is the philosophy. I think what we're saying is, as a PUD we can negotiate that lot size. We don't have to require that you have 3,600 square feet. I think as a rule...and I would suggest maybe you take another...setback from the through street. I think that's what we're looking at and then we'll talk about impervious surface.. . a;ary Purser: Hopefully that can happen. It's hard to get direction ~hen... I guess we met with staff 3 times and...are those the types of things...as much as I'm sure you guys want to work with us...give and take. If we have to cut the density in half, obviously there's no way... We'd just as soon not do that... We could change the density around to where it is... but it's hard for us to know. Obviously we're meeting the design. We've got the design...but we have to have a general direction which way to go. As much as we've already...we're asking you. Dean Johnson: This is the sixth concept that we've done. Gary Purser: We've met with staff 3 times to try to get this. This is something that your staff worked with us. Conrad: I guess the real question is if they came back...would it still meet what we would consider a PUD? Emmings: But they can't come to us and ask us that question. They can't ask us until there's a specific plan in front of us whether it's something that we'll approve or not because we don't know what it looks like and we don't know if it meets our, we can't answer that question. The things that they're proposing to me, it sounds like they're headed a long way in the right direction. I like the general idea. I like what they're doing here. I think they're doing too much of it. Now you're talking about taking some of it away, and I'm real interested. To me and my objections, .it would be coming a long way. Whether you come far enough so I say yes, ~hat's good, I don't know until I see it. Gary Purser: I guess that's what I meant... Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 18 e Dean Johnson: The other thing too is the parking. You need to...deed restrictions,... Gary Purser: Going back again on the deed restrictions... Conrad: ...Commission is kind of wasting our time and Steve, as you said, we won't know until we see something. Yet on the other hand, what the offer is...what we would get out of a PUD is we allowed a smaller lot, we would get individual ownership of the property. That's the trade off. We would grant PUD status on property that we thought was going to be apartment buildings anyway so we kind of zoned it thinking we were going to get apartment buildings which it's not putting the townhouse down. I like that and I like the individual owners but it kind of goes back to a philosophy, are we getting anything in return? They certainly can hear that. If we're going to say, well still you're just not a PUD. Yes, they've taken care of impervious and taken care of density and we've got a totlot that's here and there's 10 more parking spaces. Do we have something that we would say, that's a PUD and we got a good trade? We just bought for Chanhassen individual ownership versus one owner. wildermuth: That's something but I think the PUD is something you've done uniquely with landscaping. Something done uniquely during construction and frankly I haven't seen that here. _mmings: I wonder if they should be asking us or if we should be looking at some zoning ordinance amendments along with this. I didn't think of this business of getting individual ownership as an amenity but I get a certain feel to that... and when you look at what it says in the PUD, it says...encourages creative site planning and subdivisions of high quality. For Chanhassen, this is kind of unique quality. It does have a certain amount of creativity...individual ownership. Maybe we should be looking at something to work... Conrad: In the past City Council's had a difference of opinion on what constitutes a PUD. Ernmings: The old Council. Conrad: Is there any valid, and it's still our choice here but is there a way to get Council feedback other than a aye or nay at this point in time? I guess the aye and the nay gets it off the table but a tabling doesn't. Any insights on this Steve? Hanson: I think you can always pass something up and then pass it with direction. I would venture to say, really what I hear you talking about tonight is the concept plan as opposed to the preliminary. They've asked you to consider both and when you started the discussion...concept plan so you could pass that concept plan forward if you wanted to. If you do ~hat, you ought to do it with as much as direction as you can and I think ~he best way to do that is either with approval or denial with specific reasons for the denial as with the conditions for approval... Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 19 - Conrad: Is there any way of getting around granting a PUD status unless we change the zoning ordinance in the R-l2 district? Maybe I'll say it clearer because I didn't understand what I just said. I see the PUD as something really kind of special and unique and creative and contrary to Steve, I don't think this is unique and creative. They're doing something that place can use. It says we want high density there. I would like you to encourage them to come in and taking a few of our comments and changing that. Are we locked out of any other alternatives right now? Meaning are we forced to be granting that PUD based on what we're seeing tonight? Hanson: I don't think you can grant smaller lot sizes without it and that's the direction hopefully... In order to accomplish the single ownership through the property owner. The only way I saw that they could do that was through the PUD process. Conrad: Because a zoning ordinance would take too long or why? Hanson: It's the only way we have the possibility to reduce that lot size. Conrad: Unless we change the zoning ordinance right? Hanson: -conrad: Yes. Which would take what? Hanson: I would venture to say 3 or 4 months. That's going to open up a whole different group of... Conrad: Just out of curiousity, would you like this to go up to City Council for their input or would you like to take it up there with our concurrence? There's a couple strategies. ...City Council goes along a bunch of what we say. They pay a whole lot of attention to us. They disagree in many cases. They have disagreed in what constitutes a PUD...let you know that. Do you have a feeling in terms of what you'd like to do? Gary Purser: ...We obviously would like to... By the time we petition the City to do the work...so if something could be arranged that way. We ourselves think we'll do whatever it takes in whatever time we have to do . . . Conrad: Do you see us granting this as a PUD status? Headla: No I don't. Conrad: Jim, do you see a way to persuade you that this would be a PUD? tlrildermuth: Lower density... Conrad: Lower density would mean... So you're not looking for half? They're not going to take it down to half but you're looking for a few less? Brian? Anything that they could do or would you consider Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 20 - something like this as a possible PUD? Anything that would make you think that yes, that's a PUD? Batzli: I think if they were to...Lot 14 and get some more open area that way and decrease the density a little... I think parking's a problem. I like that they are actually saving all the trees even though it's on a s lope. . . ElIson: I can picture it... Conrad: Steve, can you get into a situation where you would pass this? Ernmings: Yes. Conrad: And those are...what you discussed? Emmings: Yes they are. Conrad: ...you don't think the developer could never achieve? Emmings: I would like to see them move this project... If Lot 14 doesn't have any development. If we lower some density. I don't know what can be moved... The only thing that still sticks a little bit with me is the ~ize of the apartment building. I'm not sure you can put that big of an apartment building on there and still satisfy the... I think I could be convinced. Conrad: I guess you've heard that we haven't ruled the PUD out. There are some amenities to the property that I think you could persuade me on. The numbers in certain cases look really great to me. I could go with a PUD. Therefore, I guess what we're saying, the consensus would be, other than Dave. Headla: I'd like to see the portion... Conrad: I think that means we should table it and see if city staff can muddle through some of the comments that we made. Work with you and see if you can come back with us with a revised site plan. Another concept plan that might encourage us. Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table action on PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights so they can work with city staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST 78TH STREET, CITY OF CHANHASSEN: ~. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW. Steve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 21 e Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Brad Johnson: I want to just say a couple comments then Arvid Elness is here from Arvid Elness and Company. This will be the first, I don't know if you guys have seen the color rendering. This is the apartment building in the back and that's the...we're proposing on this part right here. Then Phase 2... At the request of the City we dropped phase 3 here as part of our program... That gives you an idea. I've asked Arvid to address, the signage issue I guess I want to talk about too. The signs are kind of... We need the signs permitted by the ordinance... It's back lit. It's that ban, what do you call it. If you look at something like Gelco. That sign. That kind of sign that we've got a dark opaque feeling and the letters are cut into that opaque. Arvid can address facia... Arvid Elness: I'll just make a couple points. This is the soffit plan. Two things that were addressed here... We did a number of studies and I guess our feeling architecturally had to do...one is a matter of... The second is the fact that these elements are standing out in front of this building and I feel personally that they shouldn't be distinguished as a feature or element that is different than the main building. I think it will look like a simple building with some large brick high risers here standing and the facade standing out in front of it with a change of Anaterial. I notice the material used on that free standing element that ~tand out in front of it will characterize the theme of what should have proper materials and should feel like they're integrated in the design so our thinking is to take the same materials that we're using...so this element here looks like a part of this building and not distinguish it as something different. In doing that, the materials of the main building are like lap siding. They're cedar lap siding and cedar shakes on the upper part and then our color ban that will wrap around the building. So in'doing that we just brought those materials forward and put them on the front here...because this is really a free standing sort of spacial form out in front and it creates a shadow. Creates some interest and also gives us the opportunity to put some identification on there. Brad asked what the signage said...we're talking about. We did some studies as to ways we could do it on a professional type building and I think the...was that it was because part of the design of the building integrated and was well controlled...color ban of the building or could be used to introduce some backing. Then it sort of looked like part of the archtectural... So it's sort of designed and integrated into the building and to have...as opposed to a more commercial type brackets of signage where there's a certain amount of freedom through the signage to create an identity and mark...so I think we're comfortable that with the bannage system that goes above the entry at eye level... The problem with the drawings was that we submitted Friday without identifying what we had agreed to as the quantity of the potential site... So the two issues I have I guess are the choice of materials on the exterior of the building and I think that's in ~character with what I'm seeing in Chanhassen at this point and what's ~appening around town. These are materials that are very common place... Brad Johnson: What about the lighting? Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 22 e Arvid Elness: Then the City has some lighting plans that we looked at for our standard ones that were going on the street... The lighting for the parking is taken care of on the plan. What we tried to do beyond that is because this element which stands out in front of the main building has sort of a void, a space between it's...we put standard lights on the back side of these high risers that stand out here so at night each one of these main areas will be lit indirectly to the back side so they'll glow with it's own light. Then the city standards out there with the light... So we'll do some architectural lighting as we call it in these areas and every place they refer around the building. We'll probably put some light in the cupola on the roof up here... Those are the lighting ideas that we have. Signage I've explained. The sign ban... Conrad: Anything else? Emmings moved, ElIson second to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: I have no problems with the signage. ...The sidewalk there. I foresee that to be a... That's the way I look at it. I'm concerned about the skateboards coming down there, whatever. Are we putting up traffic signs or parking signs? ~anson: No. We're not proposing to put speed limit signs. Conrad: I think everybody's going to have the same kind of questions. Steve, maybe you can help us on this, or Brad. The last time this was in, we were concerned where the sidewalk ran across the traffic... We talked about speed bumps. We talked about signs. You eliminated the speed bumps. You eliminated the signs and basically what you've done is painted the walk so can you give us more rationale for that? Hanson: I personally don't see that as a problem...look at from a traffic standpoint and their recommendation was striping was more than adequate... Speed in the parking lot is not that bad and we should be able to... bringing those islands out and creating parking stalls lets you know there's something happening there and we can put in pedestrian crossing signs. In my opinion, that's what we can do and that's... Conrad: Are they going to, the pedestrian traffic, are they going to go through this or are they going to go around? Are there other sidewalks that they're going to use? Hanson: I think some of the traffic will go around that way. The other question, if somebody's walking, why are they walking in there? I can see them walking...Kenny's Market to buy groceries and then carry them back... ~Headla: I'm not concerned about people carrying groceries. I'm concerned ~bout young people on skateboards and bicycles. If you've ever had an office by a window on the second or third story or higher above a parking lot. Haveyou ever noticed those speeders in the parking lot? It's atrocious the way they can speed. I've been hit in a parking lot... It -~ Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 23 e happens. All the rationale says it shouldn't, there are speeders... I simply can not believe... I want to see something to make that sidewalk safer. wildermuth: I had a problem with the sidewalk... Batzli: Did I miss something or isn't the lighting of the building going to be...? Brad Johnson: It's all provided by the City as part of the parking lot so it's part of your site plan. Hanson: The other lighting was what the architect had mentioned... Brad Johnson: I don't have a lighting plan because the lighting plan is the parking lot plan that BRW put out. Batzli: The access here, the left area...access east..~ That's the one I talked about last time... ElIson: I don't like the...parking...juts around. I agree with Dave. I think the thing that bugs me most about all this is, we naturally think...then it stops and then you've got this distance open but this goes tlight through and there are parking places on this side and parking places on this side and there's a sidewalk in the middle. Normally a person on the sidewalk is hidden behind two cars until they get out in there and I... and I don't like that. I think there should be speed bumps, stop signs... Emmings: I have the same reservation. I essentially feel that... I don't have any problem with anything except the sidewalk directing traffic... What Dave says about kids on skateboards and little kids walking, they can walk out between two parked cars. If they're 3 1/2 feet or shorter, the driver doesn't have a chance to see them and they don't have a chance to see the car. You're creating a situation where I think it's...driving down streets, you're always thinking about kids coming out between cars. It's happened to me. I didn't hit them but other people have and we're creating that situation. I think maybe widening it out. Eliminate some of the parking spaces on each side of that sidewalk...sight lines, that would help. Having a painted crosswalk I think would be, I think that's what we asked before. To me that's essential. I'd put stop signs there. ...stop at that sidewalk at least until I was absolutely satisfied through it's use that the traffic on the sidewalk didn't warrant stop signs. I'd start with that and then make them prove that it wasn't necessary. Then we'd just have... Tim Erhart's discussion could not be heard on the tape. .conrad: ...yet from the apartment building standpoint, they're going co... It's probably going to be there. It's fairly straight. I'd have to go along with Steve. I think it may be a little bit of overkill but I think it should have some kind of signage. That's my only comments. I like the lighting. I like the signage. Is there a motion? I guess we Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 24 . have to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. Is there a motion? ElIson moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing on the preliminary plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: I guess I was a little confused about what exactly... was the preliminary plat? ...sidewalk issue. Hanson: The sidewalk issue is part of the site plan. That was the first document... Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the North Side Parking Lot subject to the plans stampted "Received April 14, 1989". All voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: Is there a motion for the site plan? Headla: ...1989 with the following recommendations. The three listed. 4Ifhe first two. Pedestrian signs be added to crosswalks. I'd like to go to number 3 on the opposite page. Traffic engineer should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps to maximize accessibility. Conrad: Is there a second? The motion fails for lack of second. Is there another motion? Erhart: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on the plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" with the conditions, number 1 as is. Number 2 as is. Number 3, did you start out by saying what? Headla: It's on the opposite page there. Number 3. Erhart: Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs. And item number 4, to review the west access to increase access to the area for... To review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot... Hanson: the. . . ? Is the intent to try and get the access coming back towards I'm just trying to clarify that. 4Ikmmings: Did the Public Safety Director and Fire Department review this plan for the access? They did? Conrad: Is there a second to Tim's motion? Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 25 e ElIson: I'll second it. Erhart moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend app~oval of ~evised site plan and final facia, signage and exterior lighting based on plans stamped "Received April 14, 1989" subject to the following conditions: 1. No business may have more than one wall sign. 2. No unpainted aluminum shall be allowed on the exterior. 3. Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of the parking lot for safety, with the possibility of realigning the sidewalk and adding stop signs. 4. Review the west entrance of access to the north parking lot. Erhart, ElIson, Wildermuth and Headla voted in favor of the motion. Batzli, Conrad and Emmings voted in opposition to the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. ~atzli: My reason is, I still don't like the eastern entrance to the south. The eastern most southern entrance. Emmings: It just emphasizes the sidewalk issue. I can't approve the plan the way it is. PUBLIC HEARING: COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 AND 4, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN MALL, INTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD. B. REZONING A PORTION OF BG DISTRICT TO CBD DISTRICT LOCATED BETWEEN MARKET BOULEVARD AND LOT 4, CHANHASSEN MALL. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 80 UNIT HOTEL. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the above three items. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order on the preliminary plat and Rezoning issue. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in 4Ifavor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #89-7 as shown on the plat stamped "Received April 11, 1989" with the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 26 e 1. The applicant receive vacation of the right-of-way and utility easements as shown on the preliminary plat. 2. Outlot A and D will be reconveyed to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, once the improvements to the site have been completed. 3. All conditions of the site plan approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning Request #89-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Erhart: rezoned? A question. Is there any other area in this area that should be Just kind of review this whole area... Conrad: report. The next item is the site plan review. Are there any comments? Jo Ann's given the staff "ruman Howe: My name is Truman Howe with Truman Howe and Associates. ~e're the architects for the project and I'd like to introduce an associate of mine... Mike Simon presented a site plan review to the Planning Commission. Emmings: Where will that sign sit on the site plan? Can you show us on the site plan? Mike Simon: It sits right in here...The other two smaller signs, there's one small sign, 16 square feet at the edge of the canopy there. Then there's another sign facing south that's 37 square feet. The sign is a... Bill Dahl: Country Hospitality Suites is a new franchise created by the Carlson Companies about 2 1/2-3 years ago. In this period of time they've sold 283 development franchise rights across the United States and Canada. At the present time there's 5 properties open and another one opening May 4th in Holland, Michigan. There will be about 18 additional properties this year across the country. Country Hospitality Suites is a division of Carlson Hospitality Group Inc. which the Carlson Hospitality Group includes a Radisson Hotel Company. Colony Resorts which they have primarily in the Hawaiin Islands. TGI Friday restaurants and the Country Hospitality Group. The Country Hospitality Group includes County Kitchen restaurants, Country Hospitality Inns, Country Hospitality Suites and Country Hospitality Resorts. Part of this program is that all properties ~re listed in the Radisson Hotel directory... We're also on the same ~eservation system as the Radisson Hotels out of Omaha, Nebraska. The Country Line...take reservations through there. We're listed in all the Ask Mr. Foster Travel Agencies. They're the second the largest in the world and the largest in the United States and generate some 22,000 Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 27 e overnights each day through their travel, operation. The operation... National Management Company. A professional hotel and management company...in accord with the Country Hospitality Inc. guidelines. They are...with the Country Hospitality facia look that they like on the outside of the building with the decor on the inside using a very similar decor to that plus the addition of...Herb and Carol Bloomberg. There will be a couple of small meeting rooms in this particular hotel but we're actually going to rely on the Dinner Theater for their meeting and banquet spaces and also utilizing the Dinner Theaters for some of the daytime meetings when the theaters are not running. Conrad: What's the typical rack rate? Bill Dahl: The rack rate being in the neighborhood of $48.00 to $65.00. Conrad: Are they really suites? Bill Dahl: Yes. We have a number of two room suites. They have two honeymoon or luxury suites as we call them. Then two bedroom suites. Two room suites like Embassy Suites. Some what we call demi-suites which are larger suites. Largely in one room. That will be equipped with a queen sized or king sized bed and the sofa sleeper that accommodates a family of four. Each suite will have a microwave oven and refrigerator and a wet ear in it. ElIson: Is there going to be a restaurant or a lounge bar in this? Bill Dahl: Not within the hotel. We will serve a continental breakfast. As far as full...no actual cooked to order food. ElIson: Everybody will get into their rooms by going inside? Bill Dahl: That's correct. There's no outside entrances. Correct. We'll have a swimming pool and exercise room. Excellent safety visibility from the front desk over the swimming pool and the exercise room area. very extremely fine layout. We're quite pleased with it. ElIson: You said it was being run by a company. Does that mean like this is franchised but it's actually run by Carlson? Bill Dahl: No, this is a franchise. Conrad: Anything else we should know about? Herb, you haven't said anything. Herb Bloomberg: I think this is rather...Chanhassen. My wife Carol and I are going to pretty much do the interior decor... Some of you maybe know we managed to get possession of the interior paneling from the old ~Charley's Restaurant including the wonderful copper... We were unable to ~et the statue. But we really look forward to having this thing in operation and I think it's good for Chanhassen... Conrad: Any other comments? Planning Commission comments. Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 28 e Erhart: The last I heard, there was supposed to be a regular restaurant with the... Clayton Johnson: Part of our plans in the theater are to have a public restaurant to serve the hotel guests. Erhart: Is that where these Charley decorations? Clayton Johnson: No. Herb's talking about using the interior of Charley's in the lobby, the fireplace and lobby area in the hotel. Erhart: ...1 had a concern, is the pylon sign going to have pricing? Room pricing on that pylon sign? Bill Dahl: No. That was originally in the Country Hospitality program to have the pricing signs. This new concept they came up with so at 10:00 at night if they had vacancies, they could reduce the rates...they got some comments from some of the guests in the property so that part of it's been scratched. I would love to have a reader board there so we can give informational comments on what's going on it the hotel. Such and such meeting or that type of thing or some information with special holiday weekend in conjunction with the Dinner Theater. Would that informational ~oard be considered part of the sign ordinance? Olsen: Yes. Erhart: ...putting pricing out there makes this thing look like a highway hotel and I just don't think that's he image we want here. This is a downtown...in conjunction with the Dinner Theater. Conrad: Reader boards are nice to have. Erhart: Yes, I have no problem with that. Conrad: It gives them the flexibility to advertise their price but... Erhart: ...prices is not consistent with what we have in the downtown. Then one more comment on the conditions. Are there any 3:1 slopes on the plat? Olsen: There are some. Emmings: ...1 think it's just great... Ellson: It looks fine to me. Batzli: Even though the applicant themselves, Country Hospitality Suites, 4Itthe Carlson Companies...so I abstain. Wildermuth: I like the idea of a hotel... The one reservation I have is with the parking...short of parking... Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 29 . Headla: Wouldn't it have been appropriate for the fire department to comment on this? Olsen: They did review it... Headla: They didn't comment on it? I assume they're going to put in writing that they didn't need any additional fire fighting equipment. Olsen: The new truck that we're getting, that will... Headla: ...I've asked a number of times... Conrad: No comments. But just a reference to the staff report. It said the requirements are 88 parking spaces and they're providing 99. There's no restaurant. There's no meeting space so I guess... I like it. I have no comments. Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site plan 189-2 as shown on the site plan dated "March 15, 1989" with the following conditions: l. -2. Final Plat approval of the plat for Bloomberg Addition. The sign facing on the pylon sign shall not exceed 64 square feet. 3. Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report. 4. An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals. 5. All side slopes greater than 3:1 will need erosion protection. 6. A typical section of roadway and parking lot is to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. 7. The applicant will be entering into a development contract with the City for phased development of the site including the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these improvements. 8. All privately owned underground utilities, i.e. telephone, gas, electric, shall be relocated outside of the building pad at the time of construction. 9. All roadway and walkways disturbed by the construction shall be replaced in sufficient proportion to provide a stabilized pavement area. 410. All conditions of the preliminary plat approval. All voted in favor except Brian Batzli who abstained and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 30 e PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE BY DELETING SECTION 20-255, SECTION 20-574, SUBD. 6, AND SECTION 20-773, SUBD. 6 (CONTRACTOR'S YARDS), CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. wildermuth moved, ElIson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: I'd like the record to show that there's nobody else in the room except for us and staff. Conrad: Any general comments? Emmings: I want to ask if the contractor's yards that presently exist, were those people specifically notified of this? Hanson: We did not individually notify them. Ellson: I thought we usually do... 4ItEmmings: Are you telling us that we're not obligated to? Conrad: We're not. The question is, to be sure... Emmings: On one hand... Conrad: Does anybody else have any other comments? (Discussion went on between commissioners that wasn't audible on the tape. ) Headla: If we approve this tonight, how's that going to affect the ones that already exist? Hanson: It won't... Headla: Then I don't see any reason to not approve it. Conrad: It's just that, would we learn anything additional? Emmings: My concern is this. If we're going to make them, I guess the word is legal non-conforming uses right? My question is, what terminates a legal non-conforming use? If they don't use that property for a period of a year, how would we ever know? ~llson: You've got to tell the neighborhood. Hanson: It's the same way we'd know that a conditional use now had expired. Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 31 . Emmings: How? Hanson: If it's not used for a year. Emmings: How would we know? I guess here's the point. If the object of doing this is to eventually rid ourselves of contractor's yards because they're inappropriate with the future development of the City, then it would seem to me that we would want to maybe think about... ElIson: Applying every year or something? Emmings: My voice came out of her mouth. How'd you do that? Maybe figure out some way to nail down when the year stops and starts so we can say if...we can't do this. If that's the ultimate goal for taking this step because one of these could go out for a couple years and then people sell the property and somebody starts it up again, we haven't got anything. Headla: It's like putting your dock in every year. You've got to put your dock in every year. Who knows... Emmings: Maybe we could somehow canvas these things and make sure they're _n use in the summertime once or twice or having something the building inspector does when he goes out to do other things. If he's driving by, he takes a look. I don't know. I don't know how you do it. If the goal is to get rid of them ultimately... Batzli: I think Steve raises an interesting point and because it's 11:30 at night...I was always under the impression we were trying to avoid having more into the city rather than trying to get rid of what we have. Conrad: I think that point is well taken... Do you want to deal with that tonight? Batzli: No. Conrad: Jim? Wildermuth: No. Conrad: Dave, you've got your coat on. Headla: I'm going to turn into a pumpkin in 30 seconds. Conrad: Any comments? Headla: No... ~onrad: I think it's valid to take a look at the current uses of contractor's yards and make sure that they're not used... Any other comments on the zoning ordinance amendments? Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 32 ~'e Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the City Code to delete the following sections from the zoning ordinance: Section 20-255 Section 20-574, Subd. 6 Section 20-773, Subd. 6 All voted in favor and the motion carried. Erhart: My comment is, as time has gone on on this thing, it's become more and more clear that we are recommending the correct thing... APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 5, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING STAFF. Steve Hanson updated the Planning Commission on what work had been done on the following items: convenience stores, wetland articles, zoning code, ~se of matrix and letter from Roger Knutson dated April 12, 1989. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m.. Submitted by Steve Hanson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim -