Loading...
2003-10-28 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 2003 The regular meering of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 in the Council Chambers at Ciry Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners B. McManus, Miller, Betlej, and Hesse and M. McManus. Those excused: Commissioners Dolan. City Staffpresent were Public Warks Director Jim Danielson and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Also present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Commission reviewed the minutes of September 23, 2003. The following corrections were made: Pa eg 5, lst paragraph, should read: "Commissioner Betlej said some issues with the fire department have included adequate drive width �� and turnarounds space for emergency vchicles." Page 5, 4`�' �araQraph from bottom, should read: "Chair Lorberbaum said thcre are some flag lots in thc City and long private drives. Chair Lorberbaum said a lot of #�g-le�s flag lot applications have been turned down and she is concerned as flag lots are difficult to worlc with in general. Mr. Gillespie commented on Highway 35E and the apartments in the area, and that the only property this would touch would be his own and Mr. Manthy's (being about 400' fect away from his place). Page 8, 3`a para�raph, lsr sentence should read: . Commissioner polan said the reason some people want solid fences was because of neighbor complaints/arguments." Page 9, the following motion should be changed as follows: "COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSiONER HESSE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS OF THIS THROUGH LOT, NOT FURTHER THAN THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT THE FENCE IS STAINED TO MATCH THE EXISTING DECK, AND RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE �9� FROM THE 30% OPEN REQUIREMENT AS THE SHADOW BOX IS THE APPROPRIATE USE. Pape 10, the following motion should be changed as follows: "COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, AND RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE �'$� FROM THE 30% OPEN REQUIREMENT AS THE SHADOW BOX IS THE APPROPRIATE USE." COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 AS CORRECTED. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003 4 AYES 0 NAYS 1 ABSTENTION (Commissioner B. McManus) MOTION CARRIED **It is noted that Commissioner M. McManus arrived at 7:35 pm. HEARINGS PLANNING CASE #03-53 Louis Eschle 1844 Dodd Road VARIANCE AND CUP FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE Mr. Grittman introduced the request for a variance and condirional use permit to allow construcrion of an attached garage of more than 1,200 square feet, the variance is needed to allow that garage to encroach into what is a required rear setback. Mr. Grittman reviewed the site plan. Mr. Grittrnan said the applicant is proposing to remove the detached garage and replace with a 1,300 square foot attacl�ed garage. Mr. Grittman said the variance is required due to the depth of the lot. The requirement for rear yard setback is 30 ft., or 20% of the depth of the lot, whichever is greater. In this case, that would require a 90 ft. rear setback rather than the 53 ft. that is proposed. Mr. Grittman said it was his opinion that this properry, because of its size, has numerous oppartuniries for a location of a garage that would meet the setback requirements and does not believe a variance is justified as it does not show a hardship. Mr. Grittrnan said there are a number of ways to look at how this structure might fit on this lot, and one of the common requirements applied to front yard setbacks for single family homes is to average front yard setbacks for adjacent structures. If, in this case, this requirement applied to the rear yard setback, the proposed garage would meet the standards. Mr. Grithnan said that the 20% rule was adopted for lots such as this, with extraordinary depth, and to avoid construcring homes on the very back porrion of the lot. It is suggested to take the 20% rule, and amend the code rather than grant the variance. Commissioner Miller asked for clarificarion of the 90 ft. setback from the back lot line. Commissioner Betlej said this would be the front part of the two neighboring houses. Mr. Grittman said the setback would be close. Commissioner Betlej said if the applicant subdivided his lot like the neighbors on the sides did, there would be no problem. Mr. Grittman said a subdivision would require a flag lot variance. Mr. Grittman said the applicant would srill have to deal with the lot depth, but perhaps the setback would go from 90 ft. to 53 ft. and it would srill need a variance. Chair Lorberbaum asked for the planner's recommendation for locaring the garage so that a variance would not be needed. Commissioner Hesse said the code talks about extending new structures beyond the furthest limits of neighboring homes in the front yards. Mr. Grittman said that is not the case with the back yard. Commissioner Hesse said the setback for this proposed garage would be greater than the setback of the neighbor's structure. Conunissioner Hesse referred to the learnings of a previous workshop that addressed hardship requirements. Commissioner Hesse said he thinks the proposed plan is a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Grittman said the City has the abiliry to decide what reasonable use is, however, a unique condition should be identified. Commissioner Betlej asked for clarification of the buildable area in relation to the neighboring homes. Mr. Grittman said the uniqueness in tllis case is that the neighboring properties are not standard lots, and he does not know how that affects the rear yard. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003 Commissioner Betlej asked if the existing home was destroyed, could a new home be built. Mr. Grittman said it could be as it would be conforming. It is the re-construction issue that relates to the non-conforming structures. Mr. Lou Eschle, 1844 Dodd Road, said there is a concern about the location of the well and identified the location on the site map. It is located about 5 ft. west of the proposed garage. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman that given where the well is, can the identified buildable area still be buildable and would there enough width for a two-car garage? Mr. Grittman said there is enough width for a two-car garage, but the question is whether or not the applicant could get 1,200 sq. ft. or more in that space. Commissioner B. McManus asked if there was any way the applicant could build the size the garage he wants and not violate the 20% rule. Mr. Eschle said it was suggested to move the garage to the area that now is the applicant's parking area. Commissioner B. McManus said if 5 ft. were the issue, could the applicant move the garage 5 ft. to the west. Mr. Eschle said he could not because of the well. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the parking area could be moved. Mr. Eschle said he has a drainfield in the front of the house and parking could not be placed there. Commissioner Hesse asked if the drainfield was in the suggested buildable area. Mr. Eschle said it is west of the house. Commissioner Hesse asked the applicant if he built the attached garage in the area suggested by the planner, where would the entrance to the home be. Mr. Eschle said there is a front door and a side door. Commissioner Hesse asked Mr. Eschle if he built the house. Mr. Eschle said he did not. Commissioner M. McManus said this request is for a three-car garage, and asked if the applicant would consider a two-car garage. Mr. Eschle said he currently has a two-car garage, but needs more space and needed the extra car space. Mr. Eschle said his hardship is that he would like a third stall to park his third car, as well as boat storage. Chair Lorberbaum asked the applicant if he were to receive the conditional use permit for a 1,300 sq. ft. garage, would the shed be removed. Mr. Eschle said he would remove the shed. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. There being no one present wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER B. McMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hesse reminded the Commission of the email received from the neighbor to the north in support of this proposed garage. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER B. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED AND RECOMMENDED BY CITY STAFF; AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED. Basis far the morion: 1. The finding for reasonable should not be a matter of whether the Commission thinks there are other reasonable uses for the property, but it's a matter of is what the applicant is requesting a reasonable use of the property. Commissioner Hesse thinks this is a reasonable use of the property. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003 2. Unique circumstances. Commissioner Hesse said that the applicant did not build the house. The positioning of the house was not chosen by the applicant. The well and the drainfield leaves the question of whether the applicant can reasonably build the garage within the proposed buildable area. 3. Keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Hesse said this would not be distractive in the neighborhood and has had support from the neighbor. The setback from the rear yard from the neighbors house is less than the setback being requested in this case. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said this is a unique lot and the people on the east are equally far away from the applicant as the applicant is from Dodd Road and there is no visibility issue here. This is a unique situation and the Commission will probably not see this very often. This will not affect the character of the neighborhood and this is a reasonable use. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-54 Gareth St. John 7 Mears Avenue VARIANCE FROM FRONT YARDSETBACK REQUIREMENT Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for a front yard setback variance. The applicant is Gareth St. John, of St. John Craftsman, that business being located at 7 Mears Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN. Mr. St. John is requesring the variance for the Harrington properry, located at 773 Upper Colonial Drive, Mendota Heights, MN. The Harringtons wish to construct an open porch to the front of their house. The new porch would be approximately 33 ft., 8 in. from the front right of way. Mr. Grithnan noted that although the standard minimum is 30 ft., the neighboring properties are farther back from the street than the Harrington's existing home and proposed porch. The porch would consist of two pillars and a roof over the front entry way of the structure. Mr. Grittman said the hardship could be based on the curvature of the street. The porch is an open structure and not a solid encroachment into the setback. Mr. Mike Harrington, 773 Upper Colonial Drive said the road curves as it goes to the east. Mr. Harrington said there is an addition going on the rear of the home, and the porch is only an overhang for the front entrance. Mr. Harrington said his neighbors were comfortable with this request. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public heanng. There being no one present wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HESSE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARiANCE AS PRESENTED WITH THE CURVATURE OF THE ROAD PRESENTING THE HARDSHIP. AYES Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003 NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-55 John and Dawn Karas 663 Maple Park Drive VARIANCE TO FRONT SETBACK Mr. Grittman introduced the request in which the applicant wishes to expand the home with a two-story portion consisting of a new garage and addirional living space. Mr. Grittman said with the curvature of the street, the corner of the proposed addition would encroach into the front yard setback area of 25 ft from the street right of way. The requirement is 30' ft. Mr. Grittman said this setback could be met without the variance by shifting the width of the garage to something less than the full width of the exisring structure, and there is room to construct farther toward the pool area as indicated on the site map. Commissioner Hesse said the issue of the road curvature was used on the previous case to prove a hardship, and why is this not the same in this case. Mr. Grithnan said in Case 03-54, the curve of the road was related to the extraordinary setback requirement that is imposed when two neighbaring structures are set back farther than the proposed structure. In this case, this is not the same. Commissioner M. McManus asked about the spacing of the building near the pool area. Mr. Grittrnan said the addition could be constructed closer to the pool and would then meet the requirements. Mr. Grittman said a three-car garage could be constructed and there would be room if constructed this way. Commissioner Hesse asked what the depth of the garage is. Mr. Grithnan said it was about 20 ft. and indicated the back of the garage on the site plan. Commissioner Hesse asked if the garage were moved closer to the pool, if this would be usable space. Mr. Grithnan said it would. Mr. John Karas, 663 Maple Park Drive, said he did not want to jockey the garage further over and wants to keep a straight line with the home. Mr. Karras said he would also have trouble getting his boat into the garage if it were moved over. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Karras if he was aware of staff's recommendation. Mr. Karras said he was not. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Karras if he had an architect. Mr. Karras said he did. Commissioner B. McManus asked Mr. Karras if he had any reason to believe the architect could not make minor adjustments that would suit Mr. Karras' aesthetics, get the space needed, and meet the standards of the Ciry. Mr. Karras said he would like the straight line the way it looks and does not want the house to look cut up when the addition is constructed. It would also affect the second story to the addition. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the plans are for the existing garage. Mr. Karras said he would keep some of the garage, less than 1,200 ft. and the upstairs will be a third bedroom. Mr. Karras said there is a hardship because he only has two bedrooms and two children and wife. Chair Lorberbaum reminded Mr. Karras of the requirements of a defined hardship. Mr. Karras said he needed a bigger garage to store snowmobiles and other equipment, and does not wish to have a separate shed. Chair Lorberbaum aslced staff if the applicant keeps the three car wide garage, and adds an extra width, does he stay under the 1,200 sq. ft. or will another provision be needed. Mr. Grittman said he would have to look at the floor plan, but it is assumed that based on the applicant's representation, the garage would stay under 1,200 sq. ft. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarification of where the extension would be. Mr. Karras said he did not want the extension by the pool area, but wishes to go toward the sireet. He currently has a fenced line and wishes to keep that straight. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BETLEJ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003 6 AYES 0 NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HESSE MOVED, SECONDED BY BETLEJ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED. Basis for the motion: 1. The applicant is asking for reasonable use of his property. He is asking for a 5 ft. variance for a small corner of a garage within the 1,200 sq. ft. size. 2. The curve of the road does require the applicant to jocicey the garage in such a way that it not only breaks up the home in a way that is not their first choice, but it also makes the garage less funcrional and adding dead space to the garage in parts. 3. This does not take away from the character of the neighborhood. Further Discussion Commissioner B. McManus said he liked this neighborhood and the applicant's house, but feels that because the applicant docs not want to pursue arohitectual design that would kecp within the City standards, is not a hardship. This is differentiated from the case before as there was a well and drainfield that interfered with the use of that area. Commissioner B. McManus said he feels that if the applicant did as the planner suggested, he would losc maybe a couple hundred square feet, but that may be made up elsewhere in the addirion. Commissioner B. McManus said he does not like to block good citizens from improving their property, but doesn't believe this comes close to a hardship requirement. Commissioner Miller commented on two different designs in the plans that were submitted. Commissioner Miller said he would recommend that the applicant continue to work with the architect and incorporate some of the suggestions from the City into redesign. Commissioner Betlej suggested that the applicant have a completed plan to bring before the Ciry Council. Chair Lorberbaum said she agrees with Commissioner B. McManus' comments, and agree within the principle, but believes that this is a diminurive variance and the overall scheme makes sense. 5 AYES 1 NAYS (Commissioner B. McManus) MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-56 Dale Eberhardt 2497 Pond Circle West CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FENCE HEIGHT Mr.Grittman introduced the request approval of a conditional use permit for the construction of fence of more than 4 ft. in height. The applicant has a swimming pool and would like to construct a fence along Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Grittman said the zoning ordinance for fences require that any fence within 30 ft. of the setback area be no greater than 3 ft. in height, except by conditional use permit. The City also has an ordinance that requires a minimum of 5 ft. fence for the protection of a pool area. In this case, the proposed fence is approximately on a 20 ft. setback from Mendota Heights Road, but to exceed the height requirement, a conditional use permit is needed to construct a 5 ft. high fence. Mr. Grittman said the fence materials consist of black wrought iron and concrete pillars. There will also be some landscaping to add the screening of the back yard. This type of fence meets the City's requirements for a conditional use permit. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003 Commissioner Miller asked why this case was before the Commission. Is it due to the location of the fence, or the type of the fence. Mr. Grittman said it's due to the location and the height of the fence. Mr. Dale Eberhardt, 2497 Pond Circle West, said there will be ten concrete posts with wrought iron fence between the posts, and there will be arborvitee shrubs in front of the black fence all the way along Mendota Heights Road. Commissioner Betlej said this is a very nice design. Commissioner Miller asked about the treatment on the block. Mr. Eberhardt said there will be decorative block on top of the concrete block. Coinmissioner B. McManus said those concrete blocks have been there for a long time, and asked the applicant how he came to be in front of the City. Mr. Eberhardt said the question came up regarding the setback of the street when he applied for the permits for the pool and fence. Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED PLANNING CASE #03-57 KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PUD CONCEPT PLAN Mr. Grittman reviewed the concept plan for a proposed office development that would be located at the intersection of Highway 13 and Highway 55, which is a parcel that has access to a cul-de-sac (Waters Drive). The applicant is looked for PUD approval to develop a senes of individual "Town Office Buildings", which are individual office-style condominiums. Mr. Grittman said the applicant has provided two separate concept plans. The following is a summary of the two different plans. Conce t Plan A Conce t Plan B Number of Individual Office Units 21 27 Number of Buildin s 7 9 Incor oration of Waters Drive No Yes Issues: Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003 ♦ Street Vacation: ♦ Subdivision: ♦ PUD ♦ Circulation The present configurarion of Waters Drive reflect a need to provide public street access to the northernmost of the two parcels, which was recently acquired from MnDOT as excess right-of-way. To accommodate the proposed "town office buildings", a base lot/unit lot platting arrangement will be necessary. The process of a PUD is necessary to accommodate the proposed base lot/unit lot platring arrangement. There are significant concerns to the general layout of the two site plans and the resulting circulation system. ♦ Off Street Parking: The office units are to have three floors and range in square footage from 2,944 to 3,989 sq. ft. The average unit is approximately 3,500 sq. ft. Each building would also include approximately 10,500 sq. ft. of office space. Using a 10% reducrion for common areas, mechanical rooms, restrooms, etc., the total parking space requirements are calculated below: Building Area Total Office Ratio Required Proposed (For 3 units) Area S aces S aces COnCepi Plari A 9,450 sq. ft. 66,159 sq. ft 1 space per 331 155 (10,500 sq. ft. x.9) (9,450 sq. ft. x 7 200 sq. ft.* bldgs) COnCepi Plari B 9,450 sq. ft. 85,050 sq. ft 1 space per 425 169 (10,500 sq. ft. x.9) (9,450 sq. ft. x 9 200 sq. ft.* bldgs) ♦ Perimeter Setback: ♦ Architecture: ♦ Landscaping: ♦ Grading, Drainage, Utilities ♦ Association ♦ Development Agmt. *Applicable to office buildings greater than 6,000 sq. ft. Within the base I, Industrial district, the following perimeters are considered applicable: Abutting a street (north and south) 40 feet Side yard (south) 30 feet The City has the ability to offer recommendations in regards to building architecture. Landscape plans have not been submitted. To be reviewed by City Engineer. Office Owners Association to be established. Condition of final plat approval, applicant to enter into subdivision & PUD agreements. Mr. Grittman said that if a 30% floor area reduction were to be utilized, the required off-street parking supply would be reduced from 331 stalls to 257 stalls far Concept Plan A and from 425 stalls to 331 stalls on Concept Plan B. Commissioner B. McManus asked if Klingelhutz Development Company has received the most updated documents. Mr. Grithnan said that they haven't yet. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Grittman if he has seen other buildings such as this in other communities. Mr. Grittman said not of this specific nature. Commissioner Betlej asked if either of the suggested plans come close to meeting the impervious surface requirements. Mr. Grittman said they exceed them, although a precise calculation has not yet been done of this. 8 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003 Chair Lorberbaum asked if the City owned the property. Mr. Grittman said he believes MnDOT owns it. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the process was for the City to buy and sell this property. Mr. Danielson said that MnDOT has outlined the process and submits this information to the potential developer. The City acts as a broker as MnDOT sells to the City and the City turns around and sells to the developer. The City has the first right to buy upon release from the state. Commissioner M. McManus asked if Waters Drive will be vacated in any event. Mr. Danielson said that Waters Drive is still a state highway frontage road and the City would need to work with MnDOT on that issue. Commissioner M. McManus asked if Concept A is from the City's overview, but not the best option to wark with. Mr. Grittman said Concept A warks very well from the standpoint of the parking situation. Commissioner M. McManus asked where the determination is for the 30% reduction of floor area. Mr. Grittman said the City would have the authority to do that through a PUD and there is also a clause in which the City will allow proof of parking arrangement. This is where the applicant can show that they can provide parking, and actually build less of it for the interim period. Commissioner M. McManus asked if this were applied for Concept Plan B, would the project still be over the threshold for impervious surface? Mr. Grittman said he believed that to be true. Chair Lorberbaum asked how many acres does this proposal cover? Commissioner Miller said he believes it is approximately 1.05 acres. Chair Lorberbaum asked what is the minimum for a PUD? Mr. Grittman said the standard is 10 acres, and the Council can reset that to 5 acres if it deems appropriate. Chair Lorberbaum said this property would not quality for a PUD. Commissioner Betlej said that under Concept A, the acreage is stated as 4.73 acres, and if Waters Drive is added, it would be over the 5 acres. Mr. Hollister said when staff inet with the applicant, it was determined that under the best case scenario that he would acquire the land, and Waters Drive is vacated, he will get over the 5 acre minimum threshold, so on that basis, staff invited the applicant to submit a PUD concept plan. Terry Schneider, Project Developers, Inc., St. Louis Park, MN is the applicant and project developer. Mr. Schneider referred to the topographic survey shows the property as a trapezoid, and indicated that the top northern triangle is owned by MnDOT. Mr. Schneider said all the necessary paperwork was completed far the previous applicant, however that applicant failed to purchase the property, so all the paperwork is already done. It is in the City's interest to have MnDOT's property combined with the property to the south (there is currently a home located on this property) in order to gain from taxes. This process is lengthy and the applicant needs to adhere to a time frame in regards to beginning the first phase. Mr. Schneider reviewed the layout of the concept plans. Mr. Schneider said that these are not typical office buildings, and there is a lot of lost space with the restrooms, mechanical space, etc. Mr. Schneider said he will work with staff for the circulation of the parking areas. Mr. Schneider said he would like to have some feedback on the calculation of the parking, and would like to gain a better understanding of the requirements of the City. Commissioner B. McManus asked what other access besides Waters Drive will be available. Mr. Schneider said they would try to gain access through the industrial portion to the south. A shortened Waters Drive will then serve as the main access. Commissioner B. McManus expressed his concern about the drainage as there is some wetland in the area. Mr. Schneider said there is some adjacent property that the applicant will negotiate with the owner of that property to expand an existing pond. In the case that does not happen, the applicanY will have to reduce some units and create a pond. Commissioner Miller said this corner could use some development and lilces the concept. Commissioner Betlej said his main concerns are in regards to: ♦ Impervious surface requirements must be met. Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003 ♦ Proper road circulation for turning radius for emergency vehicles and work with the fire chief. ♦ This site has a high amount of visibiliry and the design and quality is very important, suggesting bnckwork around the building. ♦ The parking calculations must be acceptable. ♦ Revise design to two-unit buildings, be more sensitive to what this site offers. ♦ Landscaping and signage plans to be submitted up-front. Commissioner Betlej said he agrees with Commissioner Miller in that this area needs some quality development. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Schneider about the traffic flow as it is stated in Concept A that there will be 800 trips per day. Chair Lorberbaum said she calculated under the assumption of 4 employees at each site, and anoYher 4 or 4.5 visitors every hour. This scems like there would be a lot of visitors to this site and would need more parking. Mr. Schneider said the 800 trips were total trips, so that the 4 people coming in the morning, going out at noon, coming back, leaving at night is 4 trips for that employee. Mr. Schneider said he obtained this information from the Institute for Transportarion Standards for Small Office and used this number generically. Chair Lorberbaum asked about the plans for signage. Mr. Schneider said the best signage would be from Concept B when Waters Drive is shortened up and install an attracrive monument sign indicating the park's name. There may also be some small signage to indicate the building address. There will be no large tenant listing, although some directional signage may be installed. Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant should look at the City's sign ordinance for requirement information. Commissioner Hesse said he would like to have a more detailed parking calcularion submitted. Commissioner M. McManus asked for clarificarion of Concept A and Concept B. Mr. Schneider said he is trying to blend the concepts together, and coming up with something that reflects the feedback from the Commission. Commissioner M. McManus said she liked the design, but feels it needs to have some enhancements. Commissioner M. McManus said she would like to see some signage that would help direct visitars to the businesses. Chair Lorberbaum asked if there would be an association. Mr. Schneider said there would be. Chair Lorberbaum asked if the covenants may restrict owners from making their property unique. Mr. Schneider said covenants are quite restrictive for the exterior. Commissioner Betlej said more landscaping would enhance the property. Commissioner B. McManus said he would like to also see a lighring plan. VERBAL REVIEW Planning Case 03-48: Steven and Jennifer Mager, 729 Mohican Court • Variance for a Garage Expansion: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Case 03-49 Patrick Caruso, 675 Wesley Court • Lot Line Adjustment: Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case 03-50 Tim Gillespie, 1062 Wagon Wheel Trail • Request for Subdivision: Denied as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case 03-51 — Victor Smith Victor L. Smith, 1085 Mary Adele • Request for CUP for Fence: Applicant withdrew request and decided to go with ihe shadow box design. The Council approved the CUP for the 6 ft. height. OPEN DISCUSSION None � Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 2003 COMMISSIONER BETLEJ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:30 PM. AYES NAYS MOTION CARRIED Respectfully subinitted, Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary �