12-12-2006 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2006 --------------------------- Page 9 Mr. Hemple stated that each tenant has their own prototype for their business. Commissioner Offerman stated that was the reason for the design standards to avoid individual prototypes. A representative of the developer stated that they plan to attach the next phase of the building when they finish negotiations with the next tenant. Mr. Hemple stated that they do not want to build the enure building and then try to "squeeze" a tenant into a space. He stated that the challenge with retail is there are many types of details and elements. He stated that he is in negotiations with two very race restaurants. Mr. Hemple explained that restaurant and retail companies do extensive marketing studies to determine where their businesses should go. Commissioner Stevens asked if Mr. Hemple had other developments in the area. Mr. Hemple stated that he has developments in Maple Grove, Plymouth, and Oakdale, and has found that restaurants typically like to locate next to an anchor such as a grocery store. He noted that that he is from Elk River, graduated from Elk River High School, and that his father has businesses in the community. He stated that he cares about what happens here. Commissioner Scott stated that he would like to see details such as shown on Figure B-15 of the Elk Ridge Center Design Standards, which shows sidewalks with overhangs. He stated he would like to see the rear of the buildings to look as nice as the front. He felt the truck movement at the loading docks should be screened 100 percent from the residents. Conunissioner Westgaard stated he concurred with Commissioner Offerrnan in that they have a responsibility to uphold and ensure the design standards are maintained. He stated that the challenge is having one "box" type building with three possible tenants. He stated he would like to see the proposal address the original design standards, and consider the residents whose homes are adjacent to the development. Commissioner Stevens stated he did not see how a barrier or screening would fit the design standards. Discussion followed regarding the location of the wall, height of the wall, additional trees and screening. Commissioner Scott stated he would like to see screening of the roof line. Commissioner Offerman asked if there was an urgency to move on with a recommendation. He stated that he would prefer to see revised design changes at a workshop, rather than act on the application at this time. Mr. Hemple stated that since he is the owner of the property, he can make the necessary changes, but that it is a big deal to his clients to slow it down. Discussion followed regarding a possible time line for changes and the next Planning Commission review. Mr. Leeseberg stated that he would not be comfortable rushing through the review. Commissioner Offerman stated that he understands the needs of the developer, but that he would prefer that the Planning Commission see the proposal again. Corrunissioner Ropp concurred. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO TABLE THE REQUEST BY 7040 LAKELAND PARTNERS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PHASE 4 OF ELK RIDGE CENTER (ALDI'S), CASE NO. CU 06-27 TO THE JANUARY 9, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 5-1. Commissioner Stevens opposed. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he would like to see the changes at a worksession prior to the January 9th meeting. Mr. Barnhart stated that he would like to avoid a "design by