The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-22_ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER MINOR PUD AMENDMENTot- D,:;k- rl* I e - r -,w "J bp Dear Honorable Mayor Furlong, City of Chanhassen Council Members, Todd Gerhardt, 0 Kate Aanenson and Sharmeen Al-Jaff, The purpose of this letter is to assure there is clarity and consistency in what I communicated at the City Council meetings as we worked through the drive-thru variance at Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. I write this to avoid a possible perception that I said that I could not have a certain type of tenant and later acquired that type of tenant. In my first presentation to the City Council, I had stated that we had researched potential tenants and the space was not large enough for a McDonald's or like tenant. We had in fact contacted real estate broker's representing Mc Donald's, Noodles and Company ... etc, and our 1550 square foot space was not even considered for a walk through as it was too small. About mid to late December, my wife got a call from the corporate office of Burger King. They had heard of the potential drive-thru from I believe one of our vendors and asked us for floor plans, the proposed drive-thru plans and to visit the site. Their work up was extremely slow and I really did not give it much credence for the first few months as we had a plan in place with the sandwich shop. About a month and half later, I got a call from a Taco John's franchisee and he brought in the national company to see the site. Both national companies asked that we not disclose the fact they were considering the site as they like to introduce the site to one franchisee at a time and want those franchisees to feel they are the first as well as the fact the franchisees live locally and may hear about the project. As we moved through the variance process, the cost of the drive thru more than tripled and I needed help from our bank as we did not have the funds to complete the project. This in turn contributed to the delay in my ability to produce the requirements of the variance filing like the letter of credit, drawings and such. My bank displayed concerns of a third sandwich shop in the neighborhood and felt our station might not see much new business as the new sandwich shop would merely dilute the existing business to the shopping center. Certainly, that logic was reasonable. They "leveraged" us to work up the other two parties of interest before they would give us what we needed to get this project done. They wanted us to keep the sandwich shop as a possible back-up tenant, but focus on the other two. Long story short, we could not cover the additional cost of the drive-thru to fulfill the City's requirements with the sandwich shop as a tenant, but we could if we obtained one of the other two. Since then two tenants have dropped out for different reasons beyond our control, the one that remains is Burger King. By coincidence ' the extension of the length of the drive-thru required by the City Planners actually complies with and in fact exceeds the stacking requirements for Burger King by 1- 2 cars. Certainly they will not drive the volume of a Mc Donald's, especially being a smaller space and in a class B or C location. With a maximum 2 minute 30 second order prep time (from order to driving away from the window), they will keep the cars moving. To date we have not gotten an agreement finalized by the Burger King corporate office, but we are hopeful it will be done the next couple weeks. The franchisee we are working with is a local group out of Minnetonka, very professional and probably the fairest / easiest tenant I have ever worked with Thank you for the City backing us on this project. We know we were given special consideration and we are truly grateful. We are hopeful that this will give us the bump in business that will allow it sustain itself and do so soon. Sinc;erel J Ma J. Leutem KLMS Group LLC CITY OF CHEASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1 too Fax: 952.227.1110 Building lr4iections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227,1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227,1140 Fax: 952,227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952 227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227,1404 Planning & Natural Resources From 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 senior center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227,1110 Web Site wwwAchanhaw.nirrus September 10, 2010 Mr. Bryan C. Haines Vice President InterBank fsb 13601 80uh Circle North Maple Grove, MN 55369 Re: Release of Letter of Credit No. 1521— KLMS Group, LLC Arboretum Shopping Center Dtive-Thru Planning Case No. 08-22 Dear Mr. Haines: Enclosed please find Letter of Credit No. 1521 in the amount of $17,500. This letter of credit was required to guarantee compliance with the terms of Addendum A to Site Plan Permit 2003-06 for the above -referenced project, specifically landscaping requirements. As the landscaping requirements have been met, we are returning the letter of credit and closing our files on this project. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me by email at safiaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or at 952-227-1134. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Sh!?een Al Senior Planner SAJ:ktm Enclosure Mark Leutem, KLMS Group, LLC ec: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist g:\plan%2008 planningeases\08-22 arbomnim shopping centff rninor pud amencluxxit fiordrive-thmVe mime Icuff 9-10-Mdoc SCANNED ChanhassenisaConmayforLife- Prod4forTodayandPlanningforTorrionrow InterBank HMVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDTF No. 1521 Date: June 1.0 2009 TO: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of KLMS GLOup, LLC. and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $17,500, available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. 'Me draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. 1521, dated June 10, 20 of Inter Savings Bank, fsb. b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen. c) Be presented for payment at 13601 8& Circle N, Maple Grove MN 55369, on or before 4:00 p.m. on June _I0 2010. This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be June I Oth of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit- Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhn en City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in fiffl our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrurnent, or agreement whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 600. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. Its 3400 West 66th Street, Suite 100 - Edina, MN 55435 - 952-920-6700 - Fax 952-920-7308 10880 175th Court - Lakeville, MN 55044 - 952-435-6700 - Fax 952-285-6660 1875 County Road B2 W - Roseville, MN 55113 - 651-288-6700 - Fax 651-288-4000 13601 80th Circle North - Maple Grove, MN 55369 - 763-255-1700 - Fax 763-255-1600 Chartered in 1965 SCANNED I Status Report 5/1/10 PLAWOR2 JWy 2000 Ust 000 b M T W i F S S M T W T F 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 8 9 1 11 1% 141, 15� 6 17 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 15 16 1 18 9 13 4 is i� 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 21 22 2 6 W 18 19 20 21 22 �j 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2 28 29 3 24: 25 26 27 28 29 �b 30 311 Securities Istarl Due S P Category Description �/I I 10 6/11/10 to Attorneys, W LC #1521 expires 6110110 Escrows (automatically renews for successive one-year terms) Burger King site (tka Mific's Sandwiches) Addendum A to Site Plan Permit 2003-06 Planning Case 08-22 $17,500 (Landscaping) Time of Performance: June 15, 2010 Notified Shartnecta A]-Jaff 10/19/09 - Per Jill/Sharmeen, OK ta reduce LC to 10% ($1,750). LC Reduction letter sent to bank on 10-19-09. rim S/l/10- Notified Shaameen. Kim 614/10 - Notified Sharmeendill. rim 619/10 - Per Jill, one linden at the SW comer and me arborvitae at the north patio need to be replaced. Jill is contracting John Kruchten of Redking Foods -Burger King. 9/2/10 - Per Jill, OK to release letter of credit. Kim 9/10/10 - Letter of credit returned to bank. Activity closed. Kim ............ ........... .. .... ............... .............. WIVIO.QMW S=s'.'-P=�� SCANNED P�I [Status Report 5/1/10 PLA JW 2" M .12 te�r 2000 s M T W T F S M T W T F M T W T F 5 1 2 i3 4 5 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 7 8 9 1 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 Is 13 14 15 16 i " 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 20 21 22 23 24* �5 26 17 18 ig 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ff 24 25 26 27 28 29 W V Securities IStart Due S P Category Descnpfion 5/1/10 6/15/10 F Attorneys. J LC #1521 expires 6tlOtIO Escrows (autornatically renews for successive one-year territs) Milic's Sandwiches Addendum A to Site Plan Pcrinit 2003-06 Planning Case 09-22 $17,500 (Landscaping) Time of Performunce: June 15, 2010 Notified Sharmetm AI-Jaff 10/19/09 - Per JilltSharmex:n, OK to reduce LC to 10% ($1,750). LC Reduction letter sent to bank on 10-19-09. rim 0 2� Lolm D��t C� P� SCANNED Cfff OF October 21, 2009 MMSEX T700 Wrket Bouleingri Mr. Bryan C. Haines PO Box 147 Vice President Chanhassen, MN 55317 InterBank fsb 13601 80d' Circle North Aftinisbralilon Maple Grove, MN 55369 Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952,227.1110 Re: Reduction of Utter of Credit No. 1521— KLMS Group, LLC Arboretum Shopping Center Drive-Thru Building Inspections Planning Case No. 08-22 Phow 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Dear Mr. Haines: Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Please accept this letter as authorization to reduce Letter of Credit No. 1521 in the Fax: 952.227.1170 amount of $17,500 by 90% ($15,750) to leave a remaining balance of $1,750 (10%). Please send written acknowledgement of this reduction at your earliest convenience. Rnance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax:952,227.1110 If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me by email at sal iaff @ci.chanhassen.n-m.us or at 952-227-1134. Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Sincerely, Fax: 952,227.1110 CrrY OF CHANHASSEN Recreation center 2310 Nftar Boulvadl Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Shatmeen A]-Jaff Planning & Senior Planner Natural Resources Rue: 952.227.1130 SAJ-ktm Fax -.952.227.1110 Public Woft 9:VlanX2008 pliming cases�08-22 aTbosetani shopping mn� ruino, pad ao�ndnxnt fm driw-tbnsvjc reduction lenim M21-09.doc 1591 Park Road RM: 952.227.1300 FV.952.227.1310 Senior Center Rhone: 952.227.1125 Fa)L 952.227.1110 Web Site www.b.chanhassen.ron.us Ghanhassen is a Community for Life - PoWing for Today and Planning for Tornwow SCANNED Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Pochlcr Soren M. Mattick John F. Kelly Henry A. Schaeffer, III Alin2 Schwartz Samuel]. Edmunds Marguerite M. McCarron 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 - Eagan, MN 55121 631-452-5000 Fax 651-452-5550 www.ck-12w.com CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Dired Dial. (651) 234-6222 E-nudlAddress: snelson@ck-law.com September 21, 2009 () 3 - C) (01z) P '0 a x4aYM Ms. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen SEP 2 3 2009 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CHANHASSEN P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: CHANHASSEN — MISC. REcoRDED DocumENTs > Addendum "A" to Site Plan Permit #2003-6, Building "B" - Century Gas, LLP (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center) Dear Kim: Enclosed for the City's files please find original recorded Addendum "A" to Site Plan Permit #2003-6, Building "B" for Century Gas, LLP, which was recorded with the County on July 21, 2009 as Abstract Document No. 50469 1. SRN:ms Enclosure Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association BiL� *an R. Nelson, Legal �ssistant SCANNED CARVER COUNTV RECORDER/BEGISTRAR OF TITLES DOCUMENT COVER PAGE DOCUMENT TITLE: A DOCUMENT DATE: NAXIES: Document No. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER A 504691 CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Fee� $46.00 ReGelPt# Certffied Recorded on 7/21t2009 at 12:30 [--]AM VPM �10 4 691 County Recorder ME SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ADDENDUM"A" TO PLANNING CASE #08-22 SITE PLAN PERMIT #2003-6 BUILDING "B" SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated January 12,2009, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the "City"), and CENTURY GAS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Developer"). 1. BACKGROUND. The City previously approved a site plan for a project on land legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. Carver County, Minnesota. 2. PRIOR PERMITS. The City approved and entered into Site Plan Permit #2003-6 for the project dated July 28, 2003, recorded October 25, 2004 as Document No. A399772 (hereinafter referred to as the "Site Plan Permit"). Except as specifically modified and amended by this Addendum "A". the Site Plan Permit shall remain in fill force and effect. 3. MODIFICATIONS. The Site Plan Permit is modified and amended as follows: Paragraph 7 is amended by adding the following special condition: JJ. The City Council approves the site plan amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (Site Plan 03-06), Planning Case #08-22, to allow a drive-thru window and redesign parking layout and site circulation as shown in plans dated received December 15, 2008, with the following conditions and based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact: 1. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment allowing a drive-thru window. 2. The western three angled parking stalls must be striped and signed as compact stalls. Any existing bufferyard plantings that are removed for the development must be replaced within the same area. A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval showing locations and species. The applicant may group plantings together in order to add interest to the landscaping if the design does not diminish the screening capacity. 3. The applicant shall work with staff to locate the patio and secondary entrance into the space as shown in Exhibit A. 4. RECORDING. This Addendum "A" shall be duly recorded against the subject property. 5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Developer shall install all required screening and landscaping by June 15, 2010. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 6. SECURM. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Permit, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ("security") for $17,500 (Landscaping). nis amount has been calculated at a rate of I 10% of the actual value of improvement. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Tom EAona. Mavor (SEAL) 0"I STATE OF MINNESOTA Gerhardt, City Manager (ss COUNTY OF CARVER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this-L46ay o Tom Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Ch 4assca �1inn"e9sobtya municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. EN '. EN" J#j mttary Pubjjc-�lnn.T ota v j S 2 NOTVUBLIU 31 _0101 DEVELOPER: CENTURY GAS, LLC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF 4auU4 Lr\ (ss The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __L day of Li- t,4 2009 by L�Si� �– �j LA+C� — the �Ccj I — of Century Gas, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. =SVICKI A LINDSTROM Notary Public Minnesota Sy Commission Expims jinuaroy7l, 2014 NOTARY PUBLIC FEE OWNER CONSENT JAC-NIC PROPERTIES, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Permit, af[irms and consents to the provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by it. Dated this -eday of 2009. JAGNIC PROPERTIES, LLC F '0 ,J)FVA 0OAr -1� zWPN1Wg�r9WJ 4 its 6.4 -r -'c ev"- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 4UJX� __ 2009, by VA�� J JCeA- the 2A'4,�/ Of JAC-NIC PROPERTIES, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability comp[6y, on behaWof the company. '�"Ok W J�'� / NOTARY PUBLIC-) DRAFTED BY: LAURA R * SIEGEL City of Chanhassen NOTARY MVMSOTA 7700 Market Boulevard W COMMMON VMS 1-31-201 Chanhassen, MN 55317 01 Lng wvw%�ft (952)227-1100 MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT INTER SAVINGS BANY, fib, a United States of America corporation, which holds a mortgage on all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Permit, does hereby join in the execution of the foregoing Site Plan Permit for the purpose of evidencing its consent thereto, subordinates its interest to die terms of the Site Plan Permit, and agrees that the Site Plan Permit shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this day of TA 14 2009. �y INTER SAVINGS BAW fsb BY: Its JV/* A#%ymt- AN6 ---rts vtzc STATE OF MINNESOTA (ss. COUNTY Ori;� 'Me foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2009, by and by the kl?,- fint*t/*ssL- and $-Ice AeAjj.� of INTER SAVINGS BANK, fsb, a United States of America corporation, on its behalf. //? I I IETH B. ANDE Notary Public 31, DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 gAp1m\2008 pimung �\08-22 arbore= shoppmg =ter rrmor pud ancmdrnum far dnv�thru\sae pin ag�Ldoc 'CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 7/14/09 108-22 ATTENTION Sue Nelson RE: Document Recording WE ARE SENDING YOU Z Attached El Under separate cover via the following items: El Shop drawings 0 Prints El Plans El Samples El Specifications El Copyof letter El Change Order El Pay Request El — COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 1/12/09 08-22 Site Plan Permit 2003-06 Addendum "A" for Building B [-I FOR BIDS DUE THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: REMARKS 0 Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit El Approved as noted El Submit El Returned for corrections El Return Z For Recording F71 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO: Lisa Leutem, Century Gas, LLC SIGN copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNED For approval For your use El As requested El For review and comment [-I FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS 0 Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit El Approved as noted El Submit El Returned for corrections El Return Z For Recording F71 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO: Lisa Leutem, Century Gas, LLC SIGN copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ADDENDUM"A" TO PLANNING CASE #08-22 SITE PLAN PERMIT #2003-6 BUILDING "B" SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated January 12,2009, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the "City"), and CENTURY GAS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Developer"). 1. BACKGROUND. The City previously approved a site plan for a project on land legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. Carver County, Minnesota. 2. PRIOR PERMITS. The City approved and entered into Site Plan Permit #2003-6 for the project dated July 28, 2003, recorded October 25, 2004 as Document No. A399772 (hereinafter referred to as the "Site Plan Permit). Except as specifically modified and amended by Us Addendum W, the Site Plan Permit shall remain in fall force and effect. 3. MODIFICATIONS. The Site Plan Permit is modified and amended as follows: Paragraph 7 is amended by adding the following special condition: JJ. The City Council approves the site plan amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (Site Plan 03-06), Planning Case #08-22, to allow a drive-thru window and redesign parking layout and site circulation as shown in plans dated received December 15, 2008, with the following conditions and based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact: 1. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment allowing a drive-thru window. 2. The western three angled parking stalls must be striped and signed as compact stalls. Any existing bufferyard plantings that are removed for the development must be replaced within the same area. A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval showing locations and species. The applicant may group plantings together in order to add interest to the landscaping if the design does not diminish the screening capacity. 3. The applicant shall work with staff to locate the patio and secondary entrance into the space as shown in Exhibit A. 4. RECORDING. This Addendum 'W'shall be duly recorded against the subject property. 5. TIM OF PERFORMANCE. The Developer shall install all required screening and landscaping by June 15, 20 10. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 6. SECURITY. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Permit, the Developer shall finnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ("security') for $17,500 (Landscaping). This amount has been calculated at a rate of I 101/o of the actual value of improvement. rim (SEAL) 10AZI03 STATE OF MINNESOTA Gerhardt, City Manager COUNTY OF CARVER The foregoing insixurnent was acknowledged before me this.66ay 2009, by Tom Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhairdt, City Manager, of the City of a Minnesota C municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authori granted by its City Council. 4N0TrXJBL�1U DEVELOPER: CENTURY GAS, LLC P ��— pool , - mmma d STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of JVW 2009 by USi;4 the of Century Gas, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. =eNol- - - - - - --- - VICKI A LINDSTROM VIC" ary Public 01 M M innesota y Commlsso Sy Commission ExoTes januaty 311. 20] NOTARY PUBLIC FEE OWNER CON JAC-NIC PROPERTIES, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Permit, affirms and consents to the provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by it Dated this _eday of SWg 2009. JAC-NIC PROPERTIES, LLC Its C-.� - r- /I&W /I - STATE OF MR4NESOTA ) (sS COLJNTY OF V EM -0 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this q . day of A� 4L 2009, by VA�� the of JAC-NIC PROPERTfES, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability com*y, on behaWof the company. W 'WQ ------------- DRAFTED BY: LAURA R. SIEGEL City of Chanhassen NOTARY PUBLIC-1ANNESOTA 7700 Market Boulevard WCOMMIMON EXPIRES 1-31-20101 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Le (952)227-1100 4 MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT INTER SAVINGS BANK, fsb, a United States of America corporation, which holds a mortgage on all or pan of the subject property, the -development of which is governed by the foregoing Site Plan Permit, does hereby join in the execution of the foregoing Site Plan Permit for the purpose of evidencing its consent thereto, subordinates its interest to the term of the Site Plan Permit, and agrees that the Site Plan Permit shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this 0'14 _ day of 2009. INTER SAVINGS BANK, fsb STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OfieZ=2� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2009, by . C A.&V — and by the k1re &M1eqt —and 1-rar of INTER SAVINGS BANK, fsb, a United States of America corporation, on its behalf. A I LIZABETH B. ANDERSON Notary Public Minnesota 111 1116121 W :A City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 gAplan\2008 pliuming �\08-22 arbomomn shopping mmeT minor pud amendment For drive-thm\site plim agmmeritdoc CITY OF CERASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MIN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Belting Insinfians Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227 1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952,227,1170 Priance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952,227.1110 Park & Reaeation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Reaeation center 2310 Coultef BouWA Phone: 952,227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural ResourDes Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Publk: Wl 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952,227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site wwauchanhassen. mn.us C S - a 14- - 03 13 1013 [0 "T.W I Oil) 51 TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Shanneen Al-Jaff, Senior- Planner DATE: November- 10, 2008 Mil , SUBJ: Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow a Drive-thru Window; Site Plan Amendment to add a Drive-thru Window; and a Variance to the Required Number of Parking Spaces Planning Case 08-22 The Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the following motion: PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council denies the Planned Unit Development Amendment, Site Plan Amendment, and Variance for Planning Case 2008-22 and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Denial." City Council approval requires a simple majority vote of City Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting multiple application approvals. They include a Planned Unit Development amendment to allow a drive-thru in the Arboretum Shopping Center development and a site plan amendment to add a drive-thru window. The drive-thru will replace existing parking spaces which will result in a deficiency ir the required number of parking spaces resulting in a parking vaiiance. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 15, 2008 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 4 to I to deny the request. The summary and verbatim minutes are item la of the City Council packet. CONCERNS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The layout proposed by the applicant will block people in on both sides of the stacking lane. Also, if these parking spaces were empty, stacked cars would block those spaces and prevent people from parking in them. Manimern is a Corninturity for Lffe - Provuhng for Today and Planning for Tomorrow 03NNY011 .1 Todd Gerhardt Arboretum Shopping Center November 10, 2008 Page 2 The applicant requested that the drive aisle leading to the drive-thru window be counted as three parking spaces. The Planning Commission disagreed with the applicant since a car cannot park in the drive-thru lane. 0 Pedestrians must cut through the drive-thru lane. There are 50 Nfilio's stores in the nation. Only 12 of the 50 have drive-thru windows. The stores are still in business. Other sandwich shops in the area (Subway and Jimmy Johns) do not have a drive-thru and they are still in business. * The layout that the city staff recommended does not fit the applicant's budget. 9 The concern in 2003 was setting precedence. This concern has not changed. One-way traffic exiting through the gas station during rush hour when Nick and Willy's and Jimmy John's are busy as well may complicate traffic flow. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Recommendation of Denial. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated October 21, 2008. &.\pW\2008 planningmes\08-22 arboreturn shopping center rninorpud arnendruent for drive-tWexecutive surnmary.doc PROPOSED MOTION: "Me Planning Cormnission recommends the City Council appfe deny the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Village (PUD 99-02), Planning Case #08-22, amending the design standards Section b. Permitted Uses, to allow a drive-thru with standards; appre deny an amendment to the Arboretum Shopping Center Site Plan Permit 03-06 with conditions to add a drive- thru. window and create new parking; and deny the Variance request for a reduced munber of parking spaces.,, PROPOSAL: Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow a drive-thm window and a site plan amendment to add a drive-thru window and a variance to the requir-ed number of parking spaces. LOCATION: 7755 Century Boulevard Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center APPLICANT: Mark Lemern KLMS Group, LLC 7755 Century Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 763-234-8128 markleutern(&hotmail.com PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, PUD 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial ACREAGE: 1.58 DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUDs, and amendments to PUDs because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 October 21, 2008 Page 2 of 12 PROPOSAUSUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development amendment to allow a drive-thru in the Arboretum Shopping Center development and a site plan amendment to add a drive-thru window. The drive-thru will replace existing parking spaces which will result in a deficiency in the required number of parking spaces resulting in a parking variance. The site is located at the northeast intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard and is zoned Planned Unit Development. It is intended to provide neighborhood commercial uses for the adjacent residential properties to the north and east, as well as retail services to motorists on Highway 5. The site contains a building with an area of 5,506 square feet. A convenience store occupies 3,986 square feet. The proposed Milio's restaurant will occupy the remaining 1,520 square feet. The entrance to the convenience store is located along the northeast comer of the building while the entrance to the restaurant is located along the west side of the building. W . . . . . . . . . posea location of Drive-thru window ighway 51-�—ro A MMMMMMM)W"-7 Staff met with the applicant prior to submittal of the application and explained that one of the main concerns that staff has deals with circulation on the site and the total number of required parking spaces. Staff provided the applicant with a sketch plan that could address these Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 October 21, 2008 Page 3 of 12 concerns. We asked the applicant to present the sketch to his engineer for modifications. None of staffs comments or concerns have been addressed by the applicant. Staff will discuss these concerns in detail later in the report. BACKGROUND: On June 17, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed the following: I Arboretum Village Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow a drive-thru, establish sign criteria for the center, and parking setback. 2) Replat of Oudot D, Arboretum Village and Lot 1, Block 4, Vasserman Ridge (4.79 acres), into three lots (Arboretum Shopping Center). 3) A Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a Convenience Store with gas pumps. 4) Site Plan Review for the construction of three multi -tenant buildings, one of which contains a convenience store with gas pumps, a coffee shop with a drive-thru and a car -wash.; North Coast Partners. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request with the exception of the PUD amendment to allow a drive-thru. On July 14, 2003, the City Council reviewed and tabled action on this request. Staff was directed to visit other drive-thrus in the neighboring cities and provide additional data. On July 28, 2003, the City Council voted to deny the use of the drive-thru. On October 13, 2008, the City Council approved a city code amendment by adding Section 20-965 establishing standards for a drive-diru, which read as follows: Section 20-965. Drive-thm facilities Drive-thru facilities for any use shall comply with the following standards: (a) They shall not be located adjacent to any residential lot lines. (b) They shall be provided with a suitable visual screen from adjacent properties. (c) Stacking shall be provided within applicable parking lot setbacks. (d) Stacking shall meet the following standards: (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. (2) Banks: three cars per aisle. (3) Pharmacy: two cars per aisle. (4) All other uses: two cars per aisle. (e) The City may require a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more or less stacking shall be required for a particular use. (f) Stacking areas shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking lot nor encroach into any Leguired drive aisles. (g) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at the property line. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 October 21, 2008 Page 4 of 12 ANALYSIS The request consists of three components: 1. PUD amendment to allow a drive-thru. 2. Site Plan amendment to allow a drive-diru window and drive and replace parking. 3. Variance to the total required number of parking spaces. PUD AMENDMENT The current language in the PUD ordinance states PERMITTED USES The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. 7he type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood -oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium-sized restaurants (go drive-thry windows) offlce, day care, neighborhood scale commercial, convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall exceed 5, 000 squarefeet. The applicant is proposing a drive-thru window for a sandwich shop (Nfilio's). The window is proposed to face Highway 5. Staff had lengthy discussions with the applicant regarding the drive-thru window and explained that in order to support it, it should meet design standards. We shared the previous proposal (requested in 2003) with the applicant. We explained that the Planning Commission and City Council denied the request to avoid setting precedence. The applicant requested to pursue this option. The applicant explained that none of the businesses that have occupied the space have been able to succeed and was convinced that a drive-thru window will contribute to the success of the business. Staff has always maintained a neutral stand on a drive-thru in this specific location. The site is fairly removed from any immediate residential neighborhoods. We do, however, believe that it should be designed in a fashion that does not negatively impact traffic circulation and operation within the development. Therefore, staff recommends all drive-thrus meet the following standards: Drive-thru facilities for any use shall comply with the following standards: (a) They shall not be located adjacent to any residential lot lines. (b) They shall be provided with a suitable visual screen from adjacent properties. (c) Stacking shall be provided within applicable parking lot setbacks. (d) Stacking shall meet the following standards: (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 October 21, 2008 Page 5 of 12 (2) Banks: three cars per aisle. (3) Pharmacy: two cars per aisle. (4) All other uses: two cars per aisle. (e) The City may require a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more or less stacking shall be required for a particular use. (f) Stacking areas shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking lot nor encroach into any required drive aisles. (g) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at the property line. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS Nfilio's Sandwich shop is interested in occupying the space. There are currently two Nfilio's shops in Eden Prairie; one shop with a drive-thru and the other without. Staff visited the shop with the drive-thru on a week day and observed the traffic patterns for approximately 45 minutes. We arrived at 11:45 a.m. and observed until 12:30 p.m. There were a maximum of six cars in die drive-thru lane at the time when staff was observing the site. Staff then visited the site in Chanhassen and attempted to visualize transforming it to accommodate a drive-thru window. We then attempted to design a layout that can allow acceptable traffic circulation on the site. The layout included a driveway dedicated to the drive-thru window, traffic moving one way, and parking spaces replacing those that have been removed due to the placement of the drive-thru lane. This layout was given to the applicant with detailed explanations of staff's concerns and the reasoning behind it. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 October 21, 2008 Page 6 of 12 cr C' k F -- C 0 M M 0 N D n A, E ---------- D LA 13 5-� &K IIRW P�K t _AF --------------- ---------------- t - - ---- Ii H I G H W A Y N 0 5 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. submitted a plan on behalf of Leutem Property Management, LLC for site changes to the property for the installation of the drive-thru facility. The drive-thru window is proposed to be installed on the south side of the existing building; the order board is proposed on the west side of the building. The owner proposes to modify the curb layout on the west and south sides of the building to accommodate the drive-thru. A 12 -foot wide drive aisle is proposed for the drive-thru. Two- way traffic can still be accommodated on the 29 -foot wide (minimum) drive aisle on the south side of the building. The plan also proposes to maintain two-way traffic in the parldng lot located on the west side of the building. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 October 21, 2008 Page 7 of 12 The following illustrates StafPs concerns with the proposed layout: Exclusive stacking space for vehicles Potentialfor vehicular conflict on the south waiting to place an order is not provided; side of the building where vehicles exiting vehicles queuing will block parking the drive thru would have to cross oncoming stalls. trafflc. There is a potential to resolve these issues by constructing an exclusive drive-thru lane on the west side of the building, installing angled parking on the south side of the building, and striping and signing for one-way traffic around the building. The site plan must include the impervious surface calculations, show proof of parking and be signed by the landscape architect who designed the plan. PARIUNG TABULATIONS The city's parking ordinance requires: One parking space for each 60 square feet of restaurant without an on -sale liquor license. One parking space for each 200 square feet of retail. The parking for this site was approved with the original approval in 2003. The restaurant portion of the building requires 25 parking spaces. The remainder of the building which is a gas station with a convenience store has an area of 3,972 square feet which requires 20 parking spaces. Total parking required per ordinance is 45 spaces. This number appeared to be excessive since, in all likelihood, people buying gas will remain parked at the gas purnps, walk into the store, and pay their bill and leave. There are 16 parking spaces at the gas pumps. Based upon that method of calculation, the City Council approved a total of 44 parking spaces. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 October 21, 2008 Page 8 of 12 The plan proposed by the applicant removes 8 parking spaces without replacing them and blocks existing parking spaces by cars waiting to place their order at the drive-thru, making them obsolete. The proposal requires a variance to the number of required parking spaces. The applicant believes that the current user will not generate as many cars as the required number of parking spaces. Staff must assume that if Milio's is replaced by a different user, then the parking has to be efficient regardless of whom the user is. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request since the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship nor proven that these spaces are not required. SITE PLAN As stated earlier, the applicant is proposing to add a drive-thru window along the south elevation of the building. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS The applicant is required to buffer the parking stalls fronting Highway 5 and add landscaping within the proposed island. To screen headlights and views of parking, the applicant will be required to install shrubs along the parking area adjacent to Highway 5. The shrubs shall have a mature size of 3-4 feet and must be planted in order to create a continuous buffer. The shrub height may be reduced if a berm is also installed. Any existing bufferyard plantings that are removed for the development must be replaced within the same area. Landscaping for the parking lot island shall include a minimum of two trees. The trees may be under- or overstory species selected from the city's approved tree list. BUILDING MOUNTED Sl� BY SEPARATE BEYOND AK FULLY �17, VERIFY S.F SCREENED BY PAR W/ CITY COVE WALL M -6- TAL� NEW ORIVE-THRU KrF��F. I MHTING WMMOV. U. TO I UNDERSIDE W COEIUBB�TE C�, LOCATION L SIZE As stated earlier, the applicant is proposing to add a drive-thru window along the south elevation of the building. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS The applicant is required to buffer the parking stalls fronting Highway 5 and add landscaping within the proposed island. To screen headlights and views of parking, the applicant will be required to install shrubs along the parking area adjacent to Highway 5. The shrubs shall have a mature size of 3-4 feet and must be planted in order to create a continuous buffer. The shrub height may be reduced if a berm is also installed. Any existing bufferyard plantings that are removed for the development must be replaced within the same area. Landscaping for the parking lot island shall include a minimum of two trees. The trees may be under- or overstory species selected from the city's approved tree list. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 October 21, 2008 Page 9 of 12 SITE PLAN FE14DINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the City shall consider the developments compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development will require adjustments to become consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. Staff is unable to comment on the hard surface coverage requirement since numbers have not been supplied. Site circulation is of concern; however, it can be redesigned to avoid conflicts. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 October 21, 2008 Page 10 of 12 VARLANCE FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Findin : The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The applicant has the ability to provide parking spaces. All the retail facilities within this development have provided the required number of spaces. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. C) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: Tlie applicant has stated that they do not wish to incur the cost of replacing the parking spaces. However, the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Findin : The variance is a self-created hardship. The applicant is requesting to remove the parking spaces without replacing them. c) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Findin : The granting of a variance will cause a parking problem. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safi* or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Findin : The proposed variation could cause traffic/circulation issues. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 October 21, 2008 Page I I of 12 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: PUD AMENDMENT: "Me Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Village (PUD 99-02), Planning Case #08-22, amending the design standards Section b. Permitted Uses, to allow a drive-thru with the following standards: Drive-ffim facilities for any use shall comply with the following standards: (a) They shall not be located adjacent to any residential lot lines. (b) They shall be provided with a suitable visual screen from adjacent properties. (c) Stacking shall be provided within applicable parking lot setbacks. (d) Stacking shall meet the following standards: (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. (2) Banks: three cars per aisle. (3) Pharmacy: two cars per aisle. (4) All other uses: two cars per aisle. (e) The City may require a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more or less stacking shall be required for a particular use. M Stacking areas shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking lot nor encroach into any required drive aisles. (g) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at the property line." SITE PLAN AMENDMENT: "Me Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (Site Plan 03-06), Planning Case #08-22, to allow a drive-ffiru window and redesign parking layout and site circulation with the following conditions: I . Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment allowing a drive-thru window. 2. The impervious surface calculations must be shown on the plan. 3. Replacement parking must be shown on the plan. 4. The plan must be signed. 5. Redesign the site layout by creating an exclusive drive-thru lane on the west side of the building, installing angled parking on the south side of the building, and striping and signing for one-way traffic around the building as shown in the attached Exhibit A. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 October 21, 2008 Page 12 of 12 6. To screen headlights and views of parking, the applicant shall install shrubs along the parking area adjacent to Highway 5. The shrubs shall have a mature size of 3-4 feet and must be planted in order to create a continuous buffer. The shrub height may be reduced if a berm is also installed. A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Any existing bufferyard plantings that are removed for the development must be replaced within the same area. A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval showing locations and species. 8. Landscaping for the parking lot island shall include a minimum of two trees. The trees may be under- or overstory species selected from the city's approved tree list." VARLANCE: "Me Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance request to the total required number of parking spaces for Arboretum Shopping Center (Site Plan 03-06), Planning Case #08-22, based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.,, ATTACHMENTS I . Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Exhibit A — Staffs Proposed Layout. 4. Amended Arboretum Village PUD (bold/strike-through format). 5. Ordinance Amending Arboretum Village PUD. 6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. g \pIan\2008 plantung c:ases\08-22 arboretum shopping center amour pud amendment for drive-thru\staff repoftdoc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION I R "I Application of Mark Leutem, KLMS Group, LLC for the following: Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow a drive-thru window; a site plan amendment to add a drive-thru window; and a variance to the required number of parking spaces on property zoned Planned Unit Development. On October 21, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Mark Leutem, KLMS Group, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Site Plan Amendment, and Variance. ne Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed application preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development District. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commerrial. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. 4. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a. Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted. b. Consistency with this division. c. Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas. d. Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e. Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community. 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping. 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses. 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 5. Planned Unit Development Amendment The proposed amendment to the PUD is consistent with the guidelines outlined within the comprehensive plan. 6. Variance a) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Findin : The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The applicant has the ability to provide parking spaces. All the retail facilities within this development have provided the required number of spaces. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Findine: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Findin : The applicant has stated that they do not wish to incur the cost of replacing the parking spaces. However, the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Findin : The variance is a self-created hardship. The applicant is requesting to remove the parking spaces without replacing them. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental tothe public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Findin : The granting of a variance will cause a parking problem. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Findin : The proposed variation could cause traffic/circulation issues. 8. The planning report #08-22, dated October 21, 2008, prepared by Sharmeen Al-Jaff, et a], is incorporated herein. RECOAMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Site Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development Amendment 2008-22 and deny Variance 2008-22. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21" day of October, 2008. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMSSION IM Its Chairman PLEASE PRINT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Planning Case No. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANMNG DEPT Applicant Name and Address: Owner Name and Address: & 10 S ' , ke o a j4 -5, 2 �_ 'i— /- I-- AZ �1- 0 V�'_ C11*XY&OSX—e�4�' 'mltl Contact: A4.�fAL'IL Contact: Phone7-0'-'�'3 -/- pyn- Fax: 767-J-�,s-- d -2_� Phone: Fax: Email: MdrL L f 779,,--t C2 4 d� Email: 6 6� loe-t NOTE: Consultation with City staff is reguired prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning �f/'q Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR) * �' Y"" C. - Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) ? Variance (VAR) Welland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign 0 X_ (City to install an( remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** $50 UP/SPRIVACNARNVAP/Metes & Bounds 0 450 IMinor SUB O� TOTAL FEE $ k52 2__� An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. ------------------- **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECTNAME: LOCATION: L5 Z V 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: C)60,3 0 TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: —YES --j:::-NO PRESENT ZONING: iL;� '7* ( (_ REQUESTED ZONING: IF— PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: 6V1IVff--tqWU "'14SA �r-3 _5"Z"Cc�)g4e 5/—" &4 72�rooyf� FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application subm ittal. A -written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Titte, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. . I /I Date SCANNED Date G:\PLANTo"S\Deve1opment Review Appli�tion.DOC Rev. 1/08 W- . .. .. - . - N go kh. �Ilr Wm.T U allm Parking stalls replacing those that were taken out by the drive-thru lane Adopted 7/28/03 Amended 10/13/08 =1 WO 20 1 W. F.1 W *-M H W I IN kyj PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD neighborhood commercial zone. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below. A specific lighting and sign plan shall be submitted prior to final plat. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Skieh uses may inelude small to fnedii—ma sized f:eStai—imant (ne drive oh -Ful %indewry), offirae, day eaFe, neighbor -hood wale yammweial, eeRvefiienee Store, ehurehes, or etheF similaf t"e and scale uses as d&,;e;ihed in the C Amprehensive Plan. Such uses may include the following: Small to medium-sized restaurant without drive-thru windows unless they meet the following standards: (a) They shall not be located adjacent to any residential lot lines. (b) They shall be provided with a suitable visual screen from adjacent properties. (c) Stacking shall be provided within applicable parking lot setbacks. (d) Stacking shall meet the following standards: (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. (2) Banks: three cars per aisle. (3) Pharmacy: two cars per aisle. (4) Ali other uses: two cars per aisle. (e) The City may require a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more or less stacking shall be required for a particular use. (f) Stacking areas shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking lot nor encroach into any required drive aisles. (g) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at the property tine. • Office • Day care C -I • Neighborhood scale commercial • Convenience store • Churches • Other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall exceed 5,000 square feet. c. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Setback Required Minimum Proposed From Collector Street 50 feet 50 feet From Exterior Lot Lines 30 feet 30 feet Interior Public Right -of -Way 30 feet 7 variance was granted by the City Council Hard Surface Cornmercial 70% 68.3% 1 1 Parking Setback if screening is provided 10 feet 10 feet I d. Building Materials and Design Commercial 1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Brick shall be used as the principal material and must be approved to assure uniformity with the residential uses. 2. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials. 3. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 4. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs. Wood screen fences are prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials. 5. All buildings on the commercial site shall have a pitched roof line. 6. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building. e. Signage Criteria Monument Sign 1. Lot I shall not contain any monument signs. In return, the applicant shall be permitted to place a I 0 -foot high sign with a maximum area of 48 square feet along Highway 5 on Lot 2. C-2 a. An electronic message center sign may be permitted as part of the 48 square -foot sign display area in lieu of alternative temporary signage and shall comply with the following standards: i. No electronic message center sign may be erected that, by reason of position, shape, movement or color interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or which otherwise constitutes a traffic hazard. I Electronic message center displays shall not exceed 5,000 Nits between the hours of civil sunrise and civil sunset and shall not exceed 500 Nits between the hours of civil sunset and civil sunrise. iii. Electronic message center signs shall not cause direct glare nor become a distraction due to excessive brightness. iv. The lamp wattage and luminance level in candelas per square meter (Nits) shall be provided at the time of permit applications. v. There shall be no electronic message center signs in the front setback area within 50 feet of a street intersection (as measured from intersecting right-of-way lines) or within 125 feet of a residential district, except where lighting for such sign is indirect or diffiised and in no way constitutes a traffic hazard. vi. Electronic and non-clectronic message center sign display area used on a sign shall not exceed a total of 40 square feet or 25 percent of the allowable sign area, whichever is less. The message displayed on electronic message center signs shall be depicted in one statement and not a continuing sentence or flow of information. Flashing, scrolling, special effects or animated scenes on electronic reader boards shall be prohibited. vii. Electronic message center sign LED display use for signs within 500 feet of single- family residential homes shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. viii. Temporary signage other than that depicted on the LED display is prohibited for tenants on Lot 1. 2. Lot 2 will contain one monument sign at the intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. The height of the sign shall not exceed 5 feet with an area of 24 square feet. 3. All signs shall be built of materials similar to those used on the exterior of the buildings and complement their architectural design. The signs must maintain a minimum 10 foot setback from the property lines. Wall -Mounted Signs 1. Building "A" shall be permitted signage along the south and west elevations only. 2. Building "B" shall be permitted signage along the west and south elevations only. 3. 'Me gas pump canopy shall not be permitted to have any signage. 4. The carwash shall be permitted to have one sign along the south or east elevation. 5. All signs require a separate permit. C-3 6. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the buildings. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights. 7. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. Individual letters may not exceed 30 inches in height. 8. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the building will be permitted on the sign. 9. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on the site. A detailed siga plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. g:\p1an\2G08 p1anningcases\08-22 mbormm shopping center minor pudamendment for driv�thm\designswxlards revis�d 10-13-08.doc C-4 C]TY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA Is] V1101 1Z ".061WE91� AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CrI`Y OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by amending the Arboretum Village Planned Unit Development Design Standards, Section b. Permitted Uses, to read as follows: PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low -intensity neighborhood -oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include the following: Small to medium-sized restaurant without drive-thru windows unless they meet the following standards: (a) They shall not be located adjacent to any residential lot lines. (b) They shall be provided with a suitable visual screen from adjacent properties. (c) Stacking shall be provided within applicable parking lot setbacks. (d) Stacking shall meet the following standards: (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. (2) Banks: three cars per aisle. (3) Pharmacy: two cars per aisle. (4) All other uses: two cars per aisle. (e) The City may require a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more or less stacking shall be required for a particular use. (f) Stacking areas shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking lot nor encroach into any required drive aisles. (g) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at the property line. • Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial • Convenience store • Churches • Other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall exceed 5,000 square feet. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 10h day of November, 9M ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, Clerk/Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 2008. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MROMSOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 9, 2008, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Heading for Arboretum Shopping Center PUD Amendment to allow a Drive Thru — Planning Case 08-22 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mai I with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. AN rso m mo W, 0 0i Eli Subscribed and swom to before me thisQ"' day ofQC4Cj6 r ,2008. KIM I MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota Notary ubli MY GORImISSIOn Expires Jan 31.2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Proposal: Amendment to allow a Drive-Thru and Site Plan Review with Variances Applicant: KLMS Group, LLC Property 7755 Century Boulevard Location: (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/r)lan/08-22.htmI. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen Questions & Al-Jaff by email at saloaff @ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone Comments: at 952-227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it Comments: is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Prmedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation These reports are available by request, At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial • Minnesota State Statute 519 99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested persons). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. It you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. — Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agend Location:_ City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Proposal: Amendment to allow a Drive-Thru and Site Plan Review with Variances Applicant: KLMS Group, LLC Property 7755 Century Boulevard Location: (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1 Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting; 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/08-22.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff by email at sallaff Oci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone Questions & at 952-227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it Comments: is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wefland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feel of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except razonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota state Statute 519 99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city, Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be �ncluded in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. — ALSHOUSE PROPERTIES LLC AMY B WESLEY ARBORETUM VILLAGE COMMUNITY 1300 WILLOWBROOK DR 7685 CENTURY BLVD 815 NORTHWEST PKWY #140 WAYZATA MN 55391-9583 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4415 EAGAN MN 55121-1580 CENTURY GAS LLC CHARLES A WHITE DAVID M & CAROL B HERTIG 7755 CENTURY BLVD 2754 CENTURY CIR 7716 RIDGEVIEW WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4410 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4416 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4534 DAVID PAUL YOUNG JACQUELYN R LARSON JEFFREY R NADEAU 2759 CENTURY CIR 7673 CENTURY BLVD 2775 CENTURY CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4416 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4415 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4416 JOHN R NEUMAN JUDY E OLSON KARA S PETERSON 7677 CENTURY BLVD 2750 CENTURY CIR 2755 CENTURY CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4415 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4416 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4416 KIMAN & JUNG JOO LESLIE E JOHNSON LYNNE I ETLING 7693 CENTURY BLVD 7689 CENTURY BLVD 7681 CENTURY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4415 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4415 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4415 MARK A & CHRISTINA M STAMPS MICHAEL G SCHAFFER & NANCY L WRIGHT 7704 RIDGEVIEW WAY SOPHEA & SANN Y TUY 2763 CENTURY CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4534 2751 CENTURY CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4416 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4416 NORTH COAST PARTNERS LLP NORTHCOAST PARTNERS LLP PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA CORP 7500 78TH ST W 7500 78TH ST W 815 NORTHWEST PKWY #140 EDINA MIN 55439-2517 EDINA MN 55439-2517 EAGAN MN 55121-1580 SARAH FUNK STEPHEN E JANKOWIAK STEVEN SLOWEY 2771 CENTURY CIR TRUSTEE OF TRUST PO BOX 1080 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4416 1118 25TH ST NW YANKTON SD 57078-1080 BUFFALO MN 55313-4453 TIMOTHY M KLEIN & US BANK NA VASSERMAN RIDGE MASTER ASSN STEPHANIE A DAUGHERTY KLEIN ATTN: AMY HERNESMAN C/O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7710 RIDGEVIEW WAY 2800 LAKE ST E 7100 MADISON AVE W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4534 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55406-1930 GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427-3602 WYLS LLC PO BOX 1080 YANKTON SO 57078-1080 CP VpJanuary 21, 2009 Crff OF Mr. Mark Leutem Fax: 952,227.1170 Group, LLC "entury WNSEN 7755 C Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1140 Chanhassen, MN 55317 7700 Markel Boulevard Drive-thru facilities for any use shall comply with the following standards: PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Minor PUD Amendment to Allow a Drive-Thru Window and a Site Plan Amendment to add a Drive-Thru Window — Planning Case 2008-22 Administration Dear Mr. Uutem: Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227 1110 This letter is to formally notify you that on January 12, 2009, the Chanhassen City Building Inspection Council adopted the following motion: None: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 PUD AMENDMENT: Eno" "The City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Phone: 952.227.1160 Arboretum Village (PUD 99-02), Planning Case #08-22, amending the design Fax: 952,227.1170 standards Section b. Permitted Uses, to allow a drive-thru on Lot 2, Block 1, Hnance Arboretum Shopping Center, with the following standards: Phone: 952.227.1140 (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. Fax:952.227.1110 Drive-thru facilities for any use shall comply with the following standards: Park & Recreation (a) They shall not be located adjacent to any residential lot lines. Phone: 952.227.1120 (b) They shall be provided with a suitable visual screen from adjacent properties. Fax:952.227.1110 (c) Stacking shall be provided within applicable parking lot setbacks. Recreation Carder (d) Stacking shall meet the following standards: 2310 Coulter Boulead (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. Phone: 952,227.1400 (2) Banks: three cars per aisle. Fax: 952,227.1404 (3) Pharmacy: two cars per aisle. (4) All other uses: two cars per aisle. Planning & (e) The City may require a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more or Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 less stacking shall be required for a particular use. Fax: 952.227.1110 (f) Stacking areas shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking lot nor encroach into any required drive aisles. Public Works (g) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at the property line. 1591 Park Road (h) A Restaurant with a drive-thru may not exceed 1,550 square feet in area." Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 SM PLAN AMENDMENT: Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 "Fhe City Council approves the site plan amendment for Arboretum Shopping Fax:952.227.1110 Center (Site Plan 03-06), Planning Case #08-22, to allow a drive-thru window and redesign parking layout and site circulation as shown in plans dated received Web Site December 15, 2008, with the following conditions and based on adoption of the www.d.chanhassen.mn.us attached Findings of Fact: Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Provicling for Today and " V Iffinam SCANNED Mr. Mark Leutem January 21, 2009 Page 2 1. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment allowing a drive-thru window. 2. The western three angled parking stalls must be striped and signed as compact stalls. Any existing bufferyard plantings that are removed for the development must be replaced within the same area. A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval showing locations and species. The applicant may group plantings together in order to add interest to the landscaping if the design does not diminish the screening capacity. 3. Ihe applicant shall work with staff to locate the patio and secondary entrance into the space as shown in Exhibit A." A Site Plan Agreement must be prepared by our office for recording; however, cost estimates for the improvements must be submitted to our offices before the agreement can be prepared. Mr. Mark Leutern January 21, 2009 Page 3 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 952.227.1134 or e-mail at saliaffO.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, Sharmeen AI-Jaff Senior Planner 9:\Plan\2008 planning cases\08-22 arbomono shopping center minor pod amendment fior drivo-thm\approval letter.doc City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER, 7755 CENTURY BOULEVARD, KLMS GROUP, LLC: REOUEST FOR A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A DRI[VE-THRU AND SITE PLAN REVIEW; LOT 22 BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER. Public Present: Name Address Mark Leutern 4645 Vinewood Lane North, Plymouth Lynne Etling 7681 Century Boulevard Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. As was indicated there's a couple applications before you tonight. One is for a PUD amendment to allow a drive thru and then a PUD amendment for the site plan and then including adoption of Findings of Fact. This originally went to the Planning Commission back on October 22nd . At that time the Planning Commission did concur with the staff against the recommendation for a drive thru. This item appeared last before you on November 10d' to review the actions that were made at the Planning Commission and I think we had a pretty lengthy discussion regarding the application of the drive thru and it was directed, you directed the staff to, we worked to try to resolve those issues so I'm happy to report that we've made some fairly good strides on that itself. First I'd like to again put this in context of where the site is located. It's located off of Century Boulevard, which is just to the east of Highway 41 andjust north of Ifighway 5. A shopping center. Again when this application originally came in a number of years ago, fast food was proposed for this site. At that time it was considered a coffee shop and was not proposed. But since then the applicant has worked to find a different type of use to fit in that. So this is the approved shopping center that was built. There's actually a couple of buildings on there. One is a gas station which this subject site is. Lot 2, Block I includes the gas station so the business that we're talking about with the drive thru is incorporated into that building itself, and as you recall in your November meeting there was some discussion as to what type of use could go in there. What would be the maximum square footage. How would we quantify that? The City does have standards for different types of drive thru, parking requirements which would differentiate between a dry cleaning drive thru, a pharmacy drive thm and a fast food drive thru as far as stacking, so those are some of the design standards we looked at with this application. So the other building is a strip center to the north, and that's this building right here. And then you have the Edina Realty and the other restaurants that are in there. One of the things that I wanted to point out that we looked at with this application itself is, the internal parking here, there is shared parking among the uses. If you look at the internal parking between the buildings and the orientation, when we looked at this application where the driveway is, and I'll speak to that in a minute, we felt it was important that the access surely should be on the north side of the building in relation to how the center is being served. To get into the gas station you're actually kind of coming at an angle itself. So again we did provide new Findings of Fact but I wanted to go back andjust kind of re- visit some of the things that we talked about, and that's that the building itself is 5,500 square feet and of that there's the 1,500 for the restaurant. Again some of the concern was how that would fit in there. So with the 3 applications for the PUD, the drive thru, we are recommending SCOMED City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 approval and if you look in the staff report, some of the things that we talked about was, with this we did go to the other operation and observe how it operated and looked at the stacking. It does comply with what we have already in our city code for stacking length. The concern that we had as a staff working with engineering is the original design and the blocking of the traffic. If you look at the first proposal that came in there wasn't this green space and you crossed in front of the walkway and so the applicant did provide a revised drawing where you have more controlled access and one way so we don't have that cross parking issue, and so we have one way going to parking and then one way through the drive thru. But we wanted to go one step further, again going back to what I mentioned on the orientation of that building. Access to the other strip center is really on that south side and it seems to make some sense to have access to this on the north side. Then it's all encumbered in that same area. So what we were recommending is that the access to get into the front door, which is right here, be relocated on this north side, so this is the staff s proposal, and we have met with the applicant, and that's what the staff is recommending for that change. Again we have PUD standards in here regarding the parking stalls. It does meet all the underlying standards as far as the number of parking spaces. Again it meets what we believe is the engineering standards as far as access and control. And I just wanted to go and show you one other thing and that would be the revised interior, so this would be the new front door on the north. This area up in here and that could, would meet code as far as building code. We have reviewed that with the building official and then this door could be eliminated, and again that provides a better access. So one of the conditions we did provide again was the discussion that we would limit to the 1,500 square feet of this use itself so it didn't creep into the gas station portion and become some use that we hadn't intended. It wouldn't meet the standards as far as parking and that sort of thing. So with that staff is recommending approval of the, the motions are laid out for you. Again for the drive thru. And again this would apply for this site only. For this business. For the square footage. And there's a amended site plan as the staff is showing with the driveway, or the front door moved to the north, and then also the adoption of the Findings of Fact and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Yeah, I have one question. If you go back to the way the new layout is with the door to the north side and you're talking about eliminating the door on the west side. Kate Aanenson: It could be eliminated. Councilman McDonald: Okay, because what I was going to ask was don't you need two egresses for fire code? Kate Aanenson: No, there's already, there's just one right now. Well, it would work. There's adequate. They could make that a non, it doesn't have to be as large of a door. It could be an emergency access only coming out, yes. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Okay. Kate Aanenson: It wouldn't have to be the primary. Right now it clearly looks like the primary entrance. �: "I-, — 6 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Councilman McDonald: Okay, and they have agreed then to go with the plan for the north entrance and to relocate the patio. Kate Aanenson: It has been presented to them. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure we got final concuffence on that. Councilman McDonald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure what it was because there's about 3 drawings and I'm looking at an Exhibit A and it seemed like okay, that seemed to be in line with what you were talking about and I was under the impression maybe that they've agreed with you but okay, thanks. Councilman Litsey: In terms of making that change structurally, that's a pretty easy, I mean is there some cost associated? Kate Aanenson: There is some cost associated with it but structurally it does work. It's not. Councilman Litsey: It's doable? Kate Aanenson: It's doable, yes. We did have the building official look at it based on the plans. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a question. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Can you go over with me again the walking path. If I'm going to park my car on the west side. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. If you look at this picture here. So if you're over here. So what we're doing is taking these parking spaces out and these, so the additional parking is now located down here. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. But where's the walking path to the door? Do you still have to. Kate Aanenson: This sidewalk is still here. Councilwoman Tjomhom: But you still have to walk across or through the oncoming traffic? Kate Aanenson: No. No. You wouldn't have to be tied up into that oncoming traffic. Again some of the parking may be in this area too. Not all of it has to be here but you can cross over. Come up this and come into this sidewalk here. City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Mayor Furlong: But you would have to, if you park on the western most parking spots there. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: The area that's to the left of the one ... as we're looking at the screen, you're going to have to cross the drive thru traffic. Kate Aanenson: Correct. At some location, correct. As opposed to between the menu board and the cars that are waiting at the window. Maybe folks seen looking at the building as opposed to where they would be looking to where the car traffic would be coming, if that makes any sense. Mayor Furlong: And with the door on the north side, would there still be sidewalks around? Kate Aanenson: Yes. This sidewalk would remain. This is the sidewalk that's in place right now. This sidewalk right here. It's hard to see with that gray. That one's currently there right now and that would continue to have access. Mayor Furlong: And then is the applicant's proposal on this picture here, is that the existing configuration? Or is that. Kate Aanenson: That's new. The patio would be new. Mayor Furlong: The patio is new either way? Kate Aanenson: Yep. And then that would be, provided this sidewalk coming down. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the patio, the orange on both of those is new under either proposal? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: It's new. It's not existing. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Yes. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom, other questions? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yeah, it still seems precarious to me looking at where the handicap parking stall is. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Tjomhom: That you, if you're handicap you're still going to have to go against the flow of traffic. I mean what is your safe path to get to the door? V] City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Kate Aanenson: Well in looking at this drawing, this is where the handicap spot could be. That can easily be moved and I think that would be a recommendation that we put that where it has better access to where the front door lands, or on this end up. Where that front door is. Mayor Furlong: North west. Up near the patio? Kate Aanenson: Correct. I mean the handicap stall could be moved to the north and that could be re -striped. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay, and. Kate Aanenson: Or even it could be on the north side. The law just states it has to be so many per parking spaces. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yeah, it just looks like kind of an awkward spot especially like a day like today when you're trying to, if they were trying to like say you're in a wheelchair and trying to get out. Kate Aanenson: I would concur and I believe that was put in place because that was the current door location so wherever that primary entrance is, I would agree with you that we should make that a condition that it be relocated to where that would fit best. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. Councilman Litsey: When you're parked on the south side, the newly created parking spots, what would be the pedestrian route for there? Would it be on the other side of the building? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, you can actually go around. I'm sorry, I keep flipping back but you can, so if you're down here, you can go up this way and around too. Councilman Litsey: That would probably be presumably the way you would want to go or? Kate Aanenson: Um yes. Again there isn't a lot of parking in that northern parking lot of the building. Over in this area here, correct. Councilman Litsey: So that means if they're parking there business is good? Kate Aanenson: Well it's a shared parking and they all do that now. If you go over to what, the two other restaurants over there now, there's shared parking and those peak hours of restaurant but again with the drive thru, that's going to be a large portion of their lunch time traffic, and we did go and observe that at their other location in Eden Prairie to see how that was functioning too. Councilman Litsey: Okay, thanks. 0 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Ms. Aanenson, as long as you have those pictures up there with that south parking. By turning this into one way, is that going to be a natural flow for the car wash as well then? I mean cars pretty much line up back towards that... Kate Aanenson: Yep, and I believe that's what engineering felt was the strong recommendation too looking at that layout, that that seemed to make the most sense for stacking. Mayor Furlong: For the overall development. The stacking requirements that are on page 5 of the staff report. The layout. The number of vehicles, stacking vehicles for type of use. Is this, did you say this is currently in our ordinance? Kate Aanenson: We recently adopted this with some of those code changes. Mayor Furlong: Right. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: That's why I thought it looked familiar. Okay. And item (h) there, the limitation on the square foot. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Is that specific this PUD? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, what it says is for, what it should really probably read a little more clearly as recommended by the city attorney, like a drive thru restaurant. It does not say fast food but a drive thru restaurant would not exceed that. Again, that's. Mayor Furlong: So a drive, a restaurant basically would... Kate Aanenson: That's what it should say and that's what the city attorney had recommended, just kind of changing that tweak on that and, because the concern was that, that the revenue wasn't so great on the gas station side, you could kind of creep that into it and if it becomes bigger than what we intended, because the parking's based on that square footage. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, and does this, this portion of the building meets this requirement? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: But this is, (h) is PUD specific. The others are consistent with our existing ordinance. Kate Aanenson: Yes. It is the underlying zoning district for neighborhood business district does meet that and then, the stacking which would be the additional level, would also comply. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? 10 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Councilman Utsey: One last thing with the one way traffic direction. Does that help flow the traffic back to 78h Street better do you think? Or, I know that was one of the concerns where that's going to go. Kate Aanenson: I would think so that you maybe would circle back around. We talked about the U turn and it was pointed out that that sign that was originally recommended is still not in place but I think I would agree with you Commissioner litsey that that, Councilman Litsey, that that may come, you know force that to come back out this way as opposed to cutting through and trying to make that U turn, which is one of the, that bigger circulation which kind of goes back to the gas station or the car wash that they would make that movement, and that would be a goal. To try to get some of that turn movement. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Because I know that was one of the concerns. Yeah, I noticed that no U turn sign's still not up on Century Boulevard. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yeah Councilman Litsey: That's still the goal to get that? Kate Aanenson: Yes. The City Engineer is aware of that. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Is the applicant here this evening? Good evening. Would you like to address the council on any items? Mark Leutem: Yes I would. My apologies for being late. I was sliding through the broken glass and twisted metal coming down here. I live in Plymouth. It took me an hour and a half to get here. Anyway, and not hearing all the discussion. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me sir, if you could state your name and address. Mark Leutem: Oh I'm sorry. Mark Leutem and I live at 4645 Vinewood Lane North in Plymouth. Not hearing all the discussion earlier like I said, I just walked in the door here but I did look through, certainly I'm very happy about the aspects of the drive thru. We had, you know this is the direction I know we needed to go with it. Really not much issue there. There are probably finer things I would maybe bicker about but I don't think they're worth addressing. Last week Sharmeen brought me in and talked about moving the entrance to the building over to the north side. You know we discussed it. She gave some explanation as to why. Long story short of what happened is we initially proposed about a $23,000 change to the building. With what we have there, demo'ing out that sidewalk. Pushing it over. I mean essentially we're gutting out the whole front. All the concrete work across the front of the building right now and re -doing essentially. This thing is really getting spendy. Now if I had a 7 or 8 or 10,000 square foot space that I could rent that I was changing, that wouldn't be an issue. It's 1,500 square feet. This little change right here, the change, moving the north entrance right there, I haven't had a I I City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 chance to bid all those parts out because like I said, I can't remember if I met with her Wednesday or Thursday, but I do enough of this stuff to know on the outside of just moving the doors, those things you know, we've got tens of thousands there. Now what do you do to the interior? On the interior you have fixtures of plumbing, drains, water, stuff like that that are laid in there where the kitchen is laid out. It's laid out in a lateral format. It's not laid out in an end format. I don't disagree with staff s recommendation saying hey, having the door over here would be good facing the other businesses. Conceptually I don't disagree with that. I'm saying from a practical sense, we're raising the bar pretty high but that one change right there will mean that all the rent I collect for the next 2 years will go just to that change. And that doesn't include building the drive out or anything else. So if the city says this is the way it needs to be. If you want to do it Mark, I'll have to accept it. Go back and do the math and see if we can make it work. If we'd really like to have an entrance over there, have the patio sitting area, which I've been in favor of. That's originally went onto the drawing at my wife, well my wife drew it and then handed it to Westwood and they modified it but if we want to have another entrance over there, a secondary entrance, that'd be fine. But if you stand outside the building and you look at the window where the door would go, you have about 4 feet and the men's restroom is right here. The door for the men's restroom is right there, and so either you have an unappealing entrance into the building or you demo out the restroom. Cost about $12,000 to build one of those single stall restrooms somewhere else in there, and then that's displacing something else so you don't, you know we hadn't really had a chance to analyze it, what the impact is but interior operationally it's just going to get very spendy. Very, very spendy and again 1,500 square feet, I will not make that up, not even close. It's just a matter of how much my you know, a lot of people that aren't in commercial real estate say well it's better to have something in than nothing, and that's not necessarily true because when you put an expense out there, and again it's a venture. I'm sure what we put in there will be successful, but you're still at risk and there's still a lot of money going into it. Like I said I'm probably tipping I don't know, I'm right now guessing $60,000-$80,000. Just in this piece. Mayor Furlong: To relocate the entrance? Mark Leutem: No. Mayor Furlong: Oh okay. Mark Leutem: No, no. Mayor Furlong: The whole project. Mark Leutem: Yeah. You know the entrance, but see but the entrance like I said it's kind of like well once you move this piece, okay now what do you have to move after that? Because again when you have 1,500, it's very intricate. You know there's not a lot, there's no sloppy space in there and we're being limited to 1,550 so I'm not up here arguing. I'm not saying this that. I'm just saying that moving the main entrance, if we were to say if we could keep the main entrance there, and they want additional, a side entrance say coming in from the other ones. Build the patio out there and the deck, that would make sense but saying well we have to redo everything over there, you know maybe you walk out. I know we're going to build a patio but when you 12 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 walk outside, that's fine but having to re -tool the whole, you know interior of the store. Well not the whole but at least half of it. Anytime you start moving plumbing you know. Moving ceilings around and light fixturrs, I mean that's not too bad but anytime you have to go into the floor and start moving plumbing around, it gets very, very expensive. Mayor Furlong: So if I understand you correctly with, I don't know if it's a request orjust to make us aware. Adding a second entrance up there, a side entrance that would move out to where the patio is. Can you put up the schematic for the patio layouts that would fit for like the staff's proposed patio orientation would be. An entrance right there with that sidewalk going all the way up. Mark Uutem: Yeah we have, I mean we want the patio area you know. I mean that's mainly it's appeal. I don't know if I want to push it that close to my electrical box and the mechanical door and the gas station but maybe it comes over a bit. But if you're saying look, you know we want to have access out this side, just if I can leave things alone, I can just pull out the fixture. Cut out 4 feet of concrete and drop in an aluminum door, okay that's not disruptive in the grand scheme of the operation within the facility. Changing that as the main entrance, yes. Because someone going out a side door is not going to have a problem walking past a restroom. Someone's coming in for a first time you know and it's the main entrance like okay, that doesn't fit. Also my concern somewhat too is that the entrance where it is right now is kind of central in the parking. The parking's kind of all around it and if we move the entrance up to the north there, then now the parking is all this way around it whereas if it stays there it's a little bit more central. The other part too from our standpoint is visual from County Road 5 you know and that's, you know that's a big deal from the standpoint of being visual to draw people off the street you know. Mayor Furlong: Can I ask the motivation for moving the entrance is for... Kate Aanenson: Well two fold. One, some of the, yeah the orientation. The two businesses face each other in that little corridor. I think you may have some people, problematic or not that would choose not to go between two cars. When you have peak hours of high traffic of going through the drive thru, that would choose not to walk between cars. You don't normally see that. So when there's a time that there's not that, they would choose a different entrance, whether they walk through. We had our building official look at it. I understand your aesthetic issue. I don't understand the plumbing issue but that you could get through this door and make that a reasonable, besides just a single pane. Maybe a little bit wider so I guess we would say that that makes sense to have that secondary door so you're not forcing people that may not choose to walk, especially if you've got someone with kids that's not going to probably choose to walk between parked cars, or cars that are, tight. Mark Leutem: Sure, giving people some options and choices. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So Ms. Aanenson if I heard you to have that north entrance as a secondary entrance, is that something that would. 13 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yep. Mayor Furlong: Staff would support. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: So to continue to use the existing entrance and maybe. Kate Aanenson: That'd be fine. Mayor Furlong: But to have that secondary entrance as well. Mark Uutem: Right, and as far as the sidewalk work that you had in the other one there, if we could leave the existing sidewalk maybe and then just add the patio into that or you know incorporate it so. Kate Aanenson: Uke this, and then still have one coming down here. Mark Leutem: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: That's fine. Mark Leutem: Yeah, that's a couple thousand dollars worth of sidewalk right there. Mayor Furlong: But I guess your point Ms. Aanenson was, if you go with the applicant's proposal for the patio sidewalk, but also make a sidewalk connection from the patio to the side door, to the north door? Mark Leutem: Oh certainly. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Would be a natural flow. Mark Lcutem: Yeah. You know building the patio you build a few extra feet. I mean that's. Kate Aanenson: It's interesting, we had the discussion with Jimmy John's and I don't want to digress too much but they have the front entrance facing the interior of Market Square. That's the main entrance, but we strongly encourage them because people walking down Market Boulevard, the business community in here, can choose to go in that way instead of walking all the way around. This is the same example I would say here. You know that one doesn't have a drive thru but people may not choose to walk, all the way walk around the building. Mark Leutem: Right, and as I told Sharmeen too, I conceptually I completely agree. Kate Aanenson: Okay. 14 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Mark Leutem: That makes sense, but as we're sitting right now, when I talked to my potential tenant about what does that do? It's like can you make that work? Can you turn your store the other way? And again his question was, I don't know. You know I know what I'm going to have in expense just moving the door there. I mean I haven't worked it out to a detail because I just got this only a few days ago. Kate Aanenson: Well you weren't planning on moving the restrooms anyways so I'm not sure what. Mark Lcutem: Not necessarily, no. Kate Aanenson: Right. So if the door fits there, I'm not sure what the issue was. Mark Leutem: Well if you stand there and look at it, if you look through the window and say will you cut down through the rest of the brick and put the door in right there, literally that outer edge of the door will swing, will line up on that side of that wall so it's just, it looks kind of tight. It doesn't look open and inviting and whereas when if you walk in the front there, and if you want people to walk in the door like this and walk up to their counter. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that's how Jimmy John's is too. You're coming towards the restrooms on that back side too. Mayor Furlong: But what I'm hearing is the north entrance is perfectly fine as a secondary side. Mark Leutem: If we can have it as a secondary entrance. Mayor Furlong: And it meets the goal of providing that entrance so that somebody parking on that north parking spaces don't have to walk around, which is your goal. I think is there, and if there's some way, through signs or something to leave a walkway in the drive thru area so people parking on the west side can walk across and not have to walk you know between two feet of bumper but if there's a. Mark Leutem: Well the other part too, if you look at the drive thru too. The order box is going to be right before the sidewalk so everybody coming through there is going to stop. Mayor Furlong: Right. Mark Leutem: You know so there'd be, and then yeah we have some green that we have to put in there but I think obviously put in there so people can certainly see if someone's walking up. We can't put arborvitaes right up to the edge there and a car's blinded by someone coming through. But you know that way we'd essentially you know, and once you get the additional signage, things like that, you know stop for pedestrians and stuff. Mayor Furlong: And I guess that's my thought and I'm guessing Ms. Aanenson that was part of the staff s concern was that pedestrians crossing the drive thru. 15 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: As well, but to your point sir, since the order boards are north of that, there's an action stopping there. Mark Leutem: Right, yeah. And you know the current entryway, now again you stand on that west side, I mean we have that big arch in the front. I mean that looks like the obvious entrance to the place and my concern is well if you left that, and people are going to compelled to go up there and find out it's just glass. You know where's the door and I think there's, but if yeah, if we can say look. Let's just open up an access in there that goes out to the patio anyway, that kind of actually makes sense to me because it'd be easier for someone to walk on the inside right out to the patio area instead of have to go outside and walk around to it. Mayor Furlong: Well and I think you can evaluate the cost too of the patio and the original proposal certainly has more sidewalk and cement associated with it than when staff's, where you have that secondary access there, That may be something you want to look at from a cost standpoint as well, but was there another reason that staff wanted that patio moved to the east? Kate Aanenson: I think it's just more enjoyable not to be sitting next to an idling car. To kind of move it towards the center of the building. And maybe somebody else that runs into the gas station side to get something there can also sit and use that so it's just, you're not right next to the cars. But certainly you can mitigate that with some landscaping and things too. Mark Leutem: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Mark Leutem: Yeah, I got a lot of trees in there don't I. I haven't assessed that one at all. I'd better start planting seeds now. Councilman Litsey: I think one of the other benefits of having that green island there too, along the drive thru, is that the pedestrians do have a spot to stop. They're not in the roadway. They're not yet crossing and they have kind of a spot there that they can, so I think that helps some. Going in that main entrance. Mayor Furlong: Talking a little bit landscaping. Can you talk a little bit about what you're requesting there. Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure we put a lot of detail in there. Mayor Furlong: Page 9 of 11, and well that's part of my question. We just say add landscaping within the proposed island. I'm not sure. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think we showed an attempt to put something in there but that's something we would them. Typically we see low shrubs. You don't want something high because the operations on both side can see. The cars and cars can see the, where the window is 16 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 and that sort of thing but certainly just something besides just rocks. And again that helps with carbon monoxide and some of the noise mitigation too. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and then there was discussion before in the landscaping south of the property along Hghway 5. And there was some talk originally, the last time we saw this about berms and such. Are we, we're not doing anything that's going to block the building are we? Kate Aanenson: No. No, because this, let me go back. Sorry. This is Lot 2, Block 1. So that's a separate legal identity. On the other parcel. You're talking about this piece to the north? Mayor Furlong: Nope. I'm talking about the. Kate Aanenson: Oh, along Highway 5. Mayor Furlong: Exactly. Right where your mouse is now. Kate Aanenson: No, actually we addressed that previous with the previous application. Mayor you may remember when we did the. Mayor Furlong: The sign. Kate Aanenson: Electronic sign, yes. There was landscaping. Actually the signs are up recently but that was addressed with that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Some landscaping, right. Mayor Furlong: But the key here is there will be good visibility of this building and the businesses that are from I-lighway 5. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Are you comfortable with the landscaping requirements sir? Mark Leutem: Yeah. Well it's a, you know it's a picture from the top here. You know I guess we'll have to develop it further to see what it's going to took like from the user's perspective but you know he drew a lot of these arborvitaes along here just to kind of, you know tight in there and I think you know we have to kind of visit. There's a lot of, we've got some spruce and things along there right now and maybe to kind of stay consistent with the direction that the berm's been developed initially you know. KateAanenson: Yeah, and also because we just put the sign up but we can revisit that too just to make sure we're not putting them too tight in there. Mayor Furlong: Too tight or too vertical so... 17 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Kate Aanenson: Right. Well we know when we put them too close together, when we put them too close together they can kill each other too so we'll revisit that one just to see what the spacing is. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions for staff at this point or for the applicant? should say as well. No? Okay. Thank you. Mark Leutem: Alright, not to. Mayor Furlong: Did you have other comments please? Mark Lcutem: Well just one other one. Not to bias your vote or anything but it is my birthday today so. Mayor Furlong: Happy birthday. Do you want to make some comments, we'll certainly open up to public comments at this time. Lynne Etling: Yeah, thank you. Good evening Mayor and council members. My name is Lynne Etling. I live at 7681 Century Boulevard in Chanhassen and tonight I'm not knocking down the board at least. But obviously I have concerns about this project. I have from the beginning. I still think that they're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You know they made a lot of changes and you know hopefully they're for the good. However I do have a few other concerns that I'd like to ask. In regards to the speakers for the call box. You know please forgive me, I'm not sure how all this works but you know who on the Chanhassen staff would be responsible for the monitoring and the enforcement of those speakers to make sure they aren't audible from the property line? You know so that we cannot hear them when we're sitting outside on our patios. Mayor Furlong: I'll defer to staff on that. Kate Aanenson: Planning staff would. Mayor Furlong: Planning? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Lynne Etling: The planning would? Okay. How would they monitor that? Kate Aanenson: Typically what we monitor noise by, it's a dosimeter. It has to be frequency and duration of noise so that's typically how we measure noise. And so. Lynne Etling: Alright, because you know obviously that's going to be a concern to a lot of people that are living there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We do have the experience with fast food in, adjacent to other neighborhoods. For example McDonald's is very close to that neighborhood and they have a 18 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 dual driveway so we do have pretty good experience of how to manage those and can work with the owners of that operation. Lynne Etling: Okay. Alright. And for the landscaping, you know there really isn't a lot of specifics on it. I know you're waiting for the final landscaping to come in but you know the same thing. Who actually makes sure on the city staff that you know that the finished landscaping is adequate and you know who would go through and like would there be a landscaping bond or a letter of credit to guarantee if something should, you know what's there remains there and if it dies, if it's going to be replaced and? You know obviously I just want to make sure that there's adequate you know. Kate Aanenson: Would you like me to respond to that? Mayor Furlong: Please. Kate Aanenson: Before a permit could be issued, a building permit, all the final drawings would have to be submitted and they'd be reviewed by the appropriate departments. Engineering would review it to make sure it meets the designs as they've shown. Planning would review it. The City Forester would review it. If there is landscaping required, we typically have them post a bond for landscaping. So all of that would be done prior to the issuance of building permit. Lynne Etling: And I'm sure your city code would say how tall and how wide. Kate Aanenson: Yep, there's specifications for all that. That's correct. Lynne Etling: Yeah. And then also if something dies, that it would be replaced, right? Kate Aanenson: Yep, there's a warranty on that, that's correct. Lynne Etling: Okay. And then you said that you're going to have the no U turn sign put in? Kate Aanenson: Yes. I did speak to the City Engineer about that so. Lynne Etling: Okay. Because there is no U turn sign. Actually the sign, the one way sign is actually down right now. Somebody hit it. Due to our lovely snow but you know obviously the traffic flow is a concern for me because of the way that they're going to have people cutting through the drive thru lane so you know I just think it's kind of a safety hazard but that's all I reafly wanted. Just try to make it a win/win for everyone in the area. Mayor Furlong: Well thank you. Appreciate your thoughts. Lynne Etling: Do you have any questions of me? Mayor Furlong: Not at this time? Lynne Etling: Okay. Thank you. 19 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Councilwoman Tjornhorn: You know just real quickly. Before you showed us. Where is your residence in conjunction? Lynne Etling: Mine is. Kate Aanenson: I think it's off the screen. LynneEtling: Not the first unit but the second, yeah. Ontheii.-lit. Kate Aanenson: It's just off the screen, yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Lynne Etling: Yeah, just off the screen. And actually the, a few of my neighbors wanted to be here tonight. One of them is in China. The other two I think that they're just hung up with the snow but there are several people in the neighborhood that are concerned about this and the traffic flow that it would bring because this is bringing in, it's not, you know I don't understand when you're saying that you can make this specific just to this development because when you amend a PUD, PUD agreement, isn't that for the whole city of Chanhassen and would open the way for a drive thru's for everyone? Mayor Furlong: No, that's a fairly. Kate Aanenson: We did have a, yeah we did have a discussion regarding that. How a PUD, while the underlying zoning district doesn't allow it, a PUD can be amended to specific. Site specific for this one so it would only apply at this location. For the drive thru in a neighborhood business. Lynne Etling: Is that, and that is something enforceable? Kate Armenson: Yes. Yes. Yeah, we have other PUD's that you know it may be a shorter list of uses that would be acceptable in that district but maybe not in a similar location. Yes. Lynne Etling: Even though this will kind of give them the competitive advantage to other areas? Kate Aanenson: Well for example as we mentioned, McDonald's is in a neighborhood business district. At that time it was permitted for drive thru's and that's a pretty high traffic area right adjacent to a neighborhood district. As a matter of fact that Park Nicollet's in a neighborhood business district and the neighbors wanted a variance to 90 two stories and that's a unique PUD that we put together there too so each circumstance is unique. And the council weighs those circumstances to decide whether or not it merits it so they have that legislative authority to amend that and make it specific to this one. To this use. This location. Lynne Etling: Right. I'm just concerned that it would you know people like Subway or the ones that are previously along the corridor would come back and want that. 20 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, Subway had come in before. They're in the middle of a strip center. It did not have the same circulation and it just didn't work. Lynne Etling: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: So again you have to look at the design and really engineering has a lot to do with that, if you can make the circulation work and those are some of the factors that they did address. Lynne Etling: Right, and please forgive me. I'm trying to, I've read through all the documents from 2003 and trying to educate myself on this and the process and just really want to make sure that it's a win/win for everyone. Councilman Litsey: Absolutely. Lynne Etling: And obviously I live pretty close. Councilman Utsey: But are the concerns you brought up sinidlar to what your neighbors would have brought up too, so we're kind of getting all the concerns through you at least? Lynne Etling: Yeah. And others that are not relevant like we don't need another sub shop when we've already got two. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Lynne Etling: Things like that. Councilman Litsey: So you kind of filtered those Lynne Etling: Right. But they're mostly concerned about the traffic and the U turn and things like that, and walking into the building. That we don't lose the entrance. Councilman Litsey: Well thanks for bringing it up as a spokesperson. Lynne Etling: Okay. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment on this? Any follow up questions that the council of staff or the applicant? No? Okay. Why don't we just bring it to council then for discussion and try to move this forward. Thoughts or comments. Councilman Litsey, want to start? Councilman Litsey: Well I think to be sensitive to the concerns that were raised, that we follow through with those and make sure we monitor. I know that noise can be an issue when you have an outdoor speaker, and you know depending on conditions at the time, sound can travel differently. So that we're diligent with that. I think the compromise kind of worked out here 21 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 tonight in terms of entrances makes sense. I think that will help and so conceptually it's an okay project to move ahead with. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts, Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Well these are the types of projects I like coming before council because everyone is coming together and expressing their concerns and finding solutions to those concerns with staff. For example adding the side door. The landscaping issue. The noise issue. The traffic flow issue and it sounds like we found some things to address each one of those. Staff working with the residents as well as the owner and so I think that's great and I think it's going to be a great project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts, comments, Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yeah. I think one of the things that sold me on this, even when we just reviewed it last time was, what Mayor Furlong said that we are also members of the EDA and it's part of that I think responsibility to assure that our businesses do well here. Or we try to help them do what we can for them, especially this economic climate and so I'm all in favor of doing whatever I can do for this development and the owners of it to ensure success. So we do have businesses and places for people to go in town, you know that's what it's going to take to get this economy going and keep it going so thank you for Milo's and everyone else for investing in Chanhassen and I hope, I wish you the best of luck. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Geez. Well, yeah this is economic development and I'm glad to see that maybe we've got a use for this particular area that will work, but you know I still have a couple concerns and I'm glad you at least worked with staff and worked through them. You know my biggest thing is people crossing in front of the drive thru. I've been sitting here trying to think of restaurants where that happens and if they're successful or not and I can think of the Wendy's up at 7-M and no one uses that entrance of anything so I just you know would pass along, I hope you would consider something else there to keep some space between cars and people because I just don't have a lot of confidence as far as cars and people crossing. I'm okay with that being the main entrance. There is no other way and again in order for it to be a successful business and everything I think we have to go with that so I'm glad you compromised on the north entrance and so because of that, yeah I'd be willing to look at that as just a secondary entrance but my, you know my concern for the crossing just doesn't go away. I would want you to do something there also because I would hate to see someone you know get hurt or anything but beyond that I think that I appreciate you looking to try to find a way to make this work so hopefully together we can you know get something that will be good for the city. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I would agree with a variety of comments mentioned here tonight. From an economic development standpoint. I think that's one of the motivating factors that we heard last time that we didn't hear as much this evening. Is the need to try to improve the opportunity for businesses to be successful at this location. And while that may bring additional 22 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 traffic, which we understand is a concern to the neighbors, and I also appreciate that being part of the discussion and I think the design here is to try to work with some of them by creating one ways where currently there are two ways and through the site and as we said, will probably move some of the traffic further east and the further east it goes, the more likely it's going to come around on West 78th rather than back out onto Century and with the U turns. So bottom line I think we've made some good progress here and I'd like to thank the applicant and the property, as far as the business owners as well as staff for working together to do that to come up with compromises. I think we, my sense here is we are going to go forward this evening. We should probably modify some of those. Kate I think under number 4. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I just... Mayor Furlong: Are you working on that? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Relocate. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, are you under the PUD? Just yeah, the applicant shall relocate the patio and an entrance into space as shown on Exhibit A. Mayor Furlong: That's cool. Kate Aanenson: Just take out main. Mayor Furlong: Add a secondary entrance? Kate Aanenson: Or, yeah. Mayor Furlong: It's not a relocation of an entrance. Kate Aanenson: I just left, just scratch the word. Mayor Furlong: The addition of an entrance, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Coffect. That's why I just took off the word main and just say add and gain additional entrance or something. Mayor Furlong: We saw the relocate word there proceeding. Kate Aanenson: Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. Take relocate. Mayor Furlong: So locate the patio and secondary entrance as being shown. I guess the question is, there was still some discussion about the location of the patio. I understand staff's thoughts about moving that further east. I also hear the applicant saying I don't want, you know you're avoiding cars but then I'm going over... 23 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Kate Aanenson: We're flexible on that. The goal is to get an outdoor space. I think our goal is to make it desirable... Mayor Furlong: Which I think would certainly be a good, absolutely. Kate Aanenson: ... I think we can work it out intemally. Mayor Furlong: And that's what I would suggest there. Is that the staff and applicant work out the location. Make sure there's access to that patio from the secondary entrance. The north entrance. But adding in that north entrance, it sounds like that can be done as well so. Yeah, we don't need to keep talking about it. I think it's a good project. I think it's a good enhancement to an existing project and I think we should move forward on it with those modifications. Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may, just one more on the Findings of Fact. We talked about it briefly and I think the city attorney had just changed, made one little tweak and if we could just in the Findings of Fact. Mayor Furlong: What page are you on? Also in the PUD amendment. KateAanenson: Yeah, it was actually in the PUD amendment and just to put in there, instead of saying fast food, I think it'd be probably betterjust to put restaurant. Mayor Furlong: Just strike the words fast food in (h)? Kate Aanenson: And put restaurant. Would that be as part of your recommendation? Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Is that clear to everybody? Kate Aanenson: With the drive thru window, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. That would be on the PUD amendment? Kate Aanenson: Correct. That would be number, that'd be (h). Mayor Furlong: And was there a change on the Findings of Fact? Kate Aanenson: Yes. That would be on (h). It was on page 5 of 11. Mayor Furlong: And also further down under the amendment. On page 10. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the modifications would be to strike the words fast food under (h) under the PUD Amendment. And also to modify 4 under the conditions for the site plan 24 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 amendment. What are you proposing to say there? The applicant will locate the patio and secondary entrance as shown? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Or near the space shown. They may want to modify it from staff's proposal. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And again just to reference that we are speaking specifically to Lot 2, Block I soon that too. Mayor Furlong: Is that identified in the site plan amendment? Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure it is but I think we should probably put that in there too. Mayor Furlong: Where would you like that? Kate Aanenson: Just to be clear that's for the drive thru facility. That's for Lot 2, Block 1. Mayor Furlong: That's in the PUD amendment. It does say allow drive thru on Lot 2, Block 1. Kate Aanenson: Okay, then we should be covered. Mayor Furlong: Is that sufficient or do you need it for site plan as well? Kate Aanenson: I think that's, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so we covered that. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So are we comfortable on the amendment, condition 4 for the site plan? How that's going to be worded? Is the council comfortable with the intention of the wording there? Councilman McDonald: Yes. Councilman Litsey: Sounds good. Mayor Furlong: Okay, to locate a secondary entrance on that, and patio on the north side. Kate Aanenson: Yes. That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And the location agreeable with the staff and applicant together. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Knutson, you're okay with those? 25 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Roger Knutson: I'm fine with them. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Anything else? If not, would somebody like to propose a motion? Councilman McDonald: I'll propose the motion but the question I have is from what I've heard the motion itself reafly doesn't change, am I correct? Because everything we're talking about is really within the findings conditions I through 3 on page 10. Mayor Furlong: To meet. Kate Aanenson: As modified in the staff. Mayor Furlong: The modified conditions. The conditions will be modified based on these discussions I believe, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. I'll see if I can get it then. Okay I'll make the proposed motion that the City Council approves the Planned Unit Development amendment for the Arboretum Village (PUD 99-02), Planning Case #08-22, amending the design standards Section b. Permitted Uses, to allow a drive thru on Lot 2, Block I of the Arboretum Shopping Center with standards as shown on page 9 and 10 and approved as amendments to the Arboretum Shopping Center site plan permit 03-06, subject to the amended conditions I through 3 on page 10. Mayor Furlong: It'd be I through 4. Councilman McDonald: I through 4 on page 10 still. Mayor Furlong: And I believe it's page I I now. Councilman McDonald: Page 11. Mayor Furlong: Is that sufficient Ms. Aanenson? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhorn seconded that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Village (PUD 99-02), 26 City Council Meeting - January 12, 2009 Planning Case #08-22, amending the design standards Section b. Permitted Uses, to allow a drive-thru on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, with the following standards: Drive-thru facilities for any use shall comply with the following standards: (a) They shall not be located adjacent to any residential lot lines. (b) They shall be provided with a suitable visual screen from adjacent properties. (c) Stacking shall be provided within applicable parking lot setbacks. (d) Stacking shall meet the following standards: (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. (2) Banks: three cars per aisle. (3) Pharmacy: two cars per aisle. (4) All other uses: two cars per aisle. (e) The City may require a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more or less stacking shall be required for a particular use. (f) Stacking areas shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking lot nor encroach into any required drive aisles. (g) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at the property line. (h) A Restaurant with a drive-thni may not exceed 1,550 square feet in area." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CouncHman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhorn seconded that the City Council approve the site plan amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (Site Plan 03-06), Planning Case #08-22, to allow a drive-thru window and redesign parking layout and site circulation as shown in plans dated received December 15, 2008, with the following conditions and based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact: 1. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment allowing a drive-thru window. 2. The western three angled parking stalls must be striped and signed as compact stalls. 3. Any existing bufferyard plantings that are removed for the development must be replaced within the same area. A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval showing locations and species. The applicant may group plantings together in order to add interest to the landscaping if the design does not diminish the screening capacity. 4. ne applicant shall work with staff to locate the patio and secondary entrance into the space as shown in Exhibit A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails 5-0. Very good thank you. Appreciate everybody's input and thank you for participating. 27 CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 12/19/2008 9:49 AM Receipt No. 0089041 CLERK: katie PAYEE: KLMS GROUP LLC dba CHANHASSEN AMSTAR 7755 CENTURY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Planning Case #08-22 ------------------------------------------------------- GIS List 84.00 Total Cash Check 4695 Change ----------- 84.00 0.00 84.00 ----------- 0.00 sr,� " 0 Ds - a;�- City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilman Litsey: I wasjust going to, I agree with those comments and although again it may seem like a lengthy process, I think through this it gives everybody a comfort level and I appreciate the council's insight on this too. It was helpful to me because I haven't had as many of these before me as some other people on the council so this certainly did help and I think with conditions set forth, so I too support this so. Mayor Furlong: Is there any other discussion? If not we have a motion before us that's been modified with a condition and subject to the Findings of Fact being presented in the next meeting, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any other discussion? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance to construct a 15 by 20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adopt Findings of Fact to be supplied by staff at the next City Council meeting, with the following condition: I Design the roof such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated to create hazards to the bluff below. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER, 7755 CENTURY BOULEVARD, KLMS GROUP, LLC: REOUEST FOR A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THRU AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER. Public Present: Name Address Bryan Monahan 7500 West 78"' Street, Edina Andrew Ronningen 2669 West 78h Street Lynne Etling 7681 Century Boulevard Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm going to pass around, there's two letters of support that came with this project. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on October 22 Id . The applicant is requesting to amend the PUD to allow for a drive thru window. The subject site is located at a neighborhood commercial zoning district, as I mentioned done as a PUD that's located down on the northeast comer of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard, bordered by West 78h. This is one of those pocket neighborhoods that we put in place with the upgrade, or when we did the Highway 5 corridor study, to provide some convenience commercial for that neighborhood in this area. So again the applicant did appear before the Planning Commission and before I go through the slides I'll just summarize what the 20 SCANNED City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Planning Commission's discussion points were. And that was that the layout proposed, the applicant would block people on both sides of the stacking lanes, and it appeared that the parking spaces after you stack cars would not be able to back out. The Planning Commission also requested that the drive aisles ... drive thru be counted. The applicant requested that the drive aisles be counted as parking space, and the Planning Commission disagreed with that interpretation. Pedestrians must cut through the travel lane to get to the building, and I'll show a little bit more on that in a minute. And the Planning Commission also asked the applicant, the intended use to go in there, if they could go in without the drive thru window, and I think that was a concern when we look at neighborhood zoning districts as a whole. We have some other neighborhood zoning districts that we haven't allowed that so they did spend some time on that. And also the layout that the staff had recommended. The applicant disagreed with that, although I think we could move towards some of that. There's still some underlying concerns with that. Again in 2003, when this project did come to the Planning Commission we, the staff remained neutral in presenting a drive thru at that time and the Planning Commission had recommended no on that, so I'll spend a little bit more time on that in a minute. And then they also, the final thing that the Planning Commission talked about when they recommended against was the one way traffic through the gas station during rush hour and Nick and Willy's may present a problem. So with that I'll just kind of go through the proposed project itself. This is the original site plan that came through in 2003. The applicant at that time, and I'm not sure if anybody remembers but at that time they were looking at a drive thru coffee shop and it was integrated into the back of the design. At that time, again the staff, because it was a neighborhood zoning district, took a neutral position. We actually had Findings of Fact for and against, and the Planning Commission in looking at that drive thru, even though you could see that there were 6 stacking stalls separated from the access to the gas station and the other uses itself, completely separated, they still were concerned about the precedent at that time. And actually by the time it got to the City Council, this council actually deferred on it for a couple meetings too. Spent a lot of time studying it. Asked staff to go look at some other applications so in that time, at that time it was determined that that probably was not a good use, and the use itself went even a little bit further. If you look at the architectural compatibility, and this is the use itself is that we actually put on the back side of the building, so when you're looking from Highway 5 you wouldn't see it. It was actually integrated into the building itself. You can see the enter, so it was architecturally compatible so you wouldn't see it from the other side either, so it really had the least amount of visual impact. And so even at that, the Planning Commission and the council ultimately decided that they did not want to support. So here we are, a number of years later and the applicant is requesting the drive thru. And you can see on this application the drive thru again is on the north side. Again, it's further away from the residents but it's, as far as visual impact, it's not the preferred choice but based on now the current layout of the business itself, how it's function, the kitchen, the bathrooms and the like, this is what they thought was the best location for that drive thru. So we did go look at the use that wanted to go in there, how it operates in Eden Prairie. Went through the operation and this is the larger view. I'll go to a closer view where you actually, you have segmented uses so you actually have more stacking that you're not crossing through the traffic at the main entrance. And a close up of that would be, there's a car wash, if you can follow the arrow here to the car wash that goes one way. I believe it goes the other way, and then to go through Milio's, you're coming back through the opposite way so there is, they're not, you don't have pedestrians crossing to get into the business on this so it's a little bit different, and they had the segment in stacking space which this one didn't. So right away again IN; 21 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 in looking at doing a PUD amendment for a drive thru, we're not limiting what type of use can go there. Obviously depending upon how much volume somebody else, marketing would look at that sort of thing but we're not limiting it to any particular user. It just says drive thru window. So in looking at kind of worst caselbest case scenario. This was the staffs best attempt at making this work. Again the preferred alternative would have been on the back side, but trying to make this work. In replacing the additional parking stalls that were eliminated. Trying to reduce the area of conflict which would be� trying to get into the door here on this side. Where the restaurant would be. You're crossing through the travel lane of the drive thru, and that's where the Planning Commission struggled the most problematic portion of that. And this was the applicant's drawing for that. Again the staff's concern is that we had conflicting, the way this would back in here, you could actually block the traffic coming through the business itself. There wasn't additional parking provided with this application. Again that area of concern. And then these seemed to be also difficult because you're coming through the drive thru so you're losing these and these may be difficult to back out of too when you've got accelerating traffic coming out of the drive thru itself. So here's a little close up again kind of again highlighting exclusive stacking space for vehicles waiting to place your orders is not provided so you're, the vehicles waiting to stack at the menu or the order place could also be blocking the traffic and then the potential for the vehicle conflict coming the other way, or people coming out because it's narrow right through there. So again the Planning Commission did recommend denial of the application for reasons that I stated in the staff report and so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you do have. The motion that we had for you is placed on the front page of the application. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Councilman McDonald: Did you actually propose to the applicant your design? Kate Aanenson: Yes we did. Councilman McDonald: What kind of feedback did you get? Kate Aanenson: Well I think at the Planning Commission there was a lot of resistance but I think between now and then trying to meet all that before it went to City Council, I think they're willing to meet some of those designs. The concern that we had is that, I think the biggest issue here is if you're willing to go forward with the PUD amendment. We didn't want to expend additional money that if you weren't going in that direction. I think if you're leaning that way and then you wanted to make some conditions, I think at this point we didn't want to spend, have the applicant spending additional dollars on that. Councilman McDonald: And then the other question I have, with the traffic flow the way it is towards the back, isn't that also the way you would go to get into the car wash? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. There is a couple ways to get through there but it does get a little congested. I think at the lunch hour time too when Nick and Willy's is a little bit busier. Councilman McDonald: Okay. That's all I have 22 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Kate Aanenson: And Jimmy John's too. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, did I read that there are additional parking spots that are going to be created? Kate Aanenson: That's what we had requested. The applicant at the Planning Commission didn't want to do that. I think they're willing to show that for you tonight and so I think that they'll talk to that but at this point I think we wanted to get just kind of a read before we spend money and go further into that, if they're willing to meet those, I think we can work through the design issues but I think what we wanted to get for the read is, what you're receptiveness to the drive thru was. Councilwoman Tjomhom: But the real issue is really is the traffic flow and the stacking. Kate Aanenson: Well, there's a couple issues. One, it's not the preferred design because we actually, the stacking is one but you're also taking pedestrian traffic, pedestrian movement through a travel lane for ordering food. And then it is, while it is a PUD and you could make conditions unique to this, but we've told other neighborhood commercial zoning that, it could be a precedent. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this point? And I guess clarifying at the Planning Commission they made a motion to deny the request. The applicant's. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I see in the staff report what some of the concerns were laid out there and one of them was, this was talked about 5 years ago in 2003 when this came through and are there any other, while it's a PUD. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: It's a neighborhood business level of zoning effectively, correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so what else do we have in neighborhood, do we have any other restaurants drive thru in neighborhood business? Is at Galpin and 5 we have CVS and Kwik Trip. Kate Aanenson: There's no drive thru. The only thing that we've offered drive thru would be the banks, drug stores, dry cleaners would be the only ones to date that we've allowed the drive thru. So the other two uses up there that are food related are non -drive thru's either. That are contiguous to this. 23 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Well and didn't we have a request for a drive thru at Chanhassen Crossings at 10 1 and Lyman just recently? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And we put significant limitations on it. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: What did we end up doing there? Wasn't it, I mean that's a coffee shop. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: It's not necessarily a restaurant so there were expectations of. Kate Aanenson: Yes, right. Yes, correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: You keep saying correct. Kate Aanenson: It was for a coffee shop and the circulation was different and that I think. Mayor Furlong: But there were, it wasn't designed to be a food, or a restaurant there. Kate Aanenson: Correct. It was a very small area for what they wanted to look at was a coffee shop. But we've had other requests. We had requests for fast food down there and we recommended no on all that. We've also, there was the Subway across the street too that was looking at some of that but we had said no. That was also a PUD so. Councilman Litsey: Is it kind of, I mean I get the impression, and from reviewing this myself, that you're kind of trying to force something into an area that really isn't conducive to it or? Kate Aanenson: Right, well one of the staff struggle is, you know we'd like to see something successful in this building. That's critical. Councilman Litsey: Absolutely. Kate Aanenson: You know everybody would. And other uses have struggled there. We want this business to be successful so we tried to find a way to make it work and I'm just not sure we're there. In the design. Todd Gerhardt: And I think both the Planning Comrmssion and staff are looking for a little direction from the council on this. You know this center has kind of struggled here for the last 5 years I think it's been there, and they're going on their third tenant in this building and we want to be successful. The strip retail has had multiple uses in there and you know we need something to really anchor this comer and the applicant feels as if a drive thru would help that. And one of the things, you know I haven't had a chance to talk to Roger on this but we could give it a shot City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 for the one tenant and then, with the PUD amendment for Milio's, but if for some reason Milio's can't make it there, that that drive thru would only exist while that tenant was there. Councilman McDonald: Well that was the question I was kind of asking you on that because if. Todd Gerhardt: I know it's a challenge for Roger. Councilman McDonald: ... if this is a PUD, if we issue it for the PUD, does that mean if this fails then a Starbuck's can come in. They've got a drive thru? Roger Knutson: Without going into detail, I think we can get there but we would, due respect to the manager, we want to word it a little bit differently. Todd Gerhardt: You don't want to take that wording huh. Roger Knutson: You can't do a PLJD amendment that's only applicable to Milio's. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Kate Aanenson: It would be sandwiched related. Todd Gerhardt: So can it be time related or use related. Roger Knutson: If you tried to make it an interim use within the PUD that is possible but then you'd have to start over. There are other things I think we could fruitfully discuss and how we could limit that. Kate Aanenson: Such as trip generation, those sort of things. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Variety of factors. What I'm hearing is there may be some flexibility if that's something we wanted to look at. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and I think still we're still trying to struggle with the design. Mayor Furlong: But I hear, if Mr. Knutson is saying that there may be an opportunity to be a little more specific here without necessarily creating a city wide precedent, is that correct? There may be some opportunities. We might not get it done tonight but there may be some things we could do. Roger Knutson: I don't think we could word smith it tonight but I think if the council wants to go in that direction, we could come back with something that will pin it down pretty good. MayorFurlong: Okay. Alright. Kate Aanenson: And again just to be clear, I think there's some struggles of how much to spend on this and so we want to get some direction on that because we think we can make it betterjust 25 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 design wise, not even just with the window. The location. Moving some things but obviously there's some, I think some of the things that we are struggling with is the applicant's ability to invest in some of those. So we kind of want to find, get a read from you and to see where to go with that. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: How's the gas station feel about the drive thru and all the traffic that will be coming through there? Todd Gerhardt: The owner of the gas station is the applicant. Kate Aanenson: It's the same. Councilwoman Tjomhom: It's the same, I'm sorry. Kate Aanenson: That's alright. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I didn't realize that. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions of staff at this time? If not, we will invite the applicant to come forward and address the council. Is there anything you'd like to say? Good evening. Mark Leutern: Hi. My name is Mark Leutem. I am the, I'm going to say one of the owners of the gas station, which includes the car wash and the tenant space that we're looking to fill. Just a little quick, a quick background. Family owned and operated business. It started in the fall of 2004. My family, I actually married into this thing. My wife was starting this investment at the time we were engaged and becoming married and so I'm the fix up guy anyway. But the point is that the business in that location has under performed. We're doing about, somewhere between 28%. About 30% of what the business was originally projected to do. We are the owners of the real estate and the operator that was supposed to be in there lasted 18 months and he went bankrupt. In the restaurant space in the front there, that's had 2 other operators. First one went bankrupt after about a year. Second one, I'm not sure where he is. I think he's back in Mexico or something. Anyway, but the point is that we, the word struggle was used earlier and that's a very, very solid word and I don't mind saying we've probably put in about $15,000 a month on average to keep this thing going. Pail of the strategy to get this business to just start to take care of itself includes putting a solid tenant into that space. Being in the real estate world we went out to find potential tenants. We talked to brokers and agents and we talked to Caribou. We talked to Starbucks. We talked to Dunn Brothers. None of those are options. They want to be on the other side of the street for their particular reasons in what they do, so unless I can bring it across the street, they're not a consideration. We went to McDonald's. We went to the Noodles and Company. You pick the franchise. We've talked to all of them, and they're not all hard to talk to because a lot, a few brokers represent a lot of these folks. Those franchises require a square footage of at least 25,000 square feet. You may be able to squeeze them in there. Closer to 25. 28 to 30. I'm sorry, 2,800 to 3,000 square feet. 26 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Kate Aanenson: I was going to say. Mark Leutem: Yeah. We are way too small to be a McDonald's. And so those aren't options. We really need, and in fact as I've been interviewing potential tenants there, we really need to put a tenant in there that's going to stay, and a tenant business that's going to succeed. I've literally had some tenants come and look around and say, well yeah but a couple other businesses failed here and why did they. And when I explained, I don't think thing they had real good business plans. They did, for a number of different reasons. They couldn't get the traffic flow they needed or what not, and so the intent as the space is getting hexed. Okay so, I spoke with Mr. Moravec. Vic Moravec who has a franchise of Milio's franchise in Eden Prairie here. He's very excited. His company has done due diligence on it. Milio's is a franchise name. There's 50 stores in the Midwest. They have some name recognition in the area. Growing quickly. Very solid business. Well capitalized. Just the thing we're looking for. Requirement is he needs a drive up in order for the business model to work and succeed. So here we are today dealing with that particular issue. In the City Council meeting, as was brought up earlier, there was some resistance. I come today with no resistance to the staff at all. In fact I'm coming today to suggest that we look to try to get approval to this concept and then I would be more than happy to work with staff and staff s recommendations to follow a design that's developed that they're comfortable with. That meets the needs of our requirements of getting this accomplished and that staff could be perfectly comfortable in recommending. As was stated earlier, we can be close. I don't think we're quite there either. I had some disagreements before on how many cars are going to be stacked and what not. We're not going to do any of that tonight. But like I said I would like to work with the staff. Come up with something that makes sense. Since that city planning meeting, talked to some of the architects. Other developers and some other folks and some other ideas have been tossed out that haven't even been addressed together with myself and the staff so I think there's a number of different options that can be developed so this thing makes sense and is consistent. There was a question earlier about the possible congestion around my pumps. We would really love to have some congestion around my pumps. As I said before, we are less than third of the capacity that this business was originally projected to do. And so you know we'd like to do that. The other part of it too is you have to keep in mind that we are a continuous building so the traffic flow and sharing of parking space and entering and exiting is not uncommon. If you look in a number of different layouts in certain businesses, they can essentially be contiguous in each other. I think I've addressed all relevant points. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any questions for Mr., is it Leutem? Mark Leutem: Leutem, yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Leutem. Councilman McDonald: I guess at this point then what you're telling us is, you're willing to work with staff as far as addressing some of these issues they have about traffic flow and the way traffic would be handled around the center. Mark Leutem: Correct. Yeah I envision that the design is what staff and I would put together and again that the staff would end up being comfortable with recommending it. 27 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilman McDonald: Are we close as far as what staff's proposed design was? Is that a good starting point? Mark Leutem: If you could go to the picture that. That one there. We can be close. I just thought, actually did think about something as I was sitting in the chair here, and I have to talk with Mr. Moravec but from a space standpoint, I mean we could move that window even further down, which would shorten the access points. Still get the 6 cars in there that they want, and so then that would get away with some of the cross traffic or the stuff walking across. And then they also with working with Westwood, they had a number of different recommendations about how that parking and that handicap could be redone so the flow is a little smoother and everything lays out a little bit easier. There's less construction. There's less changing of the berm and stuff like that, so I think there's a few other options again that haven't even gotten to the table discussing how the design would go. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mark Leutem: But generally speaking we're you know generally going this direction. Todd Gerhardt: Is there the possibility of moving that front door over to the north side of the building? Because then it'd keep people away from that drive thru. Mark Uutem: Yeah, everything's possible. I think Todd Gerhardt: We'll design it right here. Sorry. Mayor Furlong: No we won't. Mark Leutem: One of the things, one of the things when I was with my concrete folks is that, you can see that takes away part of the sidewalk that's like right in front. And actually when you take that out and you get on the scene and you put a tape measurer to that, there's enough room to leave that sidewalk going all the way and still get the lane in there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it's the issue we had, just to be clear, you know as you're crossing. People aren't going to walk all the way, yeah. We can work on it. Todd Gerhardt: We won't design it here. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions this evening for Mr. Leutem? We may have some others as you... Mark Leutem: Well yeah. Mayor Furlong: If you watched the earlier one. Mark Leutem: Yeah, I don't have any other plans. 0.1 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: We never close out our right to ask questions so. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I just have a comment that when you were talking about moving the window to make the traffic flow a little easier, I see Kate shaking her head and, yes. So I'm encouraged to hear that the two of you will work something out and bring it back. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I know there was a public hearing at the Planning Commission. I don't know if there are other members of the public here present that want to comment on this. With Mr. Herbst standing, I'm guessing the answer to my question is yes there are so we'll take some public comment here as well. Good evening. Dan Herbst: Good evening. Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council. Professional staff. My name is Dan Herbst. 7640 Crimson Bay Road in Chanhassen and also co-owner with Ron Clark of Century Wine and Spirits. We are, before I give you points that point out, talk to you about. We are running low of wine club memberships before the holiday season so if you want to sign up tonight. Mayor Furlong: I don't think this is an opportunity for advertisements. We'll let this one go. Dan Herbst: First of all I apologize for not being here at the Planning Commission meeting. We would have liked to state our case as well as other people at the Planning Commission but we didn't see it as a real issue and I think when you assume something like that, you always make mistakes so I apologize for not being here. But you know from the obvious point of view you already know there's a road already that loops the south side of that building. From a precedent setting point of view you already have a drive thru on that PUD with the car wash. I've been in this business about 40 years and 1, in both the commercial and the residential end and you know looking at your Findings of Fact you know this drive thru window is very, very consistent in my opinion with all of the other uses that are part of the Arboretum Center there. I see no inconsistency whatsoever. There's also some mention in your Findings of Fact about lowering property values. I think that's invalid also. So I think it's consistent with your PUD. It's going to boost all the businesses in that area. That place has been open and closed, as Mark mentioned to you, about 3 different times. I think it's compatible with all your performance standards of your planned unit development. You know and just on a personal issue, having 8 grandchildren a drive thru is a real, real plus. When you've got to bail kids in and out of those seats and watch them run across the street to go into a restaurant, a drive thru is a real great thing, and all of you that have had children, and more so if you're handicap. And so I think there's a real advantage to a drive in window so I strongly recommend that you would approve this and I like the theory that Kate has put up, that if you approve the drive thru concept on this site, which is, and the drive up window, I think the details can be worked out with Mark and Kate and Paul as far as the parking and the traffic and everything else but I strongly would recommend that you would approve this tonight from the concept of allowing the drive and drive thru window and let the details be worked out with staff so. Are there questions? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Herbst? No? 29 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Dan Herbst: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Lynne Etling: I would like to speak as well. Mayor Furlong: Please come forward. Lynne Etling: My name is Lynne Etling and I actually live at 7681 Century Boulevard, and I just broke your thing. I think I got it. I can't give as eloquent a speech as he did but I would like to talk about the proposed change here. Mayor Furlong: If you could, your address again ma'am. Lynne Etling: 7681 Century Boulevard. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Lynne Etling: I live within 500 feet of the development. Mayor Furlong: Great, thank you. Lynne Etling: And I also spoke as well at the Planning Commission and I'm not going to take up your time going through everything that they have already discussed here. However, you know I do want to strongly stress that they are asking for a variance. There is a lot of if, and's or but's. Nothing out here is laid in factual, what they're planning to do now and as far as what I can see, was not copied on the letter of approval from whoever supporting it. But when you talk about you have a business. Obviously it didn't have a great business plan to begin with. The people that have been in there have been in and out. The last company that was in there actually had their children in there all the time so obviously when you have little children running around, you're not going to do a great deal of business with your restaurant. It's not conducive. So as far as the people that live in that area, I don't feel that you know I'm sorry but I do feel our property values are going to go down because of this because everyone is going to go in there. There's going to be a lot more traffic. You're trying to pull traffic from the commuters instead of the people that live there. There's a lot of differences to this with what they're proposing. I mean a lot of changes to it and frankly they're trying to put a square peg in around hole. Itjust doesn't fit. This is not made for a drive thru and the people that are going to go in there are going to come back out. Go onto the road. Do a Uy. Creating a traffic problem which is the primary concern for me and then go back out onto Highway 5. So there's a lot of things here. I don't think hardship is proven. My property value has gone down tremendously since when I purchased my home not even 2 years ago, but you know that's not taken into account. There's a lot of things here that you know I just don't support it. I don't want to see your business fail. However I don't want my property value to go down even more. I don't want to have a wreck when I'm trying to get out of the neighborhood. You've got one business compared to I don't know how many homes that are there. 500 personal units? You know I don't want to waste your time. I think you know that he's trying to do his best that he can. However I just don't, I still 30 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 feel that it's a square peg in a round hole, and unless they take the drive thru out, you know I just don't think that it's feasible. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And if I may question. You talk about U turns. Is that traffic that exits the entrance on Century Boulevard is right-in/right-out, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Lynne Etling: Right. And they'll come out. It's not a one way. Mayor Furlong: There it is. That's good. So they. Kate Aanenson: Correct. So you could come back out this way and then try to go up and around. Lynne Etfing: And that's what everyone does. Kate Aanenson: Right. Lynne Etling: That's what they do now. Kate Aanenson: Certainly that would be one of the issues that we'd look at too is controlling some of that. If you were to consider. Councilman Litsey: Another thing you could do is like a No U Turn sign there or something. Kate Aanenson: I think there is one. Lynne Etling: There is one there now and they just don't do it. Kate Aanenson: They still do it. Councilman Litsey: Is there one there now? Kate Aanenson: Yes there is. People ignore it. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I've never seen it either. Mayor Furlong: If I could. Lynne Etling: Maybe there isn't, I don't know. But there should be. Mayor Furlong: And I think, Ms. Etling, that's a valid point in terms of traffic flow. Not just within the development but on the streets surrounding it. If we're already having problems, that's an issue that we should probably be looking at, and I know Mr. Herbst is here and others and maybe I mean regardless of where we go on this, if this goes forward, at least from tonight 31 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 we're talking about it and we haven't even talked about it yet. There have been suggestions that we look at it from a concept and then get into the details and then bring something back. But to your point, we could all look at and evaluate. Lynne Etling: Right. Mayor Furlong: Because there really isn't anything here but a concept at this point. Lynne Etling: Right, and I don't see a win/win for everyone here yet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And understand that but I'm wondering if we already are having some problems with traffic flows, and maybe we are, maybe we aren't in terms of the U turns there. People coming out. Going up. Turning back around to get out to Highway 5. Lynne Etling: In the summer when they do the re -paving, the main thing that you see is the path for the U turn. Mayor Furlong: And as I recall this was, we were looking at pedestrian traffic as well as car traffic and when this development originally went through. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: There were some, there were concerns at that time so. Lynne Etling: Right, and this would change the platform that you have there. The footprint of that whole development. Mayor Furlong: Perhaps from a volume standpoint. Lynne Etling: Right. Well and you're attracting metro traffic instead of urban. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Okay. Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may just make one point, just to be clear on the process here. They're asking for a PUD amendment, and the variance was because they didn't want to provide the additional parking. I heard Mr. Leutent say that he was willing to meet the standards for that so the variance would go away. Not to dismiss the other concerns, but then it wouldjust be the PUD amendment which is a little bit different standard. Lynne Etling: Right, which would be setting precedent for the. KateAanenson: I don't disagree with that but I just want to make sure if, he had agreed to put the parking in. That was what the variance for. 32 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Lynne Etling: May I ask one question that I didn't think to ask earlier at the Planning Commission? When you say that you did a study of the drive thru stack lane at the Eden Prairie location, was that a qualified, certified traffic inspector or was itjust an employee? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Well City Engineer. Assistant City Engineer, correct. Who I believe is qualified to make... Lynne Etling: But not a traffic engineer through right? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Lynne Etling: Okay. Councilman McDonald: Can I askjust one question? Mayor Furlong: Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Do you feel, if we could solve the traffic problem, does that make this a little bit more attractive to coming in to the community? Lynne Filing: Well I would love to have a coffee shop to be honest with you. But I mean 3 sub shops within you know, what 500-600 feet of each other. I just don't think that's a good business plan. Councilman McDonald: Well that's probably up to the individual businesses but my point is, what I'm hearing is traffic seems to be the biggest problem and if that's something we were to concentrate on and improve, whether the business succeeds or not is up to the business. Would that make it make it more attractive as far as you know coming into the neighborhood itseIf9 Lynne Etlin,-: As long as it was enforced. Councilman McDonald: I beg your pardon? Lynne Etling: As long as it's enforced. I mean that's the biggest issue is they're, you know it's out there. It's mainly for that Arboretum Village and you know I'm sorry if, I've been a frequent visitor of both of them. I have a membership at the Wine Club and I used to go to the restaurants since I've been there too. However I didn't like the children running around while I was trying to have a quiet dinner. You know it just wasn't good business. But to have something like that going around the whole building and blocking all the individual parking spaces, even if he does create more, you've still got the hazard of trying to have the cars backing in and out while someone is stacking there. I mean that's what I'm meaning when I'm saying you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It's just you know, no matter how you design it, unless you would, you know you'd have to totally redo the whole thing. Put the driveway on the other side or something so you have more stacking lane. I don't know. Councilman McDonald: Okay. 33 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Well thank you. I appreciate your comments. Lynne Etling: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: It's been helpful. Thank you for your involvement. Is there anyone else who'd like to come up. Good evening sir. Brian Monahan: Hi there. My name is Brian Monahan. I'm with Ron Clark Construction. We are the owners of Lot 1, Block 1. It's the center north of the gas station. Mayor Furlong: So I'm sorry. The one you're highlighting now? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Just straight north. Okay, thank you. Brian Monahan: We actually favor this action. We would like to see increased traffic to our center. Currently we're at 67% occupied in our center. We've been that way for about 2 years. Naturally if more folks are coming in to the center, then that's a bigger possibility for not only our tenants to succeed better as far as our center is concerned, but also the gas station and whatever tenant they might have. We've found that, I've been with Ron Clark for 2 years and for the last 2 years we haven't had a tenant on the end cap, which we would love to have a coffee shop as well. But unfortunately everyone wants a drive thru. That's what we found is that everyone and a drive thru. While we might be jealous of them being able to get their drive thru, because then we won't get our coffee shop, we would also welcome the added traffic that it would bring to the center. And I know I can speak for several of our tenants. One of them is here. That they also welcome the possibility of additional traffic to the center. Obviously traffic, whether it's pedestrian or just regular folks getting a sub or whatever, attracts more business to their businesses. A Karate studio for instance. A Pilates class. Edward Jones is in there. It's a financial planning company, and then of course the liquor store. I know I can speak for at least all of them that more traffic is better for us. We feel that it's possible to work this out, being in the real estate business ourselves, and also the development and construction business. We can actually see that there's a couple of possibilities that might be able to work out if we're given the chance to move forward with that. And that's pretty much our stance. As far as the real estate values. I think we can all agree that most real estate has kind of gone down from the last probably 2-3 years. I don't live anywhere near any of this, which I would actually welcome, but my house value has gone down as well so. I mean it's, I think that's kind of a moot point to be honest. And the last thing I'll say is, is that there is actually two entrances. There's an entrance and an exit out. Whether folks move out through the entrance or in through the out -trance, or the out or what have you, you know it's, I think it's kind of neither here or there to be honest. Frankly if the direction of travel, which has been proposed by staff, those folks are more likely to drive past the pumps and out the other entrance over there on whatever, West 78 1h Street. That to me just seems like a natural. As I'm looking at it, that's probably the way I would go out. 34 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. One question for you, since you brought up the subject that you would have been interested in a drive thru. Brian Monahan: Sure. Mayor Furlong: If the council were to go forward with the concept this evening, would you be requesting a drive thru then at some future date for your building as well? Brian Monahan: Frankly we've kind of examined the possibility of a drive thru and we don't see a possibility for adding a drive lbru, unless you were to build a lane on the back side of the building. We're not willing to do that. So the answer would be. Mayor Furlong: No. Or is the answer no? Brian Monahan: More than likely no. Todd Gerhardt: You got an engineering answer. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions for MT. Monahan? Anyone else wishing to come up this evening? Andrew Ronningen: Good evening. My name is Andrew Ronningen. I am the owner of one of the business, the Fantastic Sams. It's fight in the middle essentially of the Ron Clark building, and I just wanted to, I wrote a letter but I wanted to really just highlight a couple of points that are very important. When somebody is driving up towards this center, they see that vacant building that we're talking about for the drive thru, and obviously that's not appealing at all, and I think that prevents people from coming into the Arboretum Center. And so having a space there for that reason alone is important. And of course we all know that a lot of businesses like that, more than half their business comes through the drive thru. It's just the way we are with our cars and everything. We're a convenience, walk-in business and we're a proven business model. There are over 1,300 around the country that we've grown from 0 to about 80 Fantastic Sams just in Minnesota in the last 5-6 years. So they very rarely close and our salon is definitely under performing and we can see, and I can give you examples. I have other salons that I own and where there is more frequent and relevant traffic, like people coming through and being there, the salons perform much, much better so we would certainly benefit tremendously from increased traffic there. And as an owner I'm there you know 7:30 in the morning, noon, 10:30 at night. Saturday. Sunday's. All different times and I've walked around. I buy my gas at the gas station and once in a while go down to the wine store. Jimmy John's and so and as a pedestrian walking around, I've never had an issue with traffic. There just isn't that much traffic there now so my thought too is, even if there 50 more cars a day, you know I don't know that anybody would really notice. Because there is quite a bit of space and I rarely see anybody driving down in that lower loop anyway. I mean rarely. So I think that the impact is low but we're, you know we have 7 people. They're employed and have a lot of their livelihood based on that business, and we'd like to hire more and continue that, we'd also like to keep the jobs we have so from our perspective there too it's about keeping those jobs and filling up the center that we're in so that 35 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 we can be viable and offer great services for the surrounding neighbors because we're sensitive to what they need. So I appreciate being able to talk about that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you sir. Any questions? Very good, thank you. Anyone else this evening that would like to provide public comment to the council. Yes. Mark Leutem: Just on the issue of U turns. If people are up there doing U turns, I mean that's something I would certainly agree needs to change as well. I don't want people doing that. I wouldn't have any problem with facilitating the direction out of the facility for them to go and use the other entrance going out to the other road, and it could be quite simple as putting a sign out there that says you know please exit this direction so I think we could channel traffic that direction. So that would certainly be an option. I mean another idea could be just re -direct all of County Road 5 right between the strip mail and my gas station and out there. Mayor Furlong: Just run the state highway right through. Mark Leutem: Just run it right through there. Plus put a stop light right in the middle of the building. Mayor Furlong: Right by your pumps. Mark Leutem: Alright, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? Lynne Etling: May I have one quick question? Mayor Furlong: Sure. Absolutely. If you could wait til you get to the microphone please. Lynne Etling: Sure. In order to make this more feasible to us that live right there on the comer, if you're wanting to get increased traffic from the highway, from the commuters, is it possible for the City to plant more shrubbery, you know evergreens, whatever to buffer the noise that that would bring? Mayor Furlong: I think the answer, that was one of the things that was being discussed or laid out by staff too. If the landscaping plan might change. If this went forward, and I'll defer to Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think those are all the things that we want to work on. I think just to, certainly to make sure that there's less impact. Lynne Etling: Yeah, because there's the big track right there that's directly across that is pretty barren that alleves all the noise then. 36 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Just so I understand Ms. Etling the, when you talk about doing some additional landscaping, where on the property would you? Is it along Highway 5? Is it along Century Boulevard? It is along West 78h7 Lynne Etling: No. Actually along your wetland area there across the street so it would buffer the people that live there. Mayor Furlong: Where she's pointing to right now with the arrow? Lynne Etling: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So you're saying between the business and the homes to the north? Lynne Etling: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Alfight. I think we can take a look at the landscaping plan if we went forward, and I know that would be a part of it and I appreciate your. Lynne Etling: Because that's a wetland area behind me and what trees are there are pretty much dying and falling down. It's kind of a big eyesore because they haven't been taken care of, and that one area is all barren where trees probably were and they were taken down and nothing was replanted. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lynne Etling: So that would help buffer the noise for us that live right there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lynne Etfing: Thank you Mayor Furlong: Thank you for the additional comments. Anyone else from a public comment standpoint? No? Thank you for everybody's thoughts and ideas and suggestions as well. Any follow-up questions at this point with staff? Maybe they'll come up as we discuss what's before us this evening. If not, is there any thoughts or comments? Councilman McDonald: The question I've got, do we really have something to vote on if everybody's willing to go back and talk to staff? Kate Aanenson: I guess we'd recommend probably tabling it. Right now the 60 days ends November 18'h so I'd probably ask for an additional 60 days. Mayor Furlong: Is that a request or is that an automatic? It doesn't sound it like's going to be a problem. 37 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Kate Aanenson: It's automatic. Just to put them on notice that we'd be taking the extra 60 days and that we try to work through a design but again, in good faith with the applicant, if the council didn't even want to go there, we didn't want to pursue a lot of that interest. Mayor Furlong: I guess what I'm hearing is that if it's something from a concept standpoint that we're willing to support, and therefore would require time and effort on the part of staff as well as the property owners, the applicants, stuff like that, we could give them that direction this evening. Along with what sort of parameters we would like to see in that so they're not just working blind but as much direction as we could give them. If it's the council's desire not to go forward here this evening, then I think that's also direction that we'd want to give this evening. So that everybody knows and so it's, you know it doesn't drag on. Those would be my thoughts from what I'm hearing tonight and obviously I'm always open to listening what the rest of you think and I don't have all the answers. Most of them but not all of them. And I'll let you know which ones I have the answers to by the way so. So Councilman McDonald I think that to clarify I think what's before us tonight, I don't think we have enough tonight to approve something specifically. I think that was adequately raised, but more in front of us tonight is, is it a concept that we think makes sense for people to spend time on, that we'd be supportive of if certain parameters were met. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: In regards to setting a precedent. I know that was one of the concerns the Planning Commission had for other planned unit developments or developments. What are we setting ourself up for, or not setting ourself up for? Kate Aanenson: Well I think the applicant, I'll just point out one thing. The applicant did point out the size. This is a smaller square footage area so we can quantify some of that. Because it wouldn't fit for a lot of the other fast food users, like McDonalds and some of that because we limit, we'd cap the square footage of that, that could absorb this type of use and I' H let the City Attorney address some other. Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. I think with careful drafting, that shouldn't be a real concern. I think we can limit it to this, what we have here. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts or comments? Councilman McDonald: Well I had a couple other thoughts and everything to me. I'm in favor of going forward. Anytime someone will come up and say they're willing to work with staff, I'm willing to listen. The other thing about the traffic though, I know down at Galpin this has come up before. It's a similar situation where you're coming out a Snyder Drug down there and people are making U turns, and I know that it's been addressed before and I'm not sure there's a lot we can do about it. I don't know what you can do about the U turns, and I guess at this point I would maybe want to consider that as something outside of the application here. It's something I would definitely encourage staff to look at, but I don't think we found a solution for Galpin yet, RE City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 and I'm not sure we're going to find a solution for this one, and I wouldn't necessarily want to tie that in to whether or not this project goes forward. Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I think any time you have a layout like this coming off a main thoroughway, and then you're going to come in and then the tendency is to want to cut comers to get back out again. I was glad you didn't say aggressive enforcement because I don't think, well they have the staffing to promise that but. Kate Aanenson: Well I think some of that can be addressed if we look at the traffic being generated. The directional. I think one of the issues that you have is just traffic as a whole so I think one of, the resident raised the issue regarding doing a better traffic study. What direction is that traffic coming and going. What are the peak hours of the use of the business and how that relates too so I think we can try to manage it from there, and then get some recommendations from the City Engineer. Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I think if you could do it from an engineering standpoint, but the one that comes to mind for me is the Cub Foods in Shorewood, right across from Chan but you know there's a no right turn there but I'll tell you, everybody makes. I mean so signs are pretty. I mean if you can do it through engineering it's a whole lot better. Kate Aanenson: Right. Yep. Mayor Furlong: And I guess to comment, in that particular development, the Cub Foods development, originally they didn't allow any egress out of the parking lot by the hardware store but everybody did it anyway so they ended up building the road to accommodate what people were doing. I'm not arguing that in this case. I think you know people will find, if you don't have a fight turn lane on a busy road, they'll drive on the shoulder to get around cars and go. I think from a traffic standpoint the two issues here are, one, what's the traffic internal to this development if we were to go forward with this. What would be the traffic flow there, and how could we try to direct flow up to West 78d' Street to exit as opposed to coming out on Century Boulevard. You raise a good point Councilman McDonald about the Galpin and 5 where the Kwik Trip and the CVS is. As I recall that CVS drive thru empties out going back to Galpin. Councilman McDonald: Right. Mayor Furlong: Here at least we've got traffic going the other way so there may be some accommodations there, but I think the key is, what can we do within the development and still make it something that people are going to follow because even if you create all sorts of things, you know you can only do so much. But I think traffic flow is clearly an issue that we want to look at here. Any other thoughts or comments on this at this point? No? Councilwoman Tjornhom, your thoughts. Councilwoman Tjomhom: No. Oh I'm sorry. Councilwoman Ernst: No, go ahead. 39 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilwoman Tjomhom: I think it's something very worthy to be looking at. If it's, you know my only concern was the pedestrian traffic crossing over into the drive thru traffic and it sounds like you and the applicant can work together with that and I'm all in favor of any business being successful and having patrons come to it in Chanhassen, especially at that front space that does seem to so far not found a niche yet or something and so I wish you the best of luck and I look forward to working with you. With this project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: I too would be in favor of the concept and obviously we've had some tenants here tonight that have expressed being in favor of the business, of the drive thru and we also had a resident come in and express some concerns and it sounds like we have some possible solutions for the landscaping piece. And the fact that staff and the applicant can work together to come to a solution hopefully on the traffic flow and so I would be in favor of the concept. And moving forward. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Litsey. Thoughts. Councilman Litsey: No. I think they've been well stated. I think looking for some ways to direct traffic flow, other than, I mean signage helps but you know people are going to go the way they want regardless of that so you're going to have come up with something a little better than that. And respecting the residents, I think putting up some additional buffers there is reasonable and I think the rest is pretty well in hand. If we don't, you know if we're not setting precedent. I think I said that right. I never say that word right but you know then we can do that legally, then I think we're probably kind of getting there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. I think one of the other roles that the 5 of us have is that of the Economic Development Authority, and while often that's an entity that's created for separate legal entity from the City for financing purposes. I always look at it as really one of our goals as a council is to promote and enhance our local economy. That's good for our businesses. It's good for our residents as well, and clearly I think in this development it has not achieved the potential and what many people hoped for and expected in terms of economic success. And here we have an opportunity perhaps to enhance that and do it in a way without setting precedent but at the same time do it in a way that makes some sense. So I would support the concept of going forward. I think from thoughts and comments I would tend to side towards staff's proposed design as opposed to what was presented before and I guess some examples I'll use is trying to separate, and here you may not be able to separate the pedestrians walking across the parking lot and through there, but perhaps with some median or something like that and a controlled crossing, or some signage you can do that. I think of the McDonald's in Excelsior where the drive thru comes right through the middle of the parking lot, and that is, it's a mess. It's a mess. Compared to the McDonald's in Chanhassen where the drive thru wraps around the perimeter and it's separated. Here we may not have that benefit of separation but I think through some of the designs that staff was looking at to try to mitigate some of that conflict, I think helps. So I think my tendency would be let's work with some of the outlines that staff has put together. You know from, is 6 cars, is 5 stacking and I think we can be flexible there. I think we need more than the 2 in some of the other situations so I think we can be a little flexible there. If we've got EEO City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 some constraints here, I think 6 is a good standard overall for new development. Here we're trying to retrofit and so there may be some other constraints that we have to work in. So perhaps a little flexibility. I know it's not significant but perhaps moving a window can help reduce the amount of the drive thru lane and still get you your 6 cars and so looking for those accommodations. The other thing I would talk about, and I know Mr. Etling brought up the idea of landscaping. I want to make sure we don't leave false impressions here. That we're going to be landscaping across or requiring landscaping outside the property. I mean there's some limitations we have too. If we're looking at landscaping on the north side of West 78 1h , and there are two parcels inbetween so I think that's something we can look at, so I don't want to leave with false impressions that we're going to be doing that, but I think we need to look at that. See what can be accommodated with this to try to find some solutions, and we talked about traffic already. And you know I think there's some, what it sounds like, people smarter than I in terms of traffic flow, there are some ways to try to improve the traffic flow just naturally as well as with some other means so. But just from a standpoint of trying to assist the property owners and the local businesses there to be more successful, I think it's worthwhile for us moving forward, especially with the guidance we have this evening. Mr. Knutson, who I always rely on, that it can be done in a way so it's relatively specific. I think we've got size issues. I think you know the fact that Century Boulevard is not a major through street. It's effectively, it drives up and then stops at West 78d' and then is a local residential street after that, unlike a lot of other neighborhood business areas where there's actually a crossing of major through streets, and I'm not going to start talking about minor and major artenals because I'll screw that up, but the bottom line is, is when Century Boulevard reaches West 78h going north of there, that's a residential neighborhood. That's a residential street and so there are some unique features from I think, in terms of these properties, from a traffic road design and it's location that's unlike some of the other areas as I'm thinking through business neighborhood areas. That also I think gives us some comfort that maybe we need to do a little bit more here to enhance economic success from that standpoint. So those are my thoughts. I think the council seems to be generally unison in supporting the concept, and if other people have some thoughts, I don't know if they've thought of since. Otherwise would it make sense to take a motion to table with the direction to bring it back as soon as possible but not set a specific meeting date knowing that there's some work to be done between now. Is that acceptable sir? Mark Leutem: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other comments or would somebody like to make such a motion? Councilman McDonald: I'll make a motion that we table this issue that is before us and allow staff and the applicant to work together and bring us back a detailed plan that we can evaluate. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion or is there a second? Councilman Litsey: I'll second that. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey seconds it. Any discussion on that? Very good. Thank you, I will just make the comment. Thank you everybody for your comments and input and we 41 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 will get more detail back so I know for those that are concerned about what's coming forward, there will be that opportunity and that will come to a future council meeting. It will stay at the council level and come back to a future council meeting. We'll bring it on unfinished business at some point so that will be available. And if anybody's interested in being notified of that, why don't you make sure you get your name and address and mailing information to Ms. Aanenson so you can be sure be notified. Any other discussion? If not, motion's been made and seconded. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council table the request for a minor PUD amendment to allow a drive thru and site plan review with variances for Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center to allow the applicant and staff time to prepare a more detailed plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. MayorFurlong: Without objection there's, we'll take a 5 minute recess, recess about 5 minutes subject to the call of the Chair here noticing the time. The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting. Mayor Furlong: Let's call the council back to order and what I'd like to do, and propose to the council is some adjustments to our agenda this evening, given the hour of the evening. What we'd like to do, we have a gentleman here to talk to us, along with our staff, for item 4(a). I think we'd like to do that tonight. We'll defer item 4(b), since that again is a presentation. Neither of those items are action items by the council, so we'll defer item 4(b) to a future meeting. Go ahead with item 5 and then following our meeting this evening, our work session items, we'll complete items B, which relate to the budget presentations, and then defer item C under our work to a future work session. So if the council is okay with that. If there are no objections. Does that make sense? It's just that it's getting a little late and some of these items aren't time pressing so I'd rather take them when we're all fresh. Is everyone okay with that? Why don't we go ahead and proceed with that. WEST -CENTRAL LOTUS LAKE IM[PROVEMENT PROJECT 08-02: UPDATE COUNCIL ON FEASIBILITY STUDY. Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, council members. In 2005 1 think you remember we had the Triple Crown Estate pond, sometimes the Meadow Green Park ponds, there was a failure when we had back to back storms in 2005. In 2007 we went out for a proposal to do a feasibility study, to look at the larger, what we refer to as the West Central Lotus Lake Watershed. Todd Hubmer when he shows his presentation will have, you'll see that area as we're talking about. In February, upon staff's recommendation, council did approval feasibility study with WSB and Associates to look at the larger West Central Lotus Lake area and the specific issues we have in there. WSB has come back with a feasibility study which we would like to present the findings to you tonight. In essence it breaks it down. Looks at it as three separate phases over a series of years that would address the overall issues. There are a number of different, what they're referring to as options. I would think of them more as components within an overall solution to the problem, which can be done with some flexibility when they are, but again Todd Hubmer is here from WSB and Associates. I'll let him present to you the findings. We would like to look F 5% 69-a;;L. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Q M, Application of Mark Leutem, KLMS Group, LLC for the following: Request for Nlinor PUD Amendment to allow a drive-thru window; a site plan amendment to add a drive-thru window; and a variance to the required number of parking spaces on property zoned Planned Unit Development. On October 21, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Mark Lcutem, KLMS Group, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Site Plan Amendment, and Variance. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed application preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development District. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. 4. Planned Unit Development Amendment The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment to the Arboretum Village PUD design standards to permit a drive-thru window as a permitted use. The six (6) effects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan as drive-thru in a neighborhood related commercial changes the commercial character of the development to cater to commuter retail user. b. The proposed use is or will be incompatible with and compete with the present and future land uses of the area in that the amendment will permit commuter commercial uses, rather than neighborhood service uses, potentially changing the character of the development. ac"NED c. The proposed use would not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance including compatibility with adjacent uses, parking requirements, and traffic circulation requirements. d. The proposed use may depreciate the values of the surrounding area by permitting a use that may negatively impact traffic circulation and access to users. e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity as the subdivision is provided with adequate infrastructure to accommodate the use. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use may be within capabilities of streets serving the property. However, internal traffic circulation may become a problem. 5. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a. Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted. b. Consistency with this division. c. Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas. d. Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e. Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community. 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping. 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses. 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. 2 f. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Findin : The request for a drive-thru window is inconsistent with the standards in the PUD. 6. Variance a) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Findina: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The applicant has the ability to provide parking spaces. All the retail facilities within this development have provided the required number of spaces. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Findini!: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The applicant has stated that they do not wish to incur the cost of replacing the parking spaces. However, the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Findin : The variance is a self-created hardship. The applicant is requesting to remove the parking spaces without replacing them. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Findin : The granting of a variance will cause a parking problem. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation could cause traffic/circulation issues. 7. The planning report #08-22, dated October 21, 2008, prepared by Sharmeen AI-Jaff, et a], is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Site Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development Amendment and Variance 2008-22. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21" day of October, 2008. � W CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21,2008 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon and Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Lynne Etling Vic Moravec Mark Leutem 7681 Century Boulevard 3821 Linden Circle 7755 Century Boulevard PUBLIC HEARING: ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER: REQUEST FOR A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THRU AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7755 CENTURY BOULEVARD, (LOT 2, BLOCK 1. ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER). APPLICANT: KLMS GROUP, LLC, PLANNING CASE 08-22. Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Papke: Okay, Denny. You had a number of questions that you were asking before we began. Why don't we start with you. Laufenburger: Yes, thanks Sharmeen. Could you just take a minute and explain to me the parking that is required for this site, and as I look at the document that was provided to the commissioners, there was an explanation here that some of the parking that seems to be associated with this building. Not just this property but with this building, is actually attributed to the retail on the north side. Can you just talk a little bit about what parking do you attribute to this building currently? Al-Jaff: I have calculated the number of parking spaces and currently this portion of the building, the westerly portion, is where the applicant is requesting to locate the sandwich shop. The remainder of this is the convenience store associated with the gas station. The parking that is surrounding the building will serve this site. Laufenburger: So including. GCANNED Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Al-Jaff-. And there arc. Laufenburger: So let me stop you there. Including the, there's the number marked 12 immediately on the north side of that building. Al-Jaff: They are intended to serve this site. Laufenburger: Okay. So staff would say that those 12 parking spaces then are credited to this building. Al-Jaff: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. And likewise the 10 and 6 on the west side of the building. Al-Jaff: Correct. Laufenburger: They also credited to this, so that's a total of 28. And then right now the 9 spots on this. Al-Jaff: Correct. Laufenburger: They are also credited to this building. Al-Jaff: That's correct. Laufenburger: So that's a total of 37 parking spaces attributed to this building. Al-Jaff: Yes. Laufenburger: And does that satisfy the current requirements for this building? Al-Jaff: You need 44 parking spaces. There are also 12 parking spaces located west of the car wash. Laufenburger: Okay. So they're also attributed to that building? Al-Jaff: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. So we need44 in order to comply? AI-Jaff. Correct. Laufenburger: And so with 12, 10, 16, 28 and 9, that's 37 plus 12. They currently have 49. Okay. 03�4�: ! 2 1 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Papke: If I may interject for just a second. The blueprint we were given here shows that the parking spaces on the north side of the building are credited to the retail building to the north, so does that indicate that this blueprint is in error? A]-Jaff: There is a cross parking agreement between those two spaces. Papke: Okay. So they are officially accredited to the building to the north but they have a cross agreement so they count for the spaces to the southern building. Al-Jaff: Correct. Papke: Got it. Keefe: Can 1, just as long as we're on that. That I can interject just one question. What is the parking requirement per square foot for the city for this type of use? Al-Jaff: The restaurant has to provide 60. 1 space per 60 square feet. Keefe: How many square feet is this? Al-Jaff. 3,000. Laufenburger: No, 1520? Al-Jaff: Yes, 1520. 1,520 square feet. Keefe: Divided by 60 is what? Laufenburger: It looks like about 25. Al-Jaff. 25 parking spaces. Keefe: Okay. That's the number we need. Al-Jaff. And then the convenience store is a retail establishment and would require I space per 200 square feet of retai I which translates to 20 parking spaces. Laufenburger: So in changing the 1520 to, correct Sharmeen, are we changing that to a restaurant or fast food? In changing the 1520 to I per 60 square feet, they need 25. The convenience store needs 20 so they need 45. Al-Jaff-. That's correct. Laufenburger: If the variance goes through, is that correct? Al-Jaff: That's correct. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Laufenburger: Okay. May I continue Chairman? Okay. Could you possibly depict, I understand that you went to a store similar to what is intended to be occupied in Eden Prairie. Let me ask you some questions about that. Do you happen to know how long that sandwich shop has been in place and how well it's established? You identified that no more than 6 cars were there. AI-Jaff: Correct. It's been there for a few years. I don't know exactly how long but I was there a couple of years ago. Laufenburger: What I'm wondering is, is it reasonable to expect that a similarly built up sandwich shop in this property, would it be reasonable to expect that we would see 6 cars lined up there as well. Al-Jaff. What you need to look at is any, if you allow this to go through, it doesn't have to be a Milio's shop. Laufenburger: Right. Al-Jaff. So a couple years from now let's say Milio's decides that they really don't want to be here any longer. Any other establishment that utilizes a drive thru could be located at this location. Could be a Taco Bell. Could be a McDonald's. Could be an ice cream shop. Coffee shop. Anything can go in there. Papke: So the, just to get the meaning out of your observation when you went to the Milio's there. You did substantiate that at least, at that particular location, a stacking of 6 was, made sense? Al-Jaff-. Correct. Papke: But that doesn't impact you know in the long term. Laufenburger: Thank you Chairman. That was my questions for now. Thomas: Why don't I just wait for a little bit. Undestad: Yeah Sharmeen, the drawing that the staff did with the drive lane and moving the parking to the south. The applicant didn't respond to that or didn't like that or? Al-Jaff. Maybe the applicant can address his concerns with it. The cost associated with putting something like that together. That was one of the concerns. Undestad: Okay. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Keefe: My question relates a little bit to fast food uses in Chanhassen and sort of the overall thinking around what we're doing with that. I know there's a Subway sandwich shop across the street from this. But was there a focus to. Al-Jaff.- Jimmy John's. Keefe: There's actually a Subway, yeah. Right. Al-Jaff. Or across the street. Thomas: Yeah, south of 5. Al-Jaff: You're right. Keefe: As I recall there was some sort of focus to try and concentrate fast food more towards the downtown areas. You know, I don't know if that, that this retail center included that or. Al-Jaff. It's not that per se. It's more of where do you want to locate drive thru's and at the present time they are in highway business districts typically. And in the general business. Wendy's for instance has a drive thru. McDonald's has a drive thru. Taco Bell. Keefe: And so, alright. And so in this district. Al-Jaff: This is intended to be more neighborhood related types of uses. Keefe: Okay. So the extent that you just kind of followed through on for, I mean if say Milio's goes out, or Milio's. I'm not sure how you pronounce it, but the, and McDonald's comes in. I mean could they lease it to a McDonald's or is that a prohibited use in this? Al-Jaff: No. Keefe: Itisn't. Okay. Al-Jaff: It's a restaurant and they use a drive thru. Keefe: Okay. Does the City adjust at all it's parking requirements related to various restaurant uses? Al-Jaff: Depends on whether they have a liquor license or not. Keefe: Okay. So that's the deciding. A]-Jaff; That's the only variation, correct. Keefe: Okay. Alright, that's it. Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Papke: Yeah, I have a couple concerns and questions. Looking at the picture you have up here, one of the concerns I have is, as the cars, after the cars pull through the drive thru, and especially now that it's going to be a one way, they will have to exit right through the gas station. There's no other easy way out and I'm envisioning you know myself driving through there and I'm trying to take my first bite of my sandwich and someone pulls through from the gas station and we have a collision. It's very, it seems very unusual to have a fast food restaurant exit right through a gas station like that. Can you bring back the picture you have of the other Nfilio's in Eden Prairie just to see, so we can see what their traffic pattern looks like there. Do you have that? You had that on just a little while ago. Their we go. Perfect. So can you explain what the traffic flow looks like in that particular configuration. Do you. Al-Jaff-. This is the entrance into the drive thru, and it wraps around the entire building. And there is stacking for more than 6 vehicles as you can see. Exit is, it is to the right. Papke: Alright. So the bottom line is. AI-Jaff: And of course you could, you could. Papke: But the cars don't have to cross over in front of the gas pumps. They would have to at the one in Chanhassen than Eden Prairie, so this seems like a much more safe design from what I can tell. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood what the configuration was there. I remember when we first considered the drive thru many, you know several years ago when this first came to the Planning Commission and one of the reasons it was rejected back then was for precedent setting reasons, and one of the concerns I have with this one is I wouldn't be shocked if Jimmy John's came to us in a few months and said well, Milio's has got one. We want one too. Okay. Have you heard anything from Jimmy John's about this or? Al-Jaff: No. Papke: No. You know my overall concern is, and we'll get to this more I'm sure at the end when we have all the facts but I'm just very concerned that we're, the traffic back in here, especially if Jimmy John's would like equal treatment, is going to get real sticky. Okay with that, if the applicant would like to step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record and color in the lines for us, that would be great. Mark Leutem: Thank you very much for hearing it tonight. I'm not used to this process so bear with me a little bit here. Just to give you maybe a quick little background on our business. Basically. Papke: Could you please state your name and address. Mark Leutem: Oh I'm sorry. I'm Mark Leutem. Home address or business? Papke: Business is fine. Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Mark Leutem: Business is 7755 Century Boulevard, Chanhassen and 55317. Basically this business is a family owned business. There is a number of families that pitched in to start this. We had an operator come into it initially. Our background is commercial real estate and we own and manage some of our own commercial real estate businesses so this is really not specifically what we do. Running this type of facility. That operator defaulted on us. His name was Ed. Buchtell and he ran the business called Pamedco. I won't go into the soap opera that surrounded a lot of those things there. In the particular space that we're talking about, there was 2 other businesses that went in there. Nevertheless Mr. Buchtell lost the operation and we had to take over in the convenience store. At the time he put in a couple other tenants. I'm not going to necessarily attribute the issue that we're talking about today, whether they survived or not. I'm not placing on that I think. There were some issues where people were venturing out in their first business and didn't quite know what they were doing. Nevertheless, this particular business has been struggling. It's, we've put just over $600,000 into it since we built it to keep the thing moving along. The strategy that we're doing with Milio's and plugging in this tenant here, some other things that we would like to do internafly in operation is part of a grand scheme to get this thing taking care of itself and being strong support for the community. So I thank you the opportunity of listening to us today and looking at, talking about this drive thru. I'd like to maybe for the format here go through the very nice report that Sharmeen put together here to help me give a little bit of structure to the presentation. First, you see the site of the Milio's that we've doing comparison to, and again all due respect to the staff and certainly a challenging, they did a very good job of putting together what they did, but if you essentially just take a look at that site right there, and you see where that Milio's is, I mean just look at the density just right around there. And then you flash to the picture, if you can put up the picture of our site. I'm sorry, the photograph one. There we go. And compare to the density around there. Mr. Vic Moravec is with me tonight. He brought some specific numbers with regard to comparing that store in Eden Prairie. It just so happens there are 50 Milio's in the United States. Laufenburger: Say that again. 5-0? Mark Leutem: 5-0. That store's number 1. That store produces over $850,000 a year. Okay. Mr. Vic Moravec assures me his projections to have a successful business are less than half of what that store will do. He brought me some projections of what similar stores are doing in size and projections in different areas, similar communities and what not. With regard to the drive thru, as they've tested in here, between 11:00 and 11:30 for 5 minutes, .6 cars. Between 11:30 and 1:00 per 5 minute, I car. And it takes 2 minutes for them to service them. So they move through it pretty quickly and there's not that many, there's no cars waiting in line. Per 5 minutes between 12:00 and 12:30,.13. Per 5 minutes between 12:30 and 1:00, .12 cars every 5 minutes. So the cars are essentially moving through. They're not stacking in there. The projection of 3 wasn't based on, that's how many cars we could squeeze in there. It was based on what the needs of the store would be and the operating system that was set up. There's a similar, I won't read through the numbers but basically it gives us store #2, and again these stores are running at their maximum capacity fight now. They're up and operating. Additionally that store in Eden Prairie has been around there, you said 17 years? Vic Moravec: I think it's 17 years. VA Planning Conurnission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Mark Uutem: 17 years so long full established. So our expectation of staging 3 cars or less in there again are based on what the business will do. And I remember it was brought up in there and said well, what if Milio's goes away? Got forbid that happened. I don't want to see that. Plus Vic will be tied to a 10 year lease so he'll have to come up with some dough, but anyway. But the point is that, we cannot put a McDonald's in. We cannot put in a Taco Bell. Taco Bell's don't do franchises like that anymore. McDonald's, Burger Mngs, down the list. Like I said earlier, we're in commercial real estate. We got on the line with brokers, We've been searching hard for tenants for that space. McDonald's won't look at it unless it's 2,800 square feet or better. All those franchises they talk about that would produce some high volume through there would not be applicable going in there. We've already searched that out. Believe me it's something that we worked on. And keep in mind too we're at 1,500 square feet. We're talking about a space that is smaller than this room we're standing in. Let's keep going through Sharmeen's report, and if we could click to the picture of the layout with the drive thru. After this was presented to me, we went and brought this to the engineers at Westwood, and I know they do a lotof workin this areahere. Their concern was one thing right off the bat that they point out and that is that, the way the drive thru's stationed right there, pretty much all of the customers were going to have to walk across the drive thru to get into the front of the building, which essentially would be possibly considered you know a safety hazard. You have people walking, or little children essentially coming across and going in there. The other part of it too is Shanneen stated in her report here too, and I can't remember exactly where but she talked about trying to keep with the original design, and essentially when we put together, we modified this design, again we looked at trying to stay with the original design of the building instead of changing to this. Another big piece for us too is this is, it would be horribly expensive, effectively cost prohibitive. We're looking at a modification there of just the drive thru with the changes in there, I'm sure that's pushing close to $ 100,000 and we just don't have the ability to produce that. And again in any commercial real estate business, we have 1,500 square feet we're collecting rent on. You need to try to recoup some of this business. This essentially just wouldn't work from that standpoint. If we go to the next, the drawing that we have here. In Sharmeen's report on page 12 of 7. I'm sorry 7 of 12. Now the very last sentence there, it says based on that method of calculation the City Council approved a total of 44 parking spaces. So if we go to the blueprint plan that the engineer's did for us there, if you count, can I step up there and J . ust point and show you where. Laufenburger: Could you just use directions west, north. Mark Leutem: Oh, okay. So if you go to her pointer, go left a little bit with the pointer. Right there. That's 10 stalls. It's marked in the print there. Slip just to the right. There's 6 stalls there. We slide down to the drive thru, to the left. Right in through there. There can be 3 cars in there. There's 2 stalls left down by the handicap. That's going to be on the west side of the building. Laufenburger: Well just a second. Mark Leutem: Sure. Laufenburger: Say again where would you find 3 stalls in the drive thru? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Mark Leutem: Well you think about it, if we are taking out stalls but cars are driving through, those are customers that would have been parking and coming in. They're just not parking and coming in right now. They're in the drive thru. So as far as the capacity of the building it services, it ends up being the same number essentially. Laufenburger: So would you, just for that matter, would you consider cars parked on Century, or excuse me, waiting in cue on Century Boulevard waiting to turn the comer, to get into your drive thru, wouldn't it be great if there were that many. Would you consider those parking places as well? Mark Leutem: On Century? Laufenburger: Yeah. Mark Leutem: No. No. So then we have the 2 handicap stalls there. And then if we go to the far right on the other side of the pumps, we have I I stalls there. Actually the blueprint says 13. 2 of them are, there's a vacuum there and so it kind of ends up but basically if you take 10 plus 6 plus 3 plus 2, I'm sorry, plus the 12 on the east side of there and the 11, that equals 44 stalls. We have room to service 44 vehicles. The other part of it too is, Mr. Moravec informed me that with a requirement of 25 parking stalls, at an average of say 1.5 people per vehicle, that's 37 bodies in his 1,500 square foot store. He said he can't service that many people. He certainly can't sit them all down, and he'd have a line going out the door. And again, as far as looking at the expectations of what his business would do, he's not having to project that kind of activity in order to be successful in the spot. As I stated too, and I did not communicate well with Sharmeen on this one. I'll take responsibility. If we flip to the next slide that shows the stacking of the cars. This would all be a one way driving through, and 1, that was my intention in my mind. I think I didn't tell her real well when we set this up, but yeah traffic would essentially flow through, and it would flow past our pumps. Down both sides of our pumps. We have double wide spaces. Actually plus. You can almost put 3 cars next to each other going in there and it's very wide. It's very open and quite honestly with capacity, even if we doubled our pump activity, there's no traffic jams that are coming through there right now I assure you. The hard surface and green space calculations she said weren't specifically provided. Well basically I did a rough measurement when we did this layout and the green space we'd be putting in for the screening and basically we would be putting the current, currently where the drive thru is right now on the current layout there is a triangle piece that has some shrubbery and a small tree, which essentially would be transplanted right over to where that, to the handicap spot is to the right there. That triangle piece where those stalls would be out essentially becoming it so actuafly in green space should be a zero net. Might even be a portion of a gain from impervious surface. Again and I can provide that. It will be quite negligible in any change in there and I think actually it should be a zero. Excuse me for a minute. Let me flip through my notes here that I was writing. Oh, a question with regard to Jimmy John's. Jimmy John's had the option of looking at our space and did not do that so I'm not, I'm not sure what to address what they may want in the future but basically we weren't, we weren't to my knowledge not even approached by them at the time. They went in where they wanted to go in. Apparently they may even get the window facing out on the other side. I think I covered everything. Z Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Papke: Dan, did you have any questions? We'll start. Keefe: Yeah, just a couple questions. Is there a lease in place on this or is there an option for lease or where you at in terms of signing up Milio's? Mark Leutem: The lease with Mr. Moravec? It's, we have leased, we have terms agreed to. The lease is contingent on getting this done. If we don't get it done, I don't have a tenant. Keefe: And then how long did you say it was proposed for? Mark Leutern: Well he has a base 10, or he has 5 year re -options. He has a 5 year base for sure. Is it 5 year and then 2? Vic Moravec: 10 year base, two -5 year options. Mark Leutem: That's right, 10 year base. Two -5 year options. Keefe: How long as Milio's been around? Mark Leutem: Pardon me? Keefe: How long has Milio's been around? Vic Moravec: 26 years. My name is Vic Moravec and I do reside in Chanhassen at 3821 Linden Circle. Milio's has been around for 26 years. The first 22 of those years were known as Big Mike Super Subs. 4 years ago they converted to Milio's. Keefe: Okay. That's all my questions. Undestad: Do all the Milio's out there now, do they all have drive thru's? Mark Leutem: That's pretty much the trend, yes. Thomas: Except for, does Eden Prairie have one? Because the new one in Eden Prairie they just put by the Kowalski's, do they have one? Vic Moravec: The new one in Eden Prairie I own. That one does not have a drive thru. Of the 50 stores in the chain, 12 of them have drive thru. There is 2 drive thru's in Minnesota. Apple Valley and Apple Valley was one of the ones we did a comparison of here. Thomas: And then Eden Prairie. Vic Moravec: And Eden Prairie, and Eden Prairie like Mark said is either the number I and 2 performing store in the chain. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Papke: More questions? Thomas: I don't think I have any questions. Laufenburger: Yeah, maybe this question is for Mr. McMoravec, is that right? Vic Moravec: Moravec. Uufenburger: Moravec. What attracts you about this property? Vic Moravec: I like the site. I like the demographics. Chanhassen and Victoria are both growing extremely fast. The biggest advantage for me is the two right hand turns in here, in my drive thru. You can get out easily. Back onto ffighway 5. And out to Victoria which is growing extremely fast as well. So those are the people that I want to service. And being near a gas station as well. Yes. Laufenburger: So what are the competitive sandwich shops to you in that area? Vic Moravec: Jimmy John's is what about 200 yards away? And Subway is on the other side of Highway 5 on the southwest comer. Laufenburger: And you've observed patterns in both of those areas? Vic Moravec: Yes we have. We've done projections. We think we know prrtty close to what each one is doing in sales. Laufenburger: And if you don't have a drive thru can you be successful? Vic Moravec: With the amount of money that's done in sub sales in that area right now, without the drive thru I won't have the competitive edge. There's not enough to support 3 stores. Laufenburger: So your desire would be to take from Jimmy John's and Subway by offering the convenience of you don't have to get out of your car. Vic Moravec: That's part of my desire. Part of my desire also is to increase sales for all of us. I mean the sub, if there's a million dollars in sales out there right now, I'd like to see that grow to $1.3 million. Kind of the theory with 3 convenience stores on one comer. Laufenburger: Sure. That's why Burger King builds next to McDonalds, next to KFC Vic Moravec: Exactly. Mark Uutem: People go to that area to go get something. Vic Moravec: And it's a nice growing area out there. I live about a mile from there so it's a nice growing area. I drive past there all the time. I I Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Papke: Just one question. How do you plan to sign or control and to maintain the one way traffic through there? That was quite ambiguous from the drawings. Mark Leutem: Yeah, there would be, and I apologize. We can modify that but basically it'd be signage and lining and what not essentially to go through there. There'd be do not enter. One way signs to the right of that drawing there, keeping people from going in. And then same thing going on through so signage would essentially direct them through and we'll probably be overkill on that. Just to make sure people channel through properly. Papke: Alright. Anything else you'd like to present? Mark Leutem: Hope I didn't miss anything. Papke: Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Alright, at this time if there's any members of the public that would like to step up to the microphone and state an opinion on this matter, we invite you to do so. Lynne Etling: I'm Lynne Etling, 7681 Century and as you recall I was here the last time for the signage for this property, and I have quite a lot of questions because I quite just don't understand how you're measuring the parking spaces for this. You're only taking into account, you're taking into the count of this building here but measuring it by the square footage of just this proposed restaurant area? Papke: It's the square footage of the entire building on all the spaces. Lynne Etling: So that would be much more than 1,500 square feet, right? Al-Jaff: Correct. Papke: Correct. Lynne Etling: So that wouldn't measure up to 45. Papke: Right. Hence the discussion we had before arriving at the 45 number, right. Total. Lynne Efling: So the variance would have to be granted for the parking. Papke: A variance is required for them to implement plan as it's proposed to us. A variance is required in order to do that, because their drawings do not show. Lynne Etling: Adequate. Papke: Adequate space. Latifenburger: Just point of clarification Mr. Chairman. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Papke: Yes. Laufenburger: Your name again? Lynne Etling: Lynne Etling. Laufenburger: Nice to have you here Lynne. Lynne Etling: Thank you. Laufenburger: The parking requirements for these two, though it's one building, there's two different uses for the building. Is that correct staff? Al-Jaff: That's correct. Laufenburger: So one of the requirements, the restaurant requires greater density of parking than does the convenience store. Lynne Etling: Okay I guess I question if you're combining the parking spaces on the one side with the buildings across the, you know in Building 2, why, even though they're a different type use, why aren't those going into the mix as well? Laufenburger: Staff, you want to comment? Lynne Etling: Well if you've got building, this Building I I believe is the big building, right? A]-Jaff. Correct. Lynne Etling: There's Lot I and Lot 2, correct? So if you're taking all the parking around Lot I and this common area there onto the, what would that be, the north side right there? Right there, yes. If that's combined between the building across the way and that building, wouldn't that add to the amount of parking spaces that are needed? Al-Jaff: They won't have enough parking spaces. Lynne Etling: So that's the whole, yeah. My issue is, obviously I live there. It's going to have increased traffic flow. People walk in this neighborhood. It's a very neighborhood type feel. Atmosphere feel. And if you're going to have a drive thru in this building, you're going to have people walking across where the cars going. You're going to have cars going through. They're going to come out. They have to go down around by Jimmy John's and then to get out so that they can turn left to get back onto 1-fighway 5. The other issue is, if you frequent this area like I do, people going down that common drive, when you think about the density, the density is much different because you have roads, a physical road around the Milio's in Eden Prairie. Here you have parking lots and that's what they're going to be driving through to get back out, or the other way to get back out. So I don't see the density as an even field. And the other questions I 13 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 had, you know aren't you kind of like giving him the competitive advantage to put the other two sub shops out of business? So if this goes through then they're going to take the business away from the other two and they'll probably be vacant. Papke: That's the issue of precedence that I brought up towards the beginning of the meeting but it would not be surprising if this were granted, that some of the other shops in the area could ask for similar. LynneEtling: So I guess I'm just you know if the parking variance is going to be granted, don't you have to prove hardship? And I don't think that that's being proven here. Youknowit'sa sloweconomy. Everybody's going through the same thing. If they allow this drive thru, it's going to knockout the other two. You know maybe your subs are better, I don't know. You know I think we all have co -exist here but you know I don't see that as a win-win for anybody. You're going to be out, unless you don't own the building back there, you're going to be out one more tenant, and if Jirruny John's was offered this spot, does that mean this is a better spot square footage wise or does Jimmy John's have more square footage where it's at? Maybe that's why they didn't want it. These are just questions that come to mind to me. I mean I just don't think this is a site that's designed for a drive thru. I'm very concerned about the amount of traffic. The traffic flow. People trying to go onto Century Boulevard, and then they're going to do a U turn to get back out to Highway 5. 1 live it. So but you know the parking variance, I don't think hardship's being proven. And I think from my notes that's really all I have. You guys have covered the other ones. Papke: Okay. Thank you very much for your comments. Those were excellent. Lynne Etling: Yeah, thank you. Thanks for hearing me. Papke: Anyone else like to step up and make any comments or questions? Going once. Going twice. Mark Leutem: May I address something else? Papke: Sure, go ahead. Mark Leutem: Unless someone else wants to go ahead. I think everyone in the geographic area got a notice of what was going on today. Al-Jaff: Within 500 feet. Mark Lcutem: Okay. So Jimmy John's knows we're here doing this tonight. Lynne Etling: They only sent to residents... AI-Jaff: Everybody within 500 feet. All property owners within 500 feet. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Mark Leutem: So Jimmy John's knows that we're here. At least the owners of the building know that we're here and would have seen all the other things too. And but... Al-Jaff: No. Mark Leutem: If we could just refer back to Sharmeen's report again on page 7. In the very last paragraph, the parking on the site was approved and originated in 2003. The restaurant portion requiring 25. Gas station for the area requiring 20 which equals a total of 45. The number appeared excessive since in all likelihood people buying gas remain parked at the gas pumps. There's a great deal of truth behind that. I have almost no parking stalls being used. Walk in the store. Pay and leave their bill. There's 16 spaces at the pump. Based on that method of calculation the City Council approved 44. And again essentially as we walk through we count 44 there. I'm questioning whether we actually need a variance. There's the ability to have 44 vehicles in there being serviced. Papke: You counted 44. Staff does not count 44, From the way I understand it. Because you were counting the spaces in the drive thru area, etc and I don't believe, according to city code, that the city planning staff counts those. You've taken certain liberties with your mathematics Mark Leutern: Okay. Alright, do we need to come up with 3 more spaces or? I mean I guess basically as far as the vehicles we're serving, we're serving 44 vehicles. We could have 44 vehicles in there, so if you take this format and bring in 44 vehicles, they would all fit in there being serviced. If you go back to the non -drive thru, we would have 44 vehicles being serviced. Do you see my point? Papke: No. Lynne Etling: I can just tell you parking was tight when... Mark Leutem: Well let me address the issue too. Papke: If you would refrain from making comments... Mark Leutern: There are 3 vacant spots on the other side of the mail. This was designed to carry the capacity you know. Papke: I don't think it's worth our while to belabor you know how we count the spaces. I think city staff sat down and made their calculations and if you'd like to disagree with how they arrived at that number, perhaps you can take that off line but the proposal we have in front of us tonight has a certain way of counting the spaces and that's the way our city codes read and that's how the proposal in front of us was constructed so. Mark Leutem: Do I need to add 3 parking stalls? Papke: Well the city staff proposal is for the diagonal parking spaces of which there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 of them. That's what the city staff originally proposed. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Mark Leutem: But the city staff demolishes a whole bunch of parking across the front of the building too. Papke: Correct Mark Leutem: I think there's a way to add 3 stalls in here to come to 44 which Sharmeen said in the report. Papke: It's been my experience that it's not a good practice to try to design a new proposal live in a Planning Commission meeting like this. You know you have a proposal on the table. The city staff has a somewhat different proposal that they had originally proposed to you. If you would like to withdraw your application and go back to the drawing board and come before us again, we can table your proposal and redo this but. Mark Leutem: The problem with that is we're out of time because you can only haul asphalt til Thanksgiving and then he's. Papke: I understand that and you're at a fork in the road here. You can either go with the proposal that's on the table right now, or you can put, you can table it. We can table this and you can make an amendment to it and bring it to us again. It's your choice. I mean you're the applicant. And we're here to try to make this work for you but you know we can't design a new proposal in real time at a Planning Commission meeting. It just doesn't work. Mark Leutem: Would you recommend I table and come back with something else? Papke: This is your choice. Mark Leutem: Well I don't know what to do. Like I said this is my first time doing anything like this so. Papke: Sure. MarkLeutem: But we're very tight and we're very desperate at this point. Imeanwe'vegotto get something to get this done, and again I look at the parking issue, if you were to spend a day at our place, I mean we have so much parking it's unbelievable and I understand the projections based on models and what not but again, when we look at practical application we just don't see how we would accommodate. He can't even accommodate, he fills up those spots in front in there and puts 3 in his drive thru, he can't even accommodate all those people in his store. Papke: The issue here is you have a Planned Unit Development and a site plan that stipulate certain constraints, okay. Andjust because you don't happen to be filling up all those parking spots right now doesn't really allow you to now nullify that initial Planned Unit Development. A system that's in place. Mark Leutem: Alright. So if we table today, what happens then? Fri Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Papke: Sharmeen? Fauske: Chair Papke, if I could just have a point of clarification. Papke: Sure, go ahead. Fauske: Thank you. On page 11 of the report, under site plan amendment. One of the staff's proposed conditions of approval, number 3, is that replacement parking must be shown on the plan. So in the conditions of approval staff has provided the Planning Commission with a recommendation that would accommodate what the applicant is looking for as far as providing the 3 additional parking stalls that are in question at this point. Papke: Okay. MarkLeutem: So I understand you're saying it could be approved conditionally? ThatIcould come up with the additional stalls. Keefe: It says that you'd need to prove. Mark Leutem: Prove that I can produce 3 more stalls. Keefe: ... plan that accommodates the parking requirements. Mark Leutem: Okay. I can come up with that very quickly. Keefe: That's what you would need to do based upon that. Papke: Yeah. Yeah. Okay, good point. I thank you for clarifying that. Mark Leutem: Thank you. Lynne Etling: Can I say one more thing? Papke: Sure, yeah. We have not closed the public hearing yet. Lynne Etling: You know the reason why I'm here today is because of the neighborhood and the people in the neighborhood, and I think that too many times when we come to meetings like this we focus on the here and now and not the future, and that's how so many corporations or so many cities and whatever you would call, I don't know this area but get in trouble because they don't plan. They think Milio's going to be there and that's going to be great, but what happens if somebody else comes in? You know what happens 5 or 10 years down the road? This site is just not made for a drive thru and it should have been stacked from the beginning for that. You should have had the hindsight to do that, but my last question to everyone is, how many drive thru's in the state of Minnesota have people walking through them to get into the building? I 17 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 think that says it all. It's just not safety wise it's not right. So thank you. I'm sorry but you've got to think of the future. Papke: Thanks. Anyone else? It's a good discussion. Okay. Seeing none I close the public hearing and bring it back to the commissioners for discussion and a vote. Anyone like to start? Denny, go ahead. Laufenburger: I just want to share a personal experience that I have in a, in my work day I often enter a drive thru area. It's a coffee shop and the cars stack in front of the parking which is adjacent to the entry to the drive thru. So in other words the cars are stacking much like they would here. First of all I don't think there's a concern for people who may be walking there because the cars are stopped and they're very attentive to other people so, notwithstanding the resident's concern there, I don't think that's a big issue. I think many of the drive thru's, fast foods like Burger King and stuff, people are walking between cars so whether it's, it may not be right but certainly it is, in my view, it's safe. Right now I'm thinking I'd like to approve this. That's just kind of my intent. And with the stipulation that they come up with 3 more parking places somehow. Thomas: I'm having a problem with the stacking of the vehicles. Just because you're blocking people in who are going to be� who are, I mean we can say it all we want that we will never see 6 cars there but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's what's going to happen. I mean potentially you could get a lot of great traffic and I mean it doesn't, it really doesn't almost matter if it's Milio's or somebody else that, if we're going to have people stacking there and then they're blocking other spots or if anybody else comes in there, that's a problem and we can't be just, we can't say that the parking through the drive thru is a parking space. That's 3 extra spaces. I mean I can't park there. You know I mean you'd have to be through the drive thru so that's not a parking space. So I'm having some issues with that I think at the moment. I think that's about it. Undestad: I seem to be having issues with just about everything I see. You know the cars parking or stacking out into a parking lot where if somebody else has to get out. People usually need, typically coming out of those areas, they've got a half hour for lunch, 45 minutes. Somebody parking in there with a stack of cars, I've got to get out of here and get to work. Okay, you back up. You back up and you move out of the way. I have issues with that. You know the walking, anytime you have pedestrians walking, you if everybody's paying attention or not, I think the majority of drive thru's have avoided any of the pedestrian traffic cutting through drive lanes where they're at in there. The number of stores that have drive in's, that don't have drive in's. Out of 50 stores, 12 have drive in's and you know, and they're all still in business and they've all been doing very well. The other sandwich shops in town, the other restaurants we have around here that don't have drive thru's have been around here for quite a while and they're still going seemingly okay. The city staff s recommendation doesn't seem to fit the budget for the project, so that one doesn't work so I guess you know I say everything I'm looking at here trying to find out how this could be a good deal, I'm not finding anything right now so. Keefe: You've covered most of it for me. You know I'm not sure what's changed really from 2003 and the precedence, or the concern about precedence setting that was a issue then which I E. Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 think is an issue now and you know Subway's open and Jimmy John's open. They seem to like that area. Maybe Jimmy John's is going to move and just have their place downtown. I don't know but Subway's there and these guys are interested in it because all, you know there is activity there. You know would it be more successful with a drive thru? Probably. But could they make it without it? Maybe. I don't know. It's been a challenge. I understand it's been a challenge in that business but I'm just not sure, I'm concerned about precedence setting and I'm not quite sure what has really changed since '03. Papke: Just a question for Kathleen and Mark. Both of you expressed concerns with stacking and the traffic and so on. Does the staff proposal here as it's stated in the, on page 11, would this address your concerns with the traffic and the safety? I understand Mark what you're saying that from your perspective that's not economically viable for the applicant. But point of clarification for staff. I mean we could approve this and if the applicant decides it's not economically viable to implement this as stated, Milio's could go in there with the configuration as is. You know they don't have to build it if they don't want to, and all we're doing is giving them permission to do that. So I guess I want to understand from you two whether this at least meets the criteria of safety and traffic efficiency, that kind of. Undestad: I mean I don't, I still don't think so. When they're stacked up right at the front door. You know I mean that's, everybody's got to get into the front door. With traffic constantly going, everybody's, somebody's on their cell phone. Somebody's doing some, somebody with 3 kids, only has a hand on 2 of them and if it was anywhere but right at the front door, okay maybe we can look at it. Keefe: It's not great planning. Undestad: No. No. And that's what I was kind of looking at is it doesn't fit. No mater how I try to make it fit. Thomas: That's pretty much how I look at it as well, and Mark's making a pretty good, making it easy. Yeah I mean, well just how it is just doesn't seem economic or logical and then you've got with your one way traffic and trying to make sure people don't go back that way, I just am concerned that it's, I'm not sure how it would work within the building site. I mean if you park, if you go over there even during lunch, I mean it's pretty, I mean on the other side, especially where Nick and Willy's. Jimmy John's. It's pretty busy and you have people going down the common drive and whipping a U turn to get out and it's not like it's not busy so I just am not too sure how the traffic flows in that site. Papke: Any other comments on that? Okay. I'm somewhat tom on this one. I'm pretty familiar with the site. My wife used to manage the meal assembly business in this center and so I'm familiar with the business struggles and I'd like to be accommodative. The problem I have is, as I stated a little bit earlier, I've never seen a drive thru exit out through a gas station like this and I just, I just am having real problems with that and we mentioned that before this was a Mexican restaurant. I've actually remember before it was a Mexican restaurant. I mean this would be the third business in the same location and if this turns into a Dunn Brothers or something in 5 years through a sub -lease, you know we could ostensibly see a lot of traffic through this area and I 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 think it could be a real nightmare. So I'm torn on this one but I have real concerns with the traffic flow. Even with the proposals from staff so. Any other discussions or comments from the commissioners before we put it to a vote? Laufenburger: I think I have a question for staff. Papke: Sure. Laufenburger: You described this area as, I may not get my terms right Sharmeen but a neighborhood services, is that correct? Al-Jaff. Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. So the city would consider this to be servicing the neighborhood. Okay. We've heard the applicant say that the interest he has is the two right turns so clearly the applicant is interested. And by the way, whatever we call it, people make 2 right turns. Go down the common drive and go into Jimmy John's and whatever else is there, Nick and Willy's, so they're making those 2 right turns. Papke: Any other comments from the commissioners? Alright, if someone would like to make a motion to approve or deny the request, I will entertain one. Undestad: I'll make a motion. So if we go with Sharmeen, this side then? AI-Jaff: Yes. Undestad: I recommend the, or the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Site Plan Amendment Planned Unit Development Amendment and Variance 2008-22. Papke: Is there a second? Thomas: Second. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Village (PUD 99-02), Planning Case #08-22 based on the Findings of Fact for denial. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Laufenburger who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Papke: Motion carries 1, 2, 3, 4 to 1. A]-Jaff- Can you adopt the findings as well please. I'm sorry. Papke: Thank you for that clarification. A]-Jaff: For denial. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Undestad: Findings of Fact numbers I through 8. Papke: We don't need a separate vote for that. We'll just make that part of it. Alright. That matter is closed. Sharmeen, could you explain for all of us what the applicant's next steps are in this particular case, since we denied this. AI-Jaff. Your recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. City Council will be reviewing this application on November 10"'. Papke: Okay. So the applicant, you have a chance at that point to make your case to the City Council and it's their power to over ride us. Our recommendations are advisory only and the City Council can make up their own mind on this matter. But they do of course carefully review our comments and issues so. Okay. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 7, 2008 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: Laufenburger: I have a question, Papke: Yes. Laufenburger: And this may be a question for staff. I see various signs up around Chanhassen that indicate space for lease. Are these signs governed by, they're right next to the monument sign. Are these signs governed, the placement and size, governed by current city ordinances? AI-Jaff. Yes they are. Laufcnburger: Okay. So they are generally placed by the property owner, the commercial developer, is that correct? Al-Jaff: Correct, and they have to be placed on the parcel where you have the vacancy. Laufenburger: Do they make application for placement of those signs or do they just do it assuming the? Al-Jaff: No. These type of signs are allowed... Laufenburger: For a certain period of time? AI-Jaff. Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 21, 2008 Al-Jaff: Or until a certain amount of space, of the space has been leased. Or until X number of lots have been sold. So it depends on the type of sign that is advertising lease or sale. Laufenburger: Okay. That's all I needed to know. Papke: Okay. Any other items to be discussed? Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheirn 22 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 08-22 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 21, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. Ile purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow a Drive-Thru and Site Plan Review with Variances on property located at 7755 Century Boulevard (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center). Applicant: KLMS Group, LLC. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/s��/ Ian/08-22.htm] or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner Email: saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on October 9,2008) SCANNED Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on cath says that she is the publisher or the authorized PLANNING CASE NO. 08-22 agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as die Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 21, (A) Tbesi� newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council newspaper, asprovided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02,331A.07, and odiff applicable laws, as Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, amended. 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as; No._3�/�Aj for a Minor Planned Unit was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Development (PUD) Amendment to Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of allow a Drive-Thru and Site Plan Review with Variances on property the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both located at 7755 Century Boulevard inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size oftype used in the composition UL2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping and publication of the Notice: Center). Applicant: ELMS Group, LLC. abcdefghijklinnopqrstuvwxyz A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci,chanhassen,mn.us/serv/ plan/08-22.html or at City Hall Laurie A. Hartmann during regularbusinesshours. All I-Ij interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect Subscribed and sworrit before me on to this proposal. Shartneen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner Email: this sa][jalf&i.chanhassen.�.us 7_day, of 064 kt� 2008 Phone: 952-227-1134 (Published in the Chanhassen JYMME J. BARK ViIiager on Thursday, October 9, NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA ,2 "j 013 2M; No. 4124) My Commission Expires 01/31,12013 No RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space .... $40.00 per column inch Maodmurn rate allowed by law fior the above matter ............... ............... $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.19 per column inch RECEIVED NOV I - 2009 ,lTy OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANNSEN T700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, A 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspedions Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227,1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Prow 952.227 1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952,227 1120 Fax. 952.227 1110 Recreation Center 2310 Courter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952,227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227,1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227,1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.2271110 Web Site www.d.chanhassen.rininus MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM- Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: January 12, 2009 1�� SUBJ: Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow a Drive-thru Window and Site Plan Amendment to add a Drive-thru Window Planning Case 08-22 Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motions: PROPOSED MOTIONS "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Planned Unit Development Amendment Design Standards for Arboretum Village to allow a drive-thru on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, with standards shown on page 10 of the staff report dated January 12, 2009." And, "Fhe City Council approves the Site Plan Amendment for Arboretum Shopping Center (Site Plan 03-06), Planning Case #08-22, to allow a drive-thru window and redesign parking layout and site circulation subject to conditions I - 4 shown on page I I of the staff report dated January 12, 2009 and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact Action." City Council approval requires a simple majority vote of City Council. CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY On November 10, 2008, the City Council reviewed and tabled action on this application. The applicant was directed to work with staff to achieve a solution that staff can support. The applicant revised the plans accordingly. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Staff Report Dated January 12, 2009. 3. City Council minutes dated November 10, 2008. g \plan\2008 planning cases%08-22 arboretum shopping center minor pud amendment for dfive-thm\executive summary re�ised.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Lile - Providing for Today and Planning for Tornorrovy 3 SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Mark Leutem, KLMS Group, LLC for the following: Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow a drive-thru window; a site plan amendment to add a drive-thru window; and a variance to the required number of parking spaces on property zoned Planned Unit Development. On October 21, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Mark Leutern, KLMS Group, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Site Plan Amendment, and Variance. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed application preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. The City Council reviewed the item at the November 10, 2008 meeting and tabled action on the request. The City Council reviewed the item again at the January 12, 2009 meeting and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development District. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. 4. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the developmenVs compliance with the following: a. Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted. b. Consistency with this division. c. Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas. d. Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e. Creation of ftmctional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community. 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping. 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses. 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 5. Planned Unit Devel9pment Amendment The proposed amendment to the PUD is consistent with the guidelines outlined within the comprehensive plan. 6. The planning report #08-22, dated January 12, 2009, prepared by Sharmeen A]-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The City Council approves the Site Plan Amendment and Planned Unit Development Amendment 2008-22. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 12th day of January, 2009. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL W its Mayor g:\plan\2008 planning cases\08-22 arboretum shopping center minor pud amendment for drive-thm\findings of fact revised-doc 2 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED MOTION: PC DATE: October 21, 2008 CC DATE: November 10, 2008 January 12, 2009 REVIEW DEADLINE: January 17,2009 CASE#: 08-22 BY: Al-Jaff "The City Council approves the Plarmed Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Village (PUD 99-02), Planning Case #08-22, amending the design standards Section b. Permitted Uses, to allow a drive-thm on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, with standards as shown on pages 9 and 10; and approves an amendment to the Arboretum Shopping Center Site Plan Permit 03-06 subject to conditions I through 3 on page 10." PROPOSAL: Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow a drive-thm window and a site plan amendment to add a drive-thru window. LOCATION: 7755 Century Boulevard Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center APPLICANT: Mark Leutern KLMS Group, LLC 7755 Century Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 763-234-8128 markleutem(&Jiobnail.com PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, PUD 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial ACREAGE: 1.58 DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAIUNG: The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUDs, and amendments to PUDs because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Due to all the changes that have taken place since the City Council last reviewed this itera, the staff report has been rewritten in its entirety. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 January 12,2009 Page 2 of I I PROPOSAL/SUMNL4,RY The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development amendment to allow a drive-thru in the Arboretum Shopping Center development and a site plan amendment to add a drive-thru window. The site is located at the northeast intersection of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard and is zoned Planned Unit Development. it is intended to provide neighborhood commercial uses for the adjacent residential properties to the north and east, as well as retail services to motorists on Highway 5. The site contains a building with an area of 5,506 square feet. A convenience store occupies 3,986 square feet. The proposed Milio's restaurant will occupy the remaining 1,520 square feet. The entrance to the convenience store is located along the northeast comer of the building while the entrance to the restaurant is located along the west side of the building. Staff is recommending the entrance to the restaurant be relocated to the north. 0. W St location of Dri% c-dii ti i ndo%� JO 129ft 0 ..................... q ....................................... P - St location of Dri% c-dii ti i ndo%� JO 129ft Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 January 12,2009 Page 3 of 11 On October 21, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed development. The Plarmmg Commission voted 4 to I to deny the request. The reason for the demal mcluded the following: The layout proposed by the applicant will block people in on both sides of the stacking lane. Also, if these parking spaces were empty, stacked cars would block those spaces and prevent people from parking in them. The applicant requested that the drive aisle leading to the drive-thm window be counted as three parking spaces. The Planning Commission disagreed with the applicant since a car cannot park in the drive-thru lane. e Pedestrians must cut through the drive-thru lane. There are 50 Milio's stores in the nation. Only 12 of the 50 have drive-thru. windows. The stores are still in business. Other sandwich shops in the area (Subway and Jimmy Johns) do Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 January 12,2009 Page 4 of 11 not have a drive-thru and they are still in business. * The layout that the city staff recommended does not fit the applicant's budget. • The concern in 2003 was setting precedence. This concern has not changed. • One-way traffic exiting through the gas station during rush hour when Nick and Willy's and Jimmy John's are busy as well may complicate traffic flow. On November 10, 2008, the City Council reviewed and tabled action on this application. The applicant was directed to work with staff to achieve a solution that staff can support. The applicant revised the plans accordingly. ANALYSIS The request consists of two components: 1. PUD amendment to allow a drive-thru. 2. Site Plan amendment to allow a drive-thru window and drive and replace parking. PUD AMIENDMIENT The current language in the PUD ordinance states: PERMITTED USES The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The 4pe of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low intensity neighborhood -oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include small to medium-sized restaurants (go drive-thry windows) office, day care, neighborhood scale commercial convenience store, churches, or other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall eyxeed 5, 000 squarefeet. The applicant is proposing a drive-thru window for a sandwich shop (Nfilio's). The window is proposed to face Highway 5. Staff had lengthy discussions with the applicant regarding the drive-thru window and explained that in order to support it, it should meet design standards. The request appeared before the city council on November 10, 2008. The City Council supported the concept and directed the applicant to submit a plan that city staff can support. Staff has always maintained a neutral stand on a drive-thru. in this specific location. The site is fairly removed from any iminediate residential neighborhoods. However, staff believes that it Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 January 12, 2009 Page 5 of I I should be designed in a fashion that does not negatively impact traffic circulation and operation within the development. Therefore, staff recommends all drive-thrus be limited to Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, and meet the following standards: Drive-thru facilities for any use shall comply with the following standards: (a) They shall not be located adjacent to any residential lot lines. (b) They shall be provided with a suitable visual screen from adjacent properties. (c) Stacking shall be provided within applicable parking lot setbacks. (d) Stacking shall meet the following standards: (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. (2) Banks: three cars per aisle. (3) Pharmacy: two cars per aisle. (4) All other uses: two cars per aisle. (e) The City may require a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more or less stacking shall be required for a particular use. (f) Stacking areas shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking lot nor encroach into any required drive aisles. (g) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at the property line. (h) A Fast Food Restaurant with a drive-thru may not exceed 1,550 square feet in area. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS Milio's Sandwich shop is interested in occupying die space. There are currently two Nfilio's shops in Eden Prairie; one shop with a drive-thru and the other without. Staff visited the shop with the drive-thru on a week day and observed the traffic patterns for approximately 45 minutes from 11:45 am. until 12:30 p.m. There were a maximum of six cars in the drive-diru lane at the time when staff was observing the site. Staff then visited the site in Chanhassen and attempted to visualize transforming it to accommodate a drive-thru window. A layout was then designed that can allow acceptable traffic circulation on the site. The layout included a driveway dedicated to the drive-thru window, traffic moving one way, and parking spaces replacing those that have been removed due to the placement of the drive-thru lane. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 January 12, 2009 Page 6 of I I This layout was given to the applicant with detailed explanations of staff's concerns and the reasoning behind it. Westwood Professional Services, hic. submitted a plan on behalf of Leutern Property Management, LLC for site changes to the property located at 7755 Century Boulevard for the installation of a drive-thru. facility. The plan incorporates comments received from the October, 2008 submittal. The applicant proposes to allow one-way traffic along the west and south side of the building. Upon entering the one-way aisle, drivers can either enter the drive thru or the parking lot. A raised, landscaped boulevard is proposed between the parking lot and the drive-thru to provide drivers with a visual distinction between the two areas. Additional 60 -degree angled parking is shown on the south side of the building. This parking will replace parking spaces that arc removed due to the location of the drive thru lane. The western three angled parking stalls must be striped and signed as compact stalls so that the minimum 18.5 -foot drive aisle requirement can be achieved. Arboretum Shoppmg Center Planning Case 08-22 January 12, 2009 Page 7 of I I The order board is shown on the west side of the existing building, just north of the entrance. The pickup window is shown on the south side of the building. The proposed improvements will allow for four vehicles to queue at the order board (including the vehicle at the order board) and four vehicles to queue between the order board and the pickup window (including the vehicle at the pickup window). The owner proposes to modify the curb layout on the west and south sides of the building to accornmodate the drive-thru. A 12 -foot wide drive aisle is proposed for the drive-thru. Two- way traffic can still be accommodated on the 29 -foot wide (minimum) drive aisle on the south side of the building. The current outdoor patio located southwest of the building is proposed to be relocated northwest of the building. The Planned Unit Development allows a maximum hard surface coverage of 70%. The existing hard surface coverage of the planned unit development is 68.3%. The overall green space on the site will be increased by 205 square feet. Applicant's proposal Staffs Proposed Revision Staff is proposing to relocate the patio and main entrance as shown in the above exhibit. Moving the entrance to the north will separate pedestrian from vehicular traffic. Additionally, it will also reduce the hard surface coverage on the site and move the outdoor seating area farther from the order box. It is staff's opinion that the existing location of the entrance separates the use of this space from the rest of the development. Moving the door to the north will allow the space to become part of the Arboretum Village Development. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 January 12, 2009 Page 8 of 11 PARKING TABULATIONS The city's parking ordinance requires: e One parking space for each 60 square feet of restaurant without an on -sale liquor license. To One parking space for each 200 square feet of retail. The parking for this site was approved with the original approval in 2003. The restaurant portion of the building requires 25 parking spaces. The remainder of the building which is a gas station with a convenience store has an area of 3,972 square feet which requires 20 parking spaces. Total parking required per ordinance is 45 spaces. This number appeared to be excessive since, in all likelihood, people buying gas will remain parked at the gas pumps, walk into the store, and pay their bill and leave. There are 16 parking spaces at the gas pumps. Based upon that method of calculation, the City Council approved a total of 44 parking spaces. The overall number of parking spaces will remain the same. Previously, the applicant had requested a variance for the overall required number of parking spaces. The plans have been revised to replace the parking which, in turn, eliminated the variance. The plan proposed by the applicant replaces all parking spaces that were removed due to the location of the drive thru. Parking spaces will be moved to the south portion of the site. The planned unit development ordinance governing this site allows parking spaces to encroach into the 50 -foot required setback if the parking is screened. The proposed parking spaces will maintain a setback of 20 feet from the southerly property line and are proposed to be fully screened. SITE PLAN KYUM LY �(MD BY P�T W&L (*�-6' T&L CA BUILDM �TED Sj� BY ��ATE KWIT, VERIFY W/ CITY CODE I I I I I I WW DRIVE-� VVI ' TO COOR TE L. L �IZE_. MESWD LIWIM -J MMRSIVE OF As stated earlier, the applicant is proposing to add a drive-thru window along the south elevation of the building. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 January 12, 2009 Page 9 of I I LANDSCAPtNG REOUREMENTS The applicant is required to buffer the parking stalls fronting Highway 5 and add landscaping within the proposed island. To screen headlights and views of the parking area, shrubs will be required along the parking area adjacent to Highway 5. The applicant has proposed 52 Techny arborvitaes to be installed parallel to the curb line. These evergreen shrubs will serve to screen headlights from westbound Highway 5. Any existing bufferyard plantings that are removed for the development must be replaced within the same area. The applicant may group plantings together in order to add interest to the landscaping if the design does not diminish the screening capacity. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the City shall consider the development!s compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses;and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 January 12, 2009 Page 10 of I I (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. The applicant is increasing the green space on the site. Site circulation is of concern; however, it can be redesigned to avoid conflicts. Staff is recommending approval of the request with conditions. RECONMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: PUD AMENDMENT: "Me City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Village (PUD 99-02), Planning Case #08-22, amending the design standards Section b. Permitted Uses, to allow a drive-thru on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, with the following standards: Drive-thru facilities for any use shall comply with the following standards: (a) Tliey shall not be located adjacent to any residential lot lines. (b) They shall be provided with a suitable visual screen from adjacent properties. (c) Stacking shall be provided within applicable parking lot setbacks. (d) Stacking shall meet the following standards: (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. (2) Banks: three cars per aisle. (3) Pharmacy: two cars per aisle. (4) All other uses: two cars per aisle. (e) The City may require a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more or less stacking shall be required for a particular use. (f) Stacking areas shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking lot nor encroach into any required drive aisles. (g) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at the property line. (h) A Fast Food Restaurant with a drive-thru may not exceed 1,550 square feet in area." SITE PLAN AAMNDMEENT: "Me City Council approves the site plan amendment for Arboreturn Shopping Center (Site Plan 03- 06), Planning Case #08-22, to allow a drive-thru window and redesign parking layout and site circulation as shown in plans dated received December 15, 2008, with the following conditions and based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact: Arboretum Shopping Center Planning Case 08-22 January 12, 2009 Page 11 of I I 1. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the PUD amendment allowing a drive-thm window. 2. The western three angled parking stalls must be striped and signed as compact stalls. 3. Any existing bufferyard plantings that are removed for the development must be replaced within the same area. A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval showing locations and species. The applicant may group plantings together in order to add interest to the landscaping if the design does not diminish the screening capacity. 4. The applicant shall relocate the patio and main entrance into the space as shown in Exhibit A. ff ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance amending Arboretum Village PUD. 2. Revised site plan dated received December 15, 2008. g:\plan\2008 planning cases\08-22 arbonctum shopping centff minor pad amendnimt for drive-thm\Smond Staff Report.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCENO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CnYS ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by amending the Arboretum Village Planned Unit Development Design Standards, Section b. Permitted Uses, to read as follows: PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low -intensity neighborhood -oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include the following: Small to medium-sized restaurant without drive-thm windows unless they meet the following standards: (a) They shall not be located adjacent to any residential lot lines. (b) They shall be provided with a suitable visual screen from adjacent properties. (c) Stacking shall be provided within applicable parking lot setbacks. (d) Stacking shall meet the following standards: (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. (2) Banks: three cars per aisle. (3) Pharmacy: two cars per aisle. (4) All other uses: two cars per aisle. (e) The City may require a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more or less stacking shall be required for a particular use. (f) Stacking areas shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking lot nor encroach into any required drive aisles. (g) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at the property line. (h) A Fast Food Restaurant with a drive-thru may not exceed 1,550 square feet in area and must be located on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboreturn Shopping Center. • Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial • Convenience store • Churches • Other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall exceed 5,000 square feet. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this le day of January, 2009. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt Clerk/Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 2009. 2 5 z x 3M 11 13 111ho i f HIM I 5 z x 3M 11 13 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilman Litsey: I was just going to, I agree with those comments and although again it may seem like a lengthy process, I think through this it gives everybody a comfort level and I appreciate the council's insight on this too. It was helpful to me because I haven't had as many of these before me as some other people on the council so this certainly did help and I think with conditions set forth, so I too support this so. Mayor Furlong: Is there any other discussion? If not we have a motion before us that's been modified with a condition and subject to the Findings of Fact being presented in the next meeting, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any other discussion? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve Planning Case 08-19 for a 15 foot shoreland setback variance to construct a 15 by 20 foot enclosed structure on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition and adopt Findings of Fact to be supplied by staff at the next City Council meeting, with the following condition: Design the roof such that drainage off the roof is not concentrated to create hazards to the bluff below. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER, 7755 CENTURY BOULEVARD, KLMS GROUP, LLC: REOUEST FOR A MINOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THRU AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES: LOT 2, BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTEPL Public Present: Name Address Bryan Monahan 7500 West 78h Street, Edina Andrew Ronningen 2669 West 78h Street Lynne Etling 7681 Century Boulevard Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm going to pass around, there's two letters of support that came with this project. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on October 22nd. The applicant is requesting to amend the PUD to allow for a drive thm window. The subject site is located at a neighborhood commercial zoning district, as I mentioned done as a PUD that's located down on the northeast comer of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard, bordered by West 78h. This is one of those pocket neighborhoods that we put in place with the upgrade, or when we did the Highway 5 corridor study, to provide some convenience commercial for that neighborhood in this area. So again the applicant did appear before the Planning Commission and before I go through the slides I'll just summarize what the P70 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Planning Commission's discussion points were. And that was that the layout proposed, the applicant would block people on both sides of the stacking lanes, and it appeared that the parking spaces after you stack cars would not be able to back out. The Planning Commission also requested that the drive aisles ... drive thru be counted. The applicant requested that the drive aisles be counted as parking space, and the Planning Commission disagreed with that interpretation. Pedestrians must cut through the travel lane to get to the building, and I'll show a little bit more on that in a minute. And the Planning Commission also asked the applicant, the intended use to go in there, if they could go in without the drive thm window, and I think that was a concern when we look at neighborhood zoning districts as a whole. We have some other neighborhood zoning districts that we haven't allowed that so they did spend some time on that. And also the layout that the staff had recommended. The applicant disagreed with that, although I think we could move towards some of that. There's still some underlying concerns with that. Again in 2003, when this project did come to the Planning Commission we, the staff remained neutral in presenting a drive thru at that time and the Planning Commission had recommended no on that, so I'll spend a little bit more time on that in a minute. And then they also, the final thing that the Planning Commission talked about when they recommended against was the one way traffic through the gas station during rush hour and Nick and Willy's may present a problem. So with that I'll just kind of go through the proposed project itself. This is the original site plan that came through in 2003. The applicant at that time, and I'm not sure if anybody remembers but at that time they were looking at a drive thru coffee shop and it was integrated into the back of the design. At that time, again the staff, because it was a neighborhood zoning district, took a neutral position. We actually had Findings of Fact for and against, and the Planning Commission in looking at that drive thru, even though you could see that there were 6 stacking stalls separated from the access to the gas station and the other uses itself, completely separated, they still were concerned about the precedent at that time. And actually by the time it got to the City Council, this council actually deferred on it for a couple meetings too. Spent a lot of time studying it. Asked staff to go look at some other applications so in that time, at that time it was determined that that probably was not a good use, and the use itself went even a little bit further. If you look at the architectural compatibility, and this is the use itself is that we actually put on the back side of the building, so when you're looking from Highway 5 you wouldn't see it. It was actually integrated into the building itself You can see the enter, so it was architecturally compatible so you wouldn't see it from the other side either, so it really had the least amount of visual impact. And so even at that, the Planning Commission and the council ultimately decided that they did not want to support. So here we are, a number of years later and the applicant is requesting the drive thru. And you can see on this application the drive thru again is on the north side. Again, it's further away from the residents but it's, as far as visual impact, it's not the preferred choice but based on now the current layout of the business itself, how it's function, the kitchen, the bathrooms and the like, this is what they thought was the best location for that drive thru. So we did go look at the use that wanted to go in there, how it operates in Eden Prairie. Went through the operation and this is the larger view. I'll go to a closer view where you actually, you have segmented uses so you actually have more stacking that you're not crossing through the traffic at the main entrance. And a close up of that would be, there's a car wash, if you can follow the arrow here to the car wash that goes one way. I believe it goes the other way, and then to go through Milio's, you're coming back through the opposite way so there is, they're not, you don't have pedestrians crossing to get into the business on this so it's a little bit different, and they had the segment in stacking space which this one didn't. So right away again 21 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 in looking at doing a PUD amendment for a drive thru, we're not limiting what type of use can go there. Obviously depending upon how much volume somebody else, marketing would look at that sort of thing but we're not limiting it to any particular user. It just says drive thru window. So in looking at kind of worst case/best case scenario. This was the staff's best attempt at making this work. Again the preferred alternative would have been on the back side, but trying to make this work, In replacing the additional parking stalls that were eliminated. Trying to reduce the area of conflict which would be, trying to get into the door here on this side. Where the restaurant would be. You're crossing through the travel lane of the drive thru, and that's where the Planning Commission struggled the most problematic portion of that. And this was the applicant's drawing for that. Again the staff's concern is that we had conflicting, the way this would back in here, you could actually block the traffic coming through the business itself. There wasn't additional parking provided with this application. Again that area of concern. And then these seemed to be also difficult because you're coming through the drive thru so you're losing these and these may be difficult to back out of too when you've got accelerating traffic coming out of the drive thru itself. So here's a little close up again kind of again highlighting exclusive stacking space for vehicles waiting to place your orders is not provided so you're, the vehicles waiting to stack at the menu or the order place could also be blocking the traffic and then the potential for the vehicle conflict coming the other way, or people coming out because it's narrow tight through there. So again the Planning Commission did recommend denial of the application for reasons that I stated in the staff report and so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you do have. The motion that we had for you is placed on the front page of the application. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Councilman McDonald: Did you actually propose to the applicant your design? Kate Aanenson: Yes we did. Councilman McDonald: What kind of feedback did you get? Kate Aanenson: Well I think at the Planning Commission there was a lot of resistance but I think between now and then trying to meet all that before it went to City Council, I think they're willing to meet some of those designs. The concern that we had is that, I think the biggest issue here is if you're willing to go forward with the PUD amendment. We didn't want to expend additional money that if you weren't going in that direction. I think if you're leaning that way and then you wanted to make some conditions, I think at this point we didn't want to spend, have the applicant spending additional dollars on that. Councilman McDonald: And then the other question I have, with the traffic flow the way it is towards the back, isn't that also the way you would go to get into the car wash? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. There is a couple ways to get through there but it does get a little congested. I think at the lunch hour time too when Nick and Willy's is a little bit busier. Councilman McDonald: Okay. That's all I have. 22 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Kate Aanenson: And Jimmy John's too. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, did I read that there arc additional parking spots that are going to be created? Kate Aanenson: That's what we had requested. The applicant at the Planning Commission didn't want to do that. I think they're willing to show that for you tonight and so I think that they'll talk to that but at this point I think we wanted to get just kind of a read before we spend money and go further into that, if they're willing to meet those, I think we can work through the design issues but I think what we wanted to get for the read is, what you're receptiveness to the drive thru was. Councilwoman Tjorrihom: But the real issue is really is the traffic flow and the stacking. Kate Aanenson: Well, there's a couple issues. One, it's not the preferred design because we actually, the stacking is one but you're also taking pedestrian traffic, pedestrian movement through a travel lane for ordering food. And then it is, while it is a PUD and you could make conditions unique to this, but we've told other neighborhood commercial zoning that, it could be a precedent. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this point? And I guess clarifying at the Planning Commission they made a motion to deny the request. The applicant's. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I see in the staff report what some of the concerns were laid out there and one of them was, this was talked about 5 years ago in 2003 when this came through and are there any other, while it's a PUD. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: It's a neighborhood business level of zoning effectively, correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so what else do we have in neighborhood, do we have any other restaurants drive thru in neighborhood business? Is at Galpin and 5 we have CVS and Kwik Trip. Kate Aanenson: There's no drive thru. The only thing that we've offered drive thru would be the banks, drug stores, dry cleaners would be the only ones to date that we've allowed the drive thru. So the other two uses up there that are food related are non -drive thru's either. That arc contiguous to this. 23 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Well and didn't we have a request for a drive thru at Chanhassen Crossings at 10 1 and Lyman just recently? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And we put significant limitations on it. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: What did we end up doing there? Wasn't it, I mean that's a coffee shop. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: It's not necessarily a restaurant so there were expectations of. Kate Aanenson: Yes, right. Yes, correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: You keep saying correct. Kate Aanenson: It was for a coffee shop and the circulation was different and that I think Mayor Furlong: But there were, it wasn't designed to be a food, or a restaurant there. Kate Aanenson: Correct. It was a very small area for what they wanted to look at was a coffee shop. But we've had other requests. We had requests for fast food down there and we recommended no on all that. We've also, there was the Subway across the street too that was looking at some of that but we had said no. That was also a PUD so. Councilman Litsey: Is it kind of, I mean I get the impression, and from reviewing this myself, that you're kind of trying to force something into an area that really isn't conducive to it or? Kate Aanenson: Right, well one of the staff struggle is, you know we'd like to see something successful in this building. That's critical. Councilman Litsey: Absolutely. Kate Aanenson: You know everybody would. And other uses have struggled there. We want this business to be successful so we tried to find a way to make it work and I'm just not sure we're there. In the design. Todd Gerhardt: And I think both the Planning Commission and staff are looking for a little direction from the council on this. You know this center has kind of struggled here for the last 5 years I think it's been there, and they're going on their third tenant in this building and we want to be successful. The strip retail has had multiple uses in there and you know we need something to really anchor this comer and the applicant feels as if a drive thru would help that. And one of the things, you know I haven't had a chance to talk to Roger on this but we could give it a shot 24 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 for the one tenant and then, with the PUD amendment for Milio's, but if for some reason Milio's can't make it there, that that drive thru would only exist while that tenant was there. Councilman McDonald: Well that was the question I was kind of asking you on that because if. Todd Gerhardt: I know it's a challenge for Roger. Councilman McDonald: ... if this is a PLTD, if we issue it for the PUD, does that mean if this fails then a Starbuck's can come in. They've got a drive thru? Roger Knutson: Without going into detail, I think we can get their- but we would, due respect to the manager, we want to word it a little bit differently. Todd Gerhardt: You don't want to take that wording huh. Roger Knutson: You can't do a PUD amendment that's only applicable to Milio's. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Kate Aanenson: It would be sandwiched related. Todd Gerhardt: So can it be time related or use related. Roger Knutson: If you tried to make it an interim use within the PUD that is possible but then you'd have to start over. There are other things I think we could fruitfully discuss and how we could limit that. Kate Aanenson: Such as trip generation, those sort of things. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Variety of factors. What I'm hearing is there may be some flexibility if that's something we wanted to took at. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and I think still we're still trying to struggle with the design. Mayor Furlong: But I hear, if Mr. Knutson is saying that there may be an opportunity to be a little more specific here without necessarily creating a city wide precedent, is that correct? There may be some opportunities. We might not get it done tonight but there may be some things we could do. Roger Knutson: I don't think we could word smith it tonight but I think if the council wants to go in that direction, we could come back with something that will pin it down pretty good. Mayor -Furlong: Okay. Alright. Kate Aanenson: And again just to be clear, I think there's some struggles of how much to spend on this and so we want to get some direction on that because we think we can make it better just 25 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 design wise, not even just with the window. The location. Moving some things but obviously there's some, I think some of the things that we are struggling with is the applicant's ability to invest in some of those. So we kind of want to find, get a read from you and to see where to go with that. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: How's the gas station feel about the drive thru and all the traffic that will be coming through there? Todd Gerhardt: The owner of the gas station is the applicant. Kate Aanenson: It's the same. Councilwoman Tjomhom: It's the same, I'm sorry. Kate Aanenson: That's alright. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I didn't realize that. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions of staff at this time? If not, we will invite the applicant to come forward and address the council. Is there anything you'd like to say? Good evening. Mark Leutern: Hi. My name is Mark I-eutem. I am the, I'm going to say one of the owners of the gas station, which includes the car wash and the tenant space that we're looking to fill. Just a little quick, a quick background. Family owned and operated business. It started in the fall of 2004. My family, I actually married into this thing. My wife was starting this investment at the time we were engaged and becoming married and so I'm the fix up guy anyway. But the point is that the business in that location has under performed. We're doing about, somewhere between 28%. About 30% of what the business was originally projected to do. We are the owners of the real estate and the operator that was supposed to be in there lasted 18 months and he went bankrupt. In the restaurant space in the front there, that's had 2 other operators. First one went bankrupt after about a year. Second one, I'm not sure where he is. I think he's back in Mexico or something. Anyway, but the point is that we, the word struggle was used earlier and that's a very, very solid word and I don't mind saying we've probably put in about $15,000 a month on average to keep this thing going. Part of the strategy to get this business to just start to take care of itself includes putting a solid tenant into that space. Being in the real estate world we went out to find potential tenants. We talked to brokers and agents and we talked to Caribou. We talked to Starbucks. We talked to Dunn Brothers. None of those are options. They want to be on the other side of the street for their particular reasons in what they do, so unless I can bring it across the street, they're not a consideration. We went to McDonald's. We went to the Noodles and Company. You pick the franchise. We've talked to all of them, and they're not all hard to talk to because a lot, a few brokers represent a lot of these folks. Those franchises require a square footage of at least 25,000 square feet. You may be able to squeeze them in there. Closer to 25. 28 to 30. I'm sorry, 2,800 to 3,000 square feet. 26 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Kate Aanenson: I was going to say. Mark Leutem: Yeah. We are way too small to be a McDonald's. And so those aren't options. We really need, and in fact as I've been interviewing potential tenants there, we really need to put a tenant in there that's going to stay, and a tenant business that's going to succeed. I've literally had some tenants come and look around and say, well yeah but a couple other businesses failed here and why did they. And when I explained, I don't think thing they had real good business plans. They did, for a number of different reasons. They couldn't get the traffic flow they needed or what not, and so the intent as the space is getting hexed. Okay so, I spoke with Mr. Moravec. Vic Moravec who has a franchise of Milio's franchise in Eden Prairie here. He's very excited. His company has done due diligence on it. Milio's is a franchise name. There's 50 stores in the Midwest. They have some name recognition in the area. Growing quickly. Very solid business. Well capitalized. Just the thing we're looking for. Requirement is he needs a drive up in order for the business model to work and succeed. So here we are today dealing with that particular issue. In the City Council meeting, as was brought up earlier, there was some resistance. I come today with no resistance to the staff at all. In fact I'm coming today to suggest that we look to try to get approval to this concept and then I would be more than happy to work with staff and staff's recommendations to follow a design that's developed that they're comfortable with. That meets the needs of our requirements of getting this accomplished and that staff could be perfectly comfortable in recommending. As was stated earlier, we can be close. I don't think we're quite there either. I had some disagreements before on how many cars are going to be stacked and what not. We're not going to do any of that tonight. But like I said I would like to work with the staff. Come up with something that makes sense. Since that city planning meeting, talked to some of the architects. Other developers and some other folks and some other ideas have been tossed out that haven't even been addressed together with myself and the staff so I think there's a number of different options that can be developed so this thing makes sense and is consistent. There was a question earlier about the possible congestion around my pumps. We would really love to have some congestion around my pumps. As I said before, we are less than third of the capacity that this business was originally projected to do. And so you know we'd like to do that. The other part of it too is you have to keep in mind that we are a continuous building so the traffic flow and sharing of parking space and entering and exiting is not uncommon. If you look in a number of different layouts in certain businesses, they can essentially be contiguous in each other. I think I've addressed all relevant points. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any questions for Mr., is it Leutem? Mark Leutem: Leutem, yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Leutem. Councilman McDonald: I guess at this point then what you're telling us is, you're willing to work with staff as far as addressing some of these issues they have about traffic flow and the way traffic would be handled around the center. Mark Uutem: Correct. Yeah I envision that the design is what staff and I would put together and again that the staff would end up being comfortable with recommending it. 27 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilman McDonald: Are we close as far as what staff s proposed design was? Is that a good starting point? Mark Leutem: If you could go to the picture that. That one there. We can be close. I just thought, actually did think about something as I was sitting in the chair here, and I have to talk with Mr. Moravec but from a space standpoint, I mean we could move that window even further down, which would shorten the access points. Still get the 6 cars in there that they want, and so then that would get away with some of the cross traffic or the stuff walking across. And then they also with working with Westwood, they had a number of different recommendations about how that parking and that handicap could be redone so the flow is a little smoother and everything lays out a little bit easier. There's less construction. There's less changing of the berm and stuff like that, so I think there's a few other options again that haven't even gotten to the table discussing how the design would go. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mark Uutem: But generally speaking we're you know generally going this dirrction. Todd Gerhardt: Is there the possibility of moving that front door over to the north side of the building? Because then it'd keep people away from that drive thru. Mark Leutem: Yeah, everything's possible. I think. Todd Gerhardt: We'll design it right here. Sorry. Mayor Furlong: No we won't. Mark I-cutem: One of the things, one of the things when I was with my concrete folks is that, you can see that takes away part of the sidewalk that's like right in front. And actually when you take that out and you get on the scene and you put a tape measurer to that, there's enough room to leave that sidewalk going all the way and still get the lane in there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it's the issue we had, just to be clear, you know as you're crossing. People aren't going to walk all the way, yeah. We can work on it. Todd Gerhardt: We won't design it here. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions this evening for Mr. Uutem? We may have some others as you... Mark Leutem: Well yeah. Mayor Furlong: If you watched the earlier one. Mark Leutem: Yeah, I don't have any other plans. 'Flu City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: We never close out our right to ask questions so. Councilwoman Ernst: Well Ijust have a comment that when you were talking about moving the window to make the traffic flow a little easier, I see Kate shaking her head and, yes. So I'm encouraged to hear that the two of you will work something out and bring it back. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I know there was a public hearing at the Planning Commission. I don't know if there are other members of the public here present that want to comment on this. With Mr. Herbst standing, I'm guessing the answer to my question is yes there are so we'll take some public comment here as well. Good evening. Dan Herbst: Good evening. Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council. Professional staff. My name is Dan Herbst. 7640 Crimson Bay Road in Chanhassen and also co-owner with Ron Clark of Century Wine and Spirits. We are, before I give you points that point out, talk to you about. We are running low of wine club memberships before the holiday season so if you want to sign up tonight. Mayor Furlong: I don't think this is an opportunity for advertisements. We'll let this one go. Dan Herbst: First of all I apologize for not being here at the Planning Commission meeting. We would have liked to state our case as well as other people at the Planning Commission but we didn't see it as a real issue and I think when you assume something like that, you always make ini stakes so I apologize for not being here. But you know from the obvious point of view you already know there's a road already that loops the south side of that building. From a precedent setting point of view you already have a drive thru on that PUD with the car wash. I've been in this business about 40 years and 1, in both the commercial and the residential end and you know looking at your Findings of Fact you know this drive thru window is very, very consistent in my opinion with all of the other uses that are part of the Arboretum Center there. I see no inconsistency whatsoever. There's also some mention in your Findings of Fact about lowering property values. I think that's invalid also. So I think it's consistent with your PUD. It's going to boost all the businesses in that area. That place has been open and closed, as Mark mentioned to you, about 3 different times. I think it's compatible with all your performance standards of your planned unit development. You know and just on a personal issue, having 8 grandchildren a drive thru is a real, real plus. When you've got to bad kids in and out of those seats and watch them run across the street to go into a restaurant, a drive thru is a real great thing, and all of you that have had children, and more so if you're handicap. And so I think there's a real advantage to a drive in window so I strongly recommend that you would approve this and I like the theory that Kate has put up, that if you approve the drive thru concept on this site, which is, and the drive up window, I think the details can be worked out with Mark and Kate and Paul as far as the parking and the traffic and everything else but I strongly would recommend that you would approve this tonight from the concept of allowing the drive and drive thru window and let the details be worked out with staff so. Are there questions? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Herbst? No? 29 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Dan Herbst: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Lynne Etling: I would like to speak as well. Mayor Furlong: Please come forward. Lynne Etling: My name is Lynne Etling and I actually live at 7681 Century Boulevard, and I just broke your thing. I think I got it. I can't give as eloquent a speech as he did but I would like to talk about the proposed change here. Mayor Furlong: If you could, your address again ma'am. Lynne Etling: 7681 Century Boulevard. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Lynne Etling: I live within 500 feet of the development. Mayor Furlong: Great, thank you. Lynne Etfing: And I also spoke as well at the Planning Commission and I'm not going to take up your time going through everything that they have already discussed here. However, you know I do want to strongly stress that they are asking for a variance. There is a lot of if, and's or but's. Nothing out here is laid in factual, what they're planning to do now and as far as what I can see, was not copied on the letter of approval from whoever supporting it. But when you talk about you have a business. Obviously it didn't have a great business plan to begin with. The people that have been in there have been in and out. The last company that was in there actually had their children in there all the time so obviously when you have little children running around, you're not going to do a great deal of business with your restaurant. It's not conducive. So as far as the people that live in that area, I don't feel that you know I'm sorry but I do feel our property values are going to go down because of this because everyone is going to go in there. There's going to be a lot more traffic. You're trying to pull traffic from the commuters instead of the people that live there. There's a lot of differences to this with what they're proposing. I mean a lot of changes to it and frankly they're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn't fit. This is not made for a drive thru and the people that are going to go in there are going to come back out. Go onto the road. Do a Uy. Creating a traffic problem which is the primary concern for me and then go back out onto Highway 5. So there's a lot of things here. I don't think hardship is proven. My property value has gone down tremendously since when I purchased my home not even 2 years ago, but you know that's not taken into account. There's a lot of things here that you know I just don't support it. I don't want to see your business fail. However I don't want my property value to go down even more. I don't want to have a wreck when I'm trying to get out of the neighborhood. You've got one business compared to I don't know how many homes that are there. 500 personal units? You know I don't want to waste your time. I think you know that he's trying to do his best that he can. However Ijust don't, I still Ell City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 feel that it's a square peg in a round hole, and unless they take the drive thm out, you know I just don't think that it's feasible. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And if I may question. You talk about U turns. is that traffic that exits the entrance on Century Boulevard is right-in/right-out, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Lynne Etling: Right. And they'll come out. It's not a one way. Mayor Furlong: There it is. That's good. So they. Kate Aanenson: Correct. So you could come back out this way and then try to go up and around. Lynne Etling: And that's what everyone does. Kate Aanenson: Right. Lynne Etling: That's what they do now. Kate Aanenson: Certainly that would be one of the issues that we'd look at too is controlling some of that. If you were to consider. Councilman Litsey: Another thing you could do is like a No U Turn sign there or something. Kate Aanenson: I think there is one. Lynne Etling: There is one there now and they just don't do it. Kate Aanenson: They still do it. Councilman Litsey: Is there one there now? Kate Aanenson: Yes there is. People ignore it. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I've never seen it either. Mayor Furlong: If I could. Lynne Etling: Maybe there isn't, I don't know. But there should be. Mayor Furlong: And I think, Ms. Etling, that's a valid point in terms of traffic flow. Not just within the development but on the streets surrounding it. If we're already having problems, that's an issue that we should probably be looking at, and I know Mr. Herbst is here and others and maybe I mean regardless of where we go on this, if this goes forward, at least from tonight 31 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 we're talking about it and we haven't even talked about it yet. There have been suggestions that we look at it from a concept and then get into the details and then bring something back. But to your point, we could a] I look at and evaluate. Lynne Etling: Right. Mayor Furlong: Because there really isn't anything here but a concept at this point. Lynne Etling: Right, and I don't see a win/win for everyone here yet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And understand that but I'm wondering if we already are having some problems with traffic flows, and maybe we are, maybe we aren't in terms of the U turns there. People coming out. Going up. Turning back around to get out to Highway 5. Lynne Etling: In the summer when they do the re -paving, the main thing that you see is the path for the U turn. Mayor Furlong: And as I recall this was, we were looking at pedestrian traffic as well as car traffic and when this development originally went through. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: There were some, there were concerns at that time so. Lynne Etling: Right, and this would change the platform that you have there. The footprint of that whole development, Mayor Furlong: Perhaps from a volume standpoint. Lynne Etling: Right. Well and you're attracting metro traffic instead of urban. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Okay. Kate Aanenson: Mayor if I may just make one point, just to be clear on the process here. They're asking for a PUD amendment, and the variance was because they didn't want to provide the additional parking. I heard Mr. Leutem say that he was willing to meet the standards for that so the variance would go away. Not to dismiss the other concerns, but then it wouldjust be the PUD amendment which is a little bit different standard. Lynne Etling: Right, which would be setting precedent for the. Kate Aanenson: I don't disagree with that but Ijust want to make sure if, he had agreed to put the parking in. That was what the variance for. 32 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Lynne Etling: May I ask one question that I didn't think to ask earlier at the Planning Commission? When you say that you did a study of the drive thru stack lane at the Eden Prairie location, was that a qualified, certified traffic inspector or was it just an employee? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Well City Engineer. Assistant City Engineer, correct. Who I believe is qualified to make... Lynne Etling: But not a traffic engineer through right? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Lynne Etling: Okay. Councilman McDonald: Can I ask just one question? Mayor Furlong: Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Do you feel, if we could solve the traffic problem, does that make this a little bit more attractive to coming in to the community? Lynne Etling: Well I would love to have a coffee shop to be honest with you. But I mean 3 sub shops within you know, what 500-600 feet of each other. I just don't think that's a good business plan. Councilman McDonald: Well that's probably up to the individual businesses but my point is, what I'm hearing is traffic seems to be the biggest problem and if that's something we were to concentrate on and improve, whether the business succeeds or not is up to the business. Would that make it make it more attractive as far as you know coming into the neighborhood itself? Lynne Etling: As long as it was enforced. Councilman McDonald: I beg your pardon? Lynne Etling: As long as it's enforced. I mean that's the biggest issue is they're, you know it's out there. It's mainly for that Arboretum Village and you know I'm sorry if, I've been a frequent visitor of both of them. I have a membership at the Wine Club and I used to 90 to the restaurants since I've been there too. However I didn't like the children running around while I was trying to have a quiet dinner. You know it just wasn't good business. But to have something like that going around the whole building and blocking all the individual parking spaces, even if he does create more, you've still got the hazard of trying to have the cars backing in and out while someone is stacking there. I mean that's what I'm meaning when I'm saying you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It's just you know, no matter how you design it, unless you would, you know you'd have to totally redo the whole thing. Put the driveway on the other side or something so you have more stacking lane. I don't know. Councilman McDonald: Okay 33 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Well thank you. I appreciate your comments. Lynne Etling: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: It's been helpful. Thank you for your involvement. Is there anyone else who'd like to come up. Good evening sir. Brian Monahan: Hi there. My name is Brian Monahan. I'm with Ron Clark Construction. We are the owners of Lot 1, Block 1. It's the center north of the gas station. Mayor Furlong: So I'm sorry. The one you're highlighting now? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Just straight north. Okay, thank you. Brian Monahan: We actually favor this action. We would like to see increased traffic to our center. Currently we're at 67% occupied in our center. We've been that way for about 2 years. Naturally if more folks are coming in to the center, then that's a bigger possibility for not only our tenants to succeed better as far as our center is concerned, but also the gas station and whatever tenant they might have. We've found that, I've been with Ron Clark for 2 years and for the last 2 years we haven't had a tenant on the end cap, which we would love to have a coffee shop as well. But unfortunately everyone wants a drive thru. That's what we found is that everyone and a drive thru. While we might be jealous of them being able to get their drive thru, because then we won't get our coffee shop, we would also welcome the added traffic that it would bring to the center. And I know I can speak for several of our tenants. One of them is here. That they also welcome the possibility of additional traffic to the center. Obviously traffic, whether it's pedestrian or just regular folks getting a sub or whatever, attracts more business to their businesses. A Karate studio for instance. A Pilates class. Edward Jones is in there. It's a financial planning company, and then of course the liquor store. I know I can speak for at least all of them that more traffic is better for us. We feel that it's possible to work this out, being in the real estate business ourselves, and also the development and construction business. We can actually see that there's a couple of possibilities that might be able to work out if we're given the chance to move forward with that. And that's pretty much our stance. As far as the real estate values. I think we can all agree that most real estate has kind of gone down from the last probably 2-3 years. I don't live anywhere near any of this, which I would actually welcome, but my house value has gone down as well so. I mean it's, I think that's kind of a moot point to be honest. And the last thing I'll say is, is that there is actually two entrances. There's an entrance and an exit out. Whether folks move out through the entrance or in through the out -trance, or the out or what have you, you know it's, I think it's kind of neither here or there to be honest. Frankly if the direction of travel, which has been proposed by staff, those folks are more likely to drive past the pumps and out the other entrance over there on whatever, West 78 1h Street. That to me just seems like a natural. As I'm looking at it, that's probably the way I would go out. 34 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. One question for you, since you brought up the subject that you would have been interested in a drive thru. Brian Monahan: Sure. Mayor Furlong: If the council were to go forward with the concept this evening, would you be requesting a drive thru then at some future date for your building as well? Brian Monahan: Frankly we've kind of examined the possibility of a drive thru and we don't see a possibility for adding a drive thru, unless you were to build a lane on the back side of the building. We're not willing to do that. So the answer would be. Mayor Furlong: No. Or is the answer no? Brian Monahan: More than likely no. Todd Gerhardt: You got an engineering answer. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Monahan? Anyone else wishing to come up this evening? Andrew Ronningen: Good evening. My name is Andrew Ronningen. I am the owner of one of the business, the Fantastic Sams. It's right in the middle essentially of the Ron Clark building, and Ijust wanted to, I wrote a letter but I wanted to really just highlight a couple of points that are very important. When somebody is driving up towards this center, they see that vacant building that we're talking about for the drive thru, and obviously that's not appealing at all, and I think that prevents people from coming into the Arboretum Center. And so having a space there for that reason alone is important. And of course we all know that a lot of businesses like that, more than half their business comes through the drive thru. It's just the way we are with our cars and everything. We're a convenience, walk-in business and we're a proven business model. There are over 1,300 around the country that we've grown from 0 to about 80 Fantastic Sams just in Minnesota in the last 5-6 years. So they very rarely close and our salon is definitely under performing and we can see, and I can give you examples. I have other salons that I own and where there is more frequent and relevant traffic, like people coming through and being there, the salons perform much, much better so we would certainly benefit tremendously from increased traffic there. And as an owner I'm there you know 7:30 in the morning, noon, 10:30 at night. Saturday. Sunday's. All different times and I've walked around. I buy my gas at the gas station and once in a while go down to the wine store. Jimmy John's and so and as a pedestrian walking around, I've never had an issue with traffic. There just isn't that much traffic there now so my thought too is, even if there 50 more cars a day, you know I don't know that anybody would really notice. Because there is quite a bit of space and I rarely see anybody driving down in that lower loop anyway. I mean rarely. So I think that the impact is low but we're, you know we have 7 people. They're employed and have a lot of their livelihood based on that business, and we'd like to hire more and continue that, we'd also like to keep the jobs we have so from our perspective there too it's about keeping those jobs and filling up the center that we're in so that NR City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 we can be viable and offer great services for the surrounding neighbors because we're sensitive to what they need. So I appreciate being able to talk about that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you sir. Any questions? Very good, thank you. Anyone else this evening that would like to provide public comment to the council. Yes. Mark Leutem: Just on the issue of U turns. If people are up there doing U turns, I mean that's something I would certainly agree needs to change as well. I don't want people doing that. I wouldn't have any problem with facilitating the direction out of the facility for them to go and use the other entrance going out to the other road, and it could be quite simple as putting a sign out there that says you know please exit this direction so I think we could channel traffic that direction. So that would certainly be an option. I mean another idea could be just re -direct all of County Road 5 right between the strip mail and my gas station and out there. Mayor Furlong: Just run the state highway right through. Mark Leutem: Just run it right through there. Plus put a stop light right in the middle of the building. Mayor Furlong: Right by your pumps. Mark Leutem: Alright, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? Lynne Etling: May I have one quick question? Mayor Furlong: Sure, Absolutely. If you could wait til you get to the microphone please. Lynne Etling: Sure. In order to make this more feasible to us that live right there on the comer, if you're wanting to get increased traffic from the highway, from the commuters, is it possible for the City to plant more shrubbery, you know evergreens, whatever to buffer the noise that that would bring? Mayor Furlong: I think the answer, that was one of the things that was being discussed or laid out by staff too. If the landscaping plan might change. If this went forward, and I'll defer to Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think those are all the things that we want to work on. I think just to, certainly to make sure that there's less impact. Lynne Etling: Yeah, because there's the big track right there that's directly across that is pretty barren that alleves all the noise then. 36 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Just so I understand Ms. Etling the, when you talk about doing some additional landscaping, where on the property would you? Is it along Mghway 5? Is it along Century Boulevard? It is along West 780'9 Lynne Etling: No. Actually along your wetland area there across the street so it would buffer the people that live there. Mayor Furlong: Where she's pointing to right now with the arrow? Lynne Etling: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So you're saying between the business and the homes to the north? Lynne Etling: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Alright. I think we can take a look at the landscaping plan if we went forward, and I know that would be a part of it and I appreciate your. Lynne Etling: Because that's a wetland area behind me and what trees are there are pretty much dying and falling down. It's kind of a big eyesore because they haven't been taken care of, and that one area is all barren where trees probably were and they were taken down and nothing was replanted. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lynne Etling: So that would help buffer the noise for us that live right there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lynne Etling: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for the additional comments. Anyone else from a public comment standpoint? No? Thank you for everybody's thoughts and ideas and suggestions as well. Any follow-up questions at this point with staff? Maybe they'll come up as we discuss what's before us this evening. If not, is there any thoughts or comments? Councilman McDonald: The question I've got, do we really have something to vote on if everybody's willing to go back and talk to staff9 Kate Aanenson: I guess we'd recommend probably tabling it. Right now the 60 days ends November 18th so I'd probably ask for an additional 60 days. Mayor Furlong: Is that a request or is that an automatic? It doesn't sound it like's going to be a problem. 37 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Kate Aanenson: It's automatic. Just to put them on notice that we'd be taking the extra 60 days and that we try to work through a design but again, in good faith with the applicant, if the council didn't even want to go there, we didn't want to pursue a lot of that interest. Mayor Furlong: I guess what I'm hearing is that if it's something from a concept standpoint that we're willing to support, and therefore would require time and effort on the part of staff as well as the property owners, the applicants, stuff like that, we could give them that direction this evening. Along with what sort of parameters we would like to see in that so they're not just working blind but as much direction as we could give them. If it's the council's desire not to go forward here this evening, then I think that's also direction that we'd want to give this evening. So that everybody knows and so it's, you know it doesn't drag on. Those would be my thoughts from what I'm hearing tonight and obviously I'm always open to listening what the rest of you think and I don't have all the answers. Most of them but not all of them. And I'll let you know which ones I have the answers to by the way so. So Councilman McDonald I think that to clarify I think what's before us tonight, I don't think we have enough tonight to approve something specifically. I think that was adequately raised, but more in front of us tonight is, is it a concept that we think makes sense for people to spend time on, that we'd be supportive of if certain parameters were met. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom Councilwoman Tjornhom: In regards to setting a precedent. I know that was one of the concerns the Planning Commission had for other planned unit developments or developments. What are we setting ourself up for, or not setting ourself up for? Kate Aanenson: Well I think the applicant, I'll just point out one thing. The applicant did point out the size. This is a smaller square footage area so we can quantify some of that. Because it wouldn't fit for a lot of the other fast food users, like McDonalds and some of that because we limit, we'd cap the square footage of that, that could absorb this type of use and I'll let the City Attorney address some other. Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. I think with careful drafting, that shouldn't be a real concern. I think we can limit it to this, what we have here. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts or comments? Councilman McDonald: Well I had a couple other thoughts and everything to me. I'm in favor of going forward. Anytime someone will come up and say they're willing to work with staff, I'm willing to listen. The other thing about the traffic though, I know down at Galpin this has come up before. It's a similar situation where you're coming out a Snyder Drug down there and people are making U turns, and I know that it's been addressed before and I'm not sure there's a lot we can do about it. I don't know what you can do about the U turns, and I guess at this point I would maybe want to consider that as something outside of the application here. It's something I would definitely encourage staff to look at, but I don't think we found a solution for Galpin yet, 6M. City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 and I'm not sure we're going to find a solution for this one, and I wouldn't necessarily want to tie that in to whether or not this project goes forward. Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I think any time you have a layout like this coming off a main thoroughway, and then you're going to come in and then the tendency is to want to cut comers to get back out again. I was glad you didn't say aggressive enforcement because I don't think, well they have the staffing to promise that but. Kate Aanenson: Well I think some of that can be addressed if we look at the traffic being generated. The directional. I think one of the issues that you have is just traffic as a whole so I think one of, the resident raised the issue regarding doing a better traffic study. What direction is that traffic coming and going. What are the peak hours of the use of the business and how that relates too so I think we can try to manage it from there, and then get some recommendations from the City Engineer. Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I think if you could do it from an engineering standpoint, but the one that comes to mind for me is the Cub Foods in Shorewood, right across from Chan but you know there's a no right turn there but I'll tell you, everybody makes. I mean so signs are pretty. I mean if you can do it through engineering it's a whole lot better. Kate Aanenson: Right. Yep. Mayor Furlong: And I guess to comment, in that particular development, the Cub Foods development, originally they didn't allow any egress out of the parking lot by the hardware store but everybody did it anyway so they ended up building the road to accommodate what people were doing. I'm not arguing that in this case. I think you know people will find, if you don't have a right turn lane on a busy road, they'll drive on the shoulder to get around cars and go. I think from a traffic standpoint the two issues here are, one, what's the traffic internal to this development if we were to go forward with this. What would be the traffic flow there, and how could we try to direct flow up to West 78d' Street to exit as opposed to coming out on Century Boulevard. You raise a good point Councilman McDonald about the Galpin and 5 where the Kwik Trip and the CVS is. As I recall that CVS drive thru empties out going back to Galpin. Councilman McDonald: Right. Mayor Furlong: Here at least we've got traffic going the other way so there may be some accommodations there, but I think the key is, what can we do within the development and still make it something that people are going to follow because even if you create all sorts of things, you know you can only do so much. But I think traffic flow is clearly an issue that we want to look at here. Any other thoughts or comments on this at this point? No? Councilwoman Tjomhom, your thoughts. Councilwoman Tjomhom: No. Oh I'm sorry. Councilwoman Ernst: No, go ahead. 9T, City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 Councilwoman Tjomhom: I think it's something very worthy to be looking at. If it's, you know my only concern was the pedestrian traffic crossing over into the drive thru traffic and it sounds like you and the applicant can work together with that and I'm all in favor of any business being successful and having patrons come to it in Chanhassen, especially at that front space that does seem to so far not found a niche yet or something and so I wish you the best of luck and I look forward to working with you. With this project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: I too would be in favor of the concept and obviously we've had some tenants here tonight that have expressed being in favor of the business, of the drive thru and we also had a resident come in and express some concerns and it sounds like we have some possible solutions for the landscaping piece. And the fact that staff and the applicant can work together to come to a solution hopefully on the traffic flow and so I would be in favor of the concept. And moving forward. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Litsey. Thoughts. Councilman Litsey: No. I think they've been well stated. I think looking for some ways to direct traffic flow, other than, I mean signage helps but you know people are going to go the way they want regardless of that so you're going to have come up with something a little better than that. And respecting the residents, I think putting up some additional buffers there is reasonable and I think the rest is pretty well in hand. If we don't, you know if we're not setting precedent. I think I said that right. I never say that word right but you know then we can do that legally, then I think we're probably kind of getting there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. I think one of the other roles that the 5 of us have is that of the Economic Development Authority, and while often that's an entity that's created for separate legal entity from the City for financing purposes. I always look at it as really one of our goals as a council is to promote and enhance our local economy. That's good for our businesses. It's good for our residents as well, and clearly I think in this development it has not achieved the potential and what many people hoped for and expected in terms of economic success. And here we have an opportunity perhaps to enhance that and do it in a way without setting precedent but at the same time do it in a way that makes some sense. So I would support the concept of going forward. I think from thoughts and comments I would tend to side towards staffs proposed design as opposed to what was presented before and I guess some examples I'll use is trying to separate, and here you may not be able to separate the pedestrians walking across the parking lot and through there, but perhaps with some median or something like that and a controlled crossing, or some signage you can do that. I think of the McDonald's in Excelsior where the drive thru comes right through the middle of the parking lot, and that is, it's a mess. It's a mess. Compared to the McDonald's in Chanhassen where the drive thru wraps around the perimeter and it's separated. Here we may not have that benefit of separation but I think through some of the designs that staff was looking at to try to mitigate some of that conflict, I think helps. So I think my tendency would be let's work with some of the outlines that staff has put together. You know from, is 6 cars, is 5 stacking and I think we can be flexible there. I think we need more than the 2 in some of the other situations so I think we can be a little flexible there. If we've got M11 City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 some constraints here, I think 6 is a good standard overall for new development. Here we're trying to retrofit and so there may be some other constraints that we have to work in. So perhaps a little flexibility. I know it's not significant but perhaps moving a window can help reduce the amount of the drive thru lane and still get you your 6 cars and so looking for those accommodations. The other thing I would talk about, and I know Mr. Etling brought up the idea of landscaping. I want to make sure we don't leave false impressions here. That we're going to be landscaping across or requiring landscaping outside the property. I mean there's some limitations we have too. If we're looking at landscaping on the north side of West 78h, and there are two parcels inbetween so I think that's something we can look at, so I don't want to leave with false impressions that we're going to be doing that, but I think we need to look at that. See what can be accommodated with this to try to find some solutions, and we talked about traffic already. And you know I think there's some, what it sounds like, people smarter than I in terms of traffic flow, there are some ways to try to improve the traffic flow just naturally as well as with some other means so. But just from a standpoint of trying to assist the property owners and the local businesses there to be more successful, I think it's worthwhile for us moving forward, especially with the guidance we have this evening. Mr. Knutson, who I always rely on, that it can be done in a way so it's relatively specific. I think we've got size issues. I think you know the fact that Century Boulevard is not a major through street. It's effectively, it drives up and then stops at West 78th and then is a local residential street after that, unlike a lot of other neighborhood business areas where there's actually a crossing of major through streets, and I'm not going to start talking about minor and major arterials because I'll screw that up, but the bottom line is, is when Century Boulevard reaches West 78h going north of there, that's a residential neighborhood. That's a residential street and so there are some unique features from I think, in terms of these properties, from a traffic road design and it's location that's unlike some of the other areas as I'm thinking through business neighborhood areas. That also I think gives us some comfort that maybe we need to do a little bit more here to enhance economic success from that standpoint. So those are my thoughts. I think the council seems to be gencrally unison in supporting the concept, and if other people have some thoughts, I don't know if they've thought of since. Otherwise would it make sense to take a motion to table with the direction to bring it back as soon as possible but not set a specific meeting date knowing that there's some work to be done between now. Is that acceptable sir? Mark Leutem: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other comments or would somebody like to make such a motion? Councilman McDonald: I'll make a motion that we table this issue that is before us and allow staff and the applicant to work together and bring us back a detailed plan that we can evaluate. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion or is there a second? Councilman Litsey: I'll second that. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey seconds it. Any discussion on that? Very good. Thank you. I will just make the comment. Thank you everybody for your comments and input and we 4t City Council Meeting - November 10, 2008 will get more detail back so I know for those that are concerned about what's coming forward, there will be that opportunity and that will come to a future council meeting. It will stay at the council level and come back to a future council meeting. We'll bring it on unfinished business at some point so that will be available. And if anybody's interested in being notified of that, why don't you make sure you get your name and address and mailing information to Ms. Aanenson so you can be sure be notified. Any other discussion? If not, motion's been made and seconded. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council table the request for a minor PUD amendment to allow a drive thru and site plan review with variances for Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center to allow the applicant and staff time to prepare a more detailed plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Without objection there's, we'll take a 5 minute recess, recess about 5 minutes subject to the call of the Chair here noticing the time. The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting. Mayor Furlong: Let's call the council back to order and what I'd like to do, and propose to the council is some adjustments to our agenda this evening, given the hour of the evening. What we'd like to do, we have a gentleman here to talk to us, along with our staff, for item 4(a). I think we'd like to do that tonight. We'll defer item 4(b), since that again is a presentation. Neither of those items are action items by the council, so we'll defer item 4(b) to a future meeting. Go ahead with item 5 and then following our meeting this evening, our work session items, we'll complete items B, which relate to the budget presentations, and then defer item C under our work to a future work session. So if the council is okay with that. If there are no objections. Does that make sense? It's just that it's getting a little late and some of these items aren't time pressing so I'd rather take them when we're all fresh. Is everyone okay with that? Why don't we go ahead and proceed with that. WEST -CENTRAL LOTUS LAKE IMTROVEMENT PROJECT 08-02: UPDATE COUNCIL ON FEASIBILITY STUDY. Terry Jeffery: Mayor Furlong, council members. In 2005 1 think you remember we had the Triple Crown Estate pond, sometimes the Meadow Green Park ponds, there was a failure when we had back to back storms in 2005. In 2007 we went out for a proposal to do a feasibility study, to look at the larger, what we refer to as the West Central Lotus Lake Watershed. Todd Hubmer when he shows his presentation will have, you'll see that area as we're talking about. In February, upon staffs recommendation, council did approval feasibility study with WSB and Associates to look at the larger West Central Lotus Lake area and the specific issues we have in there. WSB has come back with a feasibility study which we would like to present the findings to you tonight. In essence it breaks it down. Looks at it as three separate phases over a series of years that would address the overall issues. There are a number of different, what they're referring to as options. I would think of them more as components within an overall solution to the problem, which can be done with some flexibility when they are, but again Todd Hubmer is here from WSB and Associates. I'll let him present to you the findings. We would like to look 42 o2008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. VERIFY LOCATION OF SITE LIGHTING WITH PROPOSED NORTH LOT LAYOUT EXIST. LIGHT POLE LOCATION TC i :f 4. 0' EXG CURB TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) MATCH EXG CURB C 0 �v M 0 N Lj Z —0 C2 V) z 0 12' i I I - SOD I I XIST. CURB TO REMAIN DEPRESSED CURB PIED. CROSSING --\ I 'z :`/�77-1 CIA 0 0�1 < Q� -D <1 V- -EXIST MONUMENT SiGNA�� EXIST.SIDEWALK LINK TO BE REMOVED 16'x20' PATIO CALLBOX RETAIL 1,520 S.F. A RELOCATED SHRUBS (VERIFY QT EXISTING BUILDING 5,506 S.F. C -STORE 3,986 S.F. 0 18' R PROPOSED 18 9' DRIVE UP WINDOW BOLLARDS (TYP.) -T 7----7-76 .§dD REL6CATE6 1 1 SHROBS 1 i (VERIFY QTY) ONE WAY 00 P POSED \PAR ING S 12 00 000 10000000000 1!�-0-q2SWUWQ92R - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXIST. LIGHT POLE —(12) PARKING STALLS CREDITED TO RETAIL BUILDING TO THE NORTH D R V E ------------------------------------------- MATCH EXG CURB 13 CAR WASH 3,080 S.F. EXG CURB TO BE ff REMOVED (TYP.) PROOF OF PARKING 4 STALLS 0 0 LLS :)00000000'�00000ooc)000000 -52 DRAINAGE TECHINY AIRBOMTAE UTILITY EXIST. LIGHT POLE EASEMENT— A V G H I N Westwood Professional Services Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Pralrie, NIN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 W FAX 952-937-5822 TOM FREE l -W8 -937-51M Wftst%%Vod WWW.Wfttwocdps.com I hereby certify that this Plan was prepared by me or undu my direct stpervision and that I = a duly hoensed LANrGCAPE ARCHrrBCT mder the laws of the State of Minnesot& Revisions: NEW PED. CURB Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC RAMP & CONC.- Chwke&- CLM SIDEWALK Dnwa- CIM Cory y1ff 12/15/W 26W1 tw_ I-Imm No.- 29* Reowd Draw1w bylditte: PROP. RESTAURANT 1,520 1/60 25 25 25** TOTAL 5,506 - 45 54 54 VERIFY LOCATION OF SITE LIGHTING WITH PROPOSED NORTH LOT LAYOUT EXIST. LIGHT POLE LOCATION TC i :f 4. 0' EXG CURB TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) MATCH EXG CURB C 0 �v M 0 N Lj Z —0 C2 V) z 0 12' i I I - SOD I I XIST. CURB TO REMAIN DEPRESSED CURB PIED. CROSSING --\ I 'z :`/�77-1 CIA 0 0�1 < Q� -D <1 V- -EXIST MONUMENT SiGNA�� EXIST.SIDEWALK LINK TO BE REMOVED 16'x20' PATIO CALLBOX RETAIL 1,520 S.F. A RELOCATED SHRUBS (VERIFY QT EXISTING BUILDING 5,506 S.F. C -STORE 3,986 S.F. 0 18' R PROPOSED 18 9' DRIVE UP WINDOW BOLLARDS (TYP.) -T 7----7-76 .§dD REL6CATE6 1 1 SHROBS 1 i (VERIFY QTY) ONE WAY 00 P POSED \PAR ING S 12 00 000 10000000000 1!�-0-q2SWUWQ92R - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXIST. LIGHT POLE —(12) PARKING STALLS CREDITED TO RETAIL BUILDING TO THE NORTH D R V E ------------------------------------------- MATCH EXG CURB 13 CAR WASH 3,080 S.F. EXG CURB TO BE ff REMOVED (TYP.) PROOF OF PARKING 4 STALLS 0 0 LLS :)00000000'�00000ooc)000000 -52 DRAINAGE TECHINY AIRBOMTAE UTILITY EXIST. LIGHT POLE EASEMENT— A V G H I N Westwood Professional Services Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Pralrie, NIN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 W FAX 952-937-5822 TOM FREE l -W8 -937-51M Wftst%%Vod WWW.Wfttwocdps.com I hereby certify that this Plan was prepared by me or undu my direct stpervision and that I = a duly hoensed LANrGCAPE ARCHrrBCT mder the laws of the State of Minnesot& Revisions: pedgM& Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC PROPOSED PARKING PROVIDED Chwke&- CLM 3,986 Dnwa- CIM Cory y1ff 12/15/W 26W1 tw_ I-Imm No.- 29* Reowd Draw1w bylditte: PROP. RESTAURANT 1,520 Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mr. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Data USE BLDG AREA (SF) REQUIRED PARKING RATIO PARKING REQUIRED EXISTING PARKING PROVIDED PROPOSED PARKING PROVIDED EXISTING C -STORE 3,986 1/200 20 29* 29* PROP. RESTAURANT 1,520 1/60 25 25 25** TOTAL 5,506 - 45 54 54 INCLUDES 16 STALLS AT GAS PUMPS INCLUDES 4 PROOF OF PARKING STALLS Data EXISTING GREENSPACE: 16,492 sf PROPOSED GREENSPACE 16,697 sf Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED DEC 1 5 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP- !J 0' 20' 40' 60' 20081165SPPOI.DWG Date: 11/5/08 She&. 1 OF 1 Final Site Plan Status Report 511/10 M 2000 Ati �Sl 2000 Se tember2000 S T W T F S S M T W T P S KI T W T F 1 1 2 3 4 1 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 a 9 id 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 i 11 1 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 in 11 ij i5 u i� 7 18 16 20 21 0 ff2i.-N-WNf 5 6 17 18 19 20 21 22 4 25 M 27 �a Z) 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 V �8 29* .... ....................... - j . "1- a rq- Ve, Securities IStart Due S p Category Description 511110 W 15/ 10 F —J L( #1521 expire, 6/10/10 (a utornatically nenews for successi�e one-year terms) Mifids Sandwiches Addendum A to Site Plan Penmit 2003-06 Planning C�e 08-22 $17,500 (1 andqcaping) Time of Perfewmance: June 15, 2010 Notified Shanneen A]-Jaff 7a/IX? M 8 31 AM �� Pnonty SCANNED P� 1 InterBank IRMVOC"LE LE=R OF CMEDIT No. 1521 Date: June 10, 2009 TO: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of KLMS Groo, LLC. and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of S 17,500, available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned banIc The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. 1521, dated June 10, 2009 of Inter Savings Bank fsb. b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen. c) Be presented for payment at 13601 8e Circle N. MaRle Grove MN 55369, on or before 4:00 p.m. on June 10,2010. This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be June I Oth of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in fill our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 600. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. Its 3400 West 66th Street, Suite 100 - Edina, MN 55435 - 952-920-6700 - Fax 952-920-7308 10880 175th Court - Lakeville, MN 55044 - 952-435-6700 - Fax 952-285-6660 1875 County Road B2 W - Roseville, MN 55113 - 651-288-6700 - Fax 651-288-4000 13601 80th Circle North - Maple Grove, MN 55369 - 763-255-1700 - Fax 763-255-1600 Chartered in 196 5 SCANNED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE ' HANHASSFN crry CODE THE Crry'S ZONING ORDIM�CE By AMENDING A PLANNED' UNUDEVELOPMENT .—THE Crry CouNCIL Op THE bedlOn 1. Chapter 2D of the Uraothasuent City Code, the City's Affidavit of Publication zoning ordina,,,, is hereby Mended by amending the Arboretum Village Planned Unit Southwest Newspapers =ent Design Standards Permitted 11ses, to asfollows. BMDZYU0PMEMEW State of Minnesota) STANRARM am b. Permitted Uses )SS. The Permitted Uses within the County of Carver neighborhood commercial zone Should be limited to mwmq�,, per �brnAilmmmtedtotbmsem dherem. Ifthere isaquewion Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, an oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized hether or not a use meets the agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- ion the Planning Director lager and ban full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: that interpretatiom The USRS to be provided on this (A) T'hese newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal shall be low -intensity newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 33 1 A.02, 33 IA.07, and other applicable lam, as orhood-oriented retail and amended establishomentstomeetolaily & residents- Such uses may (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 'Ile a the following. was published on the date or dams and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said all to medium-sized rant without drive-thru Notice is hereby incorporated as put of this Affidavit- Said notice was cut firom the columns of NS unless they meet the the newspaper specified. Printed below, is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to 7, both ig standards.- inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition ve-thru facilities On Lot 2 and publication of the Nofi= 1, Arboretum ShornDine located screen from Stacking shall meet the standards: FastFo6dRestaurant:six isle. - Banks: three cars per Pharmacy: two cars; per All other uses: two cars T�e City my requite, a my requIred drive aisles. (9) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at th6 property line. (h) A Restaurant with a drive- thm may not exceed 1,5A square feet in axvot. Office Day come Neighborhood scale commercial Convenusuce stars, Churches Other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall exceed 5,ODO square fftt- SKbon ThisordiuM,shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 12- day of January, 2DO9. AMST-. Tbdd G�hardt, Clerk/Manager Thomas A- Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Tbursday, january 29, 2DD9-, No. 4162) abcdefghilkhomopqrstuvwxyz 16;f Laurie A- Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on this 02 01 day of -1 12009 OF— JYMME J. BARK NOTARY PUBUC - MINNESOTA W My::: C, q Commission Expires 31/31/2013] RATE INFORMATION Loovestclassifiedratepaid by commercial users far comparablespace ... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law far the above matter ................................ $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................. . ............... $12.43 M column inch SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 476 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF TTIE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by amending the Arboretum Village Planned Unit Development Design Standards, Section b. Permitted Uses, to read as follows: PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS b. Pennitted Uses The permitted uses within the neighborhood commercial zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service uses consistent with the neighborhood. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be provided on this outlot shall be low -intensity neighborhood -oriented retail and service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include the following: Small to medium-sized restaurant without drive-thru windows unless they meet the following standards: Drive-thru facilities on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center for any use shall comply with the following standards: (a) They shall not be located adjacent to any residential lot lines. (b) They shall be provided with a suitable visual screen from adjacent properties. (c) Stacking shall be provided within applicable parking lot setbacks. (d) Stacking shall meet the following standards: (1) Fast Food Restaurant: six cars per aisle. (2) Banks: three cars per aisle. (3) Pharmacy: two cars per aisle. (4) All other uses: two cars per aisle. (e) The City may require a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more or less stacking shall be required for a particular use. (f) Stacking areas shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking lot nor encroach into any required drive aisles. (g) Speaker or intercom system shall not be audible at the property line. SCANNED (h) A Restaurant with a drive-thru may not exceed 1,550 square feet in area. * Office • Day care • Neighborhood scale commercial • Convenience store • Churches • Other similar type and scale uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan. No single use shall exceed 5,000 square feet. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 12� day of January, 2009. A=T: 6" 1 ,oL,//A,Pg Gerhardt, Clerk/Manager Tbomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 29, 2009) is 0 0 c2008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. -D 0 M, Lij NEW PEID.� CURB RAMP & �ONC. SIDEWALK VERIFY LOCATION OF SITE LIGHTING WITH PROPOSED NORTH OT LAYOUT V. z A ----T ------- T— ,7 --F-- EXIST. LIGHT POLE LOCATION 9 if I If I If I It 4.0 z 0 7\7 S i EXIST. CURB TO REMAIN ------ DEPRESSED CURB PED. CROSSING----\ Ld < F- <1 Lj 0 EXIS� MONUMENT S;GNAOR\ EXIST.SIDEWALK LINK TO BE REMOVED OD 7 V) 0 A 16'x2O' PAT10 CALLBOX RETAIL 1.520 S.F. 18' R RELOCATED SHRUBS (VERIFY �QT EXISTING BUILDING 5,506 S.F. C -STORE 3,986 S.F. PROPOSED 18.9, /--DRIVE UP WINDOW BOLLARDS (TYP.) �- r77��- sob RELdCATE6 SHROBS 1 (VER`IFY QTY) 00 12 0 0000, 0000000oo6l EXIST. LIGHT POLE 0 � CAR WASH 3,080 S.F� - - - - - - - - - - �, 7- MATCH EXG CURB as, �77, L EXG CURB TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) PROOF OF PARKING > 4 STALLS P E OS )AR ING OC)OOOOOOO(R TWEOM 4W00000000 1000000 52 TECHNY ARBOVITAE -4!Y U- IL: EXIST. LIGHT POLE EASEMEN'T— G lHf W A \ I / N! 0 5 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I hereby cenify that this plan was prepared by rne or under my Revisiormc PARKING REQUIRED 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 553" dired supervision and that I arn a duly Lcensed LANDSCAPE ARCIM7ECT under the la� of the State of Minnsmscru. EXISTING C -STORE Dasignaik 11200 20 W 29* PROP. RESTAURANT chadIM& CLM 1/60 Dravm CLM PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-M-937-5150 VVestwood www.westwoocips.corn 25** Cory � A�!yer 12/15/08 Licartse No, 26971 5,506 Re=d Drawing by/daft 45 54 Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: I N THIS P 2. LOCAT1ONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCAT1ONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Data USE BLDG AREA (SF) REQUIRED PARKING RATIO PARKING REQUIRED EXISTING PARKING PROVIDED PROPOSED PARKING PROVIDED EXISTING C -STORE 3,986 11200 20 29* 29* PROP. RESTAURANT 1,520 1/60 25 25 25** TOTAL 5,506 - 45 54 54 INCLUDES 16 STALLS AT GAS PUMPS INCLUDES 4 PROOF OF PARKING STALLS Data EXISTING GREENSPACE: 16,492 sf PROPOSED GREENSPACE 16,697 sf Chanhassen Site Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED DEC 1 5 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 0' 20' 40' 60' 20081165SPPOI.DWG Date: 11/5/08 Sheet: 1 OF 1 Final Site Plan 02008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. C) LLJ D 0 �_c VERIFY LOCATION OF SITE LIGHTING WITH PROPOSE[) NORTH I OT LAYOUT F_ C;-+ NEW PIED. CURB RAMP & CONIC. SIDEWALK� EXIST. LIGHT POLE LOCATION 0 L� < > �2i < EX�ST mONumE-NT SIGNA�� EXIST.SIDEWALK LINK TO BE REMOVED r =6= 4. 0' PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PARKING Uj PROVIDED z 0 EXISTNG C—STORE 17 \,7 EXIST. CURB 20 TO REMAIN 29* IF DEPRESSED CURB PIED. CROSSING — 0 L� < > �2i < EX�ST mONumE-NT SIGNA�� EXIST.SIDEWALK LINK TO BE REMOVED r - EXG CURB TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) -MATCH EXG CURB C 0 M IVI 0 N SOD t INEW CONIC /77j�;WALK !j— L :E —1 - UJI RELOCA1 z 16'x2O' SHRUBS 00 PATIO (VERIFY U) I�L_ F=1 CALLBOX RETAIL 1 r,)n Cz r- 0 18' R 18.9' I 0 EXISTING BUILDING 5,506 S.F. C—STORE 3,986 S.F. I PROPOSED t—DRIVE UP WINDOW BOLLARDS (TYP.) _C5 SOD —(12)) PARKING STALLS CREDITED TO RETAIL HUiLDING TO THE NORTH D R V E I -------------- MATCH EXG CURB 1--] 0 REL6CATE6 L01 / SHRUBS 1 . I / Z---- 001 EXG CURB TO BE (VERIFY QTY) — r ONE WAY REMOVED (TYP.) PRI cc 1 L2\ 00000�' 000000060�D'o -ILEXIST. LIGHT POLE 4 OSE 600 AR ING LLS (DOOOOC)OC)000000a� �1034(�IEOM4YO0000000(D RAINAGE D 52 TECHINY ARIBOVITAE C4!Y UTILITY EXIST. LIGHT POLE EASEMENT— Westwood lomfessional Services, Inc. I hereby certify that this plan �aa Prepared by � or under my R� 7699 Anagram Drive direct mpervision and that I anx a duly licensed LANDSCA17E Designed: Eden Prairie, IVIN 55344 ARCIU= under ffie laws of the State of Mmnesota. CLM PHONE 952-937-5150 W FAX 952-937-5822 Drawn: CLM TOLL FREE 1-SM937-5150 Cory � A" Re=d Drawing by/doft Westwood www.westwoodps.com Dabft 12/15/08 _Tj No, 26W1 F�repared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONECALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1 . BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. _OCAT1ONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXIST1NG TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATON/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. B. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Data =6= REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PARKING RATIO PROVIDED PROVIDED EXISTNG C—STORE 3,986 1/200 20 29* 29* PROP. RESTAURANT 1,520 1/60 25 25 25** TOTAL 5,506 - EXG CURB TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) -MATCH EXG CURB C 0 M IVI 0 N SOD t INEW CONIC /77j�;WALK !j— L :E —1 - UJI RELOCA1 z 16'x2O' SHRUBS 00 PATIO (VERIFY U) I�L_ F=1 CALLBOX RETAIL 1 r,)n Cz r- 0 18' R 18.9' I 0 EXISTING BUILDING 5,506 S.F. C—STORE 3,986 S.F. I PROPOSED t—DRIVE UP WINDOW BOLLARDS (TYP.) _C5 SOD —(12)) PARKING STALLS CREDITED TO RETAIL HUiLDING TO THE NORTH D R V E I -------------- MATCH EXG CURB 1--] 0 REL6CATE6 L01 / SHRUBS 1 . I / Z---- 001 EXG CURB TO BE (VERIFY QTY) — r ONE WAY REMOVED (TYP.) PRI cc 1 L2\ 00000�' 000000060�D'o -ILEXIST. LIGHT POLE 4 OSE 600 AR ING LLS (DOOOOC)OC)000000a� �1034(�IEOM4YO0000000(D RAINAGE D 52 TECHINY ARIBOVITAE C4!Y UTILITY EXIST. LIGHT POLE EASEMENT— Westwood lomfessional Services, Inc. I hereby certify that this plan �aa Prepared by � or under my R� 7699 Anagram Drive direct mpervision and that I anx a duly licensed LANDSCA17E Designed: Eden Prairie, IVIN 55344 ARCIU= under ffie laws of the State of Mmnesota. CLM PHONE 952-937-5150 W FAX 952-937-5822 Drawn: CLM TOLL FREE 1-SM937-5150 Cory � A" Re=d Drawing by/doft Westwood www.westwoodps.com Dabft 12/15/08 _Tj No, 26W1 F�repared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONECALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1 . BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. _OCAT1ONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXIST1NG TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATON/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. B. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Data INCLUDES BLDG AREA REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PARKING RATIO PROVIDED PROVIDED EXISTNG C—STORE 3,986 1/200 20 29* 29* PROP. RESTAURANT 1,520 1/60 25 25 25** TOTAL 5,506 — 45 54 54 INCLUDES 16 STALLS AT GAS PUMPS INCLUDES 4 PROOF OF PARKING STALLS Data EXISTING GREENSPACE: 16,492 sf PROPOSED GREENSPACE 16,697 sf Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHA�'�,.. RECEIVED DEC 1 5 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP I 0' 20' 40' 60' 20081165SPPOI.DWG Date: 11/5/08 sheet 1 OF 1 Final Site Plan CITY OF CWHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 AdminM9on Phone: 952,227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 BuildingInspecilorn; Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 bvireering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952,227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Remabon Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Caft 2310 Coub Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 pwmkm & National 11murces Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Mirks 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Cenwir Phu: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952,227.1110 Web Site wwwAchanhassen.m.us 2009 Benefits Enrollment Employee: _aarmln Ak)cJ(- According to our records, you have elected the following plans/benefits: Health Insurance: Employee only — Family — Waive Coverage ($250/month will be paid to you) Dental Insurance: V' No coverage Employee + 1 Employee only Family Flex Plan: Limited Flex: 11D60 (Annual) (Dental and Vision expenses only) Full Flex: I — (Annual) Depenclant Care Acct: — I (Annual) Health Savings Account: Employee contribution Amount: City's $295 contribution is being applied to: �5A (amount is included in the amount shown above if HSAIFlex) Tax certification: Employee cloeso;�Ot have non-qualified tax dependents. If you wish to make any changes or corrections to the benefits that are listed here, please contact Laurie Hokkanen (x1118) as soon as possible. G \Adrrun\L[Atnsmncc\2M9 Benefim elmfims conr,�tjm.dm 001111men is a Cmmn* for Lik - PrM4 for To# and ftq kir Tgroorm W El A newsletter on historic preservation from the State Historic Preservation Office of the Minnesota Historical Society. Meetings and workshops r�l Main Street Innovation Lab Webinar Series The National Trust Main Street Center has launched a series of online seminars fea- turing Main Street staff and other experts. The sessions are interactive, enabling participants to ask questions. Coming sessions include: Jan. 8: Design on a Dime, Main Street Style. April 2: Upstairs Downtown: Successful UPPer-Floor Housing Development. May 7: Green Main Streets: Practical Steps You Can Take Now. Registration fee: $25 each. For more information, go to www.mainstreet.org/ webinars. call 202-588-6219 or e-mail mswebinars@nthp.org. CLG grants Approximately $78,000 in matching grants will be awarded this spring through the Certified Local Government program. See the Fall 2008 Preservation Planner for details (www.mnhs.org/about/ publications/planner.htmi). Jan. 9: Preapplication due. Feb. 20: Final application due. April 1: Grants Review Committee meets. Preserve America deadlines -------------------------------- The Preserve America Communities pro- gram recognizes communities that protect their historic assets. To apply for designa- tiOn as a Preserve America community, submit an application by one of this year's quarterly deadlines: March 1, June 1, Sept. I and Dec. 1. For more information, go to www.preserveamerica.gov/communities.htmi. Central Corridor: Challenge and opportunity by Britta L. Bloomberg, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Major changes planned for the state's transportation infrastructure have the potential to affect our historic resources in ways both positive and negative. A case in point: the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit project proposed by the Metropolitan Council — an I 1 -mile Line that will connect downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul. As planning for this major urban transportation link unfolds, historic preservationists find themselves faced with challenges and opportunities to engage on a variety of levels. Because the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) is providing major funding for the project, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act comes into play. Section 106 requires that federal agencies consider how historic properties might be affected by their projects; the goal is to seek ways to avoid, reduce and/ or rnitjgate any adverse effects to those historic resources. Carrying out much of the review work on behalf of the FTA is MnDOT's Cultural Resources Unit, which has identified more than 45 historic properties in the project corridor, including individual buildings and a number of large historic districts — Central Corridor - continued on page 2 Built in 7915 for a film production company, this building at 877-82S University Ave. in St. Paul (pictured ca. 1932) has been identified as eligible for listing on the National Register. It stands along the proposed route for the Central Corridor light rail project About this publication The Minnesota Preservation Planner is published four times a year by the State Historic Preservation Office of the Minnesota Historical Society- Unless otherwise noted, Photographs are from the State Historic Preservation Office. Material from this issue may be repinnA with the following credit line: RepruiPit with permission from Minnesota Preservation Planner. Vol. XX, No. 1, Winter 2009, published try the Minnesota Historical Society. Do not reprint material from another source without permission. Upon request, this publication is available in alternative formats: audiotape, large print or computer disk. Back issues can be found online at www.mnhs.org/about/publications/ planner.htmi. For address corrections, e-mail Nk michele.decker@zInirrihsorg or call 651-259-3450. This newsletter has been financed in part with federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the Minnesota Historical Society under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendations by the Department of the Interior. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental federally assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or disability. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility operated by a recipient of federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127. Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. Britta Bloomberg, Editor Michael KOOP, Assistant Editor Mary Ann Nord, Assistant Editor www.mnhs.org/shpo Community service through historic preservation To increase awareness of the benefits of historic preservation, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has launched a new program that encourages preservation organizations to create community service opportunities for students and school systems. The program involves youth in historic preservation through service learning — projects that bridge the gap between the classroom and the larger world. Through their projects, students become ambassadors for history and historic preservation in their schools, homes and communities. Among the many returns for preservation organizations: a new generation of volunteers and future preservation enthusiasts. 14 Minnesota Historical Society To learn more about the benefits of the service learning program, go to http:// www.servicelearning.org/instant—info/ histori(�—preservation/index.php. The site includes examples of community service projects and resources for replicating such projects in your community. I Sixth -grade students from Faribault share their history projects with community members as part of their local history curriculum. 345 Kellogg Boulevard West, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1906 651-259-3000 - www.mnhs.org Address service requested. '�4 - 9 014-c" , �?006' zyq/t� 'Iss 4 Ili I IN of Ih I I If Is I J& Ili loads a dill As 8#1814"411411 "aAUTO�ALL FOR AADC 553 City Of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN W17-0147 Non -Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID St. Paul, MN Pernift 854 w Date: Re: Westwood TRANSMITTAL December 15, 2008 Leutern / Pamedco File 20081165 To: Sharmeen A]-Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 From: Cory Meyer Items: -No Description 5 Final Site Plan Purpose: As you requested Remarks: Delivery: Hand Deliver cc: File CiTy OF CHANHASSEN RECEiVED DEC 1 5 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANMNG DEPT IN 147 MIN CITIESWETRO ST CLOUD BRAINERD Wes�ood Professional Ser,,ices 7699 Anagiarn Dri� Eden Prarne. MIN 553" .A,. 952�937.5150 FAX 952-937-5a22 'OIL F.FF 1.888,937.5150 L.All -pse-em"Oodp5corn ..astaroadpLoorn +00 I 0--�F 0 )C�o- 01-1 OT 0- � OA, 3 1 30, WT COK-. I � OZ 3(�j :%L-. 5 1 BLACKET-=Z! S -SAN : 5 Z", POT- 14* O�Cu a, 24, OC !rc� 30 -7 C.�- U. Oc 30:,��5 �.14 SA6q A 605-A� =RANCEE 1 POr. 36'Oa a- DIA. PCT. P-=KJI.S jAIR LL44 s W7. CCN-- 51 Oic �FEPT, v c2-oNzoo . r 1 *.,!6, i A 55. � I 5e Ile 5P'ZJ-- 5LACK "LL5 C "IT e—_. 3�r 5LAM "ILL$ a, WT. 55. DAYLLT 5TELL.A r,�E I P07� 24- OZ 5 +00 I 0--�F 0 )C�o- 01-1 OT 0- � OA, 3 1 30, WT COK-. I � OZ 3(�j :%L-. 5 1 BLACKET-=Z! S -SAN : 5 Z", POT- 14* O�Cu a, 24, OC !rc� 30 -7 C.�- U. Oc 30:,��5 �.14 SA6q A 605-A� =RANCEE 1 POr. 36'Oa 5 BLACK ---Y=:) a- DIA. PCT. P-=KJI.S jAIR LL44 s W7. CCN-- 51 Oic �FEPT, v . r 1 *.,!6, i A 5----,L� -OT � I Oz Ile 5a� C-ULTI-STSMU 431 E, SEED 5ARRO-1 L T,� 5 BLACK ---Y=:) a- DIA. PCT. P-=KJI.S jAIR LL44 s W7. CCN-- 51 Oic �FEPT, v . r 1 *.,!6, i A 5----,L� -OT � I Oz 5a� C-ULTI-STSMU 431 E, SEED 5ARRO-1 P 13- DIA f -,T 24� OC N i ��WeTLCGUST Tr�ZWAL ...... 1 2 1/2' CAL- Ba .......... f lil SPTELLAA :)E OQ-F I �,-��A;YU-y 11 T 24 OZ. + -!3*4,a;5 RO�-- CimA;—z �54L54NE- F4RKING SFZADE 02 COkT U " CC sAr.=- — — — — — — — — — — — — — BL4CK�-E:) SUSAN -""l.;!lA+ MaT. 24'CZ, i 2AYLLY 6�-LLA Z>�- CSW ...... . . ... —4 OT BIC -4 ki ----- ---- --- ...... + I L -J- �00 I, q 3 2�-7 ix UJ ca ix z LU tl) ��IITE PLoN , = 30'—D' WEST 78TH STREET TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 5 SUMMARY 1.26 ACRES 1.58 ACRES FAMMAIMMM-1 BUILDING COVERAGE PAVED SURFACE IMPERVIOUS SUR�-ACE 54,937 SF 68,796 SF I z J, / ii )[ 18,798 SF 66)798 SF 38,137 SF TYPICAL BUILDING HEIGHT IS 18' (33'4" AT TOWERS) PARKING RETAIL (1/200 SF) RFTAII (1 /9nn �F) 101AL ��HAUL�� ACCESSIBLE NON ACCESSIBLE ACTUAL SF 13,192 5,472 REQUIRED 66 28 PROVIDED enriching communities through ffee" architecture duluth * virginia 9 grand rapids * twin cities www.dtigio.coin CENTURY PLAZA HWY. 5 & CENTURY AVE. CHANHASSEN, MN project # 03003 date. September 2, 2003 file nalne 03000 -Al -1 Plan drawn by NLR checked by JEE name John E Erickson, AIA reg. # 24199 in I gn date February 27, 2004 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by air or under my direct supervision and that I ant a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. mark revisionlissue do te sheet title sheet number S1TX1 ( OF CHANHASSEN PLARAR 0 12004 BUILDING DEPARTMENT A1*1 kinenson, Kate From: Bryan Monahan [BryanM@ronclark.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 3:05 PM TO: Aanenson, Kate cc: Ron Clark; Dan Herbst Subject: Arboretum Shopping Center PUD Amendment for Drive Through Dear Ms. Annenson, Recently we were notified of the Milo's Subs Drive-thru proposal for the Amstar Gas Building located on Lot 2 Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. As the owners of the building on Lot 1 Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, we wish to support the amendment for the drive through for the following reasons: • We feel increased traffic by any new Tenant will benefit all Tenants of the Arboretum Shopping Center. • With increased Traffic, we feel new businesses will be more interested in leasing space in our building. (We currently have 4245 square feet available.) • The draw to the Arboretum Center will be increased making all Tenants of Arboretum Shopping Center successful. • Our Tenants have impressed upon us the need for another food establishment such as Milo's Subs to draw attention to their businesses. • We do not feel the character of the Shopping Center will be adversely affected by the addition of a food establishment utilizing a drive-thru. • We feel that the configuration of the drive spaces around the Amstar would lend well to a drive thru. We don't feel it would impede traffic patterns entering or exiting the drive line of the shopping center. We do support the request for amendment in the spirit of better business, increased traffic to the center and increased prosperity to all Tenants of the shopping center. Please, if you wish to talk to us about our support for the drive thru, don't hesitate to contact us. Thank you for your consideration, Bryan Monahan Bryan Monahan Ron Clark Director of Property Management Owner Commercial Division North Coast Partners Ron Clark Construction Century Plaza Direct: 952.947.3051 Direct: 952.947.3010 Cell: 612.363.7593 Fax: 952.947.3052 bryanm@ronclark.com Ron Clark Construction& Design is the proud recipient of the 2008 MN Business Ethics Award! PROPOSED MOTION: "Tbe Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for Arboretum Village (PUD 99-02), Planning Case #08-22, amending the design standards Section b. PerwdUed Uses, to allow a drive-thru with standards; approve an amendment to the Arboretum Shopping Center Site Plan Permit 03-06 with conditions to add a drive-thru window and create new parking; and deny the Variance request for a reduced number of parlung spaces." PROPOSAL: Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow a drive-thru window and a site plan amendment to add a drive-thru window and a variance to the required number of parking spaces. LOCATION: 7755 Century Boulevard Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center APPLICANT: Mark Leutern KLMS Group, LLC 7755 Century Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 763-234-8128 markleuternAhotinail.corn PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, PUD 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial ACREAGE: 1.58 DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAIUNG: The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUDs, and amendments to PUDs because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. SCANNED rMIN I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: /_ 10 S z�_ W o / C A/ — t-) P� -V7_ Contact: A4,,V z- Phone7-Z_�-.�7 -,/- E m a i 1: 1[4 4 rt e- F_ 4,, 1-73 k �2 //,ey T*- 4 Planning Case No. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANN4NG DEPT Owner Name and Address: '�-Zf y -f , �� Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* C, - Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign -."20 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" -!�5"UP/SPIR/VACNARNVAP/Metes & Bounds -_$450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. ------------------- **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECTNAME: LOCATION: -;�' LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: 0,9 TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: YES NO k � L REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: /L REASON FOR REQUEST: e2 -i -TW U -/-7 C C,; a FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _ 1 14 Date SCANNED Date G:TLANTOffnsZevelopment Review Applicafion.DOC Rev. 1/08 ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER PUD AMENDMENT (DRIVE-THRU) - PLANNING CASE 08-22 $100 PUD Amendment $500 Site Plan Permit $200 Notification Sign $50 Recording Escrow S850 TOTAL $850 KLMS Group, LLC Check 4473 //Y SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 09/23/2008 3:11 PM Receipt No. 0082313 CLERK: bethany PAYEE: KLMS GROUP LLC dba CHANHASSEN AMSTAR 7755 CENTURY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Arboretum Shopping Center PUD Amendment (Drive Thru) Planning Case 08-22 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 100.00 Sign Rent 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 Sign Permit 500.00 Total Cash Check 4473 Change ----------- 850.00 0.00 850.00 ----------- 0.00 SCANNED CITI Of Date: September 23, 2008 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner (952-227-1134) Subject: Request for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow a Drive-Thru and Site Plan Review with Variances on property located at 7755 Century Boulevard (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center). Applicant: KLMS Group, LLC. Planning Case: 08-22 PID: 25-0690020 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on September 19, 2008. The 60 -day review period ends November 18, 2008. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would Re to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on October 21, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than October 10, 2008. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official C Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco SCANNED Location Map (Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow) Arboretum Shopping Center Minor PUD Amendment For a Drive-Thru Window 7755 Century Boulevard Planning Case 2008-22 $CAN"Ea film PRIP, w g. w a,,), co 0 ym C:� N jimbli P C� > I P s 19ho uj 5 Mfg g 9 C) C) 0 Cc Q— nx cn HiM — I W,x 4. I top I lRog 4 Ip I Mai M11A Mr.9 A��—J c2008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. M 0 -D z �3 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, IVIN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOU FREE 1-88"37-5150 www.westwoodps.com I hereby certify that " plan �aa prepared by me or under my d�ect supervision and that I arn a duly 1�enwd LANDSCAPE ARC2M= under the la� of the State of Minnesota, Cory I- "er Daft 9/18/08 License No. 26W1 A V lk--\ �D Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTNG TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVAT'ION/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Parking Data BLDG AREA REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING P A)RVK I N RATIO PROVIDED PR( IjDj D R EXISTING RETAIL x 1/200 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, IVIN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOU FREE 1-88"37-5150 www.westwoodps.com I hereby certify that " plan �aa prepared by me or under my d�ect supervision and that I arn a duly 1�enwd LANDSCAPE ARC2M= under the la� of the State of Minnesota, Cory I- "er Daft 9/18/08 License No. 26W1 A V lk--\ �D Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTNG TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVAT'ION/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Parking Data Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANMNG DEPT JBDRAW Date- 9/18/08 Sheet: 1 OF 1 Prelimmoary Site Plan BLDG AREA REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING P A)RVK I N RATIO PROVIDED PR( IjDj D R EXISTING RETAIL 5,506 1/200 28 38 31 Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANMNG DEPT JBDRAW Date- 9/18/08 Sheet: 1 OF 1 Prelimmoary Site Plan MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official DATE: September 30, 2008 SUBJ: Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow a Drive-thru at 7755 Century Blvd. Planning Case: 08-22 I have reviewed the above request, received by the Planning Department on September 19, 2008, and have no comment. G:\PLAN\2008 Phinning C�\08-22 Arboretum Shopping Center Minor PUD Amendment for Drive- Thruldbuildingofficialcomments.doc CM OF aMNSEN Date: September 23, 2008 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner (952-227-1134) Subject: Request for a Minor Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow a Drive-Thru and Site Plan Review with Variances on property located at 7755 Century Boulevard (Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center). Applicant: KLMS Group, LLC. Planning Case: 08-22 PID: 25-0690020 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on September 19, 2008. The 60 -day review period ends November 18, 2008. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on October 21, 2008 at 7:00 p.rn. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than October 10, 2008. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Wicial f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or SprintfUnited) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco Location Map (Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow) Arboretum Shopping Center Minor PUD Amendment For a Drive-Tbru Window 7755 Century Boulevard Planning Case 2008-22 c2008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 2�� U Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MIN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 W FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Westwood www.westwoodps.com I hereby certify that this p1m �m prepLred by ree or under my direct supe�isiu. md that I arn a dly licenged LANDSCAPE ARCkUMCT =der the laws of the Stete of hlinnesot& Cory I- Meyer Dom 9/18/08 License No, 26W1 V H �i G i V Y N (D Drawn: Record Qm � by/daft Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCAT]ONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Parking Data L REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PARKING RATIO PROVIDED PROVIDED EXISTING RETAIL 5,506 1/200 28 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MIN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 W FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Westwood www.westwoodps.com I hereby certify that this p1m �m prepLred by ree or under my direct supe�isiu. md that I arn a dly licenged LANDSCAPE ARCkUMCT =der the laws of the Stete of hlinnesot& Cory I- Meyer Dom 9/18/08 License No, 26W1 V H �i G i V Y N (D Drawn: Record Qm � by/daft Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCAT]ONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Parking Data Chanhassen S 0 , ite �—ITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 0' 20' 40' 60' JE3DRAW Date: 9/18/08 Sheet 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan BLDG AREA REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PARKING RATIO PROVIDED PROVIDED EXISTING RETAIL 5,506 1/200 28 38 31 Chanhassen S 0 , ite �—ITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 0' 20' 40' 60' JE3DRAW Date: 9/18/08 Sheet 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan am -f -Al 0% 41 t-.� Vd Go 0 imiml Mimi 4 1 AF7M 1-01 SERVICE STATION FIFE 980.20 vi ON CONTRACT m C-1 F v cl 141: a F Ake- M 0 R, AV --e Q L -4-7 7 9 5 t-. -M tJ 5-5 p 4-0 -c-e (-k -pt--c ve \ktA I went to Milio's Sandwiches in Eden Prairie at 3:30 p.m. They have one of the longest drive-thrus I've seen. I casually asked the individual helping me if the drive-thru ever backs up to the end. He said "Yes, you should see it over the lunch hour. It gets crazy." I asked again "it backs up all the way to the end?" and again he said "Yes, lunch hour is crazy". It took me 45 seconds to place the order and I waited 3 minutes to get the sandwich. aw -iff.7 Itr E3 P imiml t I !m ifl-lill�m 1 11 SERVICE STATION FFE 980.20 L IL t7 t�,a4 i - CONTRACT U I ci F v cl cl 1711 im Fol SERVICE STATION FIFE 980.20 tT� Al Pore 01i N CONTRACT lFc ci F v cl cl c2008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. LLJ M FK Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, IVIN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-M-937-5150 www.westwoodps.com I hereby cutify that this plan wa prep -ed by — or under ray direct wpervidon w,1 that I � a duly Emnsed LANDSCAPE A,RCHffBCr the la� of the State -f MinnesotL Cory L Meyu Dabm 9/18/08 Ekewe No. 26971 A Y �N; Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVAT1ON/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND CUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PR10R TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Data Chanhassen Site Uardiassen, Nfimesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT I 0' 20' 40' 60 JE3DRAW Date: 9/18/08 Sheet 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan BLDG AREA REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PARKING RATIO PROVIDED PROVIDED EXISTING RETAIL 5,506 1/200 28 38 31 Chanhassen Site Uardiassen, Nfimesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT I 0' 20' 40' 60 JE3DRAW Date: 9/18/08 Sheet 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE BY SEPARATE BEYOND ARE FULLY PERMIT, VERIFY S.F. SCREENED BY PARAPET W/ CITY CODE C.L WALL (t3'-6' TALL) C.L C UPLIGHTING FOR SIGNAGE L -.L/ 9F I NEW DRI' E-THRU RECESSED LIGHTING WINDOW. G.C. TO @ UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CANOPY LOCATION & SIZE. PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL"�. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. MILIUS SANDWICHES I SK -1 Chanhassen, Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW - -11- -- WINDOW. G.C. TO @ UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CANOPY LOCATION & SIZE. MILIUS SANDWICHES Chanhassen, Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY. NOT FOR r—ONSTRUCTIONL SK -1 WINDOW. G.C. TO @ UNDERSiDE OF COORDINATE CANOPY LOCATION & SIZE. PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRIXTION. ��00"- k MILIO'S SANDWICHES Chanhassen, Minnesota SK -1 Q�Lfj �m � SOUTH ELEVATION W. V� NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE BY SEPARA BEYOND ARE FULLY PERMIT, VERIFY S.F SCREENED BY PARAP W/ CITY CODE -C.L WALL (±3'-6' TALL) C —UPLIGHTING — lu FOR SIGNAGE -J-/ NEW DRI' E-THRU— RECESSED LIGHTING __j WINDOW. G.C. TO @ UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CANOPY LOCATION & SIZE. PRELIMINARY E)ESIGN ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. MILIO'S SANDWICHES Chanhassen, Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW m BEYOND ARE FULLY BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE BY SEPARATTE� PERMIT, VERIFY S.F. %./I rTTv rnn� C—L SOR 4E7 BY WALL (±3'-6' C.L El E AMA" IVA" il" 1 71t WINDOW. G.C. TO P UNDERSIDE UF C012RDINATE CANOPY LOCATION & SIZE. MILIaS SANDWICHES Chanhassen, Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW JPLIGHTING OR SIGNAGE PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL�. NOT FOR CON15TRUCTION. SK -1 BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE BY SEPARATE BEYOND ARE FULLY PERMIT, VERIFY S.F� SCREENED BY PARAPET W/ CITY CODE C -L WALL (13'-6' TALL) C.L C —LIPLIGHTING FOR SIGNAGE NEW DRIVE-THRU— RECESSED LIGHTING WINDOW. G.C. TO III UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CANOPY LOCATION & SIZE, FRELIMINARY C)E51GN ONL�, NOT rOR C;ON5TRUCTION. MILIO'S SANDWICHES SK -1 �27 Chanhassen, Minnesota QJR SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW QJR BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE BY S 'PARA BEYOND ARE FULLY PERMIT, VERIF�� S.F SCREENED BY PARAPET W/ CITY CODE C.L WALL (t3'-6' TALL) C.L c 14 UPLIGHTING FOR SIGNAGE NEW DRIVE-THRU— RECESSED I IGHTING WINDOW. G.C. TO @ UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CANOPY LOCATION & SIZE. FWELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY. NOT r-oR C.ONSTRUG—TION- MILIO'S SANDWICHES Chanhassen, Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW SK -1 "m I.Mm G.C.' i6 @ UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CANOPY LOCATION & SIZE. MILIO'S SANDWICHES Chanhassen, Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL�. NOT FOR C-ON5TRUCTIOIIJ- I ov- ON BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE BY SEPARATE BEYOND ARE FULLY PERMIT, VERIFY S.F. SCREENED BY PARAPET W/ CITY CODE WALL C±3'-6' TALL) c I IR FOR SIGNAGE J r77= NEW DRI' E-THRU RECESSED LIGHTING WINDOW. G.C. TO @ UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CAMPY LOCATION & SIZE. PRELIMINARY I)ES16N ONL�.� NOT FOR CON6TRUCTION, MILIO'S SANDWICHES Chanhassen, Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW SK -1 DA� BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE BY SEPARA BEYOND ARE FULLY PERMIT, VERIFY S.F SCREENED BY PARAP�ET� W/ CITY CODE CA WALL (t3'-6' TALL) c UPLIGHTING FOR SIGNAGE NEW DRIVE-THRU— RECESSED LIGHTING WINDOW. G.C. TO R UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CANOPY LOCATION SIZE. PRELIMINARY DE5IGN ONL�. NOT FOR CON5TRUCTION. MILIO'S SANDWICHES I SK -1 Chanhassen, Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THAU WINDOW BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE BY SEPARATE BEYOND ARE FULLY PERMIT, VERIFY S.F. SCREENED BY PARAPET-\ W/ CITY CODE C -L C.L WALL (±3'-6' TALL) C.L UPLIGHTING FOR SIGNAGE NEW DR VE-THRU RECESSED LIGHTING --J WINDOW. I G.C. TO R UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CANOPY LOCATION & SIZE. PRELIMINARY DE51GN nLY. NOT FOR C�ONSTRUCTION. MILIUS SANDWICHES Chanhassen, Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW SK -1 QJR BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE BY SEPARATE BEYOND ARE FULLY PERMIT, VERIFY S.F. SCREENED BY PARAP�ET W/ CITY CODE CA WALL (±3'-6' TALL) CA C UPLIGHTING FOR SIGNAGE NEW DRIVE-THRU RECESSED LIGHTING WINDOW. G.C. TO @ UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CANOPY LOCATION & SIZE. PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY.' NOT FOR C.0NSTRlJC:TI0tL MILIO'S SANDWICHES Chanhassen. Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW 8Kml mm. QJR BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE BY SE:PARAL BEYOND ARE FULLY PERMIT, VERIFY S.F W/ CITY CODE SCREENED BY PARAPET C.L WALL (±3'-6' TALL) C.L C UPLIGHTING FOR SIGNAGE L—L/ NEW DRIVE-THRU— RECESSED LIGHTING WINDOW. G.C. TO @ UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CANOPY LOCATION L SIZE. PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY.' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. MILIO'S SANDWICHES Chanhassen, Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW SK -1 QJR BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNAGE BY SEPARA BEYOND ARE FULLY PERMIT, VERIFY SF SCREENED BY PARAPET W/ CITY CODE C.L WALL (±3'-6' TALL) c Il- UPLIGHTING FOR SIGNAGE NEW DRIVE-THRU RECESSED LIGHTING WINDOW. G.C. TO @ UNDERSIDE OF COORDINATE CAN13PY LOCATION & SIZE. FDRELIMINARY DE51GN ONL'. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. MILIO'S SANDWICHES Chanhassen, Minnesota SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DRIVE-THRU WINDOW [.T,&V- z2008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. E) :D 0 .22 11M D z LLJ U Westwood Professional Services, Inc 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MIN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 �.westwooclpsxom I hereby certify that this plan ma prepared by xne or under my direct supervision and that I arn a duly licensed LANDSCAPE ARCHTrECr under the lam of the State of Minnesota, Cory L Meyer Uwe: 9/18/08 T 1, Nc, 209n H i I \ I \ I / L I / V V I \ 0 " Record Drawing by/daft Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVAT1ON/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Parking Data Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT JBDRAW Date: 9/18/08 Sheet: 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan BLDG AREA REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PARKING RATIO PROVIDED PROVIDED EXISTING RETAIL 5,506 1 1/200 1 28 1 38 31 Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT JBDRAW Date: 9/18/08 Sheet: 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan c2008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 0 M Eh� :D a Lij Westwood Professional Services� Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, IVIN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1 -M-937-S 150 www.westwoodps.com I bereby certify that this Plan wu prepaud by = er under my clirect mpervision and that I am a duly hcensed LANDSCAPE ARCH= under the la� of the State of Minnewt, Cory L Meyer Data 9/18/08 LACeMe NO. 26971 IN H, W A 0 �D DOW*& Frepued for. Chw.ke&- CLM 1D=W= Leutem Property Management, LLC Remd Drawhip; by/&ft Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVAT10N /CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCAT'IONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Par Data Chanhassen Site Nfinnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT JBDRAW Date: 9/18/08 Sheet 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan BLDG AREA REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING P A)RVK I N (G RATIO PROVIDED 11D PR( )ED R EXISTING RETAIL 5,506 1/200 28 38 31 Chanhassen Site Nfinnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT JBDRAW Date: 9/18/08 Sheet 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan CrrY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MR14NMOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Mark Leutem, KLMS Group, LLC for the following: Request for Moor PUD Amendment to allow a drive-thru window; a site plan amendment to add a drive-diru window; and a variance to die required number of parking spaces on property zoned Planned Unit Development. On October 21, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Mark I-cutem, KLMS Group, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Site Plan Amendment, and Variance. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed application preceded by published and mOed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development District. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. 4. Planned Unit Development Amendment The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment to the Arboretum Village PUD design standards to permit a drive-thru window as a permitted use. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) Ile proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan as drive-thru in a neighborhood related commercial changes the commercial character of the development to cater to commuter retail user. b) The proposed use is or will be incompatible with and compete with the present and future land uses of the area in that the amendment will permit commuter commercial uses, rather than neighborhood service uses, potentialy changing the character of the development. C) The proposed use would not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance including compatibility with adjacent uses, parking requirements, and traffic circulation requirements. d) The proposed use may depreciate the values of the surrounding area by permitting a use that may negatively impact traffic circulation and access to users. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity as the subdivision is provided with adequate infrastructure to accommodate the use. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use may be within capabilities of streets serving the property. However, internal traffic circulation may become a problem. 5. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a. Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted. b. Consistency with this division. c. Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas. d. Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e. Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community. 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping. 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses. 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. L Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. The request for a drive-thru window is inconsistent with the standards in the PUD. 6. Variance a) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Findin : The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The applicant has the ability to provide parking spaces. All the retail facilities within this development have provided the required number of spaces. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Findin : The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Findin : The applicant has stated that they do not wish to incur the cost of replacing the parkingspaces. However, the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Findin : The variance is a self-created hardship. The applicant is requesting to remove the parking spaces without replacing them. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance will cause a parking problem. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation could cause traffic/circulation issues. 8. The planning report #08-22, dated October 21, 2008, prepared by Sharmeen Al-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Site Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development Amendment and Variance 2008-22. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21" day of October, 2008. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chairman e2008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. ::D M �7 IV Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-58n TOLL FREE 1-M-937-5150 www.westwoodps.com I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by rae or under my direct supervision and that I arn a duly licensed LANDSCAPE ARCIM= under the lam of the State of Muumota. Cory L Meyer Date 9/18/08 Licanne No. 26W1 I H Designed; Checked: CLJ1A Drawn: Record Dynft by/daft Prepared for Leutem Property Management, LLC Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXIST1NG TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATON/CONSTRUCT10N. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND CUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Data Chanhassen Site 011ar&umn, Mirmesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN REcEivED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT x I I 0' 20' 40' 60' JED-RAW Date. 9/18/08 Sheet: 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan BLDG AREA REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PARKING RATIO PROVIDED PROVIDED EXISTING RETAIL 5,506 1 1�00 1 28 --F —38 31 Chanhassen Site 011ar&umn, Mirmesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN REcEivED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT x I I 0' 20' 40' 60' JED-RAW Date. 9/18/08 Sheet: 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan o2008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Lj Dl� M Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MIN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE I -M-937-5150 wvvw.westwoodps.com I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by rre w under my direct stipervision anl that I = a duly licensed LANDSCAPE ARCIETECT mder the lam of the State of Minnesota - Cory L Meyer Date: 9/18/08 T NO. 26971 Deskcaed: Checked; CLM Drawn: Record Drawiux by/dam V Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mr. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXIST'ING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. B. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Parking Data Chanhassen S 40 , ite Mimesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT JBDRAW Date: 9/18/08 Sheet 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan BLDG AREA REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING P"PRAORPIO11SED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING NG RATIO PROVIDED PROVIDED EXISTING RETAIL 5,506 1/200 28 38 31 Chanhassen S 40 , ite Mimesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT JBDRAW Date: 9/18/08 Sheet 1 OF 1 Preliminary Site Plan z)2008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 'D M 12L� Lij I. I\ - � - , , - i - -- , . . - i -j A v A N Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive I hereby certify that this plan was prep" by rne or under my direct �pervision md that I am a duly licenwd LANDSCAPE RevIsionm Designed-, Prepared for. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ARCBTrECr under the la� of the State of Nfi� (SF) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. REQUIRED PHONE 952-937-5150 REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS Checked:- CLM Leutem Property Management, LLC LOCAT1ONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR FAX 952-937-5822 6. ALL CURB Drawn: CITY STANDARD DETAIL. Cory L Wyer Date: 9/18/08 LtomAe No. 26971 31 Record DmwiAg by/date: TOLL FREE 1�888-937-5150 www.westwoodps.com Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXIST1NG TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATON/CONSTRUCTON. 1F ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE ENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING (SF) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. REQUIRED 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND RATIO LOCAT1ONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINDOT STANDARDS. B. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Data Chanhassen Site Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANMNG DEPT I 0' 20' 40' 60' JBDRA\N Date: 9/18/08 Sheet. 1 OF I Preliminary Site Plan BLDG AREA REQUIRE PARKING EXISTING P ROPOSED USE (SF) PARKIN ,6D REQUIRED PARKING PARKING RATIO PROVIDED PROVIDED EXISTING RETAIL 5,506 1 1/200 1 28 1 38 31 Chanhassen Site Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 1 9 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANMNG DEPT I 0' 20' 40' 60' JBDRA\N Date: 9/18/08 Sheet. 1 OF I Preliminary Site Plan CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Mark Leutem, KLMS Group, LLC for the following: Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow a drive-thru window; a site plan amendment to add a drive-thru window; and a variance to the required number of parking spaces on property zoned Planned Unit Development. On October 21, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Mark Leutem, KLMS Group, ILLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Site Plan Amendment, and Variance. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed application preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development District. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. 4. Planned Unit Development Amendment The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment to the Arboretum Village PUD design standards to pertnit a drive-thru window as a permitted use. The six (6) effects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan as drive-thru in a neighborhood related commercial changes the commercial character of the development to cater to commuter retail user. b. The proposed use is or will be incompatible with and compete with the present and future land uses of the area in that the amendment will permit commuter commercial uses, rather than neighborhood service uses, potentially changing the character of the development. c. The proposed use would not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance including compatibility with adjacent uses, parking requirements, and traffic circulation requirements. d. The proposed use may depreciate the values of the surrounding area by permitting a use that may negatively impact traffic circulation and access to users. e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity as the subdivision is provided with adequate infrastructure to accommodate the use. Traffic generation by the proposed use may be within capabilities of streets serving the property. However, internal traffic circulation may become a problem. 5. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a. Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted. b. Consistency with this division. c. Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas. d. Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e. Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community. 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping. 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses. 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. 2 f. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. The request for a drive-thm window is inconsistent with the standards in the P 6Z) Variance a) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Findin : The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The applicant has the ability to provide parking spaces. All the retail facilities within this development have provided the required number of spaces. b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Findin : The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The applicant has stated that they do not wish to incur the cost of replacing the parkingspaces. However, the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Findin : The variance is a self-created hardship. The applicant is requesting to remove the parking spaces without replacing them. e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Findin : The granting of a variance will cause a parking problem. f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Findin : The proposed variation could cause traffic/circulation issues. 7. The planning report #08-22, dated October 21, 2008, prepared by Sharmeen At-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Site Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development Amendment and Variance 2008-22. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21" day of October, 2008. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMIMSSION M Its Chairman El C-Q&C� L-ViVe, CAA�eA D8 '15 XY- 0 7(M� ccn-i- "4 haj-,Iew 9 557-3 17 Z_(Irl/A �e- E*11 q,6- 2 - qw�j DJ 'OPO�'\e. �o Yvv v (DY) De -c—, Z-5) 06 — November 8, 2008 Kate Annenson Director of Community Development City of Chanhassen Re: Drive Through Proposal for Century Plaza Dear Kate, I own the Fantastic Sams hair salon in the Century Plaza shopping center where a request has been made to allow a drive through on the west end of the gas station. I fully support this idea and hope that the City can see the multiple benefits of this change. Like other businesses in this center, we depend heavily on consumers shopping to create visibility and maintain a viable business. We employ 7 people whose livelihood is heavily dependent upon this traffic. Other Fantastic Sams perform considerably better with this type of immediate traffic. Highway speed on Hwy 5 does not allow consumers to notice our business. The addition of a drive through makes sense for the business requesting the amendment because of the buying habits of consumers and the absolute need for a drive through. Others have tried in this location and failed, likely due to lack of a drive through. We cannot see where an increase in traffic will have safety or congestion implications. Importantly, the center and businesses are really struggling due to lack of enough traffic and the reluctance of any business to lease new space given the uncertainty in the market. Residents in the area could have more choice and convenience, while using less gas, with a full and thriving center. There is already more noise on Hwy 5 than a drive through would ever create. We truly see that the positive benefits far outweigh any potential negative issues Agreement to allow this amendment will give all our businesses a substantially better chance of continuing to employ our staff and generate tax revenues. Now more than ever, we need this change. Sincerely. Andrew Ronningen Owner GFmmstioc Sams 2669 West 78" Street Chanhassen, MN. 55317 952-470-5990 Aanenson, Kate From: Bryan Monahan [Bryan M @ ronclark.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 3:05 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: Ron Clark; Dan Herbst Subject: Arboretum Shopping Center PUD Amendment for Drive Through Dear Ms. Annenson, Recently we were notified of the Milo's Subs Drive-thru proposal for the Amstar Gas Building located on Lot 2 Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. As the owners of the building on Lot 1 Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center, we wish to support the amendment for the drive through for the following reasons: • We feet increased traffic by any new Tenant will benefit all Tenants of the Arboretum Shopping Center. • With increased Traffic, we feel new businesses will be more interested in leasing space in our building. (We currently have 4245 square feet available.) • The draw to the Arboretum Center will be increased making all Tenants of Arboretum Shopping Center successful. • Our Tenants have impressed upon us the need for another food establishment such as Milo's Subs to draw attention to their businesses. • We do not feel the character of the Shopping Center will be adversely affected by the addition of a food establishment utilizing a drive-thru. • We feel that the configuration of the drive spaces around the Amstar would lend well to a drive thru- We don't feel it would impede traffic patterns entering or exiting the drive line of the shopping center. We do support the request for amendment in the spirit of better business, increased traffic to the center and increased prosperity to all Tenants of the shopping center. Please, if you wish to talk to us about our support for the drive thru, don't hesitate to contact us. Thank you for your consideration, Bryan Monahan Bryan Monahan Ron Clark Director of Property Management Owner Commercial Division North Coast Partners Ron Clark Construction Century Plaza Direct: 952.947.3051 Direct: 952.947.3010 Cell: 612.363.7593 Fax: 952.947.3052 bryanm@ronclark.com Ron Clark Construction & Design is the proud recipient of the 2008 MN Business Ethics Award! WCL 5-011 I Property Line (4) Overstory Trees 7 jLjlv 20 2009 34th Street West 13 I .�,, �V VVI.1��Vv BURGER KING 3341 Nicollet Ave South Site Information Gross Site Area: 25,798 s.f. Building Area: 2,834 s.f. Green Space: 5,550 s.f. (24%) Landscape Information Trees: 5,550/500 = 12 Shrubs: 5,550/100 = 56 H WCLAssociate, Inc Illuminated Parapet Band Wall Mounted Sign w/ Red Channel Letters Main Entrance Elevation 30% Glazing Storefront Window System Stucco Color "B" 72" Dia. Logo Sign Front Elevation 32.4% Glazing Julv 20th 2009 Brick Veneer Illuminated Parapet Band Wall Mounted Sign w/ Red Channel Letters Stucco Color "B" Prefabricated Metal Awning Storefront Window System Stucco Color "A" BURGER KING 3341 Nirollet Ave South Stucco Pilaster d T.O. Pilaster 16'-5" T.O. Parapet Wall Sconce Reveal Diamond Reveal 01-01, Finish Floor Overhead Door Spandrel Glass Window Rear Elevation WCL 0% Glazing Associates, Inc 4931 West � Sines Sus, 20 St I -Min .' se'... M, July 20th 2009 Roofl-adder Rainwater Leader Reveal " I I V �— I I I I U V V I I I M � VV BURGER KING 3341 Nicollet Ave South Stucco Color "A" 30" Dia. Logo Sign 181-01' OL T.O. Parapet �f Prefabricated Metal Awning 91-01, T.O. Wdw. Opening Storefront Window System 02008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. U NEW PED.! CURB RAMP & CONIC. SIDEWALK: LU a_ 0 LLJ VERIFY LOCATON OF SITE LIGHTING WITH PROPOSED NORTH LOT LAYOUT ----EXIST. LIGHT POLE LOCATION < �jl EXIST MONUMENT SIGNA6'E, < 0,\\ EXIST.SIDEWALK LINK TO BE REMOVED EXG CURB TO BE, REMOVED (TYP.) MATCH EXG CURB 0 M M 0 N _7 SOD �Znl rz C. -I. X_ STALLS 24.0' RETAIL BUILDINC TO THE NORTH PROPOSED PARKING PROVIDED D R z I I-------------- Cory 12/15/08 Date: Tj� N& 2M 29* Reeard DrwAm byl&ft 0 1,520 1/60 25 25 z TOTAL 5,506 0 45 0 V) EXIST. CURB TO REMAIN DEPRESSED CURB PED. CROSSING - < �jl EXIST MONUMENT SIGNA6'E, < 0,\\ EXIST.SIDEWALK LINK TO BE REMOVED EXG CURB TO BE, REMOVED (TYP.) MATCH EXG CURB 0 M M 0 N _7 SOD �Znl rz C. -I. X_ 12' SOD 0 0 7 16'x20' PATIO CALLBOX RETAIL 1 520 S F 18' R RELOCA1 SHRUBS (VERIFY F=_1 EXISTING BUILDING 5,506 S.F. C -STORE 3,986 S.F. I PROPOSED -DRIVE UP WINDOW I BOLLARDS (TYP.) ---------- §56 ---------- 1 RELdCATE6 I I I SHRUBS i (VERIFY QM 00 - (12) PARKING STALLS LL' RETAIL BUILDINC TO THE NORTH PROPOSED PARKING PROVIDED D R z I I-------------- Cory 12/15/08 Date: Tj� N& 2M 29* Reeard DrwAm byl&ft 0 1,520 1/60 25 25 25** TOTAL 5,506 - 45 0 V) 12' SOD 0 0 7 16'x20' PATIO CALLBOX RETAIL 1 520 S F 18' R RELOCA1 SHRUBS (VERIFY F=_1 EXISTING BUILDING 5,506 S.F. C -STORE 3,986 S.F. I PROPOSED -DRIVE UP WINDOW I BOLLARDS (TYP.) ---------- §56 ---------- 1 RELdCATE6 I I I SHRUBS i (VERIFY QM 00 - (12) PARKING STALLS CREDITED 10 RETAIL BUILDINC TO THE NORTH PROPOSED PARKING PROVIDED D R V E I I-------------- Cory 12/15/08 Date: Tj� N& 2M I MATCH EXG CURB 41' 1 U-) EXG CURB TO BE &N -E -WAY REMOVED (TYP.) PROOF OF PARKING 12 0- UOO(:)- 1 10000000000 0 0C 'V_�EXIST. LIGHT -POLE XIST. 4 STALLS PR POSED 600 AR ING S LLS JWT�(i,(),Y,Ooo(:)CXD(:)Oc),�OOOOC)C)(:)Ooo ___EMAN__ DRAINAGE 00000 L;TILITY EXIST. LIGHT POLE _52 TECHINY ARBO\nTAE (4') EASEMENT - A F_ V ir) HI � V \Y/, N D Westw�d Professional Services, Inc 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, WIN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 W FAX 952-937-5822 TOLLFREE 1-M-937-5150 11111111liestwood v~v.westwocidps.mm I hereby certify that " plan was prerared by me or under my direct supervision and that I = a duly licensed LANDSCAPE ARCH= under the lam of the State of Minnesota. Revlsi� Designed, Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC PROPOSED PARKING PROVIDED chwited: CLM 3,986 Draw= CLM Cory 12/15/08 Date: Tj� N& 2M 29* Reeard DrwAm byl&ft PROP. RESTAURANT 1,520 Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVAT'ION/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Data USE BLDG AREA (SF) REQUIRED PARKING RATIO PARKING REQUIRED EXISTING PARKING PROVIDED PROPOSED PARKING PROVIDED EXISTING C -STORE 3,986 11200 20 29* 29* PROP. RESTAURANT 1,520 1/60 25 25 25** TOTAL 5,506 - 45 54 54 INCLUDES 16 STALLS AT GAS PUMPS INCLUDES 4 PROOF OF PARKING STALLS Data EXISTING GREENSPACE: 16,492 sf PROPOSED GREENSPACE 16,697 sf Chanhassen Site C.hanhassen, Minnesota CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED DEC 1 5 2008 CHANHASSEN PLANMNG DEPT 0' 20' 40' 60' 20081165SPPOI.DWG Date: 11/5/08 sheet 1 OF 1 Final Site Plan dME RMIT C9 trOO CO T.3 rA H kLLS (TYP 0 0 to l7j�� n^nM AMM kAfikin OPENINGS IN THE EXTERIOR WALL ARE EXISTING U.N.O. 26'-0' �WMi�Al Mlnmlkl� INSIDE WINDOW SURFACE BY TENANT (2 WINDOWS) L? owsr. -TYPAf cO cc up A 7 �Jc r 1:)FLOOR PLAN �41 1 SCALF, 3 /16- = l - NORTH 0*,A*lrN IF �XISTING WALLS rYPICAL PLAN NOTES r -z*) 1. DRINKING WATER IS PRONADED AT THE ORDER COUNTER T — c2008 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. E� � L—L C-3 NEW PED. CURB RAMP & CONIC. SIDEWALK D_ L_j G+ 9 EXG CURB -TO BE EXIST. LIGHT POLE REMOVED (TYP.) LOCATION MATCH EXG CURB C 0 M M 0 N SOD NEW 5 COqC. L WAI K % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 0' z 0 `��7 EXIST. CURB TO REMAIN DEPRESSED CURB PIED. CROSSING — C3 0 30D 0 RELOCA 16' 20'11 SHRUBS P (VERIFY CALLBOX RETAIL 1 520 S F H" LLI 0 4 18' R < Lj' La Ln 18 9' L= 1? '77 --- EXIS MONuMEN 1 i ------- rr--z _Z S:GNAOE, EXIST.SIDEWALK LINK TO BE REMOVED EXISTING BUILDING 5,506 S.F. C—STORE 3,986 S.F. PROPOSED —DRIVE UP WINDOW BOLLARDS (TYP.) S OD C c zz 7- =- 7-c,, D�- �--4 RELdCATE6 Lnl/' 1SHROBS 1 1 i I cjI/I I ( RIFY Qry) I I —(12) PARKING STALLS CREDITED TO RETAIL BUILDING TO THE NORTH D R V E --------------------------------------- MATCH EXG CURB EXG CURB TO BE REMOVED (TYP ) 15 CAR WASH _�,080 S.F. ONE PROOF OF PARKING �AY �� 4 _. �_' I 4 STALLS POSE Lo \ 4 L\\\\ LS _PR POSED 600 PAR ING S ILLS 00 12 aj C C C C _\C _A 000, 0000000006�L EMA N DRAINAGE Ei�Y�U�13T�9104Y�000000000"0000()C)000000000 EXIST. LIGHT POLE U-1UTY EXIST. LIGHT POLE 52 TECHNY ARB (-4! EASEMENT— V A N Westwood Pircifessional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 W FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1 -U&937-51 50 Wftst%%%md www.westwoodps.com I hereby certify that this Plan me preFored by — - under -y direct supervision end that I = a duly Hcensed LANDSCAPE ARC111= under the lam of the Stale of Minnesota. Revisions: PARKING Prepared for. Leutem Property Management, LLC USE Macke& CLM PARKING Dza� C%M Cory Distee 12/15/08_T No. 269n Reowd Dr&wtu by/&ft RATIO Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 651-454-0002 Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 Notes: 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXIST]ING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATON/CONSTRUCT10N. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 3. REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF WINDOWS, EXITS OR RAMPS. 6. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO MATCH CITY STANDARD DETAIL. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERS AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS. 8. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT ALL CURB CROSSINGS OF SIDEWALKS. Data INCLUDES BLDG AREA REQUIRED PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED USE (SF) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING PARKING RATIO PROVIDED PROVIDED EXISTING C -STORE 3,986 1/200 20 29* 29* PROP. RESTAURANT 1,520 1/60 25 25 25** TOTAL 5,506 - 45 54 54 INCLUDES 16 STALLS AT GAS PUMPS INCLUDES 4 PROOF OF PARKING STALLS Data EXISTING GREENSPACE: 16,492 sf PROPOSED GREENSPACE 16,697 sf 0' 20' 40' 60 20081165SPPOI DWG Date: 11/5/08 Sheet. 1 OF 1 Chanhassen Site Final Site Plan Chanhassen. Minnesota K ot 20c: z OAK '9 FAF -tmo r.�2 ro �Zfl C E N T U R Y B 0 U L E V A R D RPM= 2 Cb I 70., "s SLOPF rA m 18--2 1/8- ONVE WAY 29'-0" 6'-0' 19'-0' 5 ONE WAY so,-o*7_1 —1 36'-0 lle I I all Comc CONC 1BITUMN ALTERNATE NATE BY CON MACTOR BY CONTRACTOR mo LD ot z vo m > z ox or Century Boulevarc BP 7755 Century Blvc. Chanhassen, MN 553- 7 bp 0 S�armeer AI-Jaff , !i1e4vto ,/04 3 7 C/pyor - 2009 C/Y'4AlH,jSSlr/v RECEIVED JUL 3 1 2009 bp CITY Of CHANHASSEN 0 Dear Honorable Mayor Furlong, City of Chanhassen Council Members, Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson and Sharmeen Al-Jaff, The purpose of this letter is to assure there is clarity and consistency in what I communicated at the City Council meetings as we worked through the drive-thru variance at Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center. I write this to avoid a possible perception that I said that I could not have a certain type of tenant and later acquired that type of tenant. In my first presentation to the City Council, I had stated that we had researched potential tenants and the space was not large enough for a McDonald's or like tenant. We had in fact contacted real estate broker's representing Mc Donald's, Noodles and Company . ..etc, and our 1550 square foot space was not even considered for a walk through as it was too small. About mid to late December, my wife got a call from the corporate office of Burger King. They had heard of the potential drive-thru from I believe one of our vendors and asked us for floor plans, the proposed drive-thru plans and to visit the site. Their work up was extremely slow and I really did not give it much credence for the first few months as we had a plan in place with the sandwich shop. About a month and half later, I got a call from a Taco John's franchisee and he brought in the national company to see the site. Both national companies asked that we not disclose the fact they were considering the site as they like to introduce the site to one franchisee at a time and want those franchisees to feel they are the first as well as the fact the franchisees live locally and may hear about the project, As we moved through the variance process, the cost of the drive thru more than tripled and I needed help from our bank as we did not have the funds to complete the project. This in turn contributed to the delay in my ability to produce the requirements of the variance filing like the letter of credit, drawings and such. My bank displayed concerns of a third sandwich shop in the neighborhood and felt our station might not see much new business as the new sandwich shop would merely dilute the existing business to the shopping center. Certainly, that logic was reasonable. They "leveraged" us to work up the other two parties of interest before they would give us what we needed to get this project done. They wanted us to keep the sandwich shop as a possible back-up tenant, but focus on the other two. Long story short, we could not cover the additional cost of the drive-thru to fulfill the City's requirements with the sandwich shop as a tenant, but we could if we obtained one of the other two. Since then two tenants have dropped out for different reasons beyond our control, the one that remains is Burger King. By coincidence ' the extension of the length of the drive-thru required by the City Planners actually complies with and in fact exceeds the stacking requirements for Burger King by 1- 2 cars. Certainly they will not drive the volume of a Mc Donald's, especially being a smaller space and in a class B or C location. With a maximum 2 minute 30 second order prep time (from order to driving away from the window), they will keep the cars moving. To date we have not gotten an agreement finalized by the Burger King corporate office, but we are hopeful it will be done the next couple weeks. The franchisee we are working with is a local group out of Minnetonka, very professional and probably the fairest / easiest tenant I have ever worked with. Thank you for the City backing us on this project. We know we were given special consideration and we are truly grateful. We are hopeful that this will give us the bump in business that will allow it sustain itself and do so soon. rel Since Mark J. Leutem KLMS Group LLC