5 a & b. Villages on the Pond Development. Final Plat/Replat Outlot C. Site Plan Review for Retail Building CITY OF ''�
PC DATE: September 3, 1997
`� 4/
C1 1 ANHA,SSEN
\ \l 1 CC DATE: September 22, 1997
' CASE #: SP #97 -11, 97 -12, PUD #95 -2
By: Genero
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: 1) Final Plat approval for Outlot C into Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Outlot A. Villages
on the Ponds 2 " Addition.
2) Site Plan 497 -12 approval for a 14,849 square foot retail building on Lot 2, Block
1, Villages on the Ponds 2 " Addition, (Building 4)
- LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Hwy. 5 and Great Plains Blvd. Outlot C, Villages on the Pon.
APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services, Inc. AUSMAR Development Co., LLC
P. O. Box 235 c/o Lotus Realty Services, Inc.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(6120 934 -4538
PRESENT ZONING: PUD
ACREAGE: 6.095 Acres: Outlot A = 3.96 ac., Lot 1 = 0.941 ac., Lot 2 = 1.192 ac.
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - BH, Highway 5
S - PUD, Villages on the Ponds
E - BN, Great Plains Boulevard
W - PUD, Villages on the Ponds
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has been prepared for development as part of the Villages
on the Ponds development. Abutting the site to the west is the
Village pond which wraps around the site to the north.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use: Commercial, Institutional, Office, and Residential
Final Plat for Outlot C, Villages on the Ponds
Site Plans for Buildings 3 & 4
September 3, 1997
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing final platting of Outlot C to permit the development of Lots 1 and 2. The
City may not issue building permits on outlots until they are platted into blocks and lots.
Building 4 is a one story, 14,849 square foot, multi- tenant, retail building. The location, immediately
adjacent to Great Plains Boulevard and Highway 5 makes this site highly visible. This corner acts as a
gateway into the development and portends future development in Villages on the Ponds. The building
elevations are designed to represent a traditional commercial development with three distinct building
elevations representative of how commercial buildings used to be developed adjacent to each other in
neighborhoods. Major exterior surfaces are stucco, brick or concrete masonry units (CMU), and wood
siding. (Note: vinyl siding is approved for residential only.) Building accents include a glass silo at the
north end of the building and portal entries on the west. Window accents include plant boxes, arches,
canopies, and embrasures. Roof types include dome, hip, flat, and gable with a tower accent on the
south and parapet and cornice accents in the middle. Sloped roof material is standing seam. The
building height is 18 feet to the beginning of the roof with a total height of 28 feet to the top of the
sloped roof element.
Section e. 10. of the design standards states that in "Sector II - minimum of 70 percent of the roof area
shall be sloped." Staff interprets this to mean that a minimum of 70 percent of the actual roof area of a
building, as seen from above, must be sloped. The developer interprets this to mean that a minimum of
70 percent of the roof, as visible from street level, must appear to be sloped. The developer further
interprets this to mean that within the individual sector, seventy percent of the entire roof area of that
sector must be sloped which would permit individual buildings to have flat roofs. Unless advised
otherwise by the Planning Commission and City Council, staff will continue to interpret this to mean
that a minimum of 70 percent of the actual roof area of a building, as seen from above, must be sloped.
Sector II has a 47,200 square foot motel and is proposing a 14,849 square foot retail building and a 5,300
restaurant. In addition, a future building 2, west of the Village pond, is proposed for a 7,500 square foot
commercial building. Sector II was allocated a total of 60,000 square feet for commercial /retail space.
In order to accommodate all of this potential commercial space in sector II, 14,849 square feet of retail
space must be transferred from Sector I.
The applicant has proposed locating the trash enclosure in the middle of the parking area, as is done in
Centennial, the Disney planned community in Florida. While the City's preference is to locate trash
enclosures attached to the building, due to site, design, and user constraints, an alternative is necessary.
While it may be possible to push the enclosure to the perimeter of the site, it would then be placed
adjacent to scenic or highly visible areas which the City and developer are trying to enhance, i.e.
Highway 5 and the Village pond. Staff has proposed some revisions to the landscaping that helps to
soften the enclosure and may lessen its impact on the parking lot area.
Final Plat for Outlot C, Villages on the Ponds
Site Plans for Buildings 3 & 4
September 3, 1997
Page 3
Staff is recommending approval of the final plat, the site plan for building 3, and the site plan for
building 4 subject to the appropriate conditions.
BACKGROUND
On August 12, 1996, the City Council granted preliminary approval of PUD #92 -1 including a
Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office /industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium
Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use - Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and
Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of commercial /office buildings,
100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD,
Planned Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary plat for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right -of-
way; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site; Vacation of right -of -way and
easements; Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) findings of Negative Declaration of the need for
additional environmental investigation; and Indirect Source Permit Review for the Villages on the Ponds
project.
On September 23, 1996, the City Council approved PUD 95 -2, Villages on the Ponds, including a
Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office /industrial, Institutional, Residential Medium
Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use - Commercial, High Density Residential, Institutional and
Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of commercial /office buildings,
100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units; Rezoning from IOP and RSF to PUD,
Planned Unit Development (final reading); and final plat dated "Received September 19, 1996" for two lots
and ten outlots and public right -of -way.
The city has also approved site plans for St. Hubert Catholic Community, Americlnn, and an office
building (building #17) within the Village on the Ponds project.
SUBDIVISION
WETLANDS
The issue of wetland impacts and wetland mitigation have already been addressed in the overall Villages
on the Pond PUD. The applicant has already been approved for wetland impacts and mitigation. One of
the conditions of approval of the original wetland alteration permit had a conservation easement be
granted over Outlot L, Villages on the Ponds. Since the applicant has not yet done this, staff
recommends that completion of the conservation easement be included as a condition of approval.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
Storm Water Quality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use.
Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
Final Plat for Outlot C, Villages on the Ponds
Site Plans for Buildings 3 & 4
September 3, 1997
Page 4
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a
schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of
land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.75 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The
proposed SWMP water quality charge for commercial developments is $5,909 /acre. The applicant has
designed storm runoff (NURP) ponds for the entire Villages on the Ponds site, and therefore, water quality
charges will be waived.
Storm Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city -wide
rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP
culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Commercial developments will
have a connection charge of $4,360 per developable acre. The total area of this portion of the Villages on
the Ponds proposed development is 2.13 acres. Therefore, the applicant would then be responsible for a
water quantity connection charge of $ 9,287. These SWMP fees will be due payable to the City at time of
final plat recording.
UTILITIES
The utility layouts appear to coordinate with the preliminary utility plans for Villages on the Ponds.
Utility services to these lots will need to be extended by the property owners and /or developer. Utilities
within the subdivisions will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner, therefore, no
detailed construction plans will be necessary with final plat approval. The individual site plans will be
reviewed by the City's Building Department. Building permits will be required for installation of the
utility improvements from the City's Building Department. All utility improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Upon completion of the utility improvements, the applicant or their successors shall provide the City
with a mylar set of as -built construction plans. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be
dedicated on the final plat over the stormwater ponds and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood elevation.
MISCELLANEOUS
In conjunction with Villages on the Ponds 1st Addition, the applicant has entered into a development
contract with the City's which stipulates conditions of approval. An addendum to the development
contract will be necessary to include Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition. Conditions of approval from
the 2nd Addition will be incorporated into the amendment for the development contract for Villages on
the Ponds 1st Addition. This document will be prepared for City Council approval along with the final
plat.
The City has recently adopted an ordinance requiring developers to reimburse the City for updating Cit;
base maps, GIS database file, and converting plat and record drawings into electronic format. The fees
associated with this work is S 10.00 per parcel. Based on the final plat, the applicant will be charged i
$30.00 (two lots and 1 outlot) at time of recording the final plat documents.
Final Plat for Outlot C, Villages on the Ponds
Site Plans for Buildings 3 & 4
September 3, 1997
Page 5
GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE
The proposed development must comply with the Villages on the Ponds Design Standards, Sector II (see
attached Exhibit C) for the PUD. The purpose of this zone is to create a mixed use PUD consisting of
commercial, institutional, office, and residential uses. 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 lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan
review based on the development standards outlined in the design standards. The design criteria cover
all aspects of the development including lighting consistency, signage requirements, uses, building
materials, design and architectural detailing, site coverage, and building square footages
GRADING
The grading plan for the proposed building matches fairly well with the approved grading plan for
Villages on the Ponds, Phase I with the exception of the additional parking lot area in the northwest
corner of the retail building (eight spaces). The additional parking area will not adversely impact
wetlands or the storm drainage system.
EROSION CONTROL
Some erosion control fence is still in place as a part of the overall site grading for Villages on the Ponds,
however, additional erosion control fence may need to be installed in the areas that have become
obliterated or removed. Staff will work with the applicant in developing an erosion control plan that fits
the site. A rock construction entrance will be required off of Great Plains Boulevard. The rock
construction entrance shall be maintained until the site is paved with a bituminous surface. All catch
basins are proposed to be protected with hay bales during construction, however, once the parking lot
and drive aisles are paved, there should be provisions for temporary protection such as rock filter dikes
until all disturbed areas are revegetated.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water is available to the site off of Great Plains Boulevard. Utilities are proposed
to be extended into the site by the developer and /or property owner of Lot 2. The utilities proposed to be
constructed will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The
applicant and /or contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing
permits from the City's Building Department. Cross access easements for utilities and street purposes
will need to be dedicated over this lot.
DRAINAGE
Overall, the site plan conforms with the comprehensive drainage plan for Villages on the Ponds.
Stormwater runoff from the parking lot will be conveyed via storm sewer to a pretreatment basin prior to
Final Plat for Outlot C, Villages on the Ponds
Site Plans for Buildings 3 & 4
September 3, 1997
Page 6
discharging into the wetlands. Roof drainage from the retail building still needs to be addressed. This
will have to be further investigated prior to issuance of a building permit.
The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with detailed storm sewer calculations including a
drainage area map for a 10 -year, 24 -hour storm event for review and approval prior to issuance of a
building permit.
PARKING LOT CIRCULATION
Overall, the parking lot and drive aisles appear to function well. Also incorporated into this plan are
sidewalks and /or trails. It is unclear who exactly will be constructing these site improvements; whether
it will be the developer or the individual property owner. This should be resolved prior to issuance of a
building pernnit.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for the site is limited to the north and east sides of the building. No plant materials have
been included on the entrance and south sides of the building which are difficult areas since they serve as
access points for the businesses. Landscaping could be added, however, with the addition of planter
boxes along both sides. Annuals and some shrubs and small trees could be grown successfully and
would help create a more attractive and inviting entrance to the tenant businesses.
Approximately 16,850 sq. ft. of the site is covered by parking area. According to city ordinance, at least
6 overstory trees and 1,348 sq. ft. of landscaped area are required. Applicant does not meet the
requirement. One opportunity to do so occurs at the trash enclosure location. Enlarging the islands on
either side by at least 5 feet each would allow enough room for trees and other landscaping. This would
soften the trash site which sits in the middle of the parking lot as well as create an oasis of shade in the
future. Two ornamental trees are proposed in a parking lot island. Staff recommends the five foot wide
island be expanded in order to provide adequate growing room for the trees. An additional overstory
tree and shrubs or hedges should be added at the north end of the parking lot area. This will serve to
buffer the parking area as well as provide a green transition into the wetland complex.
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;
Final Plat for Outlot C, Villages on the Ponds
Site Plans for Buildings 3 & 4
September 3, 1997
Page 7
(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 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 site plans are consistent with all plans and specifications and
development design standards for the Village on the Ponds Planned Unit Development.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 3, 1997 to review the proposed final plat
for Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition and site plan review for the 14,849 square foot retail building on
Lot 2, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2 Addition. The Planning Commission voted five for and none
against with one abstention on the motions approving the final plat and site plan for building 4.
The Planning Commission discussed the issue of sloped roofs. However, there was no consensus
regarding whether 70 percent sloped roof meant the entire roof or just what was visible from the
surrounding area. In this instance, the Planning Commission recommended that the elevation of
Final Plat for Outlot C, Villages on the Ponds
Site Plans for Buildings 3 & 4
September 3, 1997
Page 8
building 4 was consistent with the design standards, since no one would be able to see the rooftop
HVAC and their belief that requiring the pitched roof would, potentially wreck the building's
architecture, but would take up the issue in a case by case instance as development came in for review
and approval within Villages on the Ponds.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
Subdivision
"The City Council approves Villages on the Ponds Second Addition final plat, PUD 95 -2, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall grant to the City of Chanhassen a conservation easement over Outlot L, Villages
on the Ponds as described in the conditions of approval for the Villages on the Ponds.
2. Provide cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be dedicated over Lots 1 and 2,
Villages on the Ponds 2 " Addition for access and utility purposes.
3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the plat over the
stormwater basins and wetlands on the property. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated
on the final plat for the stormwater basin and wetland up to the 100 -year flood elevation.
4. The applicant shall enter into an addendum to the development contract /PUD agreement for Villages
on the Ponds.
5. The applicant shall pay the City GIS fees in accordance with City fees at time of recording the final
plat.
6. The proposed commercial development of 2.13 net developable acres is responsible for a water
quantity fee of $9,287. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the applicant or their
successors shall supply the City with a mylar set of as -built construction plans. All utilities installed
within the plat shall be owned and maintained by the property owners and not the City.
8. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to City Code."
Final Plat for Outlot C, Villages on the Ponds
Site Plans for Buildings 3 & 4
September 3, 1997
Page 9
Site Plan
"The City Council approves Site Plan #97 -12 for a 14,849 square foot building on Lot 2, Block 1,
Villages on the Ponds 2" Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 7/23/97,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Increase width of landscape islands. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width must have aeration
tubing installed with the trees.
2. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security required by
the agreement.
3. Add an overstory tree and shrubs or hedges at the north end of the parking lot area and have staff
review the landscape plan.
4. Add two trees to parking lot landscaping in landscape islands adjacent to trash enclosure and have
staff review the landscape plan.
5. Add planter boxes to west and south sides of building.
6. Provide sloped roof to screen the roof top equipment as shown on the site plan dated 7/23/97.
7 . Provide the city with a detail on the trash enclosure for approval. All accessory structures shall be
designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new
developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing shall be denoted on the final
grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and formal approval.
9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
10. The sidewalks and trails on the site shall be constructed in conjunction with the overall site
improvements and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless inclement weather
conditions prohibit.
11. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and
maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining
the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's Building Department. Cross
access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot."
Final Plat for Outlot C, Villages on the Ponds
Site Plans for Buildings 3 & 4
September 3, 1997
Page 10
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Design Description/conformance to PUD
3. Reduced Site Plan
4. Reduced Elevations Building 4
5. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated August 13, 1997
6. Revised Parking Lot Layout - Famous Dave's
7. Exhibit C - Villages on the Ponds Development Design Standards
8. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
9. Planning Commission Minutes of 9/3/97
■
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
PLICANT: /OTUS Rf'4ct y 5£Qulc Fs ,Hiv OWNER: IN W 17FG a/',/f /"
DRESS: P, d. d 2 3S ADDRESS: C /OTC s ?F "�T✓'
/y /U ."iJ1 ?/7
LEPHONE (Day time) 935' 4/.53 P TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW /Easements
I. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
1. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit
1. Non - conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal
5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. Rezoning
7. Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs
9. X Site Plan Review `/ '';sOod ';z( / yO X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost"
A s Sava a r G° ($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP /Metes
ASO
no
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
10. )! Subdivision / .SO TOTAL FEE $ _6_0_1
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8 X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
" Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
• PROJECT NAME I/ / LG.0 G F S tu 71,131 Tr')A�.0 s - /cs /c? 's 3 -'/
( 3 = moas Paves - /'e ry r /L )
LOCATION I/n AV/ E4/o Peg ,e r c t (j7-/7 407 C'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ma rt or (", - 7 0 b e i/ P/ ,4Z 7 /' AI S
L/) 7-5 / e. 2 m 4GeA`L &t A/, V /LLA `' F.s rl A. 7-//E Pacw5,
Znd X/DP/rioN
PRESENT ZONING PaD - N,A-eD U5 e si - e s A /G /cm rc/c 43
REQUESTED ZONING A} 4 /!
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION See u AOva
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION / /-
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
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.
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 Owner's 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.
/,U7-U e4 -Y y .S'e.e a/c e s. /It/C.
Ey I. �rl..6.r' ,.4../Z-- 7/i79
Sigr(ature of Applicant Date
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. • If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
11 1 MILO 250 PRAIRIE CTR. DRIV[. STE. 200
II Er , -/� ARCHITECTURE EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55344
IA F1I � J GROUP (612) 944-6242 • FAX (612) 942-7496
Retail Building #4
1. Design Description /conformance to PUD
1.1 Site Planning
In terms of the use, location, relationship to I -5 and surrounding uses, the building fully
conforms to all positive provisions of the PUD, Sector II.
In every respect the proposed building and site utilization matches the PUD plans and texts.
In addition, site grading and proposed landscaping conform to PUD plans as well.
The main pedestrian entrance area is from the parking lots on the west and south side to
which the retail storefronts are oriented. The PUD plans do not envision any direct entry to
the building from the Great Plains Boulevard, due to lack of significant pedestrian
circulation and sidewalk along the face of the building facing the Boulevard.
There is an ample amount of landscape area between the buildings and the Boulevard, plus
the wetlands are north of the building, along Highway I -5. Yet, even though the building is
set back away from the roadways, it is the first and closest building to the major
intersection of I -5 and Great Plains Boulevard. As such it is very much exposed to the
views and, in a way, of utter importance for the whole image of the Village. Hence, the
building design and the architectural character are crucial for setting the proper direction
and the tone for the Village in general.
Parking is provided at a ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of building area, but it is part of
the shared parking concept within the whole Village.
1.2 Building Design
The design team made an effort to integrate this building into the overall Village
"traditional" character and vernacular architecture. The intent was, from the onset, not to
design another typical suburban retail "pod building." Instead, to design the building that
would be a reflection of the typical "Main Street," turn-of -the- century small town
architecture and character.
Looking at the building from any angle, it is not easy to recognize it as one single building,
erected at the same time by one single developer. The 200+ feet long building has been
composed of three very different looking buildings that are commonly found on traditional
"Main streets." Yet the store front design allows for flexibilities and all features required
by modern retail industry.
072197- DES.7320B
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS • CONSULTING
c:,u _I F $ 3
Qom ° ® v c� 0 1 ZZ 'I. s
� � W 0 O 3 o 51 a T.
Lj c)cc — ,.69 °ii J(7
w W
sws 9
J
Wa
H '
0
in
II
4-4 '3 1. 4*,
• a
1j..1", � V4 f Y
4 Ft , 4 .
S.P �1� Sl -v y. -r
a '� c
d w n
iR ��, � ? � �
qp4 3 i' � -f yr �, 413 i ;�y g °a R. — � 6
+r > °ck u �t.z y F f > i _�
. .-, ire .4, a 3 r F �1 1711
/s5+ [ Y i x R _ J N
l O
— I
I r I n —
'�✓ 1 r a I _— o
I' .: n n 1 r S. If ' I J
e y a Y i tt ✓ ' lW bbq I\
4 y
t t kf+ I
G
111IIfi1°�
'.. r P ■ m
Y = ,
y f 4 l \ PT O ��
N
" ti R
. , m b
0 iii
z m
o m�
w �<
H Z y
I
O ml
F
4 � N
m
O g
$o
Z a m
,—, y Y
w N Z
F-
73 g
y
!lig o
z�v
�
0 V 0
E2
4,4 -... 0 � y00 a i 1 1 I Z x �
y _ b 5 '72, E E s < Q
s s a 3 N j o i i Z p 3 N ° a• e i s W ❑, c • X1 E ®3 - 3 ¢o ff ¢ GGGGGG ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4Hil 1
1 (
_ :. A P 1 AI :: Mil
�I Muni 3 / r.. i
= II
D i \, i 1
a ,.4
NB 1 s 1
argil `
nx
rill Gar,
wig :¢ a Iii 1 V iEx-
;i ;� c li rpp I J �' vaur �n'vu:� 1
n J :li, I Z V EIj : C9::.� y �
11 �:t' -1'1 O �tf -_
_ -. �n z , a it —+ -
iii �' • w iiii c n
N'_r.L1
�, ,, , o e ., I._ o
A I. • j<< w ' ° yin s — g
,� a� — ,1 t .1
LI 1 1E1
• H Exill
'4 i IIA
�''
�- ' °
u �
4 ___„., , I
, , y ., t - " ,4,, icy
i
_' 0 ' J�� is
FA AI, Z - �sliI Z • % a
I -. o u� - ° n o
ailliiiiliii w � II1 , i
w =fflI� w z
�- i �� _ 5
cd
°� d li IlBllll
s
a=
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
9
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
o
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: August 13, 1997
SUBJECT: Request for final plat to re -plat Outlot C into two lots and site plan review for a 14,000
square foot retail building located at the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Great Plains
Boulevard within the Villages on the Pond Development, Lotus Realty Services.
Planning Case 95 -2 PUD and 97 -12 SPR
I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire
Department /Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance /policy
requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional
plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed.
1. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., trees, street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be
quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1.
2. No parking fire lane signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal or
Fire Inspector for exact location of signage and painted curbing. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department /Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991. Copy enclosed.
3. Submit utility plans indicating location of water service coming into the building. Install post
indicator valve on the water service. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal or Fire Inspector for exact
location.
4. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. This is to
insure that fire apparatus can access the building.
5. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #04 -1991. Copy enclosed.
6. Comply with Chanhassen fire Department policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water
service on combination domestic /fire sprinkler line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department /Fire
Prevention Policy #36 -1994. Copy enclosed.
g:Asafety \ml \plrev97 -12
}
C ITYOF
,
CHANIIII,SSEN
1 1;° A 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE
1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18 ".
NO 2. Red on white is preferred.
PARKING
FIRE 3. 3M or equal engineer's grade
LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum
is preferred.
4. Wording shall be: NO PARKING
FIRE LANE
5. Signs shall be posted at each end
of the fire lane and at least at
7'0" 75 foot intervals along the
fire lane.
6. All signs shall be double sided
facing the direction of travel.
7. Post shall be set back a
minimum of 12" but not more than
36" from the curb.
- V - 8. A fire lane shall be required in
(NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections
SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and
along all areas designated by the
Fire Chief.
ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN
WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS
THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY
THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF
FIRE LANES.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #06 -1991
Date: 1/15/91
c- 7 ,J Revised:
Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1
f,
: 4 u PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
C ITYOF
ti +
-,k,....„,,,,71,,i. CHANHASSEN
` ` t' 9 ".' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
PREMISES IDENTIFICATION
General
Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall
contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall
be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director,
Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal.
Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where
no address numbers are posted.
Other Requirements - General
1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background.
2. Numbers shall not be In script.
3. If a structure Is not visible from the street, additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size
and location must be approved. -
4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4 ". However, requirement #3 must still
be met.
5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary.
Residential Requirements (2 or less dwelling unit)
1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4 ".
2. Building permits will not be flnaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department
Commercial Req dremettts ...
1. Minimum height shall be 12 ".
2. Strip Malls
a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6 ".
b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors.
3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the
buildings main entrance.
I Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #29 -1992
- Date: 06 /15/92
Revised:
Approved - Public Safty Director Page 1 of 1
t a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
C ITYOF
' -i
o
04011iIr CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIZE OF DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE ON A
COMBINATION DOMESTIC /FIRE SPRINKLER SUPPLY LINE
1. Domestic water line shall not be greater than 1/4 pipe size of the
combination service water supply line.
2. 1 1/2" domestic off 6" line.
3. 2" domestic off 8" line.
4. 2 1/2 domestic off 10" line.
Option 1: Domestic sizes may be increased if it can be calculated hydraulically that the
demand by all domestic fixtures will not drop the fire sprinkler water below its
minimum gallonage required.
Option 2: Combination domestic and five line service shall have an electric solenoid valve
installed on the domestic side of the service. This valve shall be normally
powered open and close on loss of electric power or signal from the system
water flow indicator.
Must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen
Mechanical Inspector.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Water Line Sizing
Policy #36 -1994
Date: 06/10/94
C-L%i / ,I J Revised:
Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1
i
0 , , CITYOF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
N
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS
1. Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per
NFPA 13- 8 -2.1.
2. A final inspection by the Fire Marshal before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
3. Fire Department access roads shall be provided on site during all phases of
construction. The construction of these temporary roads will conform with the
Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for temporary access roads at
construction sites. Details are available.
4. Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases
of construction.
5. The use of liquefied petroleum eas shall be in conformance with NFPA Standard
58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A List of these requirements is
available. (See policy #33 -1993)
6. All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored by an approved
UL central station with a UL 71 Certificate issued on these systems before final
occupancy is issued.
7. An 11" x 14" As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built
shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. (See policy #07- 1991).
8. An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use.
The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located
by the Fire Marshal.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #04 -1991
Date: 11/22/91
Revised: 12/23/94
Page 1 of 2
9. High -piled combustible storage shall comply with the requirements of Article #81
of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High -piled combustible storage is
combustible materials on closely packed piles more than 15' in height or
combustible materials on pallets or in racks more than 12' in height. For certain
special - hazard commodities such as rubber tires, plastics, some flammable liquids,
idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as low as 6 feet.
10. Fire lane signage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (See policy
#06- 1991).
11. Smoke detectors installed in lieu of 1 hour rated corridors under UBC section
3305G, Exception #5 shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department requirements
for installation and system type. (See policy #05- 1991).
12. Maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic /fire
sprinkler supply line policy must be followed. (See policy #36- 1994).
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #04 -1991
Date: 11/22/91
�� Revised: 12/23/94
Approved - Public Safety Director Page 2 of 2
! 265,506. sq.ft.
6.095 acres
DEVELOPER:
otus Realty Services /Amcon
51 West 78th Street
• anhassen, MN 55317 FOR DIMENSIONS,
WETLAND
•
OW
° 14'53 9 E
/ ( J / 394.48
147.69 - ", �� _ ` \
_ ,- ..=- -T- - - -�— .
14 .-` -`;- t� L' \ FAMOUS DA
j 18TORY
L am' 1 - i 5,300 SF
t = ;
.■ . ,
- l
=7 I
I
O i
I ! I
EXHIBIT C
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS
CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a mixed use PUD consisting of commercial, institutional,
office, and residential uses. 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 lot proposed for development shall proceed through site plan
review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to uses as defined below or similar uses to
those as listed in the Standard Industrial Classification. If there is a question as to the whether or
not a use meets the definition, the Planning Director shall make that interpretation. No single
retail user shall exceed 20,000 square feet on a single level of a building. A maximum of thirty -
three (33) percent of the square footage of the retail users within the development may be of a
"big box" category. The intent of this requirement is to provide a variety of users, including
small retail shops, service providers, coffee shops, cabarets, etc., for residents of the Villages as
well as the community as a whole, rather than typical suburban type large, individual users
dominating the development and detracting from the "village" character. Retail users should be
those that support and compliment the residential development located within the development,
providing goods and services which enhance residents of the village and the community.
Office. Professional and business office, non - retail activity except for showroom type
display area for products stored or manufactured on -site provided that no more than 20
percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales.
bank/credit union
finance, insurance and real estate
health services - except nursing homes and hospitals
engineering, accounting, research management and related services
legal services
Personal Services. Establishments primarily engaged in providing services involving the
care of a person or his or her personal goods or apparel.
dry cleaning
beauty or barbershop
shoe repair
photographic studio
tax return preparation
laundromat
health club
optical goods
computer services
day care center
copying
mail stores
Institutional. Establishments that are public /semi - public in nature.
church
library
education services
day care
art gallery
dance studio
cultural facility
Commercial /Retail. Establishments engaged in commercial operations including retail sales
and services and hospitality industries.
Apparel and Accessory Stores
shoe stores
electronic and music store and musical instruments
restaurant - no drive through
restaurant - fast food only if integrated into a building
no freestanding fast food and no drive through
drug store /pharmacy
book/stationary
jewelry store
hobby /toy game
gift novelty and souvenir
sewing, needlework and piece good
florist
camera and photographic supply
art and art supplies, gallery
sporting goods
video rental
food stores including bakery and confectionery
hardware store
2
computer store
hotel /motel
entertainment
liquor store
pets and pet supplies
home furnishings
Residential. Residential units shall be provided as upper level units above the
commercial /office uses within the village core and as stand alone units. A minimum of 50
percent of the residential units shall be rental units. Of the rental units, the city has adopted
a goal of 35 percent of the units meeting the Metropolitan Council's affordable criteria. For
the ownership housing, the city has adopted the goal of 50 percent of the units meeting the
Metropolitan Council's affordable criteria.
Prohibited Uses:
auto related including auto sales, auto repair, gas stations
c. Setbacks
In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and
parking setbacks.
The following setbacks shall apply:
Building Parking
Great Plains Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback C, 0' 0'
Market Blvd.: Buffer yard & Setback C, 50' 20'
Hwy. 5: Buffer yard & Setback B, 50' 20'
Interior Side Lot Line: Buffer yard & setback NA, 0' 0'
East Perimeter Side Lot Line (adjacent to D, 50' 50'
residential): Buffer yard & setback
West Perimeter Side Lot Line (adjacent to B, 50 20
industrial): Buffer yard & setback
Buffer yards are as specified in the City of Chanhassen Landscaping and Tree Removal
Ordinance, Article XXV.
No fences shall be permitted between the required landscape buffer and arterial and collector
roads.
3
d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height
1. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for the overall development.
Individual lots may exceed this threshold, but in no case shall the average exceed 70
percent..
2. More than one (1) principal structure may be placed on one (1) platted lot.
3. The maximum building height shall be Sector I - three stories (with residential loft) /50 ft.
(retail and office buildings without residences above shall be limited to two stories /30
feet), Sector II - three stories /40 ft., Sector III - three stories /40 ft., exclusive of steeples
and bell towers, and Sector IV - four stories /50 feet
4. The maximum building footprint for any one building shall be limited to 20,000 square
feet without a street level break in the continuity of the building, e.g., pedestrian
passageways, except for the church and residential only buildings.
5. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses:
Commercial/ Office /Service Institutional Dwelling TOTAL sq. ft.
Retail (sq, ft.) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) Units
Sector I 114,500 70,500 @ 0 154 185,000
Sector II 60,000 * 14,000 0 0 74,000
Sector 111 0 0 100,000 0 100,000
Sector IV 0 32,000 @ 0 112 @ 32,000
TOTAL 174,500 116,500 100,000 266 391,000
@ As an alternative, the office /service could be increase by 13,000 square feet in Sector I if the
32,000 square foot office building is deleted in Sector IV and replaced with 56 additional
dwelling units.
* Includes 47,200 square foot, 106 unit motel.
Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors subject to approval by the Planning
Director. Building square footages may be reallocated between uses subject to approval of the
Planning Director. However, the reallocation of building square footages between uses shall
only be permitted to a less intensive use, i.e. from commercial to office or institutional, or from
office to institutional. In no instance shall more than 27,000 square feet of addition institutional
building square footage be reallocated without an amendment to the PUD.
e. Building Materials and Design
4
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design. The intent is to create a pedestrian friendly, "traditional"
village character consistent with the European heritage of the upper midwest and the
atmosphere within this development, yet with the amenities and technological tools of
modern times. The village elevations shown on the PUD drawings are to be used only as
a general guideline and the reflection of the overall village image including the north -
midwestern architectural vocabulary, village like human scale and flavor, and variety in
design and facade treatment.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall
be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels,
decorative block, cedar siding, vinyl siding in residential with support materials, or
approved equivalent as determined by the city. Color shall be introduced through colored
block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are
prohibited. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting colors may be used only for
accent purposes and shall not exceed 10 percent of a wall area.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed cement
( "cinder ") blocks shall be prohibited.
4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved except
as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC screen, and may
not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area.
5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material.
Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be
fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with
material compatible to the building.
7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large unadorned,
concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing,
such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual
relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the
wall and its views from public ways shall be prohibited. Acceptable materials will
incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and /or other patterning. All walls shall
be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping.
8. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal or accessory
structures.
9. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall receive
nearly equal treatment and visual qualities.
5
10. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the
adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme
variations between buildings on the same street in terms of overall appearance, bulk and
height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited.
11. Slope roof elements shall be incorporated in all structures: Sector I - minimum 70
percent of roof area shall be sloped, Sector II - minimum of 70 percent of the roof area
shall be sloped, Sector III - minimum of 30 percent of the roof area shall be sloped, and
Sector IV - minimum of 70 percent of the roof area shall be sloped. An exception to this
requirement are roof areas designed for human use such as decks, garden areas, patios,
etc., which will not be counted towards flat roof area.
12. The following design elements should be incorporated into individual structures:
Building Accents
Towers, silos, arches, columns, bosses, tiling, cloisters, colonnades, buttresses, loggias,
marquees, minarets, portals, reveals, quoins, clerestories, pilasters.
Roof Types
Barrow, dome, gable, hip, flat.
Roof Accents
Cupolas, cornices, belfries, turrets, pinnacles, look -outs, gargoyles, parapets, lanterns.
Accent elements such as towers, turrets, spires, etc., shall be excluded from the sector
building height limitation.
Window Types
Bay, single paned, multi - paned, angular, square, rectangular, half - round, round, italianate.
Window Accents
Plant boxes, shutters, balconies, decks, grates, canopies, awnings, recesses, embrasures,
arches, lunettes.
13. Street level windows shall be provided for a minimum of 50 percent of the ground level
wall area.
6
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I shall be
installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping
being required ahead of individual site plan approvals, but we believe the buffer yard and
boulevard plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to
adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading
areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping
plan as a part of the site plan review process.
2. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be landscaped,
rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree wells shall be included
in pedestrian areas and plazas.
3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited.
4. Undulating or angular berms 3' to 5' in height, south of Highway 5 and along Market
Boulevard shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction.
The required buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any
proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded.
5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right -of -ways. Wing walls may be required
where deemed appropriate.
6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible.
g. Signage
1. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at each end of Lake
Drive and at the south end of Main Street. Project identification sign(s) may also be
located at the entrances to the development(s) in Sector IV. Project identification signs
shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five feet in height.
One project identification sign, with a maximum height of 20 feet, which may be
increased in height subject to city approval based on the design and scale of the sign,
designed as a gateway to the project shall be located at the north end of Main Street.
Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign. Within Sector III, one
sign for the church and one sign for the school may be placed on streetscape walls. The
top of the signs shall not extend more than eight feet above the ground and the total sign
area for the signs shall not exceed 64 square feet. Pylon signs are prohibited. The sign
treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the
development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height
throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's
entrance monument and will be used throughout.
2. All signs require a separate sign permit.
7
3. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance for the central business
district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the
"street" front and primary parking lot front of each building.
4. Projecting signs are permitted along Main Street and Lake Drive and along pedestrian
passageways subject to the conditions below.
Signage Plan and Restrictions
Wall Signs
1. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands,
the tops of which shall not extend greater than 20 feet above the ground. In Sector II,
sign height may be increase based on the criteria that the signage is compatible with and
complementary to the building architecture and design. The letters and logos shall be
restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising
each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing.
2. If illuminated, individual dimensional letters and logos comprising each sign may be any
of the following:
a. Exposed neon/fiber optic,
b. Open channel with exposed neon,
c. Channel Letters with acrylic facing,
d. Reverse channel letters (halo lighted), or
e. Externally illuminated by separate lighting source.
3. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's
proper name and major product or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar
identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and
do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign.
4. Within Sector II, architecturally, building- integrated panel tenant/logo sign may be
permitted based on criteria that the signage is compatible with and complementary to the
building design and architecture.
5. Back lit awnings are prohibited.
Projecting Signs
1. The letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign area.
2. All wooden signs shall be sandblasted and letters shall be an integral part of the
building's architecture.
8
3. Signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant's proper
name and major product or service offered and such minimal messages such as date of
establishment of business. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices are
permitted provided they are confined within the signage band or within the projecting
sign and do not occupy more than fifteen (15) percent of the sign display area.
4. Projecting signs shall be stationary, may not be self - illuminated but may be lighted by
surface mounted fixtures located on the sign or the adjacent facade.
5. Projecting signs shall be limited to one per tenant on street frontage and pedestrian
passageway and my not exceed six square feet. Letters shall have a maximum height of
12 inches.
6. Projecting signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk and shall not project
more than six feet from the building facade.
7. Plastic, plexi- glass, clear plex, or similar material projecting signs are prohibited unless
used in conjunction with other decorative materials.
8. Projecting signs may be painted, prefinished, or utilize exposed metal. Any exposed
metal shall be anodized aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, bronze, or other similar non-
corrosive or ono - oxidizing materials.
Window Signs
1. Window signs shall not cover more than 25 percent of the window area in which they are
located.
2. Window signs shall not use bright, garish, or neon paint, tape, chalk, or paper.
Menu Signs
1. Shall be located at eye level adjacent to tenant entries and shall not exceed 4 feet in
height.
2. Shall be used only to convey daily specials, menus and offerings and shall be wood
framed chalkboard and /or electronic board with temporary handwritten lettering. No
paper construction or messages will be permitted.
3. Menu signs shall be limited to one per tenant and may not exceed 8 square feet.
9
Festive Flags /Banners
1. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building
facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting.
2. Plastic flags and banners are prohibited.
3. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric.
4. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or
products.
5. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two feet.
6. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet.
7. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of
the city.
Building Directory
1. In multi - tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory
sign shall not exceed eight square feet.
Pole Directory Sign
1. Pole directory signs consisting of single poles with individual nameplate type directional
arrows may be located within the development.
2. Pole directory sign shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
3. Directory signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the sidewalk.
4. A maximum of eight directory signs may be provided per pole.
5. The maximum size of an individual sign shall be 18 inches long by four inches wide.
6. Poles shall be a minimum of 10 feet behind the curb.
h. Lighting
10
1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development. The plans do not provide for street lighting. As with previous
developments, the City has required the developer to install street lights throughout the
street system.
2. A shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with decorative natural colored
pole shall be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative,
pedestrian scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in
parking lot areas.
3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right -of -ways shall be
used in the private areas.
4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2
candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
5. Light poles shall be limited to a height of 20 feet.
6. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking
area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close
proximity to buildings.
i. Parking
1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of surface parking areas whenever
possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be protected
by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
2. A minimum of 75 percent of a building's parking shall be located to the "rear" of the
structure and in underground garages.
3. The development shall be treated as a integrated shopping center and provide a minimum
of one space per 200 square feet of commercial /retail area. The office /personal service
component shall be treated as an integrated office building and provide 4.5 space per
1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per thousand square feet for the
second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square feet thereafter. Residential uses
shall provide 1.5 spaces per unit as underground parking with visitor spaces provided as
part of the commercial /office uses. Within sector IV, visitor parking shall be provided at
a rate of 0.5 stalls per unit. Hotel /motels shall comply with city ordinance.
Churches /schools shall comply with city ordinance, however, a minimum of 50 percent of
the parking shall be shared.
11
VILLAGES ON THE PQ.
SECT
g
3
1.
I II it
a � ■i— 1 Vii, _ r ^ ti
I sll _ '' - cil = �_;���- /
-- = =El� -err
rr
a, . II4 _
J r
\� \ \ u+� i _ 1� �i 1r � ' � — r Imo hr—
;. � h" " Q o
C - • r c7 v I I O
====4 :! ! -. . altt, - ' --1----"---'''' 8 mi n
r- "'''''/ ' f :Ir \ \\ • - (( II ! !,,,-9!:-.."!•:`,: ::, I ( --
(o)i ♦. _i�Y .. = .1� C ) �
‘--- *11‘ \c,---.),,,___,..., ,,,,,,,,1 H-rn ,s _=_
nu ._
& ri • �,,
i � --
* `
l
T • ,
v .. N r 1.ssJ �' � �_ _____u. 1_ 1
J
\ 3 1
r
�� ; \\
/ ^/ 1
• VILLAGES ON THE POND
CHANHASSEN, MNNESOTA
1 MOTEL I. RETAIL
106 ROOMS 3 STORY
3 STORY 8.50C SF
52,375 SF
RESTAURANT 131 RETAIL
1 STORY 3 STORY
7,500 SF 13.000 SF
3 RETAIL 14 RETAIL
1 STORY - 3 STORY
5,300 SF 12.5000 SF
4� RETAIL 1 OFFICE/ SERVICES
I STORY "- 1 STORY
14,000 SF 8.825 SF
5 RETAIL ,E6.1 CHURCH / SCHOOL
2 STORY 1 -3 STORY
28,000 SF 100,000 SF
6 I RETAIL 117 OFFICE/ SERVICES
3 STORY 2 STORY
22,000 SF 30,000 SF
7 RETAL 118' OFFICE/ SERVICES
3 STORY 2
STORY
10,500 SF
50,000 SF
8 RETAL T, RESIDENTIAL
3 STORY 4 STORY
1 2,500 SF 5 SF
OFFICE/ SERVICES RESIDENTIAL
1 STORY 4 STORY
5.000 SF 5 SF
; 101 OFFICE/ SERVICES ;�n' 1 RESIDENTIAL
1 STORY L 4 STORY
12,000 SF 84,000 SF
1.1 RESIDENTIAL
2 STORY
26.000 SF NOTE:
BASED ON OELTA -4 DRAWING
•
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING a I
�� \ ....1 __ __.
PLANNING COMMISSION —
Wednesday, September 3, 1997 `
�.
at 7:00 p.m. �
- � `
City Hall Council Chambers y 5 - ,State Hw y a� `
690 Coulter Drive - 1 j 3
l
I � /
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review
� � Q'
� I ,
APPLICANT: Lotus Realty
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of
Hwy. 5, and Great Plains Blvd. r -
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, Lotus Realty, is requesting final plat of Outlot C, Villages on the Pond, into 2 lots
and site plan review for 5,300 sq. ft. Famous Dave's BBQ Restaurant and a 14,848 sq. ft.
retail building located in the northeast corner of the Village on the Ponds development, Lotus
Realty.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob (ext.141) or Sharmin (ext.120) at 937 -1900. If you
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 21, 1997.
r,
1HASSEN POST #580 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RANDY G & KIMBRA J GREEN
C/0 CITY TREASURER
.0X 264 8103 MARSH DR
JHASSEN, MN 55317 690 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
EN J KOKESH & CITY OF CHANHASSEN MICHAEL M & PRUDENCE L BUSCH
:Y L ECOFF C/0 CITY TREASURER 8113 MARSH DR
GRANDVIEW RD 690 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
!HASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RT & JEAN SINNEN DONALD F MCCARVILLE MARK C & ALEXANDRA M LEPAGE
GRANDVIEW RD 3349 WARNER LN 8123 MARSH DR
!HASSEN, MN 55317 MOUND, MN 55364 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
' A & LINDA G ANDERSON JAMES P ADANK ROBERT J & LOIS A SAVARD
3RANDVIEW RD 350 HIDDEN LN 8080 MARSH DR
!HASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
' S BERNIER JAMES A & CAROL A UDSTUEN JAY S ANDERS
3RANDVIEW RD BOX 157 360 HIDDEN LN 8090 MARSH DR
!HASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
tY & ROSEMARY WILL PETER A KNOLL & MARTIN J & TIMAREE FAJDETICH
;RANDVIEW RD MARY Z STAUDOHAR-KNOLL 8100 MARSH DR
1 HASSEN, MN 55317 370 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TE OF MARTIN J WARD BISRAT & DENISE ALEMAYEHU YAGUI WEI &
EROME RAIDT PERS REP YUYI LIN
380 HIDDEN LN
RANCE AVE S -STE 113 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 8110 MARSH DR
:, MN 55435 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MOUNT INC WILLIAM R & DEBRA E PRIGGE DARRYL T & SANDY L WROLSON
CONTROLLER 390 HIDDEN LN 8120 MARSH DR
TECHNOLOGY DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
1 PRAIRIE, MN 55344
MOUNT INC ` ANDREW G & JEANNINE R CONE PAUL F & RITA A KLAUDA
: CONTROLLER 321 HIDDEN LN 8130 MARSH DR
TECHNOLOGY DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PRAIRIE, MN 55344
JF CHANHASSEN BRIAN E SEMKE & WALT K & PAMELA S CHAPMAN
ITYTREASURER DEBORAH C DUETSCH 8140 MARSH DR
OULTER DR PO BOX 147 331 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
'HASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TRUCE D & CYNTHIA J MARENGO 4 rZ % A}
;150 MARSH DR /�
; HANHASSEN, MN 55317 770 7 AS 6 4 i&
OHN P & BRENDA K LUND
140 DAKOTA LN OzC�L 4
'HANHASSEN, MN 55317 /eaOA C ez /Gi .s , ` - et
(3 2 /17/9 67o 3 9
;ITY OF CHANHASSEN
;/O CITY TREASURER
.90 COULTER DR PO BOX 147
; HANHASSEN, MN 55317
.LUE CIRCLE INVESTMENT CO
125 BLUE CIRCLE DR
11NNETONKA, MN 55343
; HANHASSEN NH PARTNERSHIP
00 2ND AVE S 1100 INTERNATIONAL
;ENTRE
1INNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
iOLIDAY STATION STORES INC
567 80TH ST W
LOOMINGTON, MN 55437
HADDEUS E KORZENOWSKI
0645 RADISSON RD
XCELSIOR, MN 55331
ITY OF CHANHASSEN
./O CITY TREASURER
90 COULTER DR PO BOX 147
HANHASSEN, MN 55317
HANHASSEN INN
31 79TH ST W
HANHASSEN, MN 55317
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
LOTUS REALTY SERVICES - PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BLVD WITHIN THE VILLAGE ON THE
PONDS DEVELOPMENT:
A. FINAL PLAT /REPLAT OUTLOT C, VILLAGES ON THE POND INTO TWO
LOTS.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,300 SO. FT. BUILDING FOR A FAMOUS DAVE'S
RESTAURANT.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 14,848 SO. FT. RETAIL BUILDING LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive
Rhonda Collins 8060 Hidden Court
Cindy Marengo 8150 Marsh Drive
Dale & Zola Klabande 8160 Hidden Court
Susie & Kerry Blake 8040 Hidden Circle
Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle
Scott D. Schlachter 5633 Morgan Avenue So.
Lois Savard 8080 Marsh Drive
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Help me understand the roof issue a little bit better. Walk me through it again, or walk
me through it if you would.
Generous: Okay. If you look at the roof elevation on the Building 4 you see that it has a flat roof
cross area in the middle that is actually a flat roof elevation. The slope roof elevation on that
building, observable from someone standing on the street is approximately 70% of the building.
However, if you look at it from a birds eye view, it's probably maybe half of the building. The
roof area. So we need clarification whether or not we should interpret it to mean that it's, was
visible from the ground or what's visible from above.
Peterson: And your rationale for that position, the rationale for their position was?
Generous: Well that with the higher peak that would be in it, we were looking, primarily when
we were doing the design we were looking at larger units and making it look consistent with our
downtown area. The office, the Medical Arts building down on West 78 Street.
Peterson: And that's the standard we've followed with the other buildings?
Generous: So far.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
Peterson: Other questions of staff?
Joyce: On this handout, remember this part of the handout. What exactly is this?
Generous: That just shows you the sectors. If you look at the design standards, there are
different, with any...slightly different standards
Joyce: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. All right. I was just wondering, the dotted line looked like a
thoroughfare or something through. Can you actually take your car and go through that whole
dotted area? Through parking lots and everything like that.
Generous: You can't get out to Highway 101 that way.
Joyce: Okay. All right.
Generous: It's just to delineate the different sectors within the plan and the signage standards are
slightly different than some of the requirements.
Joyce: Okay.
Sidney: I have another question about the flat roof portion of that building. Would that be
visible from other buildings in the Villages? ...see higher elevations.
Generous: We may in the Village corridor develop up to four story or 50 feet.
Sidney: Okay, so that might be visible then.
Peterson: Other questions of staff?
Joyce: Just one. Now that I understand what I'm looking at here. You said that we're adding
14,000 square feet of retail to Section 2 and taking it out of Section 1 then.
Generous: Right. Based on the additional, there's a Building 2 that will come in the future that's
approximately 7,500 square feet.
Joyce: And you're, there isn't anything confirmed but we're looking at a restaurant on that site
too.
Generous: Correct.
Joyce: Thank you.
Peterson: The only other thing Bob, I think I don't normally preach this but within the packet I
know it's some within your control but we didn't have a proportionate rendering. It's pretty
25
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 •
difficult to get...tonight so...points his finger at staff or the development team. It's pretty
important that we have that for our packet so. With that, does the applicant or their designee
wish to address the Commission please?
Vernelle Clayton: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is
Vemelle Clayton and I'm with Lotus Realty. I would like to have the rest of the group in here
before we start but let me talk first just a little bit about the, are you going to do this one by one?
Do the plat and vote on that and... I didn't say vote yes. I just said vote. Do you want me to talk
about the plat first and then you talk? Okay. I would like to just, just a couple of comments. We
don't have any problem with the change in number 5. Backing up to number 2. I just want for
the record to say that I believe that we already have adequate cross access easements as a part of
the covenants that are filed, but this is a good test. We should take a look at them before the
plat's recorded and see that they fit. I do also want to state for the record that I would like, I will
not actually formally object to item number 1, but given that we picked up the copy on Tuesday.
I read it...that night. Caught it last night and we were still busy with Famous Dave's today, I
didn't really get a chance to talk about it. But we'll have a chance to talk about it between now
and the Council meeting and it's probably fine. I just want to understand what the ramifications
might be. And that's all the comments I have on that.
Peterson: Any questions? Kevin, any comments on replatting?
Joyce: No, I don't have any.
Sidney: No comment.
Peterson: Ladd? Nor do I. With that, may I have a motion and a second please.
Blackowiak: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Villages on the
Ponds 2 Addition, PUD #95 -2, subject to conditions 1 through 8. Condition 5 shall read, the
applicant shall pay the City GIS fees in accordance with City fees at time of recording final plat.
Joyce: I'll make a second on that.
Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Villages on the Ponds Second Addition, PUD 95 -2, subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall grant to the City of Chanhassen a conservation easement over Outlot L,
Villages on the Ponds as described in the conditions of approval for the Villages on the
Ponds.
2. Provide cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be dedicated over Lots 1
and 2, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition for access and utility purposes.
3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the plat over
the stormwater basins and wetlands on the property. Drainage and utility easements shall
26
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
be dedicated on the final plat for the stormwater basin and wetland up to the 100 year flood
elevation.
4. The applicant shall enter into an addendum to the development contract/PUD agreement for
Villages on the Ponds.
5. The applicant shall pay the City GIS fees in accordance with city fees at time of recording
of final plat.
6. The proposed commercial development of 2.13 net developable acres is responsible for a
water quantity fee of 59,287. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the
final plat.
7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements,
the applicant or their successors shall supply the City with a mylar set of as -built
construction plans. All utilities installed within the plat shall be owned and maintained by
the property owners and not the City.
8. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to City Code.
All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried.
Peterson: Next item. Vernelle, do you want to?
Vemelle Clayton: I guess one of the things that I will talk about after we talk about the building
itself, is landscaping. Bob and I have talked about that a little bit and we can deal with that after
we talk about the building. I would like to say that we have Mika Milo with us. Most of you, I
think all of you know Mika Milo from our prior presentations. We have Ken Merriman who is
our expert leasing person and a delightful person to know. And we have Scott Schlachter from
Famous Dave's. I would just like to say that I did invite all the folks that were here for the last
session to come and sit in on this presentation, number one because they were so successful.
And number two, because they all said oh, Famous Dave's. When are you going to open? But
that is, aside from, the only other comment I want to make about Famous Dave's is, number one.
Everybody seems to like them and want them here. Number two. I want to publicly express my
appreciation for their patience with us as we have wrestled with their design. They've been not
only patient. They've been understanding. They've been flexible and so far they haven't even
gotten angry as far as I know. We have been working with them, not because their design was
bad. But because it didn't quite fit what everyone's ideas and assumptions were as to what
would be built in the Villages. To that end they've been very flexible. They are also under a
little bit of a time line. They want to get going as soon as possible so staff has been actually
bending the rules on when we can get the last copies of things into them and we appreciate that.
We got Mika involved in some redesign. He got that copy to us in time to get it to staff and to
Famous Dave's at the same time. We wanted both to review it. Famous Dave's had a few
changes that they wanted to make and thanks to Mika who learned of a couple of them at 4:00
27
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
this afternoon and has been out in the hall making the color copy as you discussed car
dealerships, I think we have a fairly complete presentation. You will see that there are some
things that are completely different from the way it was described or set forth in the packet.
We'll try to point those out to you as we go and I would like to introduce Mika Milo to discuss
the elevations.
Mika Milo: Mika Milo, principle of Milo Architecture Group in Eden Prairie. And your
Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners, it is my pleasure to present now the two
projects here that are really like one project. All on one site basically, sharing the same parking
lot. One is the Famous Dave and then the retail building #4. I guess we'll first address the
Famous Dave building, and you will see that there is some relationship, some visual relationship
and correlationship between these buildings and color schemes. When we, like Vernelle said,
initial design that was a typical, proto typical design for Famous Dave and they approached us
here, in essence was a good design that would fit to the Village character in general terms. In
terms of massing and the slope roofs and the size of the building and bulk and shape of the
building. And the restaurant is obviously very welcome use for the Villages...in and outdoors.
The problem we had is more, it was the character of the finishes and the materials that they are
proposing in a typical design, and we have been working quite a while with them and they
worked until we received, until we arrived to that point to present to you these change design that
I believe now much closer matches the intent with the Villages and what we are trying to achieve
there. I will show you what the material that was presented... This is the last roof, sheet metal
roof and wood siding that was proposed. It was rather...raw wood appearance like
northern...farmhouse combination with very... But in any case, we felt it is not really matching
what we are trying to achieve here at the Village and we would like that building to blend more
with the overall...design that we have, that are not so strongly, how would you say, woodsy.
They're a little bit more sophisticated... and so we suggested to change the color of the roof as
well as to change the finishes, the color of the roof would be darker than this red one and we
suggested that also we finish for the wood siding becomes a solid stain rather than a transparent
stain...and we also created a base that we propose of being...so this is basically what happened
and I will show you the design that we are now proposing. I think you have the smaller, reduced
copies. You have received that.
Peterson: Bob, does the copy that you just gave us differ from...? Does the copy you just gave
us differ from the one that's in our packet? It seemed to.
Generous: Just the trash enclosure.
Peterson: Oh okay, sorry.
Al -Jaff: There were some changes that were made to the plans that you have attached so they are
different. So what you have is the latest revision.
Mika Milo: ...substantial change from these initial materials. The red roof that you see is more
of the brownish color, darker...we are suggesting that darker color...stained color. The stain is a
light brownish...and the wood frame around the windows to take a darker tone of this...darker
28
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
one would be for the frames and around the... Then to have as a base of that...of approximately
6 inches above the ground and we use that teal green, teal color for...and we are considering or
re -using that teal color because it might not be... Any questions that you might have?
Vernelle Clayton: I think they might have some questions as to how it's different from what you
had in your packet. Is that a reasonable assumption? The differences are four. The roof. Over
the kitchen...here was too small for their HVAC...
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant?
Brooks: I have a question. In your design...you state, in no case shall the architecture lead to
the... This really does not, it's inconsistent with where you're going. I realize that Famous
Dave's has an image that...when I look at that building that you presented... boy these are really
far apart in architectural styles. We're talking about compatibility in Villages on the Ponds, and
we're going from sort of very modern and glass and it was very nice to sort of rustic, western
theme and I don't feel that, I just want your opinion on this. This doesn't seem to follow the
design character reference book of what you...
Mika Milo: ...that text reads like that and the intent is not to copy. Can you please read one
more time that particular important sentence? That couple sentences.
Brooks: However, in no case shall the architectural...of a Disneyland street or... The main goal
is to create a pleasant...highway pedestrian oriented streetscape that has the base qualities of a
traditional village. The building architecture...
Mika Milo: Obviously I wanted to say, we don't any...temporary architecture dealing in the
Village. However, we are basing the architecture on the traditional value, and traditional symbol
and expressions of the architecture of the past times and especially the beginning of this century.
Small town America and the intent would be very simply...we like to have some cohesiveness in
the Village and a certain direction and...materials and design but I don't think that our intent is to
really have very uniform, very similar everything. I think we do welcome some varieties. We do
%velcome some different architectural...and expressions that suggest building a village over the
period of time that is composed of various...and not just the one single developer who is doing
everything very uniformly. In that respect I think that yes, this is a very different than the office
building, though the function is also very different. It is more rustic and woodsy and so on but
it's also on the other end of the village and not directly next door to the office building. I think
it's more now in an environment where that will fit rather well. Where we have the restaurant
next, in opposite side of the pond is another restaurant and then we have also the Americlnn
which are using all the siding and wood shingles and they are a little more rustic and woodsy type
of design. I think that will blend with this area in general terms so I think.
Brooks: But this is not small town Wyoming land...but it's just very, very different flavor from
what I see being presented so far... I guess my question would be, when we're doing Famous
Dave's, is this rustic wooded look the only look that they have for their restaurant because I
29
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
believe Alison...Maple Grove. Also this is right next to Highway 5 and all of a sudden we have
this rustic, Wyoming look right on Highway 5.
Mika Milo: Let me explain one thing only. We are talking about rustic. I would like to point
out that... We talking about the creamy, beigey color... So I do think that I feel comfortable that
we are close enough to...different. It still has some of that Wyoming flavor... I think there has
been a tremendous transformation...
Brooks: ...on your last building, you did such a great job of going beyond form...and even here
you're saying, you know you don't want to guided... self expression but which does not... I mean
it was going so great and now it's seems like we've gone back to traditional restaurant... This
probably is a, I'll stop because it's probably a moot point anyway because...but I just wanted to
make the point that I think that we're going in one direction and...this doesn't quite fit with what
you were doing architecturally to start out with.
Mika Milo: I have just one more thing to say. That this...they really have to more fit with the
product...are of the Villages is more isolated and...
Aanenson: I'ni sorry I have to stop there because I think we have to be really careful about that
type of thinking because we really tried hard to tie those pieces together architecturally. I
understand what you're saying. We had the same discussion on the motel. Different...sitting out
there and we worked really hard. We spent a lot of time reworking the hotel to get it to fit in so
I'd be really careful about going down that path. It is part of the project. It is...Highway 5. To
say well, it's not part of it. That's not true...staff and Sharmin spent an inordinate amount of
time. We did give them a benefit. We were working up until, delivering plans until the last
minute. We have changes tonight that we're not...we want to work with them. We've tried
really hard. We got something that was completely different than what our PUD standards are.
Sharmin spent a lot of time trying to get it to where we thought it worked. They can do different
things. They can. They have. What is acceptable under the standards and that's where we're
struggling. We're hoping to get a read from you tonight and that's part of the reason we put it on
here tonight is get some direction. We're kind of at a standstill as far as some of these issues, but
it is hard. It does, it is important what it looks like.
Joyce: This was the same issue as American Inn. This is the same thing.
Aanenson: Exactly. That's why what Mika says concerns me because we did spend a lot of time
putting together...standards and the mission statement just as you read, that is important what it
looks like...as a staff we were concerned...
Brooks: And I do...architectural standards provided by...by other reasons.
Aanenson: Franchises do have a certain style. We understand that but then we have to say well
this PUD also has a certain style.
Peterson: Well, we can sort out those issues as we continue the evening.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
Vernelle Clayton: I just want to say one thing. That I agree with Kate that this is an important
part of the Village. Just because it's on the edge and it's not a part of the core doesn't mean it's
not important. It is also the first thing, and sometimes the only thing, not just this one but
everything along Highway 5 for some people will be the only thing that they see. We hope that
because of what they see there they'll come into the Village. However, I would like to point out
one thing that we haven't brought out and that is, perspective. That we keep this in perspective
too because just for example, the 30,000 square foot building that we saw on the south end was
six times as big as this and Americlnn is eight times as big as this. So we need to keep the
relationship of the mass and the overall impression in line too. This looks as big as the 30,000
square foot building, because they put it on the same size paper, and we all get carried away by
that. Just looking at it in relationship to the building that we're coming, that we'll be talking
about in a few minutes. It's less than half the size. It's in square footage it's one - third. One
elevation is a little longer than the other. So the issue is, can the Village absorb this without
being disadvantaged? Maybe we're too close to the issue because we've gone through many
versions and this one, we feel it can absorb. Does it look a little western, or if you're from the
south, does it look like a road house? Which is what they want. They want people to say oh
there's a Famous Dave's road house. Can it be adapted to another use? Yeah. One of the things
if you're looking for flexibility, then it's better not to have it brick. Brick is a very hard medium
to change. Once you have a brick wall, you've got a brick wall unless you simply take the walls
down. That's one of our concerns. The other concern is that in considering brick it really
doesn't get at what everyone's issue is. The issue really is the design. But we've added a lot of
elements to tie it in so I guess what we'd like to have you do tonight is think about, can the
Village, because of it's mass, and it's relationship to this relatively small building, can we absorb
it? I guess as a developer we're comfortable that we can. It's not perfect but we've come a long
way and I don't know that we can make it much different and still have Famous Dave's in town.
I'm not 100% sure we can do this and have Famous Dave's in town so.
Peterson: Any questions?
Blackowiak: Yes Mr. Chairman. Could we pass around the color rendering, the changes so that
vv can see. I'd like to see up close what has been changed.
Peterson: As we're passing that around, this item is open for a public hearing. May I have a
motion to open and a second please.
Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: The public hearing is open. Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Gary Disch: My name is Gary Disch, 8170 Marsh Drive. I'm fairly close to this building that's
going to be going in. One of the concerns that I have with the restaurant. I have no problem with
Famous Dave's and stuff but I'm very close to it. I'm wondering if my back yard's going to be
smelling like barbecue and I'm not the one doing it. You know. We're talking about huge fans,
31
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
ventilators, whatever. What types of things are they going to do for our neighborhood. You
know if we get all the smells all the time, the same thing on the other retail, somebody said there
was going to be another restaurant there. I guess do we know what's going in there or are we just
building it and see what comes? As far as the brick and stuff, you know she says we're over
budget. Famous Dave's may not build here. I don't believe that. It seems like everybody wants
to come to Chanhassen. It's getting to be a very viable space. You're right. There's brick. I like
the brick, or the rock face. Why are we cheapening it up I guess. There's brick in Maple Grove.
We shouldn't be pressured into making a western house, as what you said. I don't like the design
either. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Lois Savard: Hi. My name is Lois Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive and the look of this
building is very important to me because I'm going to see it right out my back door. I live right
on the corner. The looks of the building is fine with me. I like the wood. I like the western look.
That doesn't bother me. The restaurant bothers me a little bit. I'm concerned about hours of
operation. We like to have our windows open in the summertime. The smell, the barbecue smell
is probably nice and that doesn't bother me as much. I'm concerned with the traffic and the
noise and the everything that goes with a restaurant. I'm concerned about the view. Which side
of the building we're going to see. Are we going to see the back of the building. Where is the
trash going to be taken out, etc., etc. We have had the commitment made that we will have some
landscaping done in our backyard. What it is we don't know so I don't know how concerned as
homeowners we should be with the view. We don't know yet what the landscaping in our back
yard will be. So those are my primary concerns.
Peterson: Thank you.
Aanenson: Let me just clarify exactly where this is...
Joyce: So the retail would block any kind of views from their window Kate?
Aanenson: There still may be an...
Lois Savard: You'd be looking from the east elevation.
Audience: The office building would not block her.
Peterson: Anyone else?
Scott Schlachter: My name's Scott Schlachter. I'm with Famous Dave's. I just wanted to
answer a couple of the concerns the residents had as far as the smell. If we are a restaurant, there
is going to be some smell from our charbroiler. As far as the smoking of the meat we have
specially made ovens and we use about 3 ounces of wood to smoke. It's smoked for a very long
time and because they're enclosed in smaller ovens, we don't use...wood and so there isn't going
to be puffs of smoke going up and permeating the neighborhood. Well maybe a little bit but
32
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
nothing that's going to be huge. Hours of operation. We open at 11:00, Monday through, seven
days a week and we close, typically we close at 10:00. We're very family oriented, both for our
customers and for our staff. Any other questions I can answer for anyone?
Joyce: Yeah, I have a question. What about, one of the conditions on this is the applicant shall
provide detailed sign plans to staff and obviously you don't have today. Could you tell us what,
is the sign going to use that logo on the side of your shirt right there?
Scott Schlachter: Famous Dave's, the letters, the script is what we'll use on the front of the
building.
Joyce: What about the pig?
Scott Schlachter: No. Just the script.
Joyce: Okay. So that's the sign then, right?
Aanenson: Similar to what's shown on the...
Joyce: But it will be a separate sign somewhere, correct?
Aanenson: Scripted wall sign.
Joyce: Okay, so there's no other pylons or anything else around there? Okay. Right, exactly.
I'm trying to think of, okay.
Generous: The only place it could be is on the directional signs. The little finger.
Joyce: Oh, okay. All right.
Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a
second please.
Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Vernelle Clayton: Do you want to talk about the landscaping?
Peterson: Pardon?
Vernelle Clayton: Did we want to talk about the landscaping a little bit? Or do you not want me
to talk anymore?
Peterson: Can you do it briefly?
33
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 •
Vernelle Clayton: Yes, I can do it briefly. The conditions are listed for Famous Dave's start on
page 11 and basically what I have to say affects item number 2. A little bit of item number 3.
Item number 4. And item number 5. And that will, essentially I'll say the same thing about the
next plan because what it means is that we want to substitute the plan that you've already
approved. When the staff reviewed this they didn't realize that the landscaping plan that was in,
and it was our fault. We should have given them another copy along with that. The landscaping
plan for the peripheral area covers that area and that's why the landscaper for this project didn't
include it. Superimpose the landscape plan from the peripheral area onto this plan that we have
actually more trees and shrubs shown on this plan...staff report recommended. Our landscaper
misunderstood my instructions and didn't... The only other thing I'll say is... I would like to
talk about the trash enclosure but I'd like to save that for the next project.
Aanenson: I'm not aware of any discussions.
Generous: Yes, this is part of the hardscape, landscape plan. And I just, we didn't have the
detail on that area. It does meet the...provided they put that landscaping in.
Aanenson: Sorry. Miscommunication. I wasn't aware of that change...
Peterson: Right. Kevin.
Joyce: Let me ask one question before I say anything. Now the trash enclosure, we're going to
talk about on Building #4 correct, so we don't even have to deal with that right now?
Aanenson: It includes both buildings...
Joyce: I have mixed feelings about this thing, to tell you the truth. I'm not as adamant as
Allyson is about the looks of the building. My concern is the view shed, where this is going to
anchor our view shed. Building #3, #2 and #3 that will be on either side of that pond, come in to
our Villages on the Pond so it's really two anchors to this whole concept. So as we were talking
about the importance of this building, I think it's rather important. Rather than a side note. With
that said, I feel like I'm in the position that I was back with the American Inn. I think it can be
improved. I don't feel like I have a grasp on the design itself. I know you were talking about, the
original thing that we received in our pamphlet, we had some rock facades on there. I certainly
liked more. I know there's economics involved here Vernelle but this is what's going to stand
out when people look at the thing. I think it's worth the investment. I'm interested in what the
other commissioners have to say because I think there can be improvements here and I don't feel
like I can really give any direction as far as that. I'm not real comfortable right now. So I would
listen to what the other commissioners would have to say.
Peterson: With that, LuAnn.
Sidney: I think I'm sitting in the confused section too. I have mixed feelings about what has
been proposed. I agree that the design of the building could be improved and what I mean by
improved is that it might be closer to what's currently in the PUD design character reference
34
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
book. And I think what we saw today, or this evening is going the other direction. I'd like to see
the use of river rock, if possible. ...but not in detail the building in Maple Grove and I said, oh
that's nice. At least I recognize that it was a nice built building and I guess I would echo the fact
that this is going to be an important view on Highway 5, representing the Villages. And I'm
wondering if there are other alternatives to what's been proposed as currently shown to us this
evening. I'd like to hear what the other commissioners have to say.
Brooks: ...I'm pretty adamant about my feelings. I do not feel as though the design fits their
reference book, at all. I mean I have mixed feelings too because I appreciate that Famous Dave's
as a franchise wants to conform to a certain image. Unfortunately in the spot that it's in, I think
that we set a certain tone for the development. I'm not sure that what I'm looking at, I'm not
comfortable that this corresponds to it. The other thing is, we reviewed a rustic sign... It was a
boarding sign and that was rustic and my understanding was the City Council turned that down
because they didn't like it and they thought it... Well this is a lot bigger than a sign. This is a
rustic looking building and I don't know if I'm as comfortable with that image and location that
it's in considering what the whole purpose of the project...
Peterson: Alison.
Blackowiak: I guess I'm not really comfortable with this either. I went up to look at the Maple
Grove property. I liked that a lot better than I like this. I heard the comments or the questions,
can the Villages absorb Famous Dave's and I think that's the wrong question to be asking so
early in the process. I think that when we get around to building 18 or 19 or something, then you
can talk about possibly absorbing a smaller building somewhere on the interior and making it fit.
But this is right at the corner of Highway 5 and Great Plains. Lots of people are going to be
seeing it and it's an early building and it would set the tone so I don't think you want to talk
about absorbing a building at this point in the process. So I would not be comfortable with
moving forward this evening. I would like to see another revision utilizing more, I guess I liked
Maple Grove so more in that direction.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: I'm not going to be voting. I guess I just have a comment. Just a perspective. Famous
Dave's is fun. The Villages can't be stodgy. Just stand back and say, tell the developer what
design to follow. Buca's? Is that what you're looking for? Give them a restaurant. This is a
5,000 square foot restaurant, and I'm going to stop talking but 5,000 square feet. The design
options, they can change these but you should, I think we need to give them some guidance if we
don't like this. It's not a 30,000 square foot shopping center. Think about a visual that you have
of a restaurant that you'd like here. You should let them know what that is. My only other
perspective is, I think when it fits with the lake and other buildings, there is variety. Sameness
doesn't, sameness, there's a limit to sameness so I'II stop there.
Peterson: My comments I think are pretty simple in the fact that I'm not comfortable with what
I've seen and I don't think I've seen enough. Talked about changes. I don't think staff's up to
speed so I do think we need to see it back again. But back again with the comments of my fellow
35
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 •
commissioners along with I think architecturally I'm not comfortable with the lines and that are
within the guidelines set forth. I mean these, there's a lot of language here, a lot of verbiage that
clearly can, a building can be built and hopefully it is Famous Dave's that can meet those
architectural standards. You know I think that building materials, even though the colors have
changed, I think the same rustic feel is still going to eminent from that. You know the chimney
doesn't seem to fit. The metallic roof like it is doesn't seem to fit. The railing doesn't seem to
fit. I do see a lot like I did with the Americlnn in that I want to ride my horse up and tie it up to
the railing, and I don't think that's the neo traditional look we're trying to achieve. So I would
offer that I'd like to send it back to the drawing board to try to be more creative within the budget
constraints that are there. So those are my comments. With that, may I hear a motion?
Blackowiak: Okay. I'll recommend the Planning Commission table Site Plan #97 -11 for a 5,300
square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Pond 2 "d Addition.
Brooks: Second.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Joyce: Yeah, Ijust want to make a quick comment. Being the first to speak I got a little bit of a
feel from other commissioners and I have to agree with Ladd. I think this can work. I really do.
I think this isn't bad and Ladd picked on something and I agree with. It can't be stodgy. It can't
be, once you start becoming too restrictive on this thing, it's going to look phony.
Brooks: ...happy medium.
Joyce: There is a happy medium. Absolutely. And so my direction here is, I think we tweaked
the American Inn. I did not like the American Inn. Okay. I like Famous Dave's a lot better than
American Inn when we started. When we started with American Inn, that came a long ways. So
I think tweaking here can get this through and I think this needs to be cleaned up before we can
send this to the City Council. I think that was the problem here. That there was some cleaning
up to do and I think that's all it is. I really do. But I think there's going to have to be a little
more investment. I just think with a little bit of rock face there that we had, that river rock,
whatever. I think that's the kind of tweaking that's going to go a long way. So that's my
comment, but I agree with, I don't want to look at this Villages on the Pond and say oh that was a
planned unit. I mean we planned it. I mean you couldn't make a move. Let's have a little bit of
fun with it too.
Peterson: Other than the rock, give them any more direction?
Joyce: Well for instance, there was a suggestion about the screening. Now I didn't see that. I
don't know what it's going to look like. I think it's a good idea. If it looks right. I think you're
going to want some alfresco type of dining. I did not get that. I mean you know, you can't see
that well seeing it. There's another issue that you know I think this whole concept was to bring
people out. I mean I love to, except for the neighbors. I don't know, you know we have to put
36
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
some parameters on that obviously but it'd be fun to have screened in, a place to dine screened in
like that. I think that's a good idea. But it wasn't on there.
Brooks: Alison...in Maple Grove and it's a little more modern. It's still fun. If we want to be
fun, fine. It's still fun. It's still Famous Dave's. But I would say that style fits in a lot better
than...St. Paul every day and it's cute. I mean I'll admit it, it really is a cute design but not for
where we're putting it. And I think, I mean I understand...what they've done in Maple Grove...
Joyce: You know I've seen Maple Grove and it is nice, but I don't mind this. I don't mind the
concept. The look. Even the little bit of western in it. It's just, there has to be more, looking at
detail. I mean that's the whole, that's what we've all looked at this thing is we've got to look at
detail and what's going to have to go back, I don't' want to sound like a broken record but you go
back to American Inn. It was very plain looking. Very ordinary looking. Once they started
fiddling around with some of the stuff, I mean it came out to be pretty nice. And I don't think
this needs as much tweaking if you will as the American Inn.
Peterson: We have a motion and a second.
Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table approval on Site
Plan #97 -11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2"
Addition. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried.
Peterson: The next one is the office building.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, can I clarify one point? I think we overlooked. Do we need to
address the issue of the 70% roof slope before we move on?
Vernelle Clayton: That's on the next building.
Generous: That's on Building #4.
Blackowiak: Okay. So do we need to say anything about that before or do we just want to deal
with that?
Generous: That's part of your discussion for Building #4.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: Thank you. Before I start, would anybody think that we have summarized
your thoughts tonight wrong if we bring back this plan tweaked?
Peterson: Define tweaked. I mean.
Vernelle Clayton: Nell, that's the hard part. But you're not saying start over.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
Joyce: Oh no. I'm not.
Peterson: You've got a dispersion of opinions here. I mean I am concerned as far as architecture
and all that. That doesn't necessarily mean start over but I just don't see it fitting in to the...
Brooks: It would be nice if the options of other styles...
Vemelle Clayton: Well Famous Dave's is evolving and their prototype is the one that you passed
every day on West 7 in St. Paul and if you go to Stillwater you'll see the same one. That's the
one they'll be building all over the country. This is not the one they'll be building all over the
country. Maple Grove is not the one they'll be building all over the country.
Aanenson: But every city has different standards.
Vemelle Clayton: Right. The one in Minnetonka will look a little bit different, but very similar
to the one on West 7` So there is some, they want some continuity.
Brooks: Which is fair but we can still...see the options...
Vemelle Clayton: You wouldn't like them. This is it. I mean this basically what, we changed,
that's basically it. Maybe we went too far. Maybe we should go back and simplify it. Well, we
didn't, you didn't agree to become architects when you signed on for the Planning Commission
so I just wanted to see. I don't think I know, but we'll work on it. With respect to Building #4,
again I would like to have Mika Milo talk about the elevations. I'll talk a little bit about the
landscaping. We went a little fast over the site plans when we talked about it. I think in the
interest of time, because it's now almost 10:00, I won't just talk about the site plan but I certainly
will answer questions if you have any. Would like to talk a little bit about the trash enclosure
first because we deferred it to this portion. Do we have the colored copy of it somewhere? We
have a black and white copy I think. Did I give you a colored one with that? It probably looks a
little better. I'm looking for the... The staff report says we had trouble...There didn't seem to be
any obvious place that worked that wasn't right in the way of something. It was either in the way
of neighbors. In the way of the people looking from Highway 5. Or in the way of the people
walking across the ponds. Or walking up from the north. And so we got out some pictures that
we had taken from Celebration and they had the trash enclosures right in the middle of the
parking lots, and therefore they could have far fewer and it seemed to work for them. It seems to
work here we think. We decided that we'd put a roof on it to match, to coincide with, there's a
language in our covenants that say that any other, I forget what the wording is but it's in your
staff report. Auxiliary structures have to be, have to coordinate with the architectural style of the
surroundings. And we put a standing seam roof as we have, will have on many structures in the
Village and have on one of the adjacent buildings. I just want you to take a good look at the
landscaping now so we don't have to talk about it again. Our thought was that we would hide it
quite well with large hedges. Again, the staff didn't have this when they wrote up the report and
so staff, you know using good judgment suggested we put a couple trees there. We've got on our
landscaping plan we've drawn in the trees. We'll go either way. Although there is something to
be said for a large hedge. With two trees we'll have to have lower plantings, or we can have a
38
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
large hedge and it's just an option I'll just point out to you. I guess I'd like to have Mika talk
about the, oh no. I would like to talk just a little bit, ah however I changed my mind. I'll come
back and talk about the roof thing after you've seen the elevations. Then you can have it in
perspective.
Mika Milo: ...we are going to propose that building to be a building...more of a traditional, old
town. The main street buildings are composed of these taller buildings and...other than just one
single building and one shopping...The building really looks like being composed of three...
tlu buildings. The north building, middle building and the south building. The north building
is the one that is closest to the Highway 5 and the face of that, narrower face of that building is
that elevation...elevation in the north end of that building. The building you have the smaller...
And so that is the north building we are talking about and the south building. The forms are
different, because they look like the buildings are composed of three buildings. The only thing
that is...unifying is the standing seam sheet metal roof that...north and the south. The middle
building looks like a flat roof building from outside. The middle building is also what we're
projecting... presenting you almost to seeing north and south. But in general terms... We don't
see that directly relationship. We could possibly...than the sheet metal and that would be really
even more difficult. So the way we have it now, there is some homogeneous approach...here but
yet there is a different amount... But there is quite a bit of variety. The north building here is the
stucco building. The middle building is the brick building and the south building is the siding...
The stucco building or...temporary looking element here that...but it is very stylistic and more in
the modern sense of why it just actually all glass... That will have also the sheet metal roof like
the other buildings. At night it will be lit. It's going to...roof of that building will be a signature
building. That way, and we have said and that's actually the...The awnings are rather very lively
and playful. Stronger colors that will bring... The materials for the buildings are more, not
attention crying type of colors and materials but the awnings are really colorful and therefore...
On the north end of the building...glass element, we are suggesting to use that light green
glass... It can be a little bit clear glass but I think a light green would be nicer. The other
buildings may be also light in the gray or the clear glass...so they don't like too much to have
colors you know and this is...so I think the light green or the light gray would be acceptable for
the retail. The north building, the middle building is brick building with some...stone type of
brick which is... Very good quality and... On the one side, on the facing parking we are
proposing that those be... On the other side facing the street, that could be a darker green or teal
color...connecting the building with the roof. You see the buildings are in general of terms
looking...on the side facing the Great Plains Boulevard and the parking because this is one
building. The north building here. North building here... The south building is the...wood sided
building with very light...and also darker colored stain for the framing around the windows and
we are using a... On the south side, we're using the same, probably the same color of the awning.
And the wood siding, and you see at the base of that building we are proposing the...that one but
I think it will be very good idea... The colors are blending and working together even though
they're very different. We think they are good combination and give enough spark and interest...
We believe that that building will be a good projection of the main street architecture...and
connect the office building that we have planned for the...
39
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
Vernelle Clayton: I would then like to address just briefly the issue of one person hearing one
thing, another person hearing another thing when you're reading the same language, and that's
with respect to the overall roof. I, and a whole lot of the rest of us, assumed when we were
talking about that condition, the 30/70% condition, we were talking about what you saw when
you walked up to a building. Is this looking like it's a flat roof... That was my assumption. And
if I would, I would have said you're crazy if it was anything else. I mean that's just what I
understood and the rest of us understood. Staff, and possibly...so you'd have their rating before
we went through this process. We still can do that. We can take it to them as part of their review
when we take the building to them. Nancy's question was, you know I understand what you're
saying. Tell me what the down, tell us what the down side would be. And so I said to Kate,
that's going to be your role to tell them what the down side is because I guess I don't, just frankly
I don't understand why we care what we see from looking down from the air. I'm kind of
baffled. I have to say that and I don't mean to be, I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't
understand it so. The reality of this particular building is that it wouldn't look like this if we
made the roof steeper from...
Aanenson: We're not asking...the other office building was improved... We're not saying you
have to... I guess we're saying that was our interpretation... A couple ways we can handle it...
Peterson: How much of the HVAC will you see as it's designed right now?
Vernelle Clayton: Well this is all, it will all be shielded because this is actually the top of the
roof. The HVAC will just be down in here like this.
Aanenson: So it acts as a parapet.
Vernelle Clayton: A parapet. And someone asked earlier, would you be able to see it from the
rest of the Village and the two story buildings. Actually Bob I don't think so because of the
grade.
Generous: ...four story.
Aanenson: Or from the neighbors.
Generous: What's residential.
Vernelle Clayton: Except that the elevation goes down so dramatically from here.
Mika Milo: ...so there is practically, there is no way that anybody will ever see the equipment...
Vernelle Clayton: Any questions on that?
Joyce: Kate, just to clarify then. If we were to approve this, we would strike condition 6?
40
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
Aanenson: Maybe it'd be better if you'd add some modification, and again the intent is to screen
the equipment so if you want to put, a pitched roof with the intent, as shown on the site plan...
mechanical equipment. That would exclude the neighboring residential property. I guess I'm not
sure that you're making that interpretation for all the future uses but based on this...
Joyce: I mean a PUD, it's kind of like a variance but not a variance type of situation.
Aanenson: A variance within the PUD, or interpretation of those standards. So if you agree and
acquiesce to say well...but we want to modify 6 to say.
Joyce: But we're not, my only concern is we don't have a problem with other sites saying well
there's precedent set here or something like that.
Vernelle Clayton: Now that you've said that, it's in the Minutes and we agree. We'll take each
case by case. Maybe it will never come up again, we don't know.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: I have a question. What is the downtown standard? You were alluding to that
earlier. Can you clarify that please Bob? Do all buildings have to have 70% roof slope in
downtown?
Generous: Not downtown. Within the Villages on the Ponds.
Blackowiak: Okay. What's the downtown standard, or is there any such thing? I mean you
talked about Crossroads Medical Building.
Aanenson: Pitched roof element.
Blackowiak: Okay, so you don't have a percentage.
Generous: We were trying to quantify it within the Villages on the Ponds design standards
condition. That's why we put the exception in that created the occupiable space if you
Blackowiak: But basically you intended to say 70 %, not from where you stand on the street but
overall? Okay.
Joyce: Thanks.
Vernelle Clayton: The only other thing I have on landscaping then is number 4 relates to
whatever you want to decide with respect to the trash enclosure landscaping. Number three, add
an overstory tree and shrubs or hedges at the north end of the parking lot. And I just want to
show you what, where did it go? Can you hand me that one. What we have, which is...
landscaping which is essentially taken...there's a slight modification in the...landscaping which
41
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
is essentially taken from the...but there's a slight modification in the boundary here but this was,
this plan...taken from the landscape plan that you approved for the overall project.
Aanenson: And we haven't seen those. We'd like to get a chance to review those before they go
to Council to make sure...
Vernelle Clayton: That would be fine. You do have the plans that we submitted.
Aanenson: Sure. We just haven't had a chance.
Vemelle Clayton: Yeah, that's right.
Aanenson: If you just want to modify that condition to...we thought the tree element with the
trash enclosure would help as far as reducing...and also kind of create kind of an island out
there. That's what we were looking for. And again we're open to discussion on that. That's
kind of what w e were thinking on that...
Peterson: This item is also open for a public hearing. May I have a motion for the same and a
second please.
Sidney moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come
forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second
to close the public hearing.
Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. LuAnn. Comments.
Sidney: I have a few comments. I had been looking at the design as it's presented and the...
drawing and I was a little concerned but after I saw your color sketches and the materials, I really
warmed up to the building. I guess I don't have a great concern about the roof at this point. I
understand the intent and it does serve the function of the retail building. I do have some
concerns however with the element of the silo, and I can understand it might lend some interest
but still I don't know if that's the kind of thing I want. That's right at the comer of that entrance
to the Villages. So I would suggest maybe something else, I was thinking...maybe different
landscaping or some other elements other than a silo because to me that's again, back to the
Famous Dave's argument of it looks kind of western. This looks kind of farmstead. I'd like to
have it more European looking if possible. And I guess about the trash enclosure. I guess I'm a
little concerned about having that as an island. I really don't like to drive into a parking lot and
see that type of thing in the middle of a parking lot. I'd rather see a tree, or some type of other
piece of plantings. And also that type of enclosure might work in Florida, but I'm not sure at 30
below in Minnesota somebody's going to be willing to tote trash out that far into the parking lot.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
I can see people just kind of putting it outside the door for you know, a convenient time so I'd
question that as one of the things in the plan.
Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, can I comment on that? We had a lot of internal discussions on that,
and maybe I can tell you where we ended up on that. If you look at the retail building, it's almost
a triple sided building. You've got the presence on Great Plains, which you want to have...
You've got the presence on Highway 5 and you've got the other entrance road coming in... It
really limits the design of the building, what they're trying to do...but the other one that really
gets difficult...so in putting it in the middle, we really... It's nice to have it inside the building...
but for the retail building, that's really tough to have the look we're trying to get there and still
accomplish that. If anybody's got any suggestions, we spent a lot of time on this.
Joyce: Have you had any problems with...?
Aanenson: No. Haven't. And they have to walk it across.
Peterson: There's one by Subway too.
Aanenson: Wendy's is actually between the buildings. Like some of them we have been
requiring to actually put in the building. That's a first choice. To try and put it in the building.
But because of the presence we're trying to create with the awnings and that, it just seemed to
detract from the building. We stniggled with it.
Peterson: Okay, thanks.
Brooks: Well I like this building. Now this is a building that I think of as fun. This is more fun,
and I actually like the glass silo. I think this is where we're taking an element of American
architecture and doing something funky with it. So instead of taking a ranch building and
making it look like a ranch building, we're taking a feature from our past and playing with it,
without I think...Disneyesk. I mean there's no neon involved here. We're making a glass silo
and I think that's cool. I think you want to do something fun. I think it's fun without doing the
main street replica thing. But I have to say that I really liked this building and this is the type of
design that when we talk about Villages on the Ponds, that I think we're looking for. Not Disney
World. It's funky and it's still a small town feel. It's pedestrian friendly, and it has some
interesting elements that you don't see in other places. So those are my comments.
Peterson: Alison.
Blackowiak: I agree. I like the building. I'm not an architect but I'm just the type of person that
I know what I like. Famous Dave's, I didn't have a lot of affection for but this I like. I like the
silo. The issue of the trash enclosure. I don't think there's a good place to put it on the building.
So in the middle of a parking lot, although it might not be my first choice, I think is a good
compromise. The landscaping I will let staff and the people work out because that's just
something that's going to have to be decided later but I think that that's a good spot for the trash.
I don't think you want to put it on the building because just like Kate said, there's not a good
43
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
place to put it and the building is nice the way it is. I like it. The 70% roof area, I would tend to
side with what staff said. In other words that overall it should be 70% sloped but I don't even
know if I want to tackle that issue. I think City Council can have a work session and can work it
out so I will kind of I guess defer to what they think but my interpretation would be 70% overall
and not 70% from the street because if it would have been 70% from the street, they would have
said 70% from the street and not made exclusions for roof patios or that type of thing so I can see
where the issue is but I don't even think I want to get into that. I like it overall.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: Yeah, it's a neat building.
Peterson: Beat that.
Joyce: I was going to say. This is exactly what I envisioned the Villages on the Ponds. It's
great. I think three facades. I really do, and that leads up to my, the business about the 70 %.
The interpretation I had is what the staff said. However, I can definitely see putting in a
condition allowing this to avoid that because I think it would deter, if we forced the 70 %. I like
this very, very much. I wouldn't want to fool with it. I like the silo I'm sorry to say LuAnn. I
think it's cool. I really do. I think it's a real nice, it could be kind of a trademark or something of
the, of our Villages on the Pond. I think the trash enclosure's kind of neat too. I would suggest
vv really do a nice job on it. I don't know how you do a nice job on trash enclosures but if it
works we can use it in other places. But I think it's a good idea. I mean it's what this is all
about. It's trying to find different ways of handling things and the form to functionality situation
so I liked the idea of the trash enclosure. I suggest that you really do a good job on it, however
you do a good job on trash enclosures, I think will work. Great job.
Peterson: I also think it's a great building. My first impression was I didn't like the silo. And
the second impression was I liked it so I think it's going to be one of those controversial things
where half of your audience is going to think it's great and half of your audience is going to think
it's just totally off the wall. As it relates to the roof line, I think it works in this case if properly
screened. If it's not properly screened...work. With regards to the trash enclosure, it's proven
that it will work not connected to the building. You know I'm leaning more towards shrubs for
what it's worth. I think that if your primary reason Kate was heat, 105 degrees outside, whether
it's sunny or cloudy isn't going to make a great deal of difference if there's shade...hide it more
pleasantly with the shrubs. With that, can I have a motion and a second please.
Joyce: Well I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#97 -12 for a 14,849 square foot building on Lot 2, Block 1, Villages on the Pond 2nd Addition,
plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 7/23/97, subject to the conditions 1 through 11.
Adding onto condition 3 that the staff review the landscape plan. Is that right Kate?
Aanenson: Yes. Actually it's 3 and 4.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
Joyce: Adding onto 3 and 4, the staff review all the landscape plans. Kate could you help me on
item number 6, or condition number 6. To provide a pitched roof element to screen equipment
and then. As shown on site plan.
Aanenson: Dated September 3`
Joyce: I just want to make sure this is, going site by site on this. That it's just this project only.
Aanenson: ...remaining silent on it, I mean the general interpretation on the 70 %...
Joyce: Exactly. Thank you. Okay? That's mine. Is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Joyce moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan 497 -12 for a 14,849 square foot building on Lot 2, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd
Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 7/23/97, subject to the
following conditions:
I. Increase width of landscape islands. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width must have
aeration tubing installed with the trees.
2. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security
required by the agreement.
3. Add an overstory tree and shrubs or hedges at the north end of the parking lot area and
have staff review the landscape plan.
4. Add two trees to parking lot landscaping in landscape islands adjacent to trash enclosure
and have staff review the landscape plan.
5. Add planter boxes to west and south sides of building.
6. Provide pitched roof element to screen the roof top equipment as shown on the plans
dated Se�rr 3, 1997.
7. Provide the City with a detail on the trash enclosure for approval. All accessory structures
shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
S. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing
45
•
Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997
shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building
permit. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval.
9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
10. The sidewalks and trails on the site shall be constructed in conjunction with the overall site
improvements and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless inclement weather
conditions prohibit.
11. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and
maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for
obtaining the appropriate sewer, water and plumbing permits from the City's Building
Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over
the lot.
All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS
AND ANTENNAS, TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY MOBILE TOWERS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of staff?
Conrad: So tell me where it can be located. It said non - residential.
Aanenson: So it's consistent with the underlying district. So we don't allow those in a
residential district except for city parks, so they're not allowed in any residential single family
district. But they are allowed in city parks. ...the City Council can do a lease. That would still
be the...
Conrad: But it's on a truck. So it's located in a parking lot.
Aanenson: Well whatever the site's going to be. It's in close proximity while they're under
construction.
Conrad: And normally there's a fence around all our sites. So there's a fence around the truck.
Generous: Mr. Chairman. The site that was on Quattro Drive, they had a...Eden Prairie water
tower and really it's a trailer.
46